7

Queen in Waiting

The Barons’ War was decided, and in the royalists’ favour, it is true. With hindsight we can see that, from this point, Eleanor’s life moved into a new, more prosperous, phase, bringing her a huge change in fortunes and in activities as she started to acquire property and to manage it actively, as well as fulfilling her role as consort. However, the scale of the change which came about was not apparent at once. The outcome of the war might no longer be in doubt, but it was not actually over for months to come.

It is highly unlikely that the victorious Edward rode straight from the battlefield at Evesham to be reunited with his loyal wife, as a romantic view of history would dictate. As the military leader of the royalist cause, he had to attend immediately to what are now termed ‘mopping up operations’, superintending the surrenders of various Montfortian strongholds.

Meanwhile, for some time after the victory Eleanor remained in effective captivity, although quite where and with whom is unclear. It is tempting to suggest that after March she was sent with Eleanor de Montfort, staying with her at Odiham and then at Dover Castle. However, it seems highly implausible that Eleanor de Montfort would have let such a prize as Eleanor go freely when her world had just disintegrated at Evesham. And Eleanor was definitely free long before Eleanor de Montfort surrendered Dover Castle and her captives in October.¹

Another possible custodian is Hugh Despenser, who lent Eleanor money in April, hinting that she was in his charge at that point. However, Despenser later moved to join Montfort, dying with him on the field at Evesham. It is possible that she remained at the Tower, in the custody of her near contemporary Aline Basset, Hugh Despenser’s wife, who yielded the Tower in August. However, overall it seems most likely that Eleanor was sent back to Windsor at some point in early 1265 with the new warden of the castle, John Fitzjohn, the son of Edward’s former governor John FitzGeoffrey. Fitzjohn was thus a Montfortian with tie to both camps and he appears to have been a realist, surrendering the castle at once after news of the defeat at Evesham had broken.

Another possibility is that she was in Westminster throughout; and certainly it seems near certain that she was by 7 September 1265, when her baby Joan, who died in late August or early September 1265, was buried in Westminster Abbey with Henry III donating a gold cloth for her tomb. A location either in Windsor or Westminster would also be consistent with Eleanor’s activities in September 1265, which show her commencing work as a landowner.²

What of the reunion between Edward and Eleanor? We know that Eleanor and Edward were reunited at least by late October, since their next child was born in mid-July of 1266, but it seems likely that they were together at some point in late September, since Eleanor’s actions thereafter speak of a change in policy which was unlikely to have been arrived at independently.

Meanwhile, the way forward was a matter of debate among the victors. It is plain that Edward’s inclination at this stage was to pursue a statesmanlike policy of mercy – he offered generous terms, promising that those surrendering would suffer neither in body or property. However, in mid-September Henry convened a parliament at Winchester and announced that all those who had stood with Montfort were disinherited and were to remain disinherited forever. Those of his supporters who had seized rebel lands were confirmed in their holdings, and inferentially all lands which had not yet been seized were up for grabs.³

The implications of Henry’s approach must have been an important topic for discussion between Edward and Eleanor and with their supporters. It must be remembered that they had now been married for over ten years and had been hard up throughout that period, with Eleanor being destitute for the last year. Further, Edward had greedy supporters to please (notably Mortimer, who felt entitled to a good pay-off after his considerable exertions). They also had less prominent but loyal supporters who deserved a return, and for whom Edward and Eleanor could not provide themselves. The prime example would be Otho de Grandison, who had yet to see any advancement as a reward for his loyalty; now in his late twenties, he was still lacking the financial qualifications for knighthood.

It appears that the result of their consultations was a decision not to stand back from the awards of lands to Henry’s supporters, which were to follow Henry’s disastrous proclamation. In part this was a move of necessity, and in part it was probably guided by long-term self-interest. Both may well have appreciated that ‘the Disinherited’ would at some point have to be restored, but that Henry would feel obligated to those who were themselves the losers as a result. They and Edward’s supporters therefore did indeed benefit largely from the grants of ‘Disinherited’ land made at this time. Roger Mortimer gained some grants at a very early stage, and then property at Aldermanbury in London. Roger Leyburn gained lands and wardships. And Otho de Grandison finally received the lands which would enable him to be knighted, being granted houses in Queenhithe in October 1265 and the property of William le Blund the next month.⁴

What is interesting in these grants, from the point of view of trying to ascertain Eleanor’s position, is that the acquisition of lands for Edward and Eleanor did not simply proceed on the part of Edward, as it might well have done. Eleanor herself entered into the market, and actively so. A great deal as to the plans which she and Edward had arrived at for her future role and as to her personality and approach can be seen from one story which takes place in September 1265.

