Chapter 7

PEACE BY ORDEAL, AUGUST 1316 TO AUGUST 1318

AFTER LANCASTER

With Lancaster's withdrawal from the council there now began a new period of political instability. As co-operation between Edward II and Lancaster became increasingly difficult to achieve and hostility between the two men grew, so it also became impossible for over two years, between February 1316 and October 1318, to hold a parliament or to conduct a campaign against the Scots. The instability did not end until a new ‘settlement’ between Edward II and Lancaster was reached in the Treaty of Leake of August 1318. Lancaster's departure meant of necessity that important actions took place without reference to him. Discussion by the council in May 1316 of the scale of rewards to be given to John Fitz Thomas and other Anglo-Irish magnates in return for their loyalty against the Scots was one such;¹ the siege of Bristol in July 1316 was another. So too was the election on 26 July of Edward II's chancellor, John Sandal, as the new bishop of the important diocese of Winchester.²

However, a Scottish campaign was due, the army having been summoned during the Lincoln parliament to meet at Newcastle on 8 July,³ and if the campaign were to succeed Lancaster would have to play some part.⁴ The start of the campaign had already been postponed in May until 10 August, partly because of the distraction caused by Bristol but also because of difficulties in raising the manpower and the taxation which had been promised at Lincoln,⁵ but on 20 August it was further postponed until 6 October.⁶ This decision was made at York after discussions between the king, the bishops of Durham and Carlisle who both had a personal interest in the defence of the north, and the earls of Hereford and Surrey and others. Significantly, Lancaster was present at York and presumably was involved in the discussions.⁷ The pardon issued on 10 October at Lancaster's request to his retainer, Gruffudd de la Pole, for his offences against the royal chamberlain, John Charlton, was an indication that a serious effort was still being made to keep Lancaster happy.⁸

THE DURHAM ELECTION

For a fleeting moment there was now a chance of a much-needed campaign against the Scots, whose attacks on northern England were resumed around midsummer 1316. Raids were made into the bishopric of Durham and into Yorkshire and, for the first time, into Lancashire.⁹ The situation on the English side changed dramatically however with the death on 9 October of Richard Kellaw, the bishop of Durham. As well as being a very wealthy diocese in normal times, Durham was of great strategic importance because of its location close to the border with Scotland. Again, under normal conditions, the rights of election of a new bishop belonged to the monks of Durham. But these were far from normal times and the election was to be hotly contested.¹⁰ On 19 October two monks came to the king at Crayke in Yorkshire to ask for royal licence to elect a new bishop. Licence was duly given, but the king and queen each had their own ideas about the new bishop. Edward wanted the election of Thomas Charlton, keeper of the privy seal since the previous July and brother of his chamberlain John Charlton. Isabella wanted Louis de Beaumont, the brother of Henry de Beaumont, whose removal from court had been sought unsuccessfully by the Ordainers in 1311 and who was deeply detested by Lancaster. Lancaster too had his own candidate, John de Kinardesey, one of his own clerks.¹¹ If Kinardesey were elected, Lancaster could expect a substantial increase in his influence over the north of England.¹² To complicate matters still further, the earl of Hereford supported yet another candidate, John Walwayn. The earl of Pembroke was summoned to see the king at Crayke on 17 or 18 October and was instructed to make sure that either Charlton or Beaumont was elected.¹³ But Durham proved to be a far harder problem than John Sandal's appointment to Winchester had been, and by 28 October Pembroke and the other interested parties, Lancaster and Hereford, were at Newcastle, en route for Durham.¹⁴ The election took place on 6 November and its result was awaited in the cathedral by Pembroke and several of his retainers, by Lancaster and his leading retainer Robert de Holland, and also by Henry de Beaumont, who was there to advance his brother's candidature on behalf of the queen. Despite the pressure, the monks courageously elected someone of their own choice, Henry de Stamford prior of Finchale near Durham, as the new bishop. Edward II was prepared to accept him, but Isabella was still determined on Beaumont's appointment.¹⁵ In December the pope duly quashed Stamford's election and had provided Beaumont to the see by February 1317.¹⁶

EDWARD, ISABELLA AND LANCASTER

An open breach now existed between Lancaster and both Isabella and Edward. Isabella's long association with the Beaumonts and the hatred between them and Lancaster had received a powerful new emphasis, which was to have serious consequences in the following year when time came for the new bishop to be consecrated at Durham. Isabella may also have thought that Lancaster had been primarily responsible for the greatly reduced financial support for herself and her household during his years of influence.¹⁷Edward's own relations with Lancaster were aptly and acutely summed up by the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi: ‘Whatever pleases the lord king the earl's servants try to upset; and whatever pleases the earl the king's servants call treachery; and so at the prompting of the Devil the followers of each interfere, and do not allow their lords, by whom the land ought to be defended, to come to an agreement.’ For his part Lancaster feared ‘that the king, mindful of the wrong that the earl did to Piers [Gaveston], is waiting for revenge when he sees the opportunity’. It was also rumoured that whenever the Scots raided the north of England they left Lancaster's estates untouched and that he was secretly in league with Robert Bruce.¹⁸

NEW DIRECTIONS

With Lancaster's failure to secure his own candidate's election, all hope that he might co-operate in a fresh Scottish campaign vanished. The start of the campaign had already been delayed for a month by the Durham election; it was now abandoned entirely and new arrangements were made for the defence of the north, Wales and Ireland against the Scots. On 19 November the earl of Arundel was appointed as warden of the Scottish March, replacing Lancaster who had nominally held a similar post since the summer of 1315; royal castles in the north were also to be well garrisoned, with the apparent intention of creating a strong line of defence to make up for the English inability to go over to the offensive and fight on Scottish territory. On 23 November Roger Mortimer of Wigmore was appointed to go to Ireland as king's lieutenant and his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk was reappointed as justice of North Wales.¹⁹ The following day English envoys were commissioned to seek a truce with the Scots.²⁰ These new measures were designed to hold the line against the Scots and it remained to be seen whether they would be effective. However, the withdrawal of Lancaster from any pretence of co-operation with the king also meant that for the moment at least Edward II and his government had greater freedom of action than they had possessed at any time since Bannockburn. This made it possible, for example, for Edward to decide in early December that it was time to proceed with the long-delayed partition of the Gloucester lands.²¹ Edward also decided to take advantage of the recent election of a new pope, John XXII, by sending a high-ranking embassy to Avignon to deal with a number of other urgent issues.²²

THE MISSION TO AVIGNON

The decision to send an embassy was taken at York on 24 November,²³ after which Edward spent the months of December and the first half of January at Scrooby, Clipstone and Nottingham. From these places he kept in frequent contact with his council in London where the detailed planning of the mission was carried out.²⁴ The embassy, as it finally developed, had three main objectives: firstly to negotiate more favourable terms for the repayment of the loan of 160,000 florins made to Edward II by Clement V in 1314 and so to regain control of the revenues of the duchy of Aquitaine; secondly to persuade the pope to allow a delay in Edward II's fulfilment of the crusading oath he had taken in 1313 and, if possible, to obtain a grant of clerical taxation, nominally in aid of the crusade when it finally took place; and thirdly to obtain papal support against the Scots. The author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi added a fourth aim, which is not confirmed by any other source but which is highly plausible: to obtain Edward II's release from his promises to uphold the Ordinances.²⁵

In early December the council considered the business to be dealt with by the envoys and then sent a royal clerk to see Edward and obtain his approval.²⁶ On 16 December Edward gave his envoys full powers to renegotiate the terms of the 1314 loan with the executors of Clement V. Pembroke and Badlesmere however considered these powers insufficient and asked that the envoys should also be allowed to deal directly with Bertrand de Got, the marquis of Ancona, who was Clement V's nephew as well as one of his executors. The revised authority was duly given on 21 December.²⁷ Earlier in the month Edward had even suggested that Bertrand might actually be one of the envoys, which would have involved a conflict of interest and was manifestly absurd. This contribution to the discussion was accordingly rejected by the council, one hopes tactfully.²⁸ The crusading oath was next to be discussed. After Pembroke and the council had written to Edward about this in mid-December, they were told on 21 December to consider it among themselves and to advise him of the result. On the 28th they replied that Edward should ask for the same period of postponement as Philip V, the new king of France, and on 4 January this was also agreed.²⁹

The addition of Scotland to the business of the embassy was rather more complex. Negotiations for a possible truce with the Scots had been in progress since mid-November 1316. On 17 November Master Robert Baldock, a canon of St Paul's and a future chancellor, and Sir Robert Hastang were sent from York to Jedburgh, with powers to negotiate a truce between Edward II and Robert Bruce.³⁰ On 23 November safe conducts were given for two Scottish knights, Sir Thomas Randolph and Sir John de Menteith, to come to the king, presumably also to take part in negotiations;³¹ and on the following day the powers already given to Baldock and Hastang were confirmed.³² On 26 November, two days after the more general mission to Avignon had been decided on, two more envoys, a royal clerk Master Richard de Burton and a royal judge John Binstead set off for the papal curia to raise the Scottish question there. No sooner had they left than Edward and his advisers changed their minds, and early in December they were recalled after reaching Dover. Their task was then added to the much more elaborate embassy that was already in preparation.³³

A great deal of care was given to the organization of the mission to Avignon. Several clerks were employed to transcribe documents stored in the Tower of London and to copy papal bulls for the use of the envoys.³⁴ On 25 December a number of royal proctors and other English clerks who were already at Avignon were instructed to give whatever assistance they could to the envoys,³⁵ and at about the same time Pembroke and Badlesmere suggested to the king that the envoys should be allowed to gain influence within the papal curia itself by granting pensions to cardinals. Edward agreed to this on 4 January.³⁶ No expense was to be spared. The Florentine banking company, the Bardi, was requested to supply ready money and, after consulting Pembroke and Badlesmere, advanced a sum of just under £7,800, of which nearly £3,800 was earmarked for the expenses of the embassy. Out of this sum £1,904 was spent by Edward and Isabella on presents for the pope, on the advice of Pembroke and his colleagues.³⁷ Edward was concerned above all that the gifts should do honour to himself and Isabella.³⁸ On 15 December the members of the embassy were formally announced as Pembroke, Badlesmere, Antonio Pessagno, the bishops of Norwich and Ely, and others. In Edward's mind the success that might be achieved at Avignon clearly outweighed the dangers involved in allowing so many of his experienced councillors to leave the country at one time.³⁹

The embassy left England in early January 1317. Nothing is known of their midwinter journey which was probably a difficult one, but by the end of March the envoys' labours at Avignon were beginning to show some results. On 28 March the pope agreed to let Edward postpone his crusade, granted him a tenth to be levied upon the English clergy for one year, and also loaned to him for a period of five years part of the proceeds of another clerical tenth which had been imposed in aid of a crusade by the council of Vienne in 1311.⁴⁰ On 1 April the envoys also reached an agreement with the executors of Clement V on the repayment of his loan, which would allow Edward to recover control of 80 per cent of the revenues of Aquitaine.⁴¹ As noted earlier, the envoys also made a partial payment of the arrears of the annual tribute for England and Ireland which was owed to the papacy by the English crown: enough to keep the pope happy but no more than that.⁴² During their stay at Avignon the envoys and their resident helpers managed to obtain a rich crop of ecclesiastical preferments: the confirmation of William Melton as archbishop of York, Alexander Bicknor as archbishop of Dublin, William Fitz John as archbishop of Cashel, and the provision of Thomas Cobham to Worcester.⁴³Edward did not however succeed in achieving the appointment of Thomas Charlton, one of his clerks and his personal choice for Durham in 1316, to the diocese of Hereford. Adam Orleton, an English clerk who was already at Avignon, managed to engineer his own provision instead, much to Edward's annoyance.⁴⁴

If Edward had seriously expected that the pope would agree to quash his oath to uphold the Ordinances, he was to be disappointed. There was no mention of the Ordinances in any of the papal decrees associated with the mission to Avignon: according to the Vita Edwardi Secundi the pope refused to absolve Edward since the Ordinances ‘had been drawn up, as he had been informed, through the endeavour of trustworthy persons, and it was not likely that they had ordained anything to the prejudice of the kingdom or the church’.⁴⁵ On the other hand Edward appeared to have achieved what he wanted in relation to Scotland. On 17 March the pope appointed Gaucelin d'Eauze and Luke Fieschi, the cardinals of SS Marcellinus & Peter and of St Mary in Via Lata, as envoys to negotiate a peace settlement between England and Scotland; on 28 March he excommunicated both Robert and Edward Bruce; and on 1 May he issued bulls promulgating a truce and ordering the Scots to cease their attacks on the north of England and in Ireland.⁴⁶ Edward had also gained financially from the great expense and effort put into the Avignon mission; and some of his favourite clergy gained valuable promotions. Not surprisingly the Scots took no notice either of the papal bulls or of the papal envoys, but the presence of the two cardinals in England between the summer of 1317 and the summer of 1318 had an unlooked-for importance when they turned their attention to assisting in a settlement between Edward II and Lancaster.

THE CAPTURE AND RANSOMING OF THE EARL OF PEMBROKE

The risks attached to the absence of several of Edward II's most trusted advisers from England in the early months of 1317 were shown to be all too real, and in a most unexpected way. The envoys probably left Avignon at some time in early April. The bishops of Norwich and Ely reached London on 11 May,⁴⁷ but the return of their fellow envoys was delayed by a dramatic and totally unforeseen event.

After leaving Avignon, Pembroke probably stopped to conduct some private business concerning his French lands before returning to England.⁴⁸ Early in May he was travelling between Orléans and Paris when he was waylaid at Étampes and, together with his son and several of his retainers, was taken to an unidentified place in the county of Bar on the River Meuse on the borders of France and the Empire. Here he was held to ransom for the enormous sum of £10,400 sterling.⁴⁹ The circumstances of Pembroke's seizure were not immediately understood in England, his captor being named only as ‘Jean de la Moiliere’.⁵⁰ There is ample evidence to show that the latter's true name was Jean de Lamouilly and to support the statement in the Scalacronica that he had once been in the service of the English crown and had a grievance over unpaid wages.⁵¹ He had served Edward I in Scotland and was a member of the garrison of Berwick as late as June 1312, after which he appears to have returned to his home at Lamouilly on the Meuse. He may well have been personally acquainted with Pembroke and have served under his command. Given the financial confusion in England, it is very probable that Lamouilly's wages were still in arrears in 1317 and that this would have given him ample motive to seize Pembroke when he came within easy reach in France.⁵² It is likely however that Lamouilly was protected and perhaps even encouraged by his local overlord, Edward count of Bar, who had a grievance of his own against the English crown. The count's mother Eleanor was a sister of Edward II and through this connection Jean de Lamouilly and others from Bar had entered English service in Scotland. Even more significant was the fact that the count's sister Joan had married John de Warenne, the future earl of Surrey, in 1306. By 1313 the marriage had broken down and Surrey began proceedings for an annulment. Initially the king appears to have taken the side of the countess of Surrey, but in July 1316 the earl of Surrey surrendered his lands to Edward II, who then re-granted them to him with reversion to Surrey's mistress and her two illegitimate sons.⁵³ In August 1316 Surrey's estranged wife left England and was with her brother the count of Bar by May 1317, when Pembroke was taken prisoner. One of Pembroke's tasks at Avignon had probably been to present a petition on Surrey's behalf asking the pope to annul his marriage. Part of the ransom may even have been an indirect payment of damages by Pembroke on behalf of the earl of Surrey.⁵⁴ Edward of Bar would therefore have had ample reason to become involved in Pembroke's capture and ransoming, as a way of punishing his uncle Edward II for the treatment of his sister and at the same time causing the king embarrassment by imprisoning one of his most valued councillors.⁵⁵

The episode was somehow typical of the reign of Edward II, involving as it did both financial confusion and dysfunctional personal relations. Edward was now forced to divert considerable time and diplomatic resources to secure Pembroke's release, as well as contributing £2,500 towards the payment of his ransom.⁵⁶ Two of the other members of the embassy to Avignon, Bartholomew de Badlesmere and Antonio Pessagno, who were also important royal councillors who could ill be spared, remained in France to help secure Pembroke's release. On 10 May Edward II wrote to twenty-seven high-ranking members of the French court and magnates from the border lands between France and the Empire, including the count of Bar, asking for their assistance. Guy Ferre, a royal knight, and Eble des Montz, one of Isabella's retainers, were sent to France, while a royal clerk, Master John Hildesle, left for the papal curia at Avignon.⁵⁷ It is not known exactly how Pembroke's freedom was achieved, but news of his release was received with delight by Edward II on 17 June.⁵⁸ Pembroke arrived in London on 23 June, accompanied by Badlesmere, Pessagno and the French count of Aumale who had been sent with him as an escort to ensure his safety. By 4 July they had all rejoined the king at Northampton and appeared before the council on the following day. The sense of relief which comes through in the records is almost palpable.⁵⁹

ENGLISH POLITICS: EDWARD AND LANCASTER AGAIN

The return of Pembroke and Badlesmere to England came not a moment too soon, since their absence was one of the reasons for the postponement of a planned Scottish campaign due to start on 8 July.⁶⁰ To make matters worse, during their absence there had been a sharp deterioration in the relations between Edward II and Lancaster. Although the device of making Lancaster head of the council had been tried and had failed, and much more had happened since the Lincoln parliament of 1316 to embitter Lancaster still further against Edward, the problem of his relations with the king and his government could not be ignored indefinitely. In one way or another it was to continue to dominate politics during both 1317 and 1318.