On 18 September 1265, Eleanor was granted wardship of a manor at Barwick in Somerset in the minority of Walter de Cantilupe’s heir. This was a property quite near to her farm at Somerton. In the press of administration at the time, it was somehow granted again to someone else a few days later. Within days, Eleanor herself appears to have given considerable thought to the way forward. The letter which results is one of the very few of hers which survive, and this in itself justifies reproducing it in its entirety. It is just possible that it is in her own handwriting – the version which survives is clearly an informal draft, including interpolations and missing the formal recitals. But for present purposes, it shows three things quite clearly: Eleanor’s personal involvement in her own financial planning, a thorough approach to strategy in acquiring lands, and an overwhelming concern that she gains the lands without acquiring a reputation for greed – as Eleanor of Provence had demonstrated was all too easy. It also shows the beginnings of her administration coming together.⁵

The letter reads as follows:

Eleanor, companion of the lord Edward, to her loyal and faithful Sir John of London, health and good love. Know that our Lord the King gave us the other day the manor of Barwick with its appurtenances, at the request of Sir Roger de Leyburn; and because the property is appurtenant to the guardianship of Cantilupe, my Lord has given it to another, so that nothing of it is now given to us. But there is another manor close by, in the county of Somerset, which is at the town of Haselbury, which belonged to Sir William le Marshal, who is dead, and who held it of the King in chief. We would like you to ask Sir John de Kirkby if the guardianship of that manor is granted, and if it is not, then you should request Sir Roger de Leyburn and the Bishop of Bath on our behalf, that they should ask our lord the King to grant us the manor until the coming of age of the heir of Sir William. And if it is already taken, there is another manor in the county of Dorset, called Tarrant, which belonged to Sir William de Keenes, who is dead, and who held it in chief of the King. So if we cannot have the other, we would ask you to request them on our behalf that they should apply to the King to allow us this one. The manor of Haselbury is worth less. And if nothing is possible, mention to Sir Roger that the manor of Barwick that the King gave us, at his suggestion, has been taken from us, for this will tend to make us seem less covetous; and say the same to the bishop of Bath. And if the letters which you have concerning it can achieve nothing, give them to the bearer of this letter, for he will carry them to Sir Walter de Kancia, our clerk. Be careful to dispatch this affair, for it will be to our profit; and deal with this matter in a way which ensures that they shall not set it down to covetousness. Farewell.

Before considering the results of this plea, it is worth breaking the letter down in some detail. The first thing to note is that the actual acquisition of lands was a new departure for royal women in England. In part this was because it was quite unusual for royal heirs to be married before their accession and queens had official sources of revenue such as ‘queen’s gold’. But even Eleanor of Provence, who concerned herself very actively with increasing her revenues, had not sought to involve herself in the details of landholding. Although it was well understood that a fortune could be built by the careful acquisition and management of property – as Richard of Cornwall had done – this was not a realm into which royal women had ever gone. It may be that the level of detail and active management required meant that it was seen as unsuited to women, whose responsibilities should lie elsewhere. If Edward had decided to add to his wife’s assets by this novel means, one might therefore expect that it would be done under his aegis or at least by her clerks on his instructions. However, on the contrary, here we see Eleanor personally soliciting a land grant. It is therefore plain that she was wishing to be personally involved, and it is also fairly plain inferentially that this was approved by Edward.

The second important thing to note is that Eleanor is not merely soliciting an undefined or unnamed grant; she is soliciting a particular grant – and has even prepared a backup plan. However, the nature of the request reveals even more thoroughness than at first appears. Here, the locations of the properties are highly significant. It had become accepted that property empires should not consist of disparate properties over a wide geographical area, but should consist of properties which were relatively close to each other, so that economies of scale could be used. Eleanor thus far had two properties of her own, the Somerton farm and the manor of Ashford at the Peak (which was in the process of being returned to her). She also had three properties under management during the minority of Cecily de Fortibus: Dundon in Somerset (practically next door to Somerton), Woodmansterne in Surrey and Dullingham in Cambridgeshire. Barwick, the original September grant, was quite close to Somerton and Dundon, and it should be inferred that it had been sought for that reason. However, once Barwick had gone, Eleanor and her advisers sought about for another nearby property on the market. They decided that there were two possibles – Haselbury in Somerset itself and Tarrant in Dorset. Of these Haselbury, though less valuable, was preferable – and this would be because it was, like Barwick, close to Somerton and Dundon.

We can therefore see that this letter is based on research not just as to properties which would be up for grabs as part of the ‘Disinherited’ market, but also as to their location, to ensure efficient management. This is a level of preparation which indicates a real commitment to the process, and forewarns us that property acquisition and management is not to be a one-off departure for Eleanor.

The third point to note is that Eleanor knew the mechanics of getting the matter expedited. The request is to be made by Roger Leyburn and the Bishop of Bath; Leyburn was one of Edward’s longest-standing associates, and the bishop (Walter Giffard) was a staunch royalist who became Henry’s chancellor at about this time. However, to ensure that there were no slips, her clerk was to check with Sir John de Kirkby – a clerk in Chancery, who would be in a position to know what estates had been granted already – whether her first choice was still available. The conduits to the more major players are her clerk Walter de Kancia – already established in a role in her household and later becoming her steward for all her acquired property – and John of London, the treasurer appointed for her when she first came to England, who for obvious reasons had good contacts with the king’s household.

Finally, we should note the repeated emphasis on avoiding any appearance of covetousness. It is therefore plain that Eleanor and Edward have perceived that the errors of Eleanor of Provence must not be repeated and that acquisitions by Eleanor must be defensible.

‘Plan A’, as it appears from this letter, seems to have borne fruit, for on 30 September Eleanor was granted the manor of Haselbury, to be held at pleasure for the Lady Eleanor’s maintenance.

This was not the end of Eleanor’s own acquisitions in this period. Later, on 17 October, Eleanor was granted manors in Derbyshire at Bakewell, Haddon and Codnor ‘late of the King’s enemies Ralph Gernon, Richard de Vernon and Richard de Grey’ to be held for life. Again, the evidence of planning of an estate is evident – Bakewell and Haddon are practically next door to Eleanor’s holding of Ashford, making effectively a single holding in what is now the Buxton–Chatsworth area, and Codnor is not far off. At around this time Eleanor also acquired forfeited manors at Gayton le Marsh and Tothill in Lincolnshire, Martley in Worcester and Chesterfield in Derbyshire. Finally, in February, Eleanor was granted further rights over the manor of Somerton and, in April, full rights over it and two further manors, Pitney and Wearne, just to the west of Somerton, north of the current B3153.⁶

All the appearances therefore suggest that at this point Eleanor began to acquire an actual landholding of her own, which would of course in the long term enure to the benefit of the Crown. In addition she did so actively, rather than leaving it purely to her clerks to manage in consultation with Edward’s staff. Finally she did so cautiously, making great efforts to avoid being characterised as greedy. All of this bears the stamp of a plan entered into with Edward and subject to his instruction to keep in the shadows, and this appearance will be borne out as the story of Eleanor’s property business proceeds.

There is a strong impression that Edward, fond of his mother as he indubitably was, had well perceived how divisive an influence she had been as a queen, and had resolved that his own wife, however able, would never embarrass him or demean him as his mother had his father. Instead, Edward set Eleanor defined tasks to be carried out quietly and without notice – principally to enlarge their financial provision by acquiring property for herself, which would enlarge the royal holdings and make up for some of the alienations of the past in due course.

All of this business activity took place against a backdrop of a restored court and progress in dealing with the remaining rebels. Eleanor and Edward will have been with Henry III on his re-entry into London in early October, and present at the celebration of the Feast of the Confessor at Westminster Abbey on 13 October. Thereafter, Henry and Eleanor moved to Canterbury, where there is record of Eleanor soliciting a favour from Henry for William Taylor for his services specifically to her – he received houses in the parish of St Dunstan at her instance. This is the William Taylor who appears likely to have been the source of urgent financial relief during the war years.

Meanwhile, Edward proceeded to Dover, where he took the surrender of Dover Castle from Eleanor de Montfort and saw her off to exile. Following this, on 29 October, he welcomed his mother, accompanied by Edward’s younger brother Edmund, who was now twenty years old. By the end of the month, the whole family was reunited in Canterbury.⁷

In December, the court moved to Northampton to prepare to deal with the rebels at Kenilworth. However, the resolution here was repeatedly delayed by other distractions. First, a division of the rebel forces meant that Edward had to go off into Lincolnshire to deal with Simon de Montfort the younger, while in the new year Edward moved on with Roger Leyburn to deal with the Cinque Ports. Still the rebel forces kept on reappearing in spots – in East Anglia, the Midlands and Hampshire – forcing him and his associates to rush off to deal with each new group.⁸

In the end, Kenilworth was still under siege when, on 13–14 July 1266, Eleanor gave birth to her child at Windsor, where it appears likely she had been since spring. A large court was at this point assembled at Windsor. Prestigious prisoners (such as Robert Ferrers, the Earl of Derby) were despatched there upon capture, and visiting dignitaries, such as the Duke of Brunswick and John of Brittany, were also entertained there. She is therefore likely to have been kept busy with the responsibilities of a hostess right up until the last days of her pregnancy.

The child was a healthy baby boy, who must have been conceived very shortly after the couple were reunited in September of the previous year. This birth was the cue for national rejoicing. The Londoners, for example, took the day off work and danced in the streets. Henry III hailed the ‘delightful news’ of the birth, and rewarded the bringer with a pension of £20 annually. Eleanor could scarcely have timed the heir’s arrival better – his birth was perceived as a new start after the years of faction and division.