There are indications that from very early in 1317 attempts were being made to resume contact with Lancaster. This may in part have been due to the advice which Pembroke is known to have given the king before his departure for Avignon,⁶¹ but other prominent members of the council who remained in England, such as Walter Reynolds the archbishop of Canterbury, John Sandal the bishop of Winchester and chancellor, and the earl of Hereford, are likely to have conveyed the same message. Unfortunately, as events would soon show, there were other forces, also close to the king, pulling in the opposite direction.

The first evidence of new efforts to obtain Lancaster's co-operation is associated with two meetings of the council. The first of these was held at Clarendon between 9 and 20 February: in addition to thirteen royal clerks and justices who had been specially summoned, the assembly included all the chief members of the council who had not gone to Avignon, the archbishop, chancellor, treasurer, the bishops of Salisbury and Exeter, the earls of Hereford and Norfolk, and Hugh Despenser the Elder. Lancaster himself was not present, and one chronicler says specifically that he was not invited, but his interests were probably represented by his brother Henry of Lancaster.⁶²

It is not known in any detail what was discussed at the council, other than the ‘great and arduous affairs touching the king and the state of the realm’ which were referred to in the writs of summons, but it is reasonable to suppose that, in addition to the war with Scotland, relations with Lancaster were high on the agenda.⁶³ It was decided that a further meeting would soon be necessary and on 14 March a formal summons to Westminster on 15 April was sent to the archbishop, the bishop of Exeter, the earl of Hereford and to both Hugh Despenser the Elder and the Younger.⁶⁴ Significantly, on this occasion a summons was also sent to the earl of Lancaster and to his leading retainer Robert de Holland. To give added force to the summons two royal envoys, Robert de la Beche and Robert de Kendale, were sent from Clarendon on 16 March to visit Lancaster at Castle Donington in Leicestershire.⁶⁵ Lancaster and Holland had both moved to Kenilworth by 4 April but they did not appear at Westminster when the council opened on 15 April.⁶⁶ Some at least of those present at the council were still determined to try to consult Lancaster and on 21 April they sent Master Richard de Burton to see him at Castle Donington on behalf of the king.⁶⁷ Again there is no sign that Lancaster responded or offered any co-operation.

Any chance of further efforts to win him over was almost at once ruled out by an act of gratuitous folly which opened an even wider breach between Edward and Lancaster. This was the abduction on 9 May by one of the earl of Surrey's knights of the countess of Lancaster at Canford in Dorset, after which she was taken to the earl in his castle at Reigate in Surrey. This action was seen by Lancaster as a deliberate plot by the king and his supporters, and one usually well informed writer implies that it had been planned at the Clarendon council in February, at which the earl of Surrey had been present.⁶⁸ Although there is no evidence to support such a clear assertion of cause and effect, Surrey may have been encouraged in his intentions by his knowledge of the enmity between Edward and Lancaster. It is more likely that Surrey's abduction of the countess, who was already estranged from her husband and seems to have been a willing victim, was undertaken by him primarily for personal reasons.⁶⁹ The author of the chronicle of Meaux abbey in Yorkshire claimed that the abduction was carried out ‘not, however, by way of adultery, but in contempt of the earl’.⁷⁰ It is probably also significant that in the negotiations between Edward and Lancaster in 1318 the matter was treated as a private quarrel between Lancaster and Surrey which did not involve the king.⁷¹ Nonetheless it was deeply ironic that twice in the same month, May 1317, the actions of the earl of Surrey had directly or indirectly profoundly disrupted the conduct of royal business and endangered the peace of the realm.

On 29 May Edward sent one of his knights Richard Lovel and a clerk William Hoo to see Lancaster, probably to try to placate him, but with no apparent success.⁷² Nothing further happened until after the return from France of Badlesmere and the earl of Pembroke: it is likely that they were shocked by the serious turn of events in their absence and encouraged the king to act promptly before his relations with Lancaster became even more embittered. The arrival of the two papal envoys, Cardinals Gaucelin d'Eauze and Luke Fieschi, who had reached London by 28 June, may also have helped.⁷³ Although their mission was to make peace between England and Scotland, they soon became just as involved in trying to make peace within England itself. Whatever the motivation, a great council to discuss royal policy in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Gascony was summoned on 1 July to meet at Nottingham on 18 July. All the king's leading councillors were summoned, including the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor John Sandal bishop of Winchester, the newly appointed treasurer John de Hothum the bishop of Ely, the bishop of Norwich, the earls of Pembroke and Hereford, Badlesmere and the Elder and Younger Despenser.⁷⁴

As in April, Lancaster was again asked to attend and once again he failed to appear. The beginning of the meeting was delayed for yet another attempt to persuade him to attend, and on 21 July William de Dene delivered two letters from the king to Lancaster at Ashbourne-in-the-Peak in Derbyshire. The first repeated the summons to the council at Nottingham; the second accused him of gathering armed retainers to disturb the peace.⁷⁵ Lancaster's replies are very significant, since they establish the nominal issues of principle which divided him from the king, while at the same time revealing the real nature of their quarrel. In reply to the first letter Lancaster claimed that the business of the Nottingham council ought properly to be dealt with in a parliament. He then claimed that he had withdrawn from attendance at royal council meetings because of Edward's failure to observe the Ordinances, his refusal to accept the reform proposals drawn up in London by himself and the reform commission established at the Lincoln parliament in January 1316, and because he kept at court and made gifts to people who should have been removed under the terms of the Ordinances. Lancaster's insistence upon the Ordinances and his particular emphasis on the position of certain royal associates and on grants of land to them as barriers to any political agreement were a repetition of the demands he had been making since 1311, but they also foreshadowed very closely the demands he would regularly make in the long-drawn-out negotiations which finally resulted in a new settlement between himself and Edward in 1318. However, the real depth of personal hostility and suspicion which lay behind Lancaster's refusal to come to Nottingham is even better described in the account in the Vita Edwardi Secundi of the oral message that accompanied his letter. According to this source, Lancaster said he had disobeyed the king's summons for fear of plots against him by the king's favourites, who had already shown their animosity towards him and who, he believed, had caused him disgrace and humiliation through the abduction of his wife. Lancaster promised that if these men were expelled from court, he would come whenever Edward wished.⁷⁶ Underlying all Lancaster's talk during 1317 and 1318 of the Ordinances and of reform were his distrust of the king and a well-founded fear of the king's favourites.⁷⁷

In reply to the king's second letter Lancaster admitted that he had been gathering armed retainers, but claimed he was only doing this in readiness for the planned Scottish campaign, which was now due to begin at Newcastle upon Tyne on 11 August.⁷⁸ Edward meanwhile had taken the precaution of keeping a well-armed force in his company.⁷⁹ The possibility of open violence between Edward and Lancaster was a very real one in the summer and autumn of 1317. To make matters worse, in the middle of July ominous reports reached the king that some of the defenders of the Scottish March had abandoned their posts and that the Scots had invaded England on 8 July.⁸⁰

THE KING'S NEW FAVOURITES

Lancaster's suspicions of the king's motives and of those surrounding him were amply justified. In the spring of 1317 there was, as Lancaster claimed, a group of newly influential royal favourites, some of whom are said to have spoken openly of him as a traitor while at Clarendon.⁸¹ The absence on the Avignon mission of the restraining influence of responsible councillors such as Pembroke and Badlesmere probably also contributed to their behaviour. Four individuals can be singled out. The first was Hugh Despenser the Younger, already well established and showing signs of the overweening ambition that was to bring him power and also his own downfall and that of the king. His father, Hugh Despenser the Elder, had been one of Edward II's most influential councillors throughout the reign and had long been an enemy of the earl of Lancaster.⁸² There were also three young knights, Roger Damory, Hugh Audley the Younger and William de Montacute.⁸³ Audley had been a royal household knight since November 1311, Montacute since 1312 or 1313, and Damory since about January 1315.⁸⁴ Of the three, Damory appears to have been the most influential. Like Badlesmere, he had originally been a member of the earl of Gloucester's retinue and had first come to Edward II's attention through his bravery at Bannockburn. In December 1314 he was given custody of the important castle of Knaresborough in Yorkshire and in January 1315 Edward ordered specifically that he should stay at court. Between then and early 1317 he received a series of other royal favours.⁸⁵ In 1316 Montacute played a leading role in suppressing both the revolt of Llywelyn Bren and disturbances at Bristol, being described as ‘captain of the king's knights’; and from November 1316 he was steward of the king's household. In January 1317 both Montacute and Damory contracted to serve the king for life in return for an annuity of 200 marks.⁸⁶ Audley's initial career owed much to that of his father, Hugh Audley the Elder, who in 1312 had been one of those commissioned by the king to revise the Ordinances and had briefly been steward of the household in the same year.⁸⁷

By the beginning of 1317 all three had reached a position of great influence. They were the men who allegedly accused Lancaster of treachery at the Clarendon council in February, while the Flores Historiarum, whose author was not given to favourable remarks about the king and his supporters, described them as rising up ‘in the king's shadow’ and being more wicked even than Gaveston.⁸⁸

In the spring of 1317 the status of two of the three men was dramatically enhanced by marriage.⁸⁹ The greatest available prizes in the marriage stakes were the three heiresses to the lands in England, Wales and Ireland of the earldom of Gloucester, which were worth about £6,500 a year.⁹⁰ After allowing for the dower of the earl of Gloucester's widow, a one-third share of the earldom, even without the title of earl, would propel its holder directly into the senior ranks of the baronage. The partition had already been long delayed because it was such a delicate issue politically but had been decided upon in principle on 13 December 1316. This was nominally in answer to the petition lodged by Hugh Despenser the Younger and his wife Eleanor de Clare at the Lincoln parliament the previous January.⁹¹ But there can be little doubt that Edward had been giving thought to finding suitable husbands for the remaining two sisters, Margaret and Elizabeth, who were both widowed. It is possible that the Gloucester inheritance was one of the topics discussed at Clarendon and, given the presence of Despenser, even more likely that it was discussed at the Westminster council. Damory, Audley and Montacute were probably also present on the fringes of one or both councils.⁹² It is even possible that one reason for Edward II's eagerness that Lancaster should attend was to try to obtain his approval for the marriages of the Gloucester heiresses and the partition of the earldom. On 17 April the decision was taken to proceed with the partition;⁹³ on 28 April Hugh Audley the Younger married Margaret de Clare, the widow of Gaveston; and on or about the same date Roger Damory married Elizabeth de Clare, the widow of both John de Burgh and Theobald de Verdon.⁹⁴ On 22 May Edward ordered new valuations to be made of the lands and on 15 November 1317 he ordered delivery of their shares of the inheritance to the heiresses and their husbands.⁹⁵ As an indication of their new status, both Damory and Audley received a summons to parliament as barons.⁹⁶

Lancaster had good reason to be alarmed about the power that was now wielded by the king's new favourites.⁹⁷ But he was not the only one. At Pentecost, 22 May 1317, a woman dressed as a theatrical player rode into Westminster Hall while Edward II was feasting with his magnates and presented a letter to the king. She then turned around and left. Edward had the letter opened and read to him, and was angered to discover that he was accused of neglecting knights who had served his father and himself in battle and of promoting others ‘who had not borne the heat of the day’. The woman was then searched for and under questioning she revealed that she had been induced to do this by one of Edward II's own household knights. The (unnamed) knight was questioned in turn and said that he had acted for the honour of the kingdom.⁹⁸ Up till now Edward had been served with remarkable loyalty by his household knights, but the episode was a serious warning that their loyalty might have its limits.⁹⁹

Significantly, the group of royal favourites and the king himself also realized the potential dangers of their position. On 1 June 1317 the two Despensers, Audley, Damory and Montacute made a series of mutual recognizances for £6,000 each in the king's presence at Westminster. The purpose of the bonds was not stated, but it is very likely that they were in effect taking out an insurance policy against any future attempts by Lancaster or others to force them from court.¹⁰⁰ If they were to hang, they would surely hang together.

ENGLAND ON THE VERGE OF CIVIL WAR: MAYHEM IN THE NORTH

The late summer and autumn of 1317 was a dangerous period in which passions on both sides of the political divide became very heated and there was a real danger of civil war. Edward was reportedly incensed by Lancaster's refusal to attend the council at Nottingham on 18 July and especially by Lancaster's demand that he should purge his household. Some of Edward's followers, presumably Damory and the others, were ready to persuade Edward to pursue Lancaster and either imprison or exile him. Others, presumably men such as Pembroke, saw the danger that civil war would bring to the kingdom and urged Edward to do everything possible to come to an agreement with Lancaster.¹⁰¹ The fears of a possible Scottish attack in the north made Lancaster's co-operation more necessary than ever. For this reason the summons for the Scottish campaign, already delayed twice, was again postponed on 28 July from 11 August until 15 September.¹⁰²

After the unsatisfactory end of the council at Nottingham Edward moved further north towards York, and it was during this period that the first fresh contacts were made with Lancaster. It is likely that these moves had been decided upon at Nottingham. At some point between 18 and 30 August while he was at Lincoln Edward sent solemn envoys to visit Lancaster at Pontefract to try to make peace with him, so that the Scottish campaign could proceed. The existence of the mission and its outcome are known only from chronicle sources, where the envoys are identified as the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin, the bishops of Winchester, Llandaff, Salisbury, Norwich and Chichester, the earls of Pembroke and Hereford, and royal bannerets and clerks. On their arrival at Pontefract the envoys are said to have found no reason why a settlement should not be made; and they reported this to the king, urging him to make peace.¹⁰³ According to the Vita, the mediators arranged for Lancaster to meet Edward in person, so that they could reach a more rapid resolution of their differences, but before the meeting could take place Lancaster was told that Edward had threatened to kill or imprison him if he came alone, and the negotiations ended amid further recriminations and bitterness. ‘From that day forward the earl took care not to approach the king without protection.’¹⁰⁴ Although the Pontefract mission was a failure, it is still of considerable interest and significance. The presence of the two archbishops and five bishops of the Canterbury province suggests a very strong clerical interest in producing a settlement, an impression which was to be strongly reinforced during the tortuous negotiations in 1318. It is not too much to say that without them no agreement would have been possible.¹⁰⁵ The involvement of Pembroke and Hereford, who had probably also urged the king to make peace, shows a concern for a political settlement among an influential group of magnates, which once again is confirmed by later events.

After the abortive mission to Pontefract, Edward continued on his way to York, which he reached on about 4 September, travelling from Lincoln by a circuitous route which took him as far as possible to the east of the direct road passing through Pontefract, which Lancaster could easily block if he wished. This is exactly what Lancaster did after Edward had arrived in York, placing guards on the bridges to the south of the city and preventing any armed reinforcements from reaching the king. Lancaster justified his actions on the grounds that because he held the office of steward of England, granted to him in 1308, Edward should consult him before taking up arms against any enemy.¹⁰⁶ This was a new tactic on Lancaster's part, used now for the first but not the last time.¹⁰⁷

Despite Lancaster's precautions, Edward probably had a considerable force with him, amounting to about 1,500 men-at-arms, hobelars, crossbowmen, foot archers and foot soldiers, not counting the retainers gathered for the Scottish campaign by Pembroke, Hereford, Badlesmere and others.¹⁰⁸ In a sinister development, some of the reinforcements which reached Edward from north of the city, where Lancaster's blockade was less effective, came from the Yorkshire lands of Lancaster's opponent, the earl of Surrey.¹⁰⁹In the meantime Lancaster was gathering his own forces at Pontefract.¹¹⁰

Tension and suspicion were greatly increased by an extraordinary act of violence which took place on 1 September near Rushyford on the road between Darlington and Durham. Louis de Beaumont, the successful candidate for the see of Durham in the hotly contested election in October 1316, was travelling to Durham for his consecration as bishop, in the company of his brother Henry, when they were held up and robbed by Sir Gilbert de Middleton, Sir John de Lilburn and others. To make matters worse, the two cardinals who were on their way first to attend the consecration and then to deliver papal bulls to Robert Bruce, were travelling in company with the Beaumonts and were caught up in the robbery. The cardinals were soon released and allowed to continue their journey to Durham but the Beaumonts were taken as prisoners to the castle of Mitford in Northumberland where they were held until October.¹¹¹

The incident was doubly embarrassing for the king since he had shown the pope in the clearest fashion that he could not guarantee the safety of solemn envoys in his own kingdom¹¹² and also since both Gilbert de Middleton and John de Lilburn were royal household knights;¹¹³ it was also embarrassing for the earl of Pembroke, to whom Mitford castle belonged and whose constable, a local man named John d'Eure, was probably a sympathizer of Middleton and had surrendered the castle to him for his own use.¹¹⁴It was most embarrassing of all for Thomas of Lancaster, whose hostility to the Beaumonts was well known, and who was understandably assumed by the king and others to be responsible for the attack.¹¹⁵ It was also believed that Lancaster had acted in collusion with the Scots.¹¹⁶ While it is true that Lancaster had an interest in stirring up trouble and that John d'Eure was to become one of his retainers in December 1317,¹¹⁷ there is no evidence that he actually ordered the attack.¹¹⁸ There is on the other hand some evidence that local interests were closely involved. In April 1317 John d'Eure had made an agreement at Durham with John de Sapy, the keeper of the temporalities of Durham, recognizing a debt of 100 marks, which would become payable only if Louis de Beaumont were consecrated as bishop of Durham or received the temporalities of the diocese before 29 September 1317. The agreement was meanwhile to be kept by the prior of Durham.¹¹⁹ Eure, de Sapy and the prior clearly all had an interest in preventing Beaumont's consecration, and it can hardly be a coincidence that the attack on the Beaumonts came only three days before the consecration was due to take place.¹²⁰ It may also be significant that some London clergy had warned the Beaumonts of the dangers in going beyond York, while the prior of Durham is said to have implied that they would be at risk from a Scottish attack.¹²¹ If Lancaster had any involvement, it was indirect and unintentional, resulting from his attempts to influence local interests and forces which he was not fully able to control.¹²² The presence of the cardinals was a further complication that neither he nor anyone else had anticipated.

Lancaster acted swiftly to retrieve both the situation and his own reputation. On 7 September he joined the cardinals at Durham and arranged for Gilbert de Middleton to restore their stolen property. He then escorted them as far south as Boroughbridge in Yorkshire to be met by the earls of Pembroke and Hereford, who conducted them to the king at York, where they arrived on about 8 September.¹²³ Once in York, the two cardinals and the earl of Pembroke made another attempt to mediate between Edward and Lancaster. They appear to have achieved some success: Edward promised not to take any action against Lancaster or his supporters, while Lancaster agreed to attend a parliament whenever and wherever one was summoned. As an immediate consequence a parliament was summoned on 24 September to meet at Lincoln on 27 January 1318.¹²⁴ At the same time the Scottish campaign was finally abandoned.¹²⁵ Also on 24 September the earls of Pembroke and Hereford successfully asked Edward to grant a safe conduct to Lancaster and his adherents, and were given powers to free any of Lancaster's men who might be arrested in breach of this guarantee. Two days later the two earls were also authorized at their own suggestion to look after and to safeguard the interests of Lancaster's followers until the opening of the coming parliament. Since both men were prominent members of the king's council it is clear that there was an important element among Edward's close associates who were fully aware of the dangers of the current situation and were working hard for a settlement.¹²⁶

These understandings between Edward and Lancaster reduced the immediate tension. Edward dismissed much of the force he had gathered around him during September, while Lancaster did the same, returning to Pontefract with only a few men and giving up control of the bridges.¹²⁷ However, any serious consideration of the real problems outstanding between Edward and his cousin was merely postponed and for there to be any real progress towards a solution both sides would have to act in good faith. This did not happen. On 29 September Edward and his followers left York for London, this time taking the direct route to the south via Pontefract, which was no longer blocked by Lancaster's men. Edward still had a considerable force with him and as he approached Pontefract, which was now weakly defended, he drew up his men and threatened to attack. According to the plausible account of one chronicle, Edward was encouraged by some of his close associates, presumably men such as Damory, Audley and Montacute. For his part Lancaster and his men jeered at Edward from the top of the castle ditch. But for the prompt action of the earl of Pembroke – who reminded Edward that all disputes between himself and Lancaster had been suspended until the coming parliament and told him that if Lancaster were planning to attack the king he would risk the loss of everything he possessed – a full-scale attack on Pontefract might have developed. Fortunately Pembroke managed to persuade Edward, and the king and his men resumed their journey to London.¹²⁸

Lancaster now gave full vent to his fury at Edward's perceived betrayal. On 5 October John de Lilburn seized Knaresborough on his behalf from the constable appointed by Roger Damory; Alton castle in Staffordshire, formerly belonging to Theobald de Verdon and also in Damory's custody, was attacked at the same time. As a precautionary measure Damory's lands in Yorkshire, Herefordshire and Lincolnshire were taken into royal hands on 24 October, in the hope that this would restrain Lancaster from further actions. Lancaster had evidently singled out Damory for attack, since there is no indication that either Audley or Montacute was threatened at this time. Knaresborough was not given up until late January 1318, and then only after a long and expensive siege.¹²⁹ Gilbert de Middleton, the captor of the cardinals, also held out at Mitford until January, when he was captured and taken to London for trial and execution.¹³⁰ Apart from Roger Damory, Lancaster reserved his special anger for the earl of Surrey. In October he attacked and quickly seized Surrey's Yorkshire castles of Sandal and Conisborough, and held on to them, despite Edward II's protests. In 1318 Lancaster also invaded and threatened to take Surrey's lordships of Bromfield and Yale (Iâl) in the Welsh March, which were close to Lancaster's own lordship of Denbigh.¹³¹

In an attempt to prevent further outbreaks of violence, in early October Edward forbade the holding of tournaments throughout England in case these were used as a pretext for gathering armed forces. On 1 November the earl of Pembroke was reappointed as constable of the important castle of Rockingham near Lancaster's own castle at Leicester, which Pembroke had held for the king since 1314, while one of his retainers received charge of Gloucester. Badlesmere was put in command of Leeds castle in Kent, the Younger Despenser of Odiham in Hampshire, and the constables of sixteen other royal castles in the Midlands and elsewhere were ordered to prepare their defences.¹³² Edward's financial needs were answered on 7 November when Pembroke, Hereford, Badlesmere, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops of Ely and Winchester acted as guarantors for a loan of 10,000 marks by the Florentine banking company, the Bardi.¹³³ At about the same the king's personal banker, Antonio Pessagno of Genoa, was appointed as seneschal of the duchy of Gascony with powers to raise a loan there of 20,000 marks and to liquidate what remained of Clement V's loan of 1314.¹³⁴ If civil war were to break out, Edward would at least be prepared.

RESTRAINING THE FAVOURITES

A further way of reducing the likelihood of civil war was to recognize the legitimacy of Lancaster's suspicions of the king's favourites by doing something practical to restrain them. On 24 November 1317 the earl of Pembroke and Bartholomew de Badlesmere made a formal agreement in London with Roger Damory. Damory promised to do his best to persuade Edward to allow himself to be guided by the advice of Pembroke and Badlesmere and to trust their advice above that of anyone else, provided that their counsel was to the advantage of Edward and his kingdom. Damory also promised not to procure or consent to the king's granting of land worth more than £20 without the knowledge and agreement of Pembroke and Badlesmere; nor would he connive at or consent to any action by the king which might be prejudicial to himself or to his crown. Damory would not persuade or allow anyone else to persuade the king to do any of these things in the absence of Pembroke and Badlesmere, and he would also warn them if he discovered that anyone was trying to influence the king against them. Damory also bound himself to keep the agreement by oath and by a pledge of £10,000. In turn, Pembroke and Badlesmere promised to defend and maintain Damory against all men, saving only the king, provided that Damory kept his part of the agreement. As a further guarantee, the two men bound themselves, their heirs, and all their moveable and immoveable goods to the will of Damory. One part of the indenture was sealed by Pembroke and Badlesmere and the other by Damory.¹³⁵

This document was interpreted by nineteenth- and early twentieth-century historians, notably William Stubbs, T.F. Tout and J.C. Davies, as evidence that in the autumn of 1317 Pembroke and Badlesmere were attempting to form a political alliance which sought to control royal policy and to stand between Lancaster on the one hand and the king's adherents, such as the Despensers and other royal favourites, on the other. This alliance was accordingly described as the ‘middle party’¹³⁶ and the interpretation then became a standard part of writings on the reign of Edward ¹³⁷ until the early 1970s when a new generation of scholars began to challenge the old certainties.¹³⁸ The ‘middle party’ has, as a result, largely disappeared from historical treatments of the early fourteenth century.¹³⁹

The reality was that, far from trying to create a political following of their own, Pembroke and Badlesmere were experienced and responsible royal councillors of long standing,¹⁴⁰ who were extremely concerned at the deterioration in the relations between Edward II and Lancaster and especially worried by the contribution to the growing political instability of ambitious royal favourites such as Roger Damory. The purpose of the now-famous indenture of 24 November 1317 was therefore to control and to restrain Damory's conduct. In the circumstances of 1317 no one was more likely to try to persuade the king to make excessively generous grants of land than Damory. Damory's recent behaviour and Lancaster's singling him out for special treatment in October showed just how dangerous he had become. A solution to the problem was all the more urgent since on 15 November the king had ordered the delivery of Damory's share of the great Gloucester inheritance.¹⁴¹ Although there is no reason to believe that Pembroke and Badlesmere were acting without the king's agreement and approval,¹⁴² the very fact of their having to make such an indenture with Damory is an indication that their influence over the king and the making of policy had its limits. As Edward II's letters to Pembroke show, including a very remarkable one written in December 1316,¹⁴³ Edward was prepared to follow sound advice when it was given to him by men he trusted. But he could just as easily be persuaded to make bad decisions by irresponsible favourites whose company he enjoyed. From this point of view, Edward II was as heavy a cross to bear for his friends as he was for his enemies.¹⁴⁴

EDWARD II AND THE MAGNATES

The ‘middle party’ interpretation of Pembroke and Badlesmere's actions in the autumn of 1317 is further undermined by the fact that the two men entered into binding contracts not just with Roger Damory but with the king himself. In Pembroke's case this took place on 1 November 1317, at the same time that precautions were being taken against the possibility of civil war and just over three weeks before the agreement with Damory. Pembroke bound himself to serve the king for life in peace and war in return for land worth 500 marks and an annual peacetime fee of over 1,000 marks. In wartime he was to receive a fee of 2,000 marks (later increased to 2,500 marks) and to supply the king with a retinue of 200 men-at-arms.¹⁴⁵ Badlesmere had already made contracts with the king. On 29 September 1316 he had promised to stay in the king's service in peacetime at an annual fee of 600 marks, and in war with a retinue of 100 men. At a date before 3 August 1317 this was supplemented by an annual sum of 1,000 marks, by which Edward retained him for the value of his counsel. On 12 November 1317 he was further rewarded with a grant of land worth 400 marks.¹⁴⁶

These were not the only contracts made between Edward II and leading magnates. Roger Damory, the other party to the indenture of 24 November 1317, had contracted on 15 January 1317 to serve the king in return for 200 marks per year. The intended size of his retinue in wartime is not known.¹⁴⁷ Damory's co-favourite in 1317, William de Montacute, followed suit on the same date and on the same terms;¹⁴⁸ as did Hugh Audley the Younger.¹⁴⁹ Of the other important magnates, the earl of Hereford promised on 1 September 1316 to serve in peace and war at a fee of 1,000 marks in peacetime and 2,000 marks in wartime, when he would bring 100 men-at-arms. In September 1317 he was granted the lordship of Builth in the Welsh March in return for past and future services, probably as a way of paying his annual fee.¹⁵⁰ On 18 October 1316 Hugh Despenser the Younger contracted to serve in war for two years with thirty men in return for an annual payment of 400 marks but was later given a fee of 600 marks for staying with the king. On 18 November 1317 payment of this increased fee was met by a life grant of 500 marks of land in Wales.¹⁵¹

There is evidence between September 1316 and September 1317 of contracts for smaller fees and contingents between Edward II and at least eleven other middle-ranking magnates, some for wartime only, others both in peace and in war.¹⁵² Other magnates of the first rank indicated their cooperation with the king by accepting important military and administrative appointments. In November 1316 the earl of Arundel became warden of the Scottish March, while Roger Mortimer of Wigmore and his uncle Roger Mortimer of Chirk accepted office as king's lieutenant in Ireland and justice of Wales respectively. On 7 October 1317 Mortimer of Chirk was reappointed for life as justice of North and South Wales.¹⁵³

These indications of extensive and apparently unforced co-operation between a large number of magnates and the king are very much at odds with the traditional view of the reign of Edward II as a period of prolonged tension between a king intent on preserving his independence of action and on defending his favourites on the one hand, and on the other a baronial opposition led by the earl of Lancaster which was equally intent on imposing upon him both its control and a programme of reform symbolized by the Ordinances.¹⁵⁴ Such a straightforward dichotomy does not however do justice to the history of the reign and to the complexity of the personal interests and relationships which made up political life of the time. For example, once the initial period of tension caused by Edward's devotion to Gaveston was over the majority of the English magnates showed their practical loyalty to the king. In part this was the result of self-interest in such cases as Hugh Despenser the Elder and Henry de Beaumont, who were dependent for their political survival on royal patronage and support. For others, such as Pembroke, Hereford and Badlesmere, it was probably because they felt a duty to aid the king at times of crisis.¹⁵⁵ Many other magnates showed loyalty to the king because this was the natural thing to do: in a monarchy, to whose head they were bound by ties of homage and fealty, there was both legally and practically nowhere else for them to go. What is also apparent is that long before the autumn of 1317 Thomas of Lancaster had become what amounted to a one-man opposition. Once the earl of Warwick had died in 1315 Lancaster had few if any friends, no allies, and an increasing number of critics and real enemies. His interventions in the affairs of the kingdom had failed, both because of these facts, and because he proved to be incompetent. Given this situation there was no incentive for any of the magnates to exchange the rule of the king for that of his first cousin. Lancaster was in consequence reduced to using the Ordinances as a rallying cry which his fellow magnates were no longer prepared to answer, and to impeding the government of the country and the conduct of warfare by using the vast financial and territorial resources at his disposal in the Midlands and the north of England.¹⁵⁶The willingness of so many of the magnates to rally round the king in 1316 and 1317 was in part due to the critical dangers facing England after the disaster at Bannockburn and the need to ensure that the king had an adequate and guaranteed military force at his disposal. From this point of view the contracts between Edward and the magnates are one aspect of the new military expedients that were tried out in 1314 and 1315.¹⁵⁷ But the contracts were also a political statement. Lancaster's fellow magnates had lost patience with him and regarded his demands for reform as cloaking a demand for supreme political power for himself which they were not prepared to concede.¹⁵⁸ Edward II's attraction of such a wide degree of support and co-operation also suggests that he had a much greater level of political skill than he is usually credited with.¹⁵⁹ However, the willingness of so many magnates to enter into binding contracts to serve the king laid them open to serious dangers, even to the risk of life and limb, if circumstances changed and they found themselves opposing the king. This was to happen to Badlesmere and Hugh Audley in 1321–2 when they joined the rebellion against the Despensers, and to Pembroke when he supported the Despensers' exile.¹⁶⁰

THE LONG ROAD TO PEACE

Civil war was avoided in the autumn of 1317, partly because of the measures taken by the king and his supporters to prevent it but also because in the last resort no one wanted it. English politics were embittered but had not yet reached this extremity. Instead a process began which led to long-drawn-out and tedious negotiations and ultimately to a treaty of peace between Edward and Lancaster in August 1318. A critical mediating role was played in these negotiations by the English bishops, the archbishop of Dublin,¹⁶¹and the papal envoys, while Edward was represented by moderate councillors such as Pembroke, Hereford and Badlesmere. The fact that the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of Ely, Winchester and Norwich were members both of the king's council and of the body of clergy also helped the negotiating process.

Contact with Lancaster was apparently resumed in early November when the archbishop of Dublin was sent from London by Edward and his council to visit Lancaster at Pontefract to deliver a message orally on the king's behalf. This mission seems to have provided Lancaster with some reassurance since on 20 November a parliament was formally summoned to meet at Lincoln on 27 January 1318, as had been agreed at York in September.¹⁶²

On 27 and 28 November the bishops of the Canterbury province assembled at St Paul's, officially to hear the cardinals read out the papal bulls ordering the Scots to cease their attacks on England and Ireland,¹⁶³ but, given the imminence of a parliament, they may also have discussed the political situation in England. They certainly had the opportunity to do so at a meeting with the king's council on 30 December, when ten prelates of the Canterbury province, including the chancellor the bishop of Winchester and the treasurer the bishop of Ely, assembled together with the magnate members of the council, who included Pembroke, Hereford and Badlesmere.¹⁶⁴ According to the account of the assembly in the Vita Edwardi Secundi, it was agreed that it would be unwise to hold a parliament in January as previously intended, because of the danger of a clash between the large bodies of armed retainers who would certainly accompany Lancaster and the king. They decided that it would first of all be wiser to restore harmony and confidence between the two men by means of mediation, after which a new date could be settled for a parliament. On 4 January 1318 the parliament was accordingly postponed from 27 January to 12 March, while Edward renewed the powers of Pembroke and Hereford to grant letters of safe conduct to Lancaster and his adherents.¹⁶⁵

A CRUCIAL MEETING AT LEICESTER

Soon afterwards John Salmon, a trusted royal councillor as well as bishop of Norwich, visited Lancaster at Pontefract, presumably to discover if there was any basis for reopening negotiations.¹⁶⁶ On 15 January the bishops of the Canterbury province were summoned to meet at St Paul's on 23 February to discuss the affairs of Church and State. As a result an assembly of clergy and magnates was arranged to meet the earl of Lancaster at Leicester in April.¹⁶⁷ There can be little doubt that the prelates did so with the active encouragement and agreement of the king and his council. In order to clear the way for the negotiations, the meeting of parliament which was due to begin at Lincoln on 12 March was postponed on 3 March until 19 June (although it was still to be held at Lincoln) and the authority of Pembroke and Hereford to give safe conducts to Lancaster and his men was further renewed.¹⁶⁸ The Vita Edward Secundi, which is usually well informed on such matters, confirms that royal representatives were present and put forward proposals in the king's name which had presumably been carefully considered by the council and approved by Edward himself.¹⁶⁹ At least four such representatives can readily be identified. On 29 March John Sandal, bishop of Winchester and chancellor, was sent by Edward from London to Leicester; on 3 April Badlesmere arrived at Northampton with 100 men-at-arms, on the king's orders, and on 5 April went on to Leicester, accompanied by the earl of Pembroke and Walter Reynolds, the archbishop of Canterbury.¹⁷⁰ The conference at Leicester probably began in earnest with the arrival of these four men. Edward II kept in close touch with his envoys: on 7 April a clerk of William de Montacute, the steward of the royal household, was sent to Leicester with private royal letters, and at some stage in the negotiations Pembroke, Badlesmere and the archbishop each sent messengers to the king at Windsor to report on their work.¹⁷¹