Interestingly, the child was named John, not Henry after Edward’s father and the saints’ day (St Henry the Pious) on which he was born. The significance of this decision is tantalising, but elusive. St John the Baptist’s feast day was 24 June, and the only possible religious reference is to the little-known St John Gaulbert, the merciful knight who became the patron saint of foresters. It may be that the name was in part a nod to the dead Joan, who had never even met her father, or to Eleanor’s mother. However, one suspects that the name was at least in part a coded message to remaining baronial resistance, Edward’s grandfather John having fought the barons until his dying breath.⁹

If this was the message, it is ironic that, in the wake of John’s birth, Edward, together with Richard of Cornwall and the Pope’s legate Cardinal Ottobuono, was busy persuading Henry to take a more moderate line with the defeated baronial opposition. Their success in this endeavour resulted in the policy statement known as the Dictum of Kenilworth of October 1266, whereby the Disinherited were offered the chance to be restored to their lands upon payment to the royalist occupiers of a fine of two or five years’ income of those lands, depending on the degree of offence. The Kenilworth garrison surrendered in December and it appeared that all that remained was the suppression of rebels on the Isle of Ely.

However, in early 1267, John de Vescy raised a rebellion in protest against the terms of the Dictum of Kenilworth and in particular the sting in the tail of the Dictum, namely that the lands would only be returned to their former owners after the payment of the fines. Vescy and other former Montfortians pointed out the problem with this: how were they to pay the fines if they could not occupy the land and take its revenues? The apparently reasonable approach was, for many, forfeiture by the back door. Vescy and his supporters therefore retook their lands and vowed to defend them. Edward went north to deal with this threat, and succeeded, retaking Alnwick after some hard fighting. The interesting point about this rebellion is that it provided the occasion for the reconciliation between Edward and John de Vescy. After his victory, Edward pardoned Vescy, who became again one of his and Eleanor’s closest friends.¹⁰

It may well have been Vescy’s actions, as much as Gilbert de Clare’s intervention, which prompted Edward later to support the crucial addendum to the Dictum of Kenilworth which enabled the former rebels to re-enter their lands before payment of the fine, thereby paving the way to a final settlement with the barons in mid-1267.¹¹

Meanwhile, however, the Dictum of Kenilworth played merry hell with Eleanor’s land acquisitions. All of the lands acquired in 1265, apart from those in Lincolnshire, were lost to her when the former owners paid their fines. Effectively therefore, she had to start again. However, with the birth of an heir, her position at court was improved and grants began to be made to her directly; again, it would seem, with an element of forward planning by Eleanor. For example, on 15 September 1265, Henry III had confirmed Edward’s grant to Eleanor of a major acquisition: the manor of Ringwood in the New Forest and the issues and profits of the New Forest. In 1270, this grant of the stewardship of the New Forest was confirmed to her, along with a grant of the manor of Lyndhurst (adjacent to Ringwood), thereby giving her a large, valuable area of property which could be run as a single unit. In exchange, she transferred to Alan Plongenet (the previous holder of the New Forest stewardship) the manors of Pitney and Wearne.¹²

A second area in which property was acquired was Leicestershire, where, between 1267 and 1270, she acquired grants from the king of progressively greater rights over the substantial neighbouring manors of Great Bowden and Market Harborough, and these grants were supplemented in 1268 by the complementary hundred of Gartree – a property which included both these manors.

Again in Norfolk, in 1269–70 Eleanor acquired grants (eventually for life) of the manor of Aylsham, which carried with it rights in relation to the neighbouring North Erpingham hundred, and lands in Scottow. In Northampton, the manor of Kingsthorpe was granted at pleasure in 1267, rising to a grant for life in 1270, and this was supplemented by the grant of the surrounding hundred of Spelhoe. Meanwhile, in Stafford, Eleanor acquired lands at Leek and Densington, appurtenant to Macclesfield, in 1270.

Thus, by 1270, Eleanor had acquired seven areas of land, each of which contained more than one property which could be run in tandem for operational efficiency. In addition, in 1268, Henry permitted her to claim ‘queen gold’ in Ireland.¹³

Other instances of Eleanor’s rise in status can be found in this period: in November 1267, Henry granted Castilian merchants at Southampton a seven-year exemption from murage (a tax for building or repair of town walls); her chaplain Bartholomew de Haya was granted the right to hold his houses free of livery obligations; she obtained a pardon for an indictment raised against a petitioner for the death of a relation; and she also obtained relief for another against outlaw status resulting from his involvement with a death. This last is particularly interesting as she first appears here as ‘the King’s daughter Eleanor, consort of Edward his son’, a terminology implying a higher status. Other pardons and interventions, including one on behalf of the son of a delightfully named lady – Licoricia – succeed these. They show that Eleanor was using her influence in this respect on a regular basis; an interesting point when her very different operations as queen come to be considered. By 1269, she was in a position to get a licence for her own merchant to be permitted to trade in England. This merchant, Gil Martini, was later to source Castilian goods for her.¹⁴