The meeting at Leicester was of such great importance that it was recorded by several chroniclers, although with varying amounts of detail. According to the author of the Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvon, writing at Bridlington, a ‘parliament’ was held at Leicester on 12 April, attended by the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Norwich, Chichester, Winchester, Llandaff and Hereford, the earls of Lancaster, Pembroke and Hereford, twenty-eight unnamed barons (who may have included some of Lancaster's leading retainers), the chief justice William de Bereford and Walter de Norwich, one of the barons of the exchequer. All those present swore on the Gospels to see that the Ordinances were observed, that evil and unsuitable royal councillors were removed, and that grants of land made by the king contrary to the Ordinances should be rescinded and their holders made to come to parliament for a decision on their possession of the lands. Lancaster's offences against the king in his search for better government of the realm, and his seizure of castles and property, should be pardoned, and any of his men arrested by the king should be freed. Lancaster would also make peace with the Despensers, who for their part would agree to become Lancaster's retainers for life.¹⁷² The Flores Historiarum records simply that the magnates, papal envoys and prelates met Lancaster at Leicester and agreed on oath to observe the Ordinances and keep the peace.¹⁷³ The Leicester chronicle of Henry Knighton speaks of certain articles which were agreed at Leicester between Lancaster and the prelates and which were afterwards confirmed at London by the cardinals, the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin, and the other prelates of the Canterbury province.¹⁷⁴ The Vita Edwardi Secundi says that the archbishops, earls and barons, acting on the king's behalf, met Lancaster's councillors at Leicester, where they put to Lancaster a number of points, to all of which he refused to give his assent unless the Ordinances were observed. Because of Lancaster's firm stand the archbishop and certain earls promised on their own behalf and on behalf of the king that the Ordinances would be observed and that a document embodying their oath and sealed by each of them should be drawn up. For his part Lancaster promised his due fealty and security to the king and his men, saving only his quarrel with the earl of Surrey over the abduction of his wife.¹⁷⁵

Further light on the Leicester meeting is thrown by a document preserved as a transcript in the Dodsworth manuscripts in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, which can probably be identified with the articles described by Knighton as being agreed between the clergy and Lancaster.¹⁷⁶ This agreement contains promises by Lancaster that he would not in future commit armed breaches of the peace, that he would come to parliament when summoned and do reverence to the king, and would remit his quarrel with the earl of Surrey until the next parliament. In return the prelates promised on behalf of themselves and the other bishops of the Canterbury province that Lancaster and his men would be given surety for when they came to parliament, and that the agreement would be guaranteed by the authority of the Church. At the same time Lancaster took an oath that he had never wished to deprive the king of his royal power, and that he wished to maintain the Ordinances and see that all land alienated contrary to them was restored to the crown. The document as it is now preserved is undated but the reference to the earl of Surrey shows that it belongs to some time after the abduction of the countess of Lancaster in May 1317. The reference in Lancaster's oath to the Ordinances and the revocation of grants of land also matches other evidence about his demands at Leicester.¹⁷⁷ The prelates are mentioned in the agreement as being those of the province of Canterbury and presumably therefore include the five named in the Bridlington account, while the archbishops named in the heading would be those of Canterbury and of Dublin. This identification of the document with the Knighton articles is strengthened by the implication in the agreement that it was made on behalf of the prelates of Canterbury by part of their number and that, as in Knighton's account, it would require confirmation by the remainder of the province's bishops.¹⁷⁸ It is likely that the date of 12 April given by the Bridlington chronicler for the holding of the Leicester meeting marked the end of the negotiations and was possibly also the date on which the articles were agreed between the prelates and the earl of Lancaster.¹⁷⁹

There is no surviving evidence to confirm the statements of the Bridlington chronicler and the Vita Edwardi Secundi that both the clergy and certain of the earls put their seals to another document in which they swore to uphold the Ordinances, but it is certainly possible that some such undertaking was given. At the very least it was now clear to the king and his councillors that Lancaster still saw the Ordinances as the central plank in his demands, together with the removal from court of royal favourites and the resumption of grants.

DEBATES AT WESTMINSTER

Events now moved back to Westminster.¹⁸⁰ The next stage in the negotiations for which there is clear evidence is revealed in a very important series of discussions held at Westminster in June to consider how a fresh round of talks with Lancaster ought to be approached and what concessions should be made to his demands. The Westminster discussions are first of all revealed in two closely related documents, one dated 2 June, and the other undated. Both appear to be drafts of a final document which is no longer extant.¹⁸¹ The document of 2 June lists those present as the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin, etc., and the earl of Pembroke, etc. and is also endorsed with the names of the bishops of Norwich, Coventry & Lichfield, Chichester, London, Salisbury, Winchester, Ely, Hereford and Worcester, the earl of Hereford, the Elder and Younger Despensers, Roger Damory and William de Montacute. The other version of the document gives the participants only as the archbishops, Pembroke, Hereford, Despenser, and ‘other great men of the kingdom’. It is however clear that the prelates were again acting as mediators and that on this occasion they were meeting with members of Edward II's council.¹⁸² The texts reveal the added urgency given to the discussions by the Scots' attack on Yorkshire in May, following their capture of the key border fortress of Berwick in April,¹⁸³ since the prelates and magnates of the council had met to advise Edward on the defence of his kingdom as well as to give him prompt counsel and aid on the good government of the realm. They had also agreed that both individually and collectively they would loyally advise the king to the best of their ability.¹⁸⁴ Both texts also agree in seeing Lancaster's actions as a major barrier to the conduct of the king's government and administration, from which he had withdrawn for some time because of the enmity and malevolence of those around the king, ‘as one understands’.¹⁸⁵ This statement in the document of 2 June does in passing recognize that Lancaster might have had cause to fear some of the king's associates, but its implied rebuke of Lancaster is made much more explicit in the other text, which says that Lancaster had not counselled or aided his lord the king as was his duty,¹⁸⁶ and that he had gathered men-at-arms at parliaments and other royal assemblies, creating fear among the people, among whom it was a common opinion that Lancaster was the cause of ills that had befallen the kingdom.¹⁸⁷ Lancaster's peers evidently also saw his failure to co-operate with the king and his use of armed force as chief causes of the present troubles.

Following this general statement on the reasons for the crisis, those present agreed on the terms of a possible solution. Both texts state, in slightly differing words, that Lancaster should not be allowed to gather armed forces under colour of the Ordinances, to which the prelates and the magnates as well as Lancaster had pledged themselves, and that he should not employ force in an inappropriate manner (and to a greater extent than any other great man of the kingdom),¹⁸⁸ except with the consent of the magnates and prelates named above, or the greater part of them. Lancaster should in future come to parliament as a peer of the realm, without trying to claim superiority for himself over the others,¹⁸⁹ a remark which shows that Lancaster's peers had taken strong exception to his past behaviour. It was also agreed that Lancaster should be offered a guarantee by trustworthy men against those he suspected of abducting his wife, but that any of the suspects who did not wish to be involved in this should instead make amends and that because of the urgency of the situation all this should be done without legal process.¹⁹⁰ All those present at Westminster finally assented to be bound by the agreement and to see that it was upheld.¹⁹¹

There is, however, evidence that the June discussions went much further than deciding on the demands that would be made of Lancaster and also considered what concessions Edward II was prepared to make to Lancaster. These were very serious issues which would affect not simply Edward himself but also his favourites, Damory, Audley, Montacute and the Despensers. By 8 June the king's reluctance to begin serious negotiations for a permanent settlement had been overcome to the extent that the bishop of Norwich could announce to an assembly of magnates and prelates meeting at St Paul's in the presence of the king that Edward was ready to follow the advice of his earls and barons and that he would confirm the Ordinances;¹⁹² on the following day the archbishop of Canterbury also noted in a letter that the king was willing to embrace the way of peace discussed at Leicester;¹⁹³ and on the same day an order was issued revoking all grants which had been made contrary to the Ordinances.¹⁹⁴

A third stage in preparing the ground for negotiations was reached on 11 June, in the form of a promise by five of Edward's closest associates and hence the earl of Lancaster's greatest enemies, Hugh Despenser the Elder, Roger Damory, Hugh Audley the Younger, William de Montacute and John de Charlton, that they would not impede or threaten Lancaster or any of his men in any way when Lancaster came to make his peace with the king.¹⁹⁵ In its initial draft the document contained a clause in which Damory and the others admitted that Lancaster had previously failed to appear before the king ‘because of us, as it is said’,¹⁹⁶ but this was later crossed out, probably because it was too pointed a condemnation of them. In a striking confirmation of the mediating role that had been played by the English bishops and the papal envoys the document stated that Damory and company had given their guarantee to Lancaster with the permission of the king and at the request of Cardinals Gaucelin d'Eauze and Luke Fieschi, the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin, and the bishops of London, Winchester, Coventry & Lichfield, Norwich, Chichester, Salisbury, Ely, Worcester and Hereford, all of whom promised to ensure that the guarantee was upheld.¹⁹⁷

The hope that a new campaign against the Scots might at last be possible was shown on 8 June when the delayed parliament which had been summoned as long ago as November 1317 was finally abandoned in favour of a muster of the army at York on 26 July.¹⁹⁸The commitment of the king's advisers to reaching a political settlement was demonstrated very clearly on 14 June when they replied to a letter from the earl of Surrey asking for royal help to expel the earl of Lancaster's men from his Welsh lands in Bromfield and Yale. Other than asking Lancaster to desist from his attacks, the council had no intention of being side-tracked by this issue. Instead the earl of Surrey was hung out to dry and told in no uncertain terms to settle the matter himself.¹⁹⁹

DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS

Plans for a personal meeting between Edward and Lancaster were being made as early as 9 June when Lancaster seems to have anticipated that such a meeting would soon take place at Northampton; on 12 June he and his men were given safe conducts to come to the king on 29 June at an unspecified location;²⁰⁰ and on 22 June the two papal envoys were also given conducts to go to Northampton, confirming it as the intended meeting-place.²⁰¹ However, it soon turned out that serious problems remained in the way of any general agreement. On 13 June the bishop of Norwich and the newly appointed chancellor the bishop of Ely set out to visit Lancaster at his castle of Tutbury in Derbyshire. They were accompanied by the archbishop of Dublin and took with them a document drawn up in London by the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin and containing a series of points which were to be put to Lancaster and his representatives.²⁰² The negotiations which followed were concluded on 23 June in a garden at Horninglow, between Burton-on-Trent and Tutbury, when Lancaster's knight Stephen Segrave read out the text of a notarial instrument containing his master's replies to each of the points in the presence of the archbishop of Dublin and the bishops of Norwich and Ely.²⁰³

Lancaster refused to accept the proposal that the recipients of grants made contrary to the Ordinances should restore them to the king without punishment and that a future parliament should decide whether or not the revocation should be made permanent, citing instead the relevant clause of the Ordinances.²⁰⁴ He also rejected the suggestions that the royal favourites should come to parliament and be judged there by their peers for any breach of the Ordinances they might have committed; that instead of being removed altogether from the king's presence, they should absent themselves when Edward and Lancaster met to make peace, so that Lancaster should have no fear of them; and that they should make amends to Lancaster for any injuries they had inflicted on him. Lancaster insisted that they should all be permanently removed under the terms of the Ordinances, of which he again cited the relevant clause.²⁰⁵ On the question of a surety for his coming to the king, Lancaster said he did not trust the king's promises, since when he had done so in the past he had been imperilled by the king's favourites; nor was he certain of the value of the surety promised by the magnates at Leicester, since he had heard that some of them had since agreed to protect the king's evil councillors; nor did he regard the guarantee of safety given by the prelates and the cardinals to be a sufficient safeguard.²⁰⁶

The return of the envoys from Tutbury showed that the earlier optimism was entirely misplaced and that hard bargaining still lay ahead. A new round of negotiations now began, which was conducted by several of the bishops, together with some of the magnate members of the king's council.²⁰⁷ On 4 July an embassy consisting of the archbishop of Dublin, the bishops of Ely and Norwich, the earl of Pembroke, Badlesmere and the Younger Despenser left Northampton to visit Lancaster at a place which was unnamed, but was probably at or near Tutbury.²⁰⁸ On 11 July the archbishop of Canterbury wrote from Northampton saying that these envoys had met Lancaster and found him willing to reach a final settlement on a number of points which had earlier seemed likely to destroy any chance of peace, and which were presumably connected with the vexed questions of grants of land and the royal favourites. Lancaster had also agreed to come to the king at Northampton by 21 July in order to make a firm peace agreement.²⁰⁹Optimism was still high on 18 July when the archbishop again wrote from Northampton saying that he was now certain that, with the mediation of himself and others, peace between Lancaster, the king and the magnates would be confirmed in a few days.²¹⁰

However, a further letter from the archbishop on 21 July shows that a settlement had not in fact taken place, that the outcome of the negotiations was again uncertain, and that a further embassy, consisting of the archbishop of Dublin, the bishops of Chichester and Ely, the earls of Pembroke and Arundel, Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, and Badlesmere had been sent to see Lancaster on 20 July.²¹¹ Another letter, probably of the same date, and written by someone in the archbishop's company, explains the archbishop's optimism on 11 July and the reasons for the near breakdown of negotiations after that date.²¹² This is not just revealing of the tensions that existed between Edward II and his first cousin, Thomas of Lancaster, in the summer of 1318 but is also symbolic of the repeated political crises that had occurred since Edward first became king.

According to this letter, at their first meeting with Lancaster in early July the royal envoys had agreed to Lancaster's two main demands: that gifts made contrary to the Ordinances should be revoked, and that the favourites should be removed from court, with the reservation that they should still be allowed to answer parliamentary and military summonses. In return Lancaster promised to remit all offences against him, except for those committed by Roger Damory and William de Montacute, whom he accused of plotting to kill him and who would have to make amends to him. A further proposal by Lancaster which, with modifications, was finally included in the treaty between Edward and Lancaster in August was that eight bishops, four earls and four barons should remain with the king each year, of whom two bishops, one earl and one baron should stay with the king as part of his council during each quarter.²¹³ This idea, we are told, was accepted by the envoys, although the prominence of the bishops in the working of such an arrangement suggests that the idea may have been partly inspired by them as a way of ensuring a neutral group on the council. Lancaster also promised to come to the king whenever Edward wished and to join in a campaign against the Scots. The envoys then returned to Northampton and reported to Edward, who agreed with what they had done. The author of the letter then goes on to say that the hopes of peace were shattered by the behaviour of some of the envoys who had just been to see Lancaster, who now went back on their word and persuaded Edward not to confirm the agreement.²¹⁴

Of the envoys who went to Lancaster on 4 July only the Younger Despenser might be described as personally hostile to him, because of Lancaster's long-standing enmity against Despenser's father and perhaps also because acceptance of Lancaster's demands might affect the future development of his own career.²¹⁵ Despenser may accordingly have been among those who advised Edward against acceptance. This may explain why Despenser was not a member of the second embassy to Lancaster on 20 July.²¹⁶ But it is also highly probable that Edward was even more swayed by the arguments of those others who would lose their influence at court if a settlement were made, namely Damory and Montacute, whom Lancaster had attacked by name during the talks, and probably also by Hugh Audley. The writer then adds that there were differing views among those with the king at Northampton, but that Pembroke and the bishops insisted that the agreement should be upheld, and that because of their determination the second embassy was sent to meet Lancaster on 20 July.²¹⁷

AGREEMENT AT LAST

The embassy returned to Northampton on 29 July, and on 1 August a third and, as it turned out, final mission set out from Northampton, consisting of the archbishop of Dublin, the bishops of Norwich, Chichester and Ely, the earls of Pembroke and Arundel, Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, John de Somery, Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Ralph Basset and John Botetourt.²¹⁸ Some progress had evidently been made during the second mission since on 31 July Lancaster's adherents were pardoned all offences committed before 25 July.²¹⁹ No more is known until a letter from the archbishop of Canterbury on 8 August, which says that on the previous day Edward II and Lancaster had met between Loughborough and Leicester and had exchanged the kiss of peace in the presence of the two cardinals, the bishops, all the earls except for Surrey, and many of the barons. Edward was to meet Lancaster again on 8 or 9 August near Nottingham to discuss measures to protect the north against the Scots until the king could go there in person. This was to take place after a parliament to be held at Lincoln on 13 October.²²⁰ An indenture embodying the final settlement was drawn up at this second meeting at Leake in Nottinghamshire on 9 August 1318.²²¹ ‘So the lord king and the earl met and, speaking together long and intimately, they renewed due friendship and mutual goodwill, and to mark the pact they ate together on that same day; and Roger Amory and the rest, except Hugh Despenser and the earl Warenne [Surrey], humbly presenting themselves before the earl, were received into his grace.’²²²

In the Treaty of Leake itself it was first of all agreed that a standing royal council should be established, consisting of eight bishops (Norwich, Chichester, Ely, Salisbury, St David's, Carlisle, Hereford and Worcester), four earls (Pembroke, Richmond, Hereford and Arundel), and four barons (Hugh de Courtenay, Roger Mortimer, John de Segrave and John de Grey). Lancaster would not be a member, but was to be represented by one of the bannerets of his household. The council would function for one year, with two bishops, one earl and one baron serving for three months at a time. The council would advise the king between parliaments on all matters that could be settled without recourse to parliament. This proposal was put forward by Lancaster during the negotiations in July and was modelled on a scheme originally proposed by Simon de Montfort in 1264. The king and Lancaster promised to issue mutual pardons for all offences committed by their followers, with the exception of the earl of Surrey's offences against Lancaster, which were to be settled privately between the two men.²²³ The resumption of all grants made contrary to the Ordinances and the removal of royal favourites, both of which Lancaster had consistently demanded, were not mentioned directly, although Edward's promise in the treaty to confirm and accept the Ordinances might be taken to imply acceptance of both points.

The kiss of peace between Edward and Lancaster and the Treaty of Leake brought an end to one of the most prolonged periods of tension and certainly the most tortuous set of negotiations since 1307. Whether the king and Lancaster were truly reconciled or whether there would be a new round of suspicion and violence only time would tell.

EDWARD

It is often very difficult to isolate the king's actions and contribution to the making of policy from those of others. There is little doubt that in 1317–18 Edward II was under a variety of pressures, from the favourites who wished to profit from royal patronage and in whose interests it was to foster Edward's hostility to the earl of Lancaster, and from wiser heads, such as Pembroke, Hereford, Badlesmere and other councillors, the leading clergy, and the two papal envoys, who were all too aware of the dangers to the kingdom if the political tensions were left unresolved. Isabella also appears to have played a part in bringing about peace.²²⁴ But, in a very significant passage, the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi implies that amid the impassioned debates that took place in the tense and claustrophobic atmosphere at Northampton in July 1318, when all the king's favourites and more moderate supporters were present, together with their retainers, it was Edward himself who finally decided that peace must be made with Lancaster:

Thus the king, seeing that he profited nothing, achieved nothing by all the plans he made against the earl, also considering that such discord was dangerous to him, because it encouraged the Scottish rebellion against him, and he could make no headway against the Scots without the help of the earl of Lancaster; considering, too, that the town of Berwick had been disgracefully lost and the town of Norham was on the point of being lost …; and considering the enormous expenses he incurred against the earl, asked that, all ill-feeling laid aside, [the earl] should go to a place of his own choosing, where a friendly agreement might be made with him and his men about everything done in his name; moreover all those against whom the earl said that he had any complaint, should make satisfaction at the earl's discretion, and for this should offer sureties, caution money or pledges. And so … this was achieved.²²⁵

For Edward II the year 1318 was also marked by events of personal sadness and joy and by others which can only be described as bizarre and partaking of fantasy. On 14 February his stepmother Margaret of France, the widow of Edward I and aunt of Edward II's own wife Isabella, died at the age of about thirty-eight and was buried in the London church of the Franciscans in the presence of both Edward and Isabella.²²⁶ After her marriage to Edward I in 1299 she appears to have got on well with her stepson, who was only a few years younger than her. She mediated between him and his father during their quarrel in 1305,²²⁷ and attended both his wedding to Isabella in 1308 and the birth of his son, the future Edward III, in 1312.²²⁸ She is not known to have played any direct role in the politics of Edward II's reign but it is likely that her death removed a calming influence and an emotional support from the life of Edward and also from that of Isabella, who was pregnant when Margaret died.²²⁹ Isabella and Edward's third child, a daughter, was born at Woodstock on 18 June, and was named Eleanor after Edward's mother. On 28 June the king and queen left for Northampton.²³⁰

AN IMPOSTOR APPEARS AT OXFORD

In addition to the heated arguments which preceded the agreement with Lancaster in August, Northampton was to witness the conclusion of another even more extraordinary event. On about 24 June a man, later identified as John Poydras or Powderham, the son of a tanner from Exeter, appeared at the King's Hall in Oxford. In fulfilment of the vow he made after his escape from Bannockburn Edward II had recently granted the building to the Carmelites who were starting to build a church. Ordering the friars to leave ‘his house’, John ‘said that he was the king's son and that the kingdom of England belonged to him by right of blood. He claimed that he had been taken from the cradle, and that the king who now reigned was put in his place … Then word reached the king and the man was at once arrested by the king's order, and brought before the lord king the next day. Even brought face to face with the king he did not deny what he had already said, but stated firmly that he was the true heir to the kingdom, and that the king had no right to reign.’²³¹ In the Lanercost chronicle version of events Edward received John with derision: ‘“You are well come, my brother, yet you are not my brother, but falsely claim the kingdom for yourself, for you have not one drop of the blood of the illustrious Edward, and I am prepared to prove it against you, or any other in your place”.’²³² In another account, Edward laughed at John's claim and suggested that he be given a ‘bauble’ and allowed to go around as a fool;²³³ according to the Vita Isabella was extremely angry while others realized the danger to the king and to the kingdom as rumours of the event spread rapidly. After Edward was advised very strongly that such a public challenge to his royal status could not go unpunished, John's parents were summoned from Exeter to Northampton to swear at his trial that he was their son; after which he was executed by hanging on or about 23 July.²³⁴ Although the incident took place when the negotiations between Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster were entering their final and most delicate stage, there is nothing to suggest that John of Powderham was in any way connected with Lancaster or that his actions were intended to embarrass Edward II politically.²³⁵ Two chroniclers, those of Osney in Oxford and Meaux in Yorkshire, describe John asliteratus or scriptor, which implies that he may have had some degree of learning and was either connected with the university of Oxford or was pursuing a livelihood on its fringes.²³⁶ The coincidence that John came from Exeter and that Walter Stapeldon the bishop of Exeter had recently founded a new college in Oxford might suggest that the impostor was in some way connected with it; but there is no evidence to support such a conjecture.²³⁷ Many of the chroniclers claim that John was driven to his actions by a pact he had made with the devil: this is interesting in the context of contemporary beliefs in the practice of witchcraft, but does nothing to provide a real explanation of John's behaviour.²³⁸ In the absence of any more specific evidence the most likely answer is that John of Powderham was a deranged individual acting for reasons of his own.²³⁹

EDWARD II AND THE HOLY OIL OF ST THOMAS OF CANTERBURY²⁴⁰

The John of Powderham episode was deeply embarrassing for Edward II, in that it came at such a delicate time in national affairs, in that news of the event spread around the country so fast, and in that it may have suggested to some that a king who indulged in undignified and unkingly pursuits was perhaps not really a king at all.²⁴¹ It was even more embarrassing since in the summer of 1318 Edward was also attempting to find an answer to his political troubles by giving renewed emphasis to the sacred character of his kingship which he had acquired at his coronation in 1308.

In the spring or early summer of 1319 Pope John XXII sent a long and circumstantial letter to Edward II in which he recorded a very strange story which he had been told by a Dominican friar, named only as Brother N, who had recently been sent to Avignon as a royal envoy.²⁴² Since the friar's story was so remarkable the pope wanted to ensure that Edward knew exactly what had been said on his behalf. During a private meeting with the pope Brother N told how the Virgin Mary had appeared to the archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket when he was in exile in France after 1164. She had revealed that the fifth king of England from the one then reigning (i.e. Henry II) would be a good man and a champion of the Church (i.e. Edward II); she had also given Becket a phial of holy oil by whose virtue this king would recover the Holy Land from the heathen. Becket had hidden the oil in the monastery of St Cyprian at Poitiers but, as she predicted would happen, it was rediscovered by two Christian subjects of the king of the heathen. According to Brother N, the oil had then come into the possession of the king of Germany and later into that of the duke of Brabant. The duke had brought the oil with him to Edward II's coronation in 1308 but Edward, on the advice of his councillors, had turned down the suggestion that he should be anointed with it in favour of unction with the oil usually employed at English coronations. In order to convince the pope of the miraculous power of the oil, Brother N also told him that a single application of the oil had saved the countess of Luxemburg's life after she had cut herself severely with a knife.

Brother N ended his story by telling the pope that Edward II had reflected on the many misfortunes which had befallen himself and his kingdom and had concluded that these had occurred because of his rejection of the Holy Oil of St Thomas when it was offered to him by the duke of Brabant. Edward had decided that, if he were now to be anointed with the oil, all his troubles would be ended; but he did not wish to do so without papal approval.²⁴³

Brother N can readily be identified as the English Dominican friar Nicholas of Wisbech, presumably from the vicinity of Wisbech in Cambridgeshire.²⁴⁴ At some stage in his career he left England, since in 1299 he visited Edward I in England as an envoy of his son-in-law John and daughter Margaret, the duke and duchess of Brabant; he was again in England in April 1303 when he met both the king and Prince Edward and was described as the confessor of the duchess.²⁴⁵ Nicholas is not recorded in England again with certainty until February 1317 when he was present at Clarendon.²⁴⁶ In March 1317 he was sent to the papal curia at Avignon as a royal envoy and in January 1318 he was ordered to visit both the curia and the duke of Brabant. In June 1318 the pope authorized Nicholas to take another member of his order and to go wherever the king told him; and in July he was appointed as a papal penitentiary.²⁴⁷

As to the Holy Oil itself, it was true, as Brother Nicholas was later to inform the pope, that something significant had happened when the duke of Brabant attended Edward II's coronation in 1308. On that occasion the duke restored to Edward a collection of jewels which had once belonged to Edward I but which had come into the hands of the duke in 1297 when Edward I gave them as security during his campaign in Flanders at a time when he was desperately short of money to pay his allies. Payment was completed in 1305, after which the jewels were available to be returned to his son in 1308.²⁴⁸ One item however was not returned in 1308: a gold cross which seems to have had some connection with the Holy Oil, and may even have contained the ampulla, since in 1318 Nicholas of Wisbech went to collect the cross from Brabant before going to Avignon on behalf of Edward II.²⁴⁹ If this line of argument is correct, it implies that the story of the Holy Oil of St Thomas was already current in England before the reign of Edward II and that Nicholas of Wisbech could have taken the knowledge with him when he went to Brabant as confessor to Edward I's daughter Margaret, either before or at about the same time as the cross itself was left with the duke.

In his conversation with the pope Brother Nicholas claimed that the Holy Oil had been in the possession of the king of Germany before coming into the hands of the duke of Brabant. Nicholas may simply, of course, have been trying to provide the oil with an impressive-sounding pedigree, but it is possible that he was thinking of Richard of Cornwall, the uncle of Edward I, who was elected king of the Romans and crowned at Aachen in 1257. In 1268 Richard and his son Edmund brought a large collection of relics back to England from Germany, where there was an elaborate cult of St Thomas Becket,²⁵⁰ and it is possible that the alleged Holy Oil of St Thomas was among them.²⁵¹

As already noted, the future Edward II had met Nicholas of Wisbech as far back as 1303; it is also likely that Nicholas accompanied the duke and duchess to Edward II's coronation in 1308 and that he had something to do with bringing the Holy Oil to the king's notice on that occasion. Throughout his life Edward was particularly devoted to the Dominican order and its individual members and was probably easily influenced by a plausible holy man who told him a story which seemed to offer an answer to his problems. Edward's piety and his gullibility in religious matters produced a dangerous combination.²⁵² It is not however until the time of Nicholas's appearance at Clarendon in February 1317 that we can infer that something significant was happening. Since this was also the occasion of an important meeting of the royal council, it is probable that the Holy Oil was discussed, together with the equally unrealistic proposal from Jean de Fiennes, an important magnate in the county of Ponthieu, that Edward II should lay claim to a share of the kingdom of France,²⁵³ and other far more pressing affairs of state, such as Edward II's relations with Lancaster and the war with Scotland.

The likely sequence of events is that when Nicholas of Wisbech went to Avignon in March 1317 he did so in order to inform the pope about the Holy Oil; that the pope refused to believe the story without further evidence; and that when Nicholas was sent back to Brabant in early 1318 to collect the gold cross associated with the Holy Oil and then continued on to Avignon he conveyed a request from Edward to be allowed to receive unction with the Holy Oil. During the summer of 1318 when the negotiations between Edward and Lancaster were at their most critical stage, tension was high among Edward's favourites and allies, and when the impostor John of Powderham made his notorious appearance at Oxford, Edward was also anxiously awaiting news from Avignon. His prayers at the shrine of St Thomas at Canterbury on 13 June, a few days before the birth of his daughter Eleanor, were for more than Isabella's safe delivery.²⁵⁴

¹ C 49/ File 4, no.19; Phillips, ‘Documents’, 268–9.

² Phillips, 103. The earl of Pembroke, acting on the king's behalf, ensured that the monks of Winchester exercised their freedom of election in the desired way: SC 1/49/ 35, 36.

³ CCR, 1313–18, 322.

⁴ Lancaster was still formally in overall charge of the defences of the north, as he had been since Aug. 1315: Maddicott, 188.

⁵ Commissions for the assessment and collection of the fifteenth granted at Lincoln were issued on 8 June 1316, but no attempt was yet made to levy the tax, because the reforms promised by the king in exchange for these grants and the selection of armed men had been delayed. On 25 June an assembly of knights was summoned to meet at Lincoln on 29 July, and at this assembly, on or before 5 Aug., a grant of a sixteenth was substituted for the earlier grant of foot soldiers. Commissions for the assessment and collection of this sixteenth were issued on 5 Aug., significantly on the same day that concessions made by the king concerning the forest were enacted. The tax was to be paid in two halves, one on 3 Nov. 1316, the other on 25 Apr. 1317: Lay Taxes, 33; Maddicott, 182, 185; PW, II, ii, 158–9, 161–3, 166–7, 464.

⁶ Foedera, II, i, 295–6; Maddicott, 186.

⁷ SAL Ms. 120, f. 14;C 53/103, mm.20, 21; Phillips, 104; Maddicott, 187.

⁸ SAL Ms. 120, f. 14; CPR, 1313–17, 548; Phillips, 104. The fact that Edward granted the pardon with the advice of four of his most influential and trusted advisers, the earls of Pembroke and Hereford, Bartholomew de Badlesmere and Antonio Pessagno, shows how important this concession was.

⁹ McNamee, 81–4, including map on 83. Although there is no documentary evidence of one, there may have been an informal truce lasting until this time. The Scots had also been heavily engaged in Ireland earlier in the year: McNamee, 81.

¹⁰ For a contemporary account see Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense, ed. T. Duffus Hardy, ii, Rolls ser. (London, 1873), 834, 1124, 1310; Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Soc., ix (Edinburgh, 1839), 97–9; Phillips, 105.

¹¹ Maddicott, 204.

¹² Lancaster had also been building a powerful new castle at Dunstanburgh on the coast of Northumberland since 1313, initially at least without royal licence: ibid., 24–5, 171.

¹³ C 81/1706/37; SC 1/49/37.

¹⁴ SAL Ms. 120, f. 72; Hist. Dunelm. Script. Tres, App., doc. 95.

¹⁵ Hist. Dunelm. Script. Tres, 98–9; Phillips, 105, n. 4; Maddicott, 204.

¹⁶ SC 7/56/5; Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1300–1541, vi, Northern Province, ed. B. Jones (London, 1963), 107. See also the biography of Beaumont by C.M. Fraser in Oxford DNB. Edward wrote to the pope on 23 Nov. describing Beaumont as better qualified to defend Durham against the Scots than Stamford: Foedera, II, I, 302.

¹⁷ Doherty (D.Phil.), 59–61. It is significant that on 1 Dec. 1316, with the approval of his council, Edward granted Isabella 11,000 marks a year for the expenses of her household; the value of the queen's lands in England was however included in this figure so that the actual amounts she received from the exchequer between then and the summer of 1318 were considerably less: E 403/180, m.7;E 403/181, m.2;E 403/182, m.2;E 403/184, m.12. In March 1318 Isabella was granted permanent dower land to provide her with an income of £4,500: CPR, 1317–21, 115–16.

¹⁸ Vita, 130–1. Other chroniclers also emphasized the distrust between Edward and Lancaster: Flores, 341; Lanercost, 233; Maddicott, 188. There is no evidence to support the rumours of Lancaster's complicity with the Scots in 1316, but they were to be powerfully renewed in 1319 at the time of Edward II's unsuccessful siege of Berwick and again during the civil war of 1321–2.

¹⁹ E 101/68/2/37; SAL Ms. 120, ff. 44–6; CPR, 1313–17, 563; CFR, 1307–19, 312; Phillips, 106; Maddicott, 188. For the details of the defensive measures on the Scottish border see McNamee, 149–51. On 4 Jan. 1317, 16 English magnates with lands in Ireland were ordered to go there to assist in their defence against the Scots: Foedera, II, i, 309; Phillips, ‘Anglo-Norman nobility’, in The English in Medieval Ireland, ed. J.F. Lydon (Dublin, 1984), 98–9.

²⁰ E 101/68/2/36; Foedera, II, i, 302; CCR, 1313–18, 472. The decision was taken with the advice of the earl of Pembroke, Antonio Pessagno and William de Montacute (one of a number of royal knights whose influence was now growing). One of the envoys was John d'Eure, the constable of Pembroke's castle of Mitford in Northumberland: Phillips, 106.

²¹ PROME, Parliament of Jan. 1316, SC 9/20, item 9. The outcome of this decision would soon become apparent.

²² The pope had been elected on about 7 Aug. 1316 after a vacancy which had lasted since April 1314. News of the election reached Edward II on 17 Aug. via an agent of the Florentine bankers, the Bardi: SAL Ms. 120, f. 48. Edward II sent the pope as gifts ‘upon his new creation’, two embroidered choir-copes, and a gold ewer and matching gold basin, valued in all at over £360: Wright, The Church and the English Crown, App. 2, 283.