Another way in which Eleanor’s influence was felt, and which points the way forward to future operations, is that it was at this point that she first began to deal in debts owed by Christian debtors to Jewish moneylenders. In April 1268, Henry III gave her all the debts owed by William fitz William of Hartwell to Jacob son of Moses of Oxford and any other Jews in England. Similarly, in the subsequent years she was given the debts of Richard de Ernham of Froyle and Thomas Bassett of Welham. However, at this stage at least, these debts do not appear to have been used by her has a means of personally obtaining the debtor’s lands. The fitz William debt was apparently conveyed to Alice de Luton. She also appears to have intervened to enable William, her tailor (probably the same William for whom she obtained lands earlier), to buy up the de Ernham debt to a Jewish moneylender and to claim the ransom for this debtor’s lands, which had been placed in her hands. Interestingly, Eleanor also petitioned Henry III to assist favourites of hers who were hampered by Jewish debts themselves. In December 1269, she obtained Henry’s promise that Benedict de Wintonia’s debts would not be interfered with for ten years, and in February 1270 he paid off, at Eleanor’s request, a debt owed by the father-in-law of her cousin Giles de Fiennes.¹⁵

There were also a number of other developments in the way in which Eleanor lived her life. One was the increasing size and status of her household. By the time of her departure on Crusade in 1270, Eleanor had built up a household of some size and significance.

We know that her household had its origins in 1255 with the secondment from Eleanor of Provence’s household of the clerk John of London to head up her wardrobe (a term probably best translated these days as her private office) and William de Cheney from the king’s household as her steward (butler). Certainly from the outset she would have had a group of waiting women; one of whom, Joan ‘de Valle Viridi’, was with her sometime before 1262, when she is recorded as marrying William Charles, who became one of Eleanor’s knights. Both her ‘ladies’ and William Charles are mentioned as forming part of her household when Henry commanded her to vacate Windsor in the wake of the defeat at Lewes in 1264. Also traceable as a semi-regular part of the female side of the household is the nurse Alice de Luton – formerly Edward’s own nurse.

Although not named at this stage, it appears likely that her closest waiting woman, Margerie, joined her sometime in the 1260s. This can be inferred from the facts that Margerie was married around 1270 to Robert de Haustede, then a groom in Eleanor’s household, and that he was the beneficiary of two notable kindnesses from Eleanor at this period. In 1266, she procured his pardon from immediate payment of his father’s debts to the Exchequer, arranging for him to pay by instalments, and in 1270 she had the outstanding £24 of the original £48 written off altogether. It appears most likely that such a significant favour was effectively done not for a mere groom, but for a closer attendant. Margerie remained with Eleanor to her death, rising to become her main damsel.

Also within the household and bearing ‘yeoman’ status (a subsidiary rank under the steward, approximate to a footman) in the late 1260s was John Ferre, whose brother was in the king’s service. John appears to have been a trusted messenger, since he carried the news of the birth of young John to Henry III in 1266. In the succeeding years, he progressed up the household, being given custody of some of Eleanor’s lands, and accompanying Edward and Eleanor on Crusade in 1270. He was knighted in later years, and became Eleanor’s steward once she was queen. Another yeoman of this period was William de Meleford, who had come from the queen’s household. There was also, from at least 1269, a certain John de Beaumes (recorded as bringing the good news of the birth of Eleanor’s daughter Eleanor to the king). Apart from these, we have evidence of a cook, John of Woodstock, and the chaplain, Bartholomew de Haya, previously attached to Henry III.¹⁶

John of London had moved on by about 1265, being replaced by William de Yattenden, who had links to Edward’s household, as well as that of Eleanor of Provence through his brothers. He too was to accompany her on Crusade in 1270, dying en route. At a similar period, her steward William de Cheney moves on, although his replacement is not clear. It may (as Parsons suggests) have been the businesslike Walter de Kancia, or John de Weston, mentioned in the Close Rolls as her steward in 1264. These changes reflect a move away from the influence of the king and queen and towards her own independent business interests, and are also reflected in the appearance in the records of her own bailiffs and a clerk (a relative of her cook). At the same period, a group of knights and archers also emerges: she had archers from Ponthieu in her service in 1263, as well as former archers of Henry III.¹⁷

The final feature of Eleanor’s emerging household worth noting at this point is the matter of relatives. It might seem that Eleanor was rather unlikely to provide for her relations – there are no overt signs in the records of nepotism. The contrast with the problematic overt ‘alien’ approach of both Henry III and Eleanor of Provence is striking. However, closer examination of the record shows that Eleanor did indeed provide for her relatives from an early stage – but very cleverly and discreetly. What she did was favour not her relatives at large, but only those relatives who could prove a tie to England already; thus, while she was favouring her connections, she was emphatically not favouring aliens. Three families in particular can be highlighted as benefiting in this respect: the Fiennes, relatives of Eleanor through the Dammartin family, holders of land in England since the days of King Stephen; the de Pécquigny family, related to Eleanor through her Ponthevin family; and the de Brienne family, Leónese connections of Eleanor’s, one of whom had married into the English de Beaumont family prior to Eleanor’s marriage.