²³ E 404/1/6; SC 1/49/38. An embassy was already being considered as early as 16 Sept., shortly after receipt of the official news of John XXII's election: Foedera, II, i, 297.

²⁴ The most prominent members of the council were Walter Reynolds the archbishop of Canterbury, John Sandal bishop of Winchester and chancellor, Walter de Norwich the treasurer, the earl of Pembroke, and Bartholomew de Badlesmere. For the correspondence exchanged between the king and the council see CCW, 450–9.

²⁵ Vita, 134–5. Edward had already tried this tactic in 1312 but without success. The Ordinances may have been the subject of the ‘secret business’ to be explained to the pope by the ambassadors: Foedera, II, i, 312.

²⁶ SC 1/49/ 39; SC 1/45, 192; Phillips, 108.

²⁷ Foedera, II, i, 304; CCW, 452; Phillips, 108.

²⁸ SC 1/49/38; Phillips, 110.

²⁹ SC 1/45/192; CCW, 455; Foedera, II, i, 309. Philip's elder brother, Louis X, had died in June 1316, leaving his widow Clemence of Hungary pregnant. She gave birth on 15 Nov. to a son John who lived for only five days. Philip then became king.

³⁰ SAL Ms. 120, f. 15. They returned to the king at Scrooby on 5 Dec.

³¹ Foedera, II, i, 302.

³² E 101/68/2/36; Foedera, II, i, 302; CCR, 1313–18, 472. It is possible that a truce for six months was agreed for the border between England and Scotland. This is suggested by Robert Bruce's departure for Ireland in Jan. 1317: McNamee, 151.

³³ SAL Ms. 120, f. 23v; Phillips, 109. On 19 Dec. Binstead left London for Nottingham at the king's orders to meet Scottish envoys who were expected there. These were not named but were probably Randolph and Menteith. It seems unlikely that any meeting took place since Binstead returned to London on 4 Jan: SAL Ms. 120, f. 25. Between March 1315 and July 1318 the notary Andrew de Tange was engaged in making copies of the documents bearing on England's claims to superiority over Scotland: Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, ed. Stones & Simpson, i, 45–7, 81–2; ii, 378–80. These were intended for use in negotiations concerning Scotland and were so used in 1320–21: ibid., ii, 381. One period for which he was paid covered 8 July to 24 Nov. 1316 and raises the question of whether Edward II and his advisers considered making use of this material in 1316–17, either in direct negotiations with the Scots or as evidence to be supplied to the pope.

³⁴ SAL Ms. 120, f. 27; Phillips, 109.

³⁵ Foedera, II, i, 305; Phillips, 109. Eleven people were written to altogether. These included Adam Orleton, the future bishop of Hereford, who was to play a key role in Edward II's eventual downfall; Adam Murimuth, author of an important narrative source for the reign of Edward II; Thomas Cobham, the unsuccessful candidate for Canterbury in 1313; William Melton and Alexander Bicknor, who had been elected as archbishop of York and of Dublin respectively and were awaiting papal confirmation; and two semi-permanent agents of the English crown at the papal curia, Andreas Sapiti and Raymond Subiran.

³⁶ SC 1/45/192; Foedera, II, i, 308; Phillips, 109.

³⁷ SC 1/45/192; E 404/1/6; SAL Ms. 120, ff. 53v, 54; CPR, 1313–17, 608; Phillips, 109.

³⁸ E 404/1/6. Edward II's stepmother, Queen Margaret, had evidently been consulted, since the presents she had sent to Clement V on a previous occasion were to be used as a guide. The gifts presented to the pope in 1317 included gold plate enamelled in part with the arms of John XXII and Edward II: Wright, The Church and the English Crown, App. 2, 283.

³⁹ Foedera, II, i, 302–3; Phillips, 109–10. The bishop of Ely was John de Hothum, who had played such an important role in Ireland in 1315–16.

⁴⁰ Foedera, II, i, 319–20; Lunt, Financial Relations, 166–9. These two sources of revenue yielded the exchequer about £19,500 and £18,500 respectively. Not surprisingly, the loan was never repaid: Lunt, 402–6. These sums were in addition to the subsidies granted to the king by the provinces of Canterbury and York in Oct. and Nov. 1316.

⁴¹ Foedera, II, i, 322–4. This was not the end of the story, which contributed to serious problems in the duchy in 1318: Phillips, 182; Vale, 132–4.

⁴² Lunt, Financial Relations, 166–9.

⁴³ Foedera, II, i, 302–22. The provision of Louis de Beaumont to Durham had already been confirmed by Feb.: ibid., 316.

⁴⁴ Foedera, II, i, 319, 321; Haines, The Church and Politics, 16–19.

⁴⁵ Vita, 138–9.

⁴⁶ Foedera, II, i, 321–2, 327–8; CPL, 1305–42, 127; Phillips, 111.

⁴⁷ SAL Ms. 120, ff. 23v, 24; Phillips, 111.

⁴⁸ He was lord of Montignac near Angoulême and of other lands in the region: Phillips, 2–3, 338.

⁴⁹ Foedera, II, i, 329; CPL, 1305–42, 240. What follows is traced in more detail in Phillips, 111–17.

⁵⁰ Foedera, II, i, 329.

⁵¹ Scalacronica, 78–9, 230.

⁵² Phillips, 111–12. In May 1313, for example, Lamouilly had been assigned the issues of wardships and marriages in royal hands in payment of £711, but the following Aug. Hugh Despenser the Elder was given priority of payment from the same source: CPR, 1307–13, 570; CPR, 1313–17, 7, 100–1.

⁵³ Phillips, 114–15. For details of Surrey's marriage and his attempts to end it see Fairbank, ‘The last earl of Warenne and Surrey’, and the article on Surrey by S. L. Waugh in the Oxford DNB.

⁵⁴ In Oct. 1317 the earl of Surrey granted Pembroke the towns of Grantham and Stamford, to be held until he had recovered a sum of £4,000, which he had paid on Surrey's behalf while overseas: CPR, 1313–17, 40, 48; Phillips, 195.

⁵⁵ Phillips, 115.

⁵⁶ CPR, 1317–21, 6, 9; Phillips, 116.

⁵⁷ E 403/180, m.5; SAL Ms. 120, f. 27v; Foedera, II, i, 329–30; Phillips, 114–16.

⁵⁸ The news was brought by one of Pembroke's messengers, who was rewarded with a gold cup. Edward wrote to Pembroke on the same day asking him to hurry back to England as quickly as possible: SAL Ms. 120, f. 93; SC 1/49/40, 41; Phillips, 116.

⁵⁹ SAL Ms. 120, ff. 24, 27v, 54v; E 368/89, m.21; E 101/371/8/30. The council rewarded the count of Aumale with a horse, saddle and £40 in cash. Three of his retainers were also rewarded: E 101/371/8/30; SAL Ms. 121, ff. 28, 66v.

⁶⁰ E 101/15/11/4; E 101/15/14/4; Phillips, 117.

⁶¹ SC 1/49/39; Phillips, 117.

⁶² C 53/103, mm.12–15; CCW, 460; CCR, 1313–18, 451; Trivet (Cont.), 20; Phillips, 118; Maddicott, 190–1.

⁶³ Another item which was certainly discussed was the proposal that Edward II should claim a share of the kingdom of France in right of his wife: Chaplais in, ‘Un Message de Jean de Fiennes à Édouard II et le projet de démembrement du royaume de France (Janvier 1317)’, Revue du Nord, xliii (1961), 145–8; repr. in P. Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981), item X.

⁶⁴ CCR, 1313–18, 449–56, 459; Phillips, 118; Maddicott, 191.

⁶⁵ SAL Ms. 120, f. 26; CCR, 1313–18, 459; Phillips, 118–19; Maddicott, 191. The two envoys returned to the king on 5 April.

⁶⁶ CPR, 1317–21, 225. Edward probably anticipated a delay in Lancaster's appearance and on 13 April appointed the earl of Hereford, the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Exeter to conduct the council until his own arrival: CPR, 1313–17, 634; Phillips, 119; Maddicott, 191.

⁶⁷ SAL Ms. 120, f. 25v; Phillips, 119; Maddicott, 191. Burton returned on 2 May.

⁶⁸ C 53/103, mm.12–15; Trivet (Cont.), 20–1; Historia Anglicana, 148 (the date is very clearly given as Monday before the Ascension, 9 May); Phillips, 119; Maddicott, 197 (where the date of the abduction is wrongly given as 11 April). The affair is described in Trivet as ‘primus Concilii ramus apud Clarendoniam tenti’. The king is also accused of complicity in Flores, 178.

⁶⁹ What these were is unknown. They may have had something to do with the rivalry between Lancaster and Surrey over lands in Yorkshire and in North Wales, but this seems to have been a consequence rather than a cause of their enmity.

⁷⁰ Melsa, 335; Maddicott, 197. According to the chronicle of Dunmow, Essex, Surrey is said to have claimed that the countess of Lancaster had promised to marry him, but given that in 1317 Surrey was deeply involved in trying to marry his mistress, Maud de Neyrford, this proposition is not plausible: BL, Cotton Ms. Cleopatra C. III, f. 295v; Phillips, 120.

⁷¹ Phillips, 120, 170–1, 183; Maddicott, 232–7, 316–18.

⁷² SAL Ms. 120, f. 30v; Phillips, 120; Maddicott, 191.

⁷³ SAL Ms. 120, f. 54; Trinity College, Cambridge, Ms. R.5.41, f. 113v (continuation of the chronicle of Gervase of Canterbury); Phillips, 120. The cardinals were at Canterbury on 24 June.

⁷⁴ CCR, 1313–18, 482; PW, II, ii, 197; Phillips, 120–1; Maddicott, 191.

⁷⁵ The letters and Lancaster's replies are known only from the copies in Murimuth, 271–4; and Gesta Edwardi, 50–2; Phillips, 97, 121; Maddicott, 182, 192.

⁷⁶ Vita, 136–9.

⁷⁷ Phillips, 121–2; Maddicott, 192–3. It is likely that during the periods in 1315 and 1316 when Lancaster was active as a member or as head of the king's council, and was consequently in close proximity to the king, he lived in fear of his life. This would help to explain the brevity of these periods.

⁷⁸ Murimuth, 271–4; Gesta Edwardi, 50–2. There is direct evidence that Lancaster was gathering military force in the indentures made with him by Adam de Swilyngton at Tutbury on 21 June and by Hugh de Meignel at Ashbourne-in-the-Peak on 24 July: Bod., Dodsworth Ms. 94, f. 122v, Dugdale Ms. 778, f. 39v; Phillips, 122; Maddicott, 192.

⁷⁹ Edward had the retinues, each of 30 men, belonging to three of his household knights, John Giffard, John Cromwell and John de Somery, who had recently contracted to provide him with military service: SAL Ms. 121, ff. 28v, 29v, 31; Phillips, 122.

⁸⁰ SC 1/49/42; Phillips, 122. Although Arundel made an incursion into Scotland in March 1317, while Robert Bruce was absent in Ireland, and had also sent ships to raid the east coast, there was little serious fighting in 1317. Bruce returned to Scotland in May to meet these threats from Arundel but there is nothing to suggest a Scottish invasion of England in July: McNamee, 151. The reports probably reflected the nervousness of the time rather than actual events.

⁸¹ Trivet (Cont.), 20; Flores, 178; Vita, 136–7; Historia Anglicana, i, 148, 150; Phillips, 119; Maddicott, 191.

⁸² Phillips, 132–3; Maddicott, 195.

⁸³ Phillips, 131; Maddicott, 192–3.

⁸⁴ E 101/373/26, f. 23v; E 101/373/8, f. 35v; C 81/90/3241: CPR, 1313–1317, 666; Phillips, 131; Maddicott, 193; A. Tebbit, ‘Royal patronage and political allegiance’, in Thirteenth Century England, x, ed. M. Prestwich, R. Britnell & R. Frame (2005), 200–3. They all came from families closely associated with royal service and probably owed their initial positions in the household to this fact: Phillips, 131–2; Maddicott, 193–4. For further details on all three men see the articles in the Oxford DNB.

⁸⁵ C 81/90/3241; Phillips, 131–2; Maddicott, 193–4.

⁸⁶ Phillips, 132; Maddicott, 194.

⁸⁷ Phillips, 132; Maddicott, 194.

⁸⁸ Trivet (Cont.), 20; Flores, 178; Vita, 136–7, 150–1; Historia Anglicana, i, 148, 150; Phillips, 119, 132; Maddicott, 191, 193.

⁸⁹ Montacute was already married but in April 1317 his younger son John was married in the royal chapel at Windsor to one of the heiresses of Theobald de Verdon, lord of Alton in Staffordshire and of lands in Meath in Ireland.

⁹⁰ On the extended value of the lands in 1317 (at the time of their partition) see J.C. Ward, ‘The estates of the Clare family, 1066–1317’ (Ph.D., London, 1962), 281; G.A. Holmes, The Estates of the Higher Nobility in Fourteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1957), 35–8; Phillips, 243.

⁹¹ PROME, Parliament of Jan. 1316, SC 9/20, item 9.

⁹² Maddicott, 190–1.

⁹³ PROME, Parliament of Jan. 1316, SC 9/20, item 10. Formal orders for the partition were given on 12 May: C 81/100/4231.

⁹⁴ Audley married in the king's presence at Windsor on the same day as Montacute's son: SAL Ms. 120, f. 10. Damory married between 10 April and 3 May: CPR, 1317–21, 641, 644; Phillips, 132; Maddicott, 193.

⁹⁵ For a detailed study of the partition see M. Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England (Baltimore, 1965), 165–74, 304–5.

⁹⁶ Maddicott, 193. Montacute also received a summons. Despenser had been attending parliaments since Sept. 1314.

⁹⁷ Vita, 136–7, 150–1: the two Despensers and the earl of Surrey were included in the list as well as Audley, Damory and Montacute.

⁹⁸ Trokelowe, 98–9; Historia Anglicana, 149–50; Maddicott, 197; Prestwich, Plantagenet England, 203.

⁹⁹ Those limits were reached and far exceeded in the civil war of 1321–2.Of 52 household bannerets and knights serving Edward II in 1316 only eight were still in the household by 1322; and 25 knights who had belonged to the household between 1314 and 1321 ultimately fought against Edward in the civil war: Tebbit, ‘Royal patronage’, 197; M.C. Prestwich, ‘The unreliability of royal household knights in the early fourteenth century’, in Fourteenth Century England, ii, ed. C. Given-Wilson (Woodbridge, Suffolk & Rochester, NY, 2002), 1–12.

¹⁰⁰ CCR, 1313–18, 477;E 163/3/6, m.1; Phillips, 133; Maddicott, 195–6; Prestwich, Plantagenet England, 203. The bonds were payable on 29 Sept. following. Each bound himself to all the others, except for the Despensers, who did not bind one another. Davies, Baronial Opposition, 434, saw the bonds as marking the formation of a court party which later became absorbed in the earl of Pembroke's so-called ‘middle party’. It was a court party in the sense that it comprised those who had benefited most from royal patronage and had most to lose, but allegiance to the king covered a much wider range of magnates, including Pembroke and others.

¹⁰¹ Vita, 138–9.

¹⁰² PW, II, ii, 198.

¹⁰³ Trivet (Cont.), 23; Phillips, 123–4. Henry de Pateshull, who went to Lancaster on royal business on 18 Aug., was probably sent to announce the mission. The mission to Pontefract is discussed in Maddicott, 208–9, where an undated document preserved in Bod., Dodsworth Ms. 8, f. 262 (text printed in Maddicott, 336–7) is interpreted as the text of an agreement between Lancaster and the prelates made on this occasion, in Sept. 1317. My own interpretation of this document differs substantially. Although there can be no certainty as to the date, I believe that the document is more likely to belong to the negotiations between Lancaster and the prelates held at Leicester in April 1318 and I shall consider it under that date: see Phillips, 155–8, 319–20 (text), and the present chapter.

¹⁰⁴ Vita, 138–41; Phillips, 124.

¹⁰⁵ Phillips, 124. During 1317 and 1318, 12 archbishops and bishops were involved as mediators at various stages. In the period 1318–20, 17 out of 23 bishops were active in this way: Maddicott, 214, citing K. Edwards, ‘The political importance of the English bishops during the reign of Edward II’, EHR, lix (1944), 311–47, esp. 331. To this paper should be added R. M. Haines, ‘The episcopate during the reign of Edward II and the regency of Mortimer and Isabella’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, lvi (2005), 657–709, esp. 674, 678–80.

¹⁰⁶ Trivet (Cont.), 23; Vita, 140–1; Phillips, 125; Maddicott, 208.

¹⁰⁷ On Lancaster's use of the stewardship to advance his claims to authority within the kingdom see Vita, 140, n. 273; Maddicott, 76–7, 241–3.

¹⁰⁸ SAL 121, ff. 19v, 29v, 31; Phillips, 125. Badlesmere, for example, had 32 men with him: C 71/10, m.17.

¹⁰⁹ SAL Ms. 121, f. 43; Vita, 140–1; Phillips, 125.

¹¹⁰ Vita, 140–1. Lancaster had, for example, sealed five indentures of retainer with individual knights in June and July 1317: Maddicott, 203, n. 2.

¹¹¹ Reg. Palat. Dunelm., iv, 394; Hist. Dunelm. Script. Tres, 100; Melsa, 334; Vita, 142–5; Phillips, 125–6; Maddicott, 204–6. The most detailed treatments of the episode are those of A.E. Middleton, Sir Gilbert de Middleton (Newcastle, 1918) and M. Prestwich, ‘Gilbert de Middleton and the attack on the cardinals, 1317’, in Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages, ed. T. Reuter (London, 1992), 179–94.