The beginnings of Eleanor’s patronage emerge early, but become clearer as the years go by. William de Fiennes joined Edward’s household at the time of the marriage. His brother Michael de Fiennes became Edward’s chancellor shortly after the marriage (though his initial appointment to the household has also been suggested to result from a more distant connection to Eleanor of Provence). And, as noted above, Eleanor procured a relief from debt for another Fiennes cousin-in-law. Among Eleanor’s other relations, Roger de Pécquigny was granted a yearly fee at around the same time. Further, advantageous marriages were brokered between different branches of Eleanor’s extended family. In particular, at around this period the Fiennes family and Eleanor’s Brienne relatives contracted a marriage alliance in which her hand can surely be traced. William, eldest grandchild of the Fiennes–Dammartin alliance, married Blanche de Brienne, the granddaughter of Jean de Brienne and Berengaria of León. Their family would become a particularly favoured group among Eleanor’s relatives.¹⁸

Other signs of Eleanor’s increase in status can be seen in Henry III’s expenditure specifically on her account. He provided her with newly built chambers for her especial use at several royal castles, and paid for her and her ladies’ outfitting at Christmas 1268 in identical manner to that provided for the queen and her ladies. Therefore, Eleanor was now truly recognised as the second lady of England.

Last but not least, there were domestic changes. This period was ushered in by the crucial birth of the heir, John, in 1266. The next few years of relative peace saw two further additions to the nursery – a second son, Henry, was born in early May 1268, cementing Eleanor’s status as a successful royal wife in providing the necessary ‘heir and a spare’. This arrival was duly celebrated by Henry III, who granted the messenger twenty marks’ pension for the good news. Next arrived a daughter, Eleanor (referred to in this text as Eleanora), in June 1269 – attracting ten marks by way of present for the messenger.

However, even with the demands of the increasing family, Eleanor’s peregrinations with Edward continued: in 1267, Edward, adopting Richard I’s approach in seeing tournaments as a training ground for knights, persuaded Henry to revoke his ban on tourneys in England, and issued, with his brother Edmund and cousin Henry of Almain, an edict permitting them to be held. A rash of events followed, to which Eleanor will have followed Edward wherever possible.¹⁹

And her travelling was about to range rather further afield. From about mid-1268, Eleanor was part of the latest craze at court: Crusade fever. The papal legate had been preaching the Crusade in England since 1266 as part of a Europe-wide movement prompted by the loss of the fortified Crusader town of Saphet, near Acre, earlier in the year. At the time there had been few subscribers – the most notable early enrolments being Thomas de Clare, brother of the Earl of Gloucester and friend of Edward, and Teobaldo Visconti, the Archdeacon of Liège. The movement had gathered momentum in Europe in 1267, with Louis of France and his sons taking the cross, but was still not gaining ground in England.

However, as the post-war ‘mopping up’ drew to a close, the idea started to catch on, largely among Edward’s circle, who had enjoyed the experience of war and did not look forward to returning to peaceful and often subsidiary roles. Thus, at Midsummer 1268, around 700 people, including Edward, his brother Edmund, Henry of Almain, John de Warenne, Gilbert of Gloucester, William de Valence and others, publicly pledged to go on Crusade. There is no doubt that Edward’s commitment to going on Crusade was strong – despite papal advice that he should not go, he persisted in committing to the adventure. Of course, this determination may have been entirely his own – as Lloyd has pointed out, Edward was a classic example of a young man who wanted scope for his newfound skills, independence of action which (it was all too apparent already) would be lost to him in peacetime. There was, for example, no scope for exercising those skills in defence of his Marcher lands, since the peace of Montgomery, concluded in September 1267, precluded him from campaigning in Wales. He was also possibly driven by his own piety, by the example of Louis and his sons, and the past example of his uncle Richard of Cornwall and Simon de Montfort.²⁰

There appears little doubt that Eleanor would have been equally enthusiastic – as the daughter of a great soldier and Crusader, she will have been firmly of the view that this was something which Edward ought to do. Still more would Eleanor have been in favour, since this was not the type of Crusade where ladies remained behind; since Eleanor of Aquitaine had caused scandal in accompanying her then husband the King of France on Crusade in 1147, the presence of women on Crusade had become quite the accepted mode. When Simon de Montfort and Richard of Cornwall had crusaded with Louis of France earlier in the century, Eleanor de Montfort and Queen Margaret of France had formed part of the party. So too with this new Crusade; Eleanor’s cousin and Isabelle of Aragon, the wife of Louis’ son Philip, was to go, as was Edward’s sister Beatrice, to accompany her husband John of Brittany.

It is, of course, pertinent to ask about the children. This readiness to leave her young brood behind has been the cause of some fairly overt criticism of Eleanor’s decision. But such an approach is hopelessly anachronistic. One can see, for example, from the list just given, that Eleanor’s decision was hardly unique – Isabelle of Aragon had four sons under seven at the time of departure, while Beatrice of Brittany had three sons, a daughter and another on the way. It was usual for royal mothers of the era to have their children largely raised away from them in the early part of their life; Eleanor of Provence’s approach was far more the exception than the rule. The approach which Eleanor’s own family had taken would be one part of the cause – this would give an opportunity for the children to be raised away from likely sources of infection, and maximise their chances of growing to adulthood.

One may also suspect that emotional self-preservation played a role too – so many children died young that it may well have been considered best not to become too involved until the child had passed the main danger age. This certainly ties with what we know of Eleanor’s relations with her children. Practicality, too, will have formed a part of many of the female Crusaders’ calculations; their job was to provide heirs, and this would not be possible for years at a time if they did not accompany their husbands. Eleanor herself would bear two children during the course of the Crusade, and one on the way home. Put brutally, their job entailed their being by their husband’s side. However, there seems little cause to doubt that, for Eleanor, inclination and her job marched here hand in hand – she would have wanted to be on the Crusade herself, she would want to be with Edward, and she would not want to be at home with a group of small children and her child-centred (and generally somewhat overbearing) mother-in-law.

But even once it was more or less settled that there was to be a crusading contingent from England, matters did not go smoothly. Cardinal Ottobuono had hoped to use the Crusade as a means of mending fences between the royal and baronial factions, seeing the shared opportunity to slaughter the infidel as a good route for reconciliation. But those who had just lost the war were, even after the adjustments to the Dictum of Kenilworth, in no position to find the money for the trip. It is therefore no surprise that the take-up from the former rebels was very slight – very few other than John de Vescy were among them. However, the Marchers were well represented: Roger Clifford, Roger Leyburn, Hamo Lestrange and William de Valence were pledged. So too was Gloucester – whose history might permit him to be classed with either side. Others who formed part of the party were Edward’s brother Edmund and his friends and Henry of Almain, Thomas de Clare and Otho de Grandison.²¹

The main issue, however, was money. This was critical because Edward’s own force would be the core of the expedition and Edward had to find 100 marks for each knight for a year’s service, plus the transport costs. He also had to fund the costs of a considerable household. A grant from the Church was not forthcoming, which meant that the funds had somehow to be found from within England – no easy task when the country was still recovering from the war, and everyone’s finances were accordingly straitened.

His solution was an interesting one, when Eleanor’s business dealings are brought into the equation: he asked Parliament to grant him a tax, in return for legislation against the Jews. The particular grievance which made this legislation a popular measure was the fact that, in order to discharge their own obligations to the Crown, Jewish moneylenders had recently taken to selling on their loans at discounts to Christian investors. Some of these had an eye not to the interest on the loan, or even the principal, but the land on which it was generally secured. By these means, certain enterprising investors (William de Valence and Richard of Cornwall among them) had found a very cost-efficient way of adding to their own property portfolios.

Morris compares the practice of these speculators to a purchaser of a mortgage who refuses to respect the repayment terms and forecloses on the properties regardless. In fact, there was technically nothing wrong with the practice. The means by which money was lent will be familiar to readers of Victorian fiction: X borrows money from Y for a period of time at an agreed interest rate. But in reality, X and Y both know it is unlikely that X will be able to repay the principal at the end of the period. Both anticipate that, at that period, X will wish to renew the debt – that is, to borrow the same sum of money, plus or minus whatever repayments and interest are relevant. And so the matter might progress from year to year. However, technically (as one sees, say, in Trollope’sFramley Parsonage) the lender is perfectly entitled, at the end of the period of each loan, to seek the repayment of the principal, and foreclose on the security if it is not forthcoming, rather than to renew the debt for a further period. This is what these Christian speculators did. The outrage from the ‘victims’ was a product of the tacit expectation that the debt would be renewed more or less ad infinitum. Edward’s proposals, which advocated requiring permission of the king before such debts could be sold to a Christian, were not at this stage greeted with sufficient enthusiasm to attract a grant from Parliament. Possibly Henry was seen as an insufficient safeguard – and on the basis of past form, such doubts may well have been justified.²²

In August of 1269, Edward therefore sought help from another source of funds – the French king, under whose aegis the Crusade was to take place. Louis agreed to lend about £17,500, with repayment secured on the revenues of Gascony over twelve years under fairly harsh terms, including a requirement that Edward and his force be ready to depart at Aigues-Mortes on the Mediterranean coast by 15 August 1270, and to hand over one of his sons (Henry) as hostage to guarantee the agreement. That Louis seems to have been playing rather tough is suggested by the fact that preparations were certainly made to send Henry to him, with the formal letters of protection being issued, and some accounts even suggest he was sent, but returned by Louis.