¹¹² On 10 Sept. Edward wrote from York to tell the pope of the attack and to express his horror at what had happened: Foedera, II, ii, 341.

¹¹³ Prestwich, ‘Gilbert de Middleton’, 186–7. Middleton and Lilburn were listed as household knights at Christmas 1315, but their association with the crown was the result of the large-scale recruitment of locally based knights undertaken in 1314–15 to secure the defence of the north rather than any long-term connection. I would not therefore agree with Professor Prestwich's conclusion that ‘the events at Rushyford illustrate the consequences of factional disputes in an unhappy court’: ibid., 194.

¹¹⁴ Phillips, 126. Pembroke had appointed Eure as constable on 15 Nov. 1316, as part of the arrangements then being made for the defence of the north: E 101/68/2/36.

¹¹⁵ Trivet (Cont.), 23; Maddicott, 205.

¹¹⁶ Maddicott, 205–7.

¹¹⁷ Bod., Dugdale Ms. 18, f. 39v; Maddicott, 203; Phillips, 127. Eure and other retainers of Lancaster were exempted from the general pardon given to Lancaster's followers in 1318 because of the robbery of the cardinals: CPR, 1317–21, 233–5; Maddicott, 205.

¹¹⁸ Prestwich argues convincingly that Lancaster was not directly responsible and that the Scots were not involved: ‘Gilbert de Middleton’, 183–4, 185–6.

¹¹⁹ Middleton, Gilbert de Middleton, 25, citing Durham Treasury, Misc. Charters 4238; Phillips, 126; Maddicott, 204.

¹²⁰ Phillips, 127. Beaumont was eventually consecrated by the bishop of Winchester in Westminster Abbey on 26 March 1318, in the presence of the cardinals: Ann. Paul., 282.

¹²¹ Trokelowe, 100; Hist. Dunelm. Script. Tres, 100; Maddicott, 205.

¹²² Another connection between Lancaster and Middleton's activities and a possible cause of them may have been the arrest in Aug. 1317 of Middleton's cousin, Adam de Swinburne (a royal household knight since 1311), for speaking too rudement to the king about the condition of the Scottish March. When Swinburne was released in Oct. 1317 he was delivered to Lancaster: Maddicott, 206; Phillips, 152.

¹²³ SAL Ms. 121, f. 7; Hist. Dunelm. Script. Tres, 100; Melsa, 334; Phillips, 128; Maddicott, 206–7. Lancaster then returned to Pontefract: Trivet (Cont.), 23.

¹²⁴ SC 1/49/43; PW, II, ii, 171; Trivet (Cont.), 23; Flores, 180; Vita, 140–1; Phillips, 128–9; Maddicott, 209–10. The announcement on 24 Sept. recorded only the intention to hold a parliament on 27 Jan. The formal summons was issued only on 20 Nov.: PW, II, ii, 175.

¹²⁵ C 17/10, m.16.

¹²⁶ E 163/4/7/1; CPR, 1317–21, 27, 29; Phillips, 129.

¹²⁷ SAL Ms. 121, f. 43; Trivet (Cont.), 23; Flores, 180–1; Phillips, 129; Maddicott, 210.

¹²⁸ Vita, 140–3; Trivet (Cont.), 24; Flores, 181; Phillips, 129–30; Maddicott, 210. The speech attributed to Pembroke in the Vita Edwardi Secundi was of course invented but it almost certainly represents the opinions expressed by him.

¹²⁹ CFR, 1307–19, 225, 346–7; Foedera, II, i, 345–6; CPR, 1317–21, 34, 38, 46; Phillips, 127, 134; Maddicott, 207. Damory's lands were restored to him on 2 Dec.: CPR, 1317–21, 58.

¹³⁰ Phillips, 128; Maddicott, 206. The record of Middleton's trial is printed in Middleton, Gilbert de Middleton, 57, from Abbrevatio Placitorum, Record Commission (London, 1811), 329.

¹³¹ CCR, 1313–18, 554, 575; Phillips, 133–4, 165; Maddicott, 207–8, 220.

¹³² Foedera, II, ii, 343; CPR, 1317–21, 46; CFR, 1307–19, 344; CCR, 1313–18, 504–5; Phillips, 151–2. In March 1318 Edward granted Leeds (previously held for life by Edward I's widow, Queen Margaret) to Badlesmere: CPR, 1317–21, 128.

¹³³ E 368/88, m.112; E 159/91, m.40d; Phillips, 152. The Bardi and their sister Florentine company, the Peruzzi, were a major source of credit for the crown and a safe place for magnates such as the Despensers to deposit their accumulated wealth: see E.B. Fryde, ‘The deposits of Hugh Despenser the Younger with Italian bankers’, in Fryde, Studies in Medieval Trade and Finance (London, 1983), item III, 344–62, esp. 355–7.

¹³⁴ C 81/93/3556; C 81/102/4482, 4491, 4495; C 61/32, m.16; Foedera, II, ii, 346–7; Phillips, 182. Pessagno was very much in favour, having been given £3,000 in Nov. 1315 when he became a royal knight and a further £3,000 in Oct. 1317. These large payments were probably disguised interest for the loans he made to Edward II, amounting in total between April 1312 and Jan. 1319 to almost £144,000: see the article on Pessagno by E.B. Fryde in Oxford DNB.

¹³⁵ E 163/4/6; Phillips, 135; Maddicott, 211–12. The text is printed in Phillips, App. 4, 319–20; and in PW, II, ii, App., 120, and Davies, Baronial Opposition, App., no. 42.

¹³⁶ For a discussion of how the ‘middle party’ interpretation came into being and the contribution to it of Stubbs, Tout and Davies see Phillips, 135–41. Cf. Maddicott, 211–12. Some of the major statements of the ‘middle party’ theory are to be found in Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii, 342; Tout, Place of the Reign (1st edn), 111–12, 144–5; Davies, Baronial Opposition, 429, 433–4, 437.

¹³⁷ See, for example, J.G. Edwards, ‘The negotiating of the Treaty of Leake, 1318’, in Essays in History presented to R.L. Poole, ed. H.W.C. Davis (Oxford, 1927), 360–78, esp. 376–7; and B. Wilkinson, ‘The negotiations preceding the “Treaty” of Leake, August 1318’, in Studies in Medieval History presented to F.M. Powicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin & R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), 333–53, esp. 336–9; B. Wilkinson, Constitutional History of Medieval England, ii, Politics and the Constitution, 1307–1399 (London, 1952), 16–19, 80; McKisack, The Fourteenth Century, 51–4.

¹³⁸ Notably Phillips, esp. ch. 5, ‘The “Middle Party” and the negotiating of the Treaty of Leake, 1318’; Phillips, ‘The “Middle Party” and the negotiating of the Treaty of Leake, August 1318’, BIHR, xlvii (1973), 11–27; and Maddicott, 199, 210 –13. In his textbook, The Later Middle Ages (London, 1969), 124, Wilkinson described the ‘middle party’ as ‘so-called’, while still making use of the interpretation, but otherwise the ‘middle party’ reigned supreme.

¹³⁹ See, for example, Prestwich, Plantagenet England, 202–3, where the ‘middle party’ is described as ‘a mirage’; and Raban, England under Edward I and Edward II, 148–9, where the events of 1317–18 are discussed without any mention of a ‘middle party’.

¹⁴⁰ For a short summary of both men's careers before Nov. 1317 see Phillips, 141–5. Ironically, like Damory, Badlesmere's earlier career had been spent in the service of the earl of Gloucester, until the latter's death at Bannockburn in 1314. This common experience may have given Badlesmere additional influence over Damory in 1317.

¹⁴¹ CFR, 1307–19, 350–1; Altschul, Baronial Family, 169.

¹⁴² Davies, Baronial Opposition, 434, wrongly believed that the indenture was kept secret from the king on the grounds of Edward's pardon to Badlesmere in Aug. 1321 for his breach of a certain ‘writing’: CPR, 1321–24, 21. The ‘writing’ instead referred to the two contracts which Badlesmere made to serve Edward in 1316 and 1317, which he broke by rebelling against the Despensers in 1321.

¹⁴³ SC 1/49/39: written on 19 Dec., shortly before Pembroke's departure for Avignon. The text is printed in Phillips, App. 4, 317. Edward promised to follow without default the advice that Pembroke had left him for the conduct of his government during his absence. In a most unusual personal touch, which indicates the respect Edward had for Pembroke, the king offered to act in person as Pembroke's attorney while he was abroad: Phillips, 110.

¹⁴⁴ It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine Edward I, for example, being persuaded to make rash decisions involving royal patronage in the way in which his son was to be influenced: see, for example, Prestwich, Edward I, 346–52, 537–40; K.B. McFarlane, ‘Had Edward I a “Policy” towards the earls?’, History, l (1965), 145–59. For a recent examination of the question see A. M. Spencer, ‘Royal patronage and the earls in the reign of Edward I’, History, xciii, no. 309 (2008), 20–46.

¹⁴⁵ E 101/68/2/42D: this is the original indenture, which has suffered damage. For the text see Phillips, App. 3, 314–15. The 500 marks of land were given to him in the form of a grant in tail on 4 Nov. of Haverfordwest and Hertford, both of which he already held for life: CPR, 1317–21, 47; Phillips, 142–3.

¹⁴⁶ SAL Ms. 120, f. 45; SAL Ms. 121, f. 20v; C 81/101/4339; CPR, 1317–21, 14; Phillips, 145, 149, 312.

¹⁴⁷ E 403/180, m.3; CPR, 1313–17, 609; Phillips, 149, 313. The annual fee for a royal household knight was 10 marks, and 20 marks for a banneret, so Damory was being paid well above the usual rate.

¹⁴⁸ E 403/180, m.3; CPR, 1313–17, 609; Phillips, 149, 313.

¹⁴⁹ CPR, 1317–21, 572; CPR, 1327–30, 30; Phillips, 149, 314. The full text of Audley's contract was enrolled on the Patent Roll in 1321: C 66/154, m.17.

¹⁵⁰ E 404/1/7; SAL Ms. 121, f. 38; E 101/378/4, f. 16; CChR, 1300–26, 367; Phillips, 149, 312.

¹⁵¹ E 101/13/36/139; CPR, 1317–21, 56; Phillips, 149, 312, 314.

¹⁵² John de Mowbray, John Giffard, John de Somery, John de Segrave the Elder, Henry Fitz Hugh, William de Ros of Helmsley (alias Hamelak), John Cromwell, John Botetourt, John de Wysham, Giles de Beauchamp, William de la Zouche of Ashby: Phillips, 149; Maddicott, 203, 210–11. For the details see Phillips, App. 3, 313–14.

¹⁵³ E 101/68/2/37; CPR, 1313–17, 563; CFR, 1307–19, 312, 342; Phillips, 149–50.

¹⁵⁴ Among the classic statements of this view are Tout, Place of the Reign, and Davies, Baronial Opposition.

¹⁵⁵ Pembroke was also Edward II's cousin and Hereford was Edward's brother-in-law.

¹⁵⁶ Phillips, 283–7. Cf. Maddicott, 198–204, which is a critical but also a much more sympathetic view of Lancaster.

¹⁵⁷ In 1314–15, for example, Edward recruited large numbers of knights to his household. The contracts with the magnates were in essence very similar but on a much larger and politically more significant scale: Tebbit, ‘Royal patronage’, 203–4. The attempts to extend the bounds of military obligation by obtaining unpaid military service from the northern counties and individual vills however met with mixed success and became a source of grievance: Maddicott, 171–2; Powicke, Military Obligation, 142.

¹⁵⁸ Phillips, 150, 285–7.

¹⁵⁹ He had already shown some of this skill in the way in which he gradually wore down his opponents in 1312–13. This is a more favourable assessment of Edward II's ability than I expressed in my Aymer de Valence: Phillips, 150.

¹⁶⁰ Badlesmere lost his life in 1322, while Pembroke was arrested and forced to make a humiliating pledge of loyalty. Hugh Audley survived to become earl of Gloucester in 1337: CPR, 1321–24, 21; CCR, 1318–23, 563–4; CPR, 1327–30, 30; Phillips, 146, 151, 227, 314.

¹⁶¹ Alexander Bicknor, the former treasurer of Ireland, had been consecrated as archbishop at Avignon in Aug. 1317. He spent the following year in England before returning to Dublin in Oct. 1318.

¹⁶² SAL Ms. 121, f. 30; CCR, 1313–18, 585; Phillips, 153; Maddicott, 210. The archbishop was away for 15 days.

¹⁶³ Ann. Paul., 281; Phillips, 153–4.

¹⁶⁴ C 53/104, m.9; CCR, 1313–18, 586; Phillips, 154. The other prelates present were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Norwich, Chichester, Coventry & Lichfield, Bath & Wells, St David's, Worcester and Lincoln.

¹⁶⁵ CCR, 1313–18, 590; CPR, 1317–21, 69; Vita, 144–7; Phillips, 154; Maddicott, 213.

¹⁶⁶ Salmon was at Pontefract on 22 Jan.: Norfolk and Norwich Record Office, Register of John Salmon, f. 72; Phillips, 154. See also the article on Salmon by M.C. Buck in the Oxford DNB.

¹⁶⁷ Cambridge Univ. Ms. Ee. V. 31, f. 188v (register of H. of Eastry, prior of Canterbury); Trivet (Cont.), 26; CPR, 1317–21, 104; Phillips, 155; Maddicott, 214.

¹⁶⁸ PW, II, i, 178; CPR, 1317–21, 113; Phillips, 155.

¹⁶⁹ Vita, 146–7; Phillips, 158.

¹⁷⁰ SAL Ms. 121, f. 20v; CCR, 1313–18, 603; Phillips, 158; Maddicott, 215–16. Pembroke, Badlesmere and Reynolds rejoined Edward on about 20 April. The bishop of Norwich was at Leicester from 4 to 12 April: Reg. John Salmon, f. 74.

¹⁷¹ SAL Ms. 121, ff. 12v, 20v; Phillips, 159; Maddicott, 216.

¹⁷² Gesta Edwardi, 54–5; Phillips, 155–6; Maddicott, 216. Lancaster's seizure of Knaresborough had already been pardoned on 19 March: CPR, 1317–21, 123. It was highly improbable that the Despensers would ever agree to be bound in this way.

¹⁷³ Flores, 183–4; Phillips, 155.

¹⁷⁴ Knighton, i, 413; Phillips, 155.

¹⁷⁵ Vita, 146–7; Phillips, 156.

¹⁷⁶ The document is headed ‘Une accorde entre ercevesques e evesques dune parte e le conte de Lancastre daltre parte de dicto comite veniendo ad parliamentum’: Bod., Dodsworth Ms. 8, p. 262; Phillips, 157. The Latin words in the title were probably added by the transcriber. For the text and other details see Phillips, App. 4, 319–20. It is also published in Maddicott, 336–7, but under the suggested date of Sept. 1317.

¹⁷⁷ Knighton, i, 413; Phillips, 157.

¹⁷⁸ Gesta Edwardi, 54; Knighton, i, 413; Phillips, 157.

¹⁷⁹ A case can also be made, as in Maddicott, 208–9, for dating the document to the negotiations at Pontefract in Sept. 1317. However, so far as is known from chronicle sources, those negotiations were restricted to the simple question of Lancaster's attendance at parliament and did not refer to the Ordinances or to gifts made by the king. The document also implies, by Lancaster's promise not to commit armed attacks, that he had already been making these. In Sept. 1317 he had not yet attacked Damory or Surrey but had taken up arms between then and April 1318. In the end the dating comes down to a matter of judgement, with room for differing opinions. If the suggested dating of the document is correct, it adds further valuable evidence on the Leicester meeting and confirms the impression given by Knighton, who in respect of the negotiations in 1318 appears to have had access to material unused by or unknown to other writers, that the clergy played a prominent role at Leicester. This is fully in line with their earlier role both in mediating with Lancaster and in organizing the Leicester meeting.

Although he wrote well after 1318, Henry Knighton came from St Mary's house of Augustinian canons in Leicester which may have preserved evidence of the events of 1318. This was probably also the source of the Tutbury articles of June 1318: Knighton, i, 413–21; Phillips, 158. It is even possible, though there is no evidence to confirm this supposition, that the April 1318 meeting was held at St Mary's.

¹⁸⁰ The bishop of Norwich was back in London by 19 May, while the bishop of Winchester was there by 20 April: Reg. John Salmon, f. 75; Registers of John de Sandale and Rigaud de Asserio, Bishops of Winchester, 1316–23, ed. F.J. Baigent (Winchester, 1897), lx.

¹⁸¹ C 49/4/27, dated 2 June, is badly damaged along its right-hand side, contains several erasures and alterations made in the course of drafting, and was added from unsorted Chancery Miscellanea in Sept. 1922. The text is printed in Phillips, App. 4, 320–1.The other document, C 49/4/26, was edited and published by K. Salisbury as ‘A political agreement of June 1318’, EHR, xxxiii (1918), 81–3. For further discussion of the two documents see also Maddicott, 217–18.

¹⁸² ‘e autres grandz du roiaume’; Phillips, 161; Maddicott, 218.