There is one other possible foreign trip in this period. There is a Spanish tradition that, in late November 1269, Edward attended the wedding at Burgos of Louis IX’s daughter Blanche of France to Alfonso’s heir Ferdinand de la Cerda. If he did go, it seems inconceivable that Eleanor would not have accompanied him. This event would have been a major opportunity for reunions for Eleanor, with most of her family and the Aragonese royal family present. It would also offer a good opportunity for discussing the Crusade with Philip, son of King Louis, who escorted his sister. And of course for Edward and Eleanor it would have provided a fine opportunity for sentimental reflection on their own wedding in the same location some fourteen years before. Sadly, the documents prove that this tradition is not based in fact: Edward is to be is found at Harrow on 23 November and at Windsor on 7 December.²³

Shortly after Edward’s return from his visit to France (which may have been a rare trip without Eleanor, given the birth of their daughter in June 1269), the entire royal family would have been busy with preparations for the moment which Henry regarded as the high point of his entire reign – the reinterment of the body of Edward the Confessor in the new Westminster Abbey – designed according to the new Continental-influenced English style. Again an element of emulation of the French monarchy can be discerned: Louis had finished his new cathedral at Reims in 1241. In fact, the church at Westminster was only partly built: the east end, the transepts and the radiating chapels were complete but the nave was only half-constructed, to the end of the choir; beyond that, the old Norman nave remained in place.

Apart from this slight oddity, the new abbey church was magnificent. The three master masons supervising the work appear to have sought inspiration from the new cathedrals at Reims, Amiens and Chartres, as well as from the Sainte-Chapelle for such features as an apse with radiating chapels, pointed arches, ribbed vaulting, rose windows and flying buttresses. But the long nave and single aisles retain the English idiom, as do the mouldings and sculptural decorations. The effect would have been far more dramatic and less restrainedly elegant than it seems in modern times: much of the decoration would have been brightly coloured, the wall arcades may have been decorated in vermilion and gold, and fine paintings – traces of which still remain in some places – decorated the walls. Stained-glass windows in bright reds and blues, with monochrome heraldic shields, added further colour – as did the bays in the aisles of the nave, which featured shields of the Confessor and the great nobles of England hung from projecting stone heads.²⁴

Meanwhile, a new shrine had been constructed for the body of the Confessor, using workmen from Italy, principally Peter the Roman. The new shrine had three parts: a stone base decorated with Cosmati work – which may be loosely described as a kind of mosaic consisting of small pieces of cut stone, marble, glass and green-and-purple porphyry arranged in elaborate patterns. This base linked to a glorious Cosmati pavement and bore a gold feretory – a bier-like shrine – containing the saint’s coffin. Above this was a canopy which could be raised to reveal the feretory or lowered to cover it. The shrine was decorated with gold images of kings and saints and featured a separate finely decorated Cosmati-work altar, which now marks the final resting place of the dead children of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor and Edward.

For Henry, this event was the culmination of years of planning. An especially large parliament and assembly of key magnates and prelates was summoned to witness this festival, which proceeded with the pomp and fanfare Henry so loved, only slightly marred by arguments over precedence between the Archbishop of York (officiating) and the bishops of the Canterbury province and between the citizens of London and Winchester. The monks celebrated Mass for the first time in the new abbey church. Henry himself, Edward, his brother Edmund and Richard of Cornwall were among those including ‘as many of the greater barons as could put their hands’ to the bier, who carried the saint’s body to its new resting place. The church was duly admired and the feast awed the attendees – as it was intended it should do. The event was, in short, ‘the admiration and wonder of all’ – Henry III at his best.²⁵

Following Christmas at Windsor, in the New Year Edward and Eleanor attended their own religious event, finally taking the first steps to fulfil the pledge which Edward had made in 1263 to found a monastery by way of thanks for his being spared from shipwreck. To be fair to him, the plan had not been in complete abeyance since that date. It had, for example, been decided that the foundation would be a daughter house of Abbey Dore in Herefordshire. The choice of Abbey Dore as the parent house was, according to Vale Royal’s ledger book, owing to the kindness shown to Edward by members of that house during his captivity at Hereford in 1265 – and possibly, given that this is whence Edward made his escape from captivity, for some assistance in that escape. It is reported that in 1266 the general chapter of the Cistercian Order authorised an inspection of the site proposed for the new house, but certainly matters had not been proceeding apace, very probably owing to lack of funds from Edward. He will therefore have felt that before taking up his crusading vow to God, it would be sensible to balance the books on this other vow. Edward and Eleanor then seem to have met with the Cistercian authorities and decided on a site – at Darnhall in the Forest of Delamere in Cheshire. With this task completed, final preparations for the Crusade could begin.²⁶