¹⁸³ The castles of Harbottle, Wark and Mitford were lost in May, after which the Scots advanced to Ripon, Knaresborough and Skipton, and almost as far as Lancaster's fortress of Pontefract: Maddicott, 216; McNamee, 151–2. See also I. Kershaw, ‘A note on Scottish raids in the West Riding, 1316–18’, Northern History, xvii (1981), 231–9. Edward II's government had tried to anticipate a possible Scottish attack on 22 March 1318 when John Binstead, the earl of Angus and other envoys were sent to the Scottish March to discuss peace with Robert Bruce. They returned on 24 April, without any success: SAL Ms. 121, ff. 8, 8v, 10.

¹⁸⁴ ‘touz iointement e chescun de euz li a son poer ben e loialment conseilleront nostre seignur le Roi’: C 49/4/26 (this fills a gap in C 49/4/27); Phillips, 162.

¹⁸⁵ ‘des queux il se est esloigne ia une piece pur grosseur e malevolence de ceux qi sont pres du Roi, a ceo que home entente’: C 49/6/ 27; Phillips, 162.

¹⁸⁶ ‘ne se est done a conseiller ne aider a nostre seigneur le Roi en ses busoignes come li appent’: C 49/6/26; Phillips, 162.

¹⁸⁷ ‘en effroi du people, par quoi commune fame e voiz del people … est que par les dites enchesons les ditz maux sont avenuz’: C 49/6/26; Phillips, 162.

¹⁸⁸ ‘e noun covenable manere (plus que un autre grant du roiaume’): C 49/4/26 (which fills gap in C 49/4/27). (The text in parentheses was finally erased in the 2 June version); Phillips, 162.

¹⁸⁹ ‘sanz sovereinete a li accrocher vers les autres’: C 49/4/27 (one step further would have been to accuse Lancaster of encroaching upon the king's own sovereignty, as was the case in 1322 when he was charged with treason and executed); Phillips, 162, 225. Lancaster had already promised not to use force and to attend parliament when summoned in his agreement with the prelates at Leicester. The point of repeating the promise as a future demand in June was probably to ensure that it had a formal place in any final settlement.

¹⁹⁰ C 49/6/26. This point is not included in C 49/6/27; Phillips, 163.

¹⁹¹ C 49/6/26, 27; Phillips, 163.

¹⁹² Ann. Paul., 282; Flores, 184; Phillips, 164; Maddicott, 218–19.

¹⁹³ HMC, Various Collections, i, 267; Phillips, 164; Maddicott, 218.

¹⁹⁴ E 159/91, m.64d; E 368/88, m.92. The text of this order is printed in Maddicott, 337. The magnates who had been in receipt of royal patronage as part of their contracts of service with the king were potentially affected by this decision, as well as the obvious royal favourites. This was one area where Lancaster had a strong argument in his favour. Grants to at least three men, Hugh Audley the Younger, John Giffard and Jakinettus de Marigny (a member of Isabella's household), were revoked on 9 June: CFR, 1307–17, 374; CCR, 1318–23, 51, 64; Phillips, 164; Maddicott, 218–19.

¹⁹⁵ SC 1/63/183. This document was added to the class of Ancient Correspondence from unsorted miscellanea in December 1967. For the text see Phillips, App. 4, 321–2. Hugh Despenser the Younger was probably included in the guarantee by implication under his father's name, but his absence may again suggest that he was not yet recognized as a danger in his own right. John Charlton, the chamberlain of the king's household, was included because of his continuing dispute over possession of the lordship of Powys with Lancaster's banneret, Gruffudd de la Pole: Phillips, 164.

¹⁹⁶ ‘par encheson de nous a ce qe home dit’.

¹⁹⁷ Phillips, 164.

¹⁹⁸ CCR, 1313–18, 619, 622–3; Phillips, 167; Maddicott, 218.

¹⁹⁹ SC 8/177/8829–31; CCR, 1313–18, 554; Phillips, 165; Maddicott, 220.

²⁰⁰ DL 34/14; CPR, 1317–21, 162; Phillips, 167. However, Lancaster was still deeply suspicious of the intentions of the king and his favourites and instructed the constable of his castle of Bolingbroke to allow no one except members of the garrison to enter until the outcome of the Northampton meeting was known: Maddicott, 219.

²⁰¹ Foedera, II, i, 366; Phillips, 167. The place is wrongly given as Norham in CPR, 1317–21, 166.

²⁰² Knighton, i, 413; CCR, 1313–18, 619; Phillips, 165; Maddicott, 219, 221. Lancaster was already at Tutbury on 9 June: DL 34/14.

²⁰³ The document presented by the bishop and now known as the Tutbury articles is preserved in Knighton, i, 413–21. The printed text has been checked against both the manuscript copies, BL, Cotton Ms. Claudius E. III, ff. 233–4, and BL, Cotton Ms. Tiberius E. VII, ff. 121v–123, and is correct apart from minor misreadings: Phillips, 165–6.The Horninglow document is preserved in Foljambe Charters, App. 4, Osberton Hall, Worksop, and was made available to me by Dr Maddicott when it was on deposit at the Bodleian Library. The text is printed in Maddicott, App. 1, 337–8, and discussed in Maddicott, 220–3. This relationship between this document and the articles preserved in Knighton is proved by the citing of the first and last lines of the Knighton document.

²⁰⁴ Knighton, i, 413–15; Ordinance 7 of the Ordinances of 1311, under the heading of Articuli ordinati sunt isti in the Horninglow document; Phillips, 166; Maddicott, 221. As already noted, some grants had been resumed on 9 June: E 159/91, m.64d; CFR, 1307–17, 374; CCR, 1318–23, 51, 64.

²⁰⁵ Knighton, 418–21; Ordinance 13, under the heading of Les poyntes des ordinances sont tiels; Phillips, 166; Maddicott, 221–2.

²⁰⁶ Knighton, 415–17; Phillips, 166–7; Maddicott, 221. Lancaster was presumably referring to the guarantee of 11 June.

²⁰⁷ The details of this phase of the negotiations are contained in a number of letters written by the archbishop of Canterbury and by someone in his company: HMC, Various Collections, i, 220, 267–8.

²⁰⁸ Ibid., i, 220; Phillips, 167–8; Maddicott, 223. The bishop of Ely left Northampton on 4 July while the bishop of Norwich was at Burton-on-Trent on 6 July: CCR, 1313–18, 620; Reg. John Salmon, f. 76. The presence of the Younger Despenser in the delegation may be another indication that he was not yet regarded as a danger in the same way as his father or Damory and the other favourites.

²⁰⁹ HMC, Various Collections, i, 220; Phillips, 167–8; Maddicott, 223.

²¹⁰ HMC, Various Collections, i, 220; CCR, 1313–18, 620; Phillips, 167–8; Maddicott, 223.

²¹¹ HMC, Various Collections, i, 267–8; CCR, 1313–18, 620; Phillips, 168; Maddicott, 224.

²¹² HMC, Various Collections, i, 268; Phillips, 168; Maddicott, 224.

²¹³ It is not clear whether this was meant to be a permanent arrangement or to last for one year only.

²¹⁴ HMC, Various Collections, i, 267–8; Phillips, 168–9; Maddicott, 224–5.

²¹⁵ While Edward II was at Northampton he appointed Despenser as chamberlain of the household. This may have been intended in part to mollify Lancaster since the previous chamberlain, John Charlton, was personally hostile to him. Nonetheless it marked a significant development in the career and influence of Despenser and may also have been objectionable to Lancaster: Phillips, 174, 177; Maddicott, 225.

²¹⁶ HMC, Various Collections, i, 269; Phillips, 170.

²¹⁷ HMC, Various Collections, i, 267–9; Phillips, 168–70; Maddicott, 225. Although relying on first-hand information, the author was not actually present at Northampton. Another writer, who may well have been there, was the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi who reports that all of Lancaster's particular enemies, the earl of Surrey, Damory, the Despensers, Audley and Montacute, were at Northampton ‘in great strength, so that you would have thought they had come not to parliament, but to battle’: Vita, 150–1.

²¹⁸ HMC, Various Collections, i, 268; CCR, 1313–18, 620; CCR, 1318–23, 112; Phillips, 170; Maddicott, 226. The bishop of Ely dropped out at Leicester because of illness: CCR, 1313–18, 620.

²¹⁹ CPR, 1317–21, 199; Phillips, 170; Maddicott, 226. Some partial agreement had probably therefore been reached on 25 July.

²²⁰ HMC, Various Collections, i, 269; Phillips, 170; Maddicott, 226–7.

²²¹ The counterpart of the original indenture containing the treaty is E 163/4/7/2. Lancaster's copy was found among his muniments after his execution in 1322 (DL 41/1/37, m.7) but is no longer extant. The agreement was also enrolled on the Close Roll (CCR, 1318–23, 112–14; Foedera, II, i, 370) and on the Memoranda Roll (E 368/89, m.84). Those present at Leake were named in the indenture as the archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin; the bishops of Norwich, Ely, Chichester, Salisbury, Chester (i.e. Coventry & Lichfield), Winchester, Hereford and Worcester; the earls of Norfolk (Edward II's half-brother), Pembroke, Richmond, Hereford, Ulster, Arundel and Angus; Roger Mortimer (of Wigmore), John de Somery, John de Hastings, John de Segrave, Henry de Beaumont, Hugh Despenser the Younger, John de Grey, Richard de Grey, Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Robert de Monthaut, Ralph Bassett, Walter de Norwich. The cardinals are not named but there is no reason to doubt the archbishop's statement that they were present.

²²² Vita, 152–3. As the archbishop noted (HMC, Various Collections, i, 26), the earl of Surrey was not among those who witnessed the Treaty of Leake; neither were Lancaster's other great enemies, Hugh Despenser the Elder and the three favourites, Damory, Audley and Montacute. The Younger Despenser and another long-standing opponent of Lancaster, Henry de Beaumont, were present. It is clear however from the Vita that Damory and other favourites were not far from the scene. No one who was recognizably a follower of Lancaster was listed among the witnesses.

²²³ Foedera, II, i, 371; Phillips, 171 –2; Maddicott, 224, 226. Lancaster's adherents had already been pardoned on 31 July of all offences committed before 25 July: CPR, 1317–21, 199.

²²⁴ Vita, 150–1.

²²⁵ Vita, 150–3.

²²⁶ E 101/377/7, f. 6.

²²⁷ Prestwich, Edward I, 129–31.

²²⁸ See the article on Margaret by John Carmi Parsons in the Oxford DNB.

²²⁹ On 5 March 1318 Isabella was given permanent dower lands to provide her with an income of £4,500, in completion of the dower promised in 1299 in the original agreement for her marriage to the future Edward II. Some of these lands she already held but others came from the former dower of Queen Margaret: CPR, 1292–1301, 451–3; CPR, 1317–21, 115–16; Doherty (D.Phil.), 66.

²³⁰ SAL Ms. 121, ff. 2, 29v; Doherty (D.Phil.), 67.

²³¹ Vita, 148–9. A full account of this episode can be found in Childs, ‘“Welcome my brother.”’ Nearly all the evidence is preserved in chronicle sources, such as the Vita, the Ann. Paul., the Lanercost and Bridlington chronicles, the French prose Brut, and the Meaux chronicle, and many others: see Childs, 149–50.

²³² ‘“Bene veneris, frater mi”, respondit, “non es frater meus, sed falso vendicas tibi regnum, nec habes unam guttam sanguinis de Edwardo illustri, et itud sum paratus probare contra te, vel contra quemcunque alium loco tui”’: Lanercost, 236. Edward seems to be offering trial by battle if John persists in his claim.

²³³ Anonimalle, 94–5.

²³⁴ Vita, 148–9; Childs, ‘“Welcome my brother”’, 162. The trial, for which there is no official record, was probably conducted summarily in the court of the Marshalsea, presided over by William de Montacute, the steward of the royal household. The only references to the case in record sources are in E 37/4, m.3 (Marshalsea roll) and CPR, 1317–21, 273: Childs, ‘“Welcome my brother”’, 149, 152.

²³⁵ Childs, ‘“Welcome my brother”’, 158–9.

²³⁶ Ibid., 150, 158, 161.

²³⁷ Ibid., 158; Buck, 102–3, 110. Stapeldon was not involved in any of the negotiations which led to the Treaty of Leake in 1318 and was not present at Northampton at the time of John's arrest and trial.

²³⁸ Childs, ‘“Welcome my brother”’, 153–5. Accusations of witchcraft were sometimes made against individuals or groups for political reasons, e.g. against Walter Langton bishop of Coventry & Lichfield in 1301, Edward II's brother Edmund earl of Kent in 1330, and the 27 Coventry men accused in 1323 of plotting to murder the king, the Despensers and the prior of Coventry: Childs, 155–6.

²³⁹ Gesta Edwardi, 55, records that it was believed either that John was suffering from a weakness in the head (debilitate capitis) or that he was guided by the devil: Childs, ‘“Welcome my brother”’, 158.

²⁴⁰ For what follows see Phillips, ‘Edward II and the prophets’, esp. 196–201.

²⁴¹ Childs, ‘“Welcome my brother”’, 160–2.

²⁴² The text is preserved as a transcript in ASV, Vatican Register 110 (Secreta, i to iv, John XXII), ff. 136r–137v. There is no trace of the original papal letter among the papal bulls preserved in the National Archives at Kew. A transcript of the document and an English translation were published by L.G. Wickham Legg in Coronation Records(London, 1901), 69–72 (Latin text), 72–6 (trans.). A partial text of the letter had been in print since the middle of the 17th century in Annales Ecclesiastici ab Anno MCXCVIII ubi Cardinalis Baronius Desinit Auctore Odorico Raynaldo Tarvisino Congregationis Oratorii Presbytero, ed. O. Rinaldi (1595–1671), Tomus XV (Rome, 1652), Joannis Papae XXII, no. 20. In his printed edition Wickham Legg concluded what is otherwise an accurate transcript of the letter with the dating clause Datum Avinonie IIII Nonas Iunii, Anno Secundo (i.e. 2 June 1318), which is not present in the original register, where the letter is shown without a date. Wickham Legg appears to have assumed that the letter was of the same date as the nearest dated document in the register. This mistake was not made by the editor of CPL, ii, 1305–42, 436–7. As the Calendar indicates, Vatican Register 110 which contains the letter is composed of miscellaneous confidential correspondence, Secreta, much of it not precisely dated, from the first four years of the pontificate of John XXII, that is, between Aug. 1316 and Aug. 1320. The date of the letter can be roughly worked out from the date of the embassy of Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, to Avignon in the early spring of 1319: Haines, The Church and Politics, 20–2.

²⁴³ Phillips, ‘Edward II and the prophets’, 196–7. The Holy Oil had previously been discussed with passing references to Edward II but mainly in relation to the reigns of Richard II and later English kings in W. Ullmann, ‘Thomas Becket's miraculous oil’, Journal of Theological Studies, new ser., viii (1957), 129–33; J.W. McKenna, ‘The coronation oil of the Yorkist kings’, EHR, lxxxii (1967), 102–4; and T.A. Sandquist, ‘The Holy Oil of St Thomas of Canterbury’, in Essays in Medieval History presented to Bertie Wilkinson, ed. T.A. Sandquist & M.R. Powicke (Toronto, 1969), 330–44.

²⁴⁴ His identity is apparent from entries in the Roman Roll of 11 Edward II, C 70/4.

²⁴⁵ Liber Quotidianus Garderobae, 167; E 101/363/18, ff. 19v, 21v. It is likely that Nicholas first entered the service of Margaret between the time of her marriage to the future Duke John II of Brabant in 1290 and her departure from England to rejoin her husband in 1297: on the relations between England and Brabant see J. de Sturler, Les Relations politiques et les échanges commerciaux entre le duché de Brabant et l'Angleterre au moyen âge (Paris, 1936); and Childs, ‘England in Europe’, 102.

²⁴⁶ Nicholas may have been one of the unnamed messengers from Brabant for whose accommodation the royal household paid £5 in Sept. 1316: SAL Ms. 120, f. 101v.

²⁴⁷ SAL Ms. 120, f. 9v; C 70/4, m.13d; SAL Ms. 121, f. 33v; CPR, 1313–17, 628; CPL, ii, 172, 426; Phillips, ‘Edward II and the prophets’, 198.

²⁴⁸ C 70/4, m.13d.; Sturler, Les Relations, 157–60. Altogether Edward I had promised the duke sums totalling £160,000 tournois (£40,000 sterling).

²⁴⁹ C 70/4, m.13d.

²⁵⁰ On the development of Becket's cult see, for example, Duggan, ‘The cult of St Thomas Becket’, esp. 26.

²⁵¹ Phillips, ‘Edward II and the prophets’, 200. This is of course speculation: there is no firm evidence that the Holy Oil of St Thomas actually did come from Germany. One of the relics acquired in Germany by Richard and Edmund was the famous ‘Holy Blood’ which Edmund of Cornwall gave to Hailes abbey in Gloucestershire: N. Denholm-Young, Richard of Cornwall (London, 1947), 92, 174.

²⁵² For a detailed examination of this see ch. 2 of this book, ‘The nature of a king’.

²⁵³ Fiennes argued that since the count of La Marche had already made a claim to a share of the kingdom of France, as the brother of the late king Louis X, Edward II should now do so in the name of his wife Isabella, Louis X's sister. It seems that the proposal envisaged the division of the lands acquired by the French monarch since (and possibly even before) the accession of Louis IX, and therefore excluded the French crown's ancient demesne lands which were the droit corps du royaume and therefore indivisible: SC 8/325/E 672; CCW, 460–1. Fortunately Edward II's council did not recommend pursuing the suggestion any further.

²⁵⁴ SAL Ms. 121, f. 2.