The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (53 page)

35.
The entry in the Annals of Clonmacnoise is quoted in O’Donovan,
Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland
, iii, p. 405. In 1317 Roger marched against Geoffrey O’Farell again.

36.
Lydon, ‘The Impact of the Bruce Invasion 1315–1317’, in Cosgrove (ed.),
Medieval Ireland
, p. 276.

37.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 12.

38.
See Maddicott,
Thomas of Lancaster
, pp. 140–1, for a full discussion of the events concerning Welshpool.

39.
Roger Mortimer of Wigmore is commonly said to have been involved with this. As may be seen from his itinerary, and from the patent and closed letters sent to the Justiciar of Wales, there is no doubt that Roger was not directly involved in this attack as he was in Ireland, fighting the de Verdon brothers. It was rather his uncle, Lord Mortimer of Chirk, who was the agent responsible. The writers who have him taking part in the conflict have taken their information from the fifteenth-century chronicle of the family printed in Dugdale’s
Monasticon
(1817–30), vi, part i, p. 351, which seems to have confused its earlier sources.

40.
Conway Davies,
Baronial Opposition
, p. 213.

41.
Otway-Ruthven,
Medieval Ireland
, p. 223; Lydon, in Cosgrove (ed.),
New History of Ireland
, p. 280;
Chartularies of St Mary’s, Dublin
, pp. 340–1;
Calendar of Close Rolls 1307–1313
, pp. 525–6.

42.
Wood
et al
(eds),
Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls, Ireland
, pp. 237–9. A year later he showed clemency and obtained a pardon for them, on condition they went to fight in Scotland.

4: Bannockburn and Kells

1.
Hamilton,
Piers Gaveston
, p. 98.

2.
Hamilton,
Piers Gaveston
, p. 103.

3.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 30.

4.
CCR 1307–1313
, p. 522.

5.
Phillips,
Aymer de Valence
, p. 53.

6.
Tout,
Place of Edward II
, p. 349.

7.
Barrow,
Robert Bruce
, pp. 204, 207.

8.
Barrow,
Robert Bruce
, p. 209. The author of
Vita Edwardi Secundi
says twenty leagues. Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 50.

9.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 51.

10.
Barbour,
The Bruce
, p. 301.

11.
There is no definite proof that Roger was at Bannockburn, but that is not very surprising as the names of men most frequently reported by chroniclers to have fought in a battle were those killed. Thus some discussion is required of the evidence. Firstly, Roger was summoned to perform service in person, and he only seems to have ignored summonses when he was in Ireland or already had permission to visit Ireland, as in 1310. Secondly, he was at York with the king very shortly after the king arrived there on his retreat from Scotland, thus suggesting that he travelled back with the king. Thirdly, there is the evidence of the Trivet continuator discussed later in Note 15. Against this there is the fact that a confirmation of a grant made by Roger’s father was supposedly made by Roger at Wigmore on 17 June 1314 (see BL Harley 1240 f58v). Normally one would suppose this indicated his presence at Wigmore, far too far behind the army to be able to meet the battle six days later. However, it is noticeable that the grant is a confirmation of a charter whose text would only have been found at Wigmore, and that it is a grant to the men of Maelienydd. A hundred of Roger’s men from Maelienydd were summoned to Scotland, and it is possible that this confirmation is a response by Roger to their grievances en route to the battle. If so, this would actually confirm his presence in the army marching against the Scots, as he would have had personally to authorise the charter at Wigmore to be sought, copied and regranted, and to send his seal so that the confirmation could take place. As for the Mortimers’ position in the battle, the knights most closely associated with the king’s person in this battle, such as Pain Tibetot, Sir Giles d’Argentein and Robert Clifford, were part of a hardly changing royal bodyguard, with whom Lord Mortimer of Chirk had certainly been associated in 1300 at the Battle of Caerlaverock. Although older now, it is possible that this group was still performing a similar role in 1314. Even if Lord Mortimer of Chirk was considered too old for the duty of protecting the king, it is still probable that he maintained his position of dignity close to the royal personage, if only to offer advice or to take orders for the men of Wales. In addition, five of the six bodyguard of 1300 (with the exception of Lord Mortimer of Chirk) were with Roger in leaving Edward I’s army in 1306 to attend a tournament. Thus it may be supposed that this group, including Roger, represented the diehard military elite, and that most of these men, if not all, were with the king’s person at Bannockburn.

12.
In view of Roger’s status and experience he was most probably with the king during the battle, as mentioned above. His capture is thus most easily explained by participation in a defence of the king’s retreat. It is unlikely that he was among the knights who were captured with the Earl of Hereford for two reasons: (a) the chroniclers do not mention him with Hereford, although they mention several men
of lesser rank; and (b) Roger was soon back with the king at York, and was probably sent with the seal and the body of Gilbert de Clare. See Note 15.

13.
Phillips,
Aymer de Valence
, p. 75.

14.
Gilbert de Clare (d. 1314), Earl of Gloucester, was a second cousin of Bruce, Bruce’s grandmother on his father’s side being Isabel de Clare, sister of Richard de Clare, Gilbert’s grandfather. Richard and Isabel’s mother was Isabel Marshal, Roger’s great-great-aunt. See Table 2.

15.
All we know on this matter comes from the continuation of the chronicle of Nicholas Trivet. This piece of work was written by a Dominican friar with a penchant for details concerning seals. Roger de Northburgh, the keeper of the king’s privy seal, was killed in the battle, and the seal, like the king’s shield, was found afterwards. The friar records only that Bruce sent the seal with ‘Roger Mortimer’ to the king at Berwick. As is so often the case with the Mortimers, one has to ask: which Roger Mortimer is intended? Although at first one might suppose that it would be more likely that the older knight, Lord Mortimer of Chirk, would be released without ransom, there is good reason to believe it was Roger, because of the situation of some of his lands close to the author’s friary. The writer was probably a friar of Ilchester, as he mentions two churches damaged by storms within four miles of the town in his chronicle. Also within four miles of the town was the manor of Odcombe, a demesne lordship of Roger’s, and thus Roger would have been well known by name to the writer. Also Roger, rather than his uncle, had connections with the Earl of Ulster in Ireland, father of Bruce’s wife. Finally, if the Roger Mortimer referred to by the Trivet continuator was the lord of Wigmore, it would explain how Roger rejoined the court shortly after the battle, and much sooner than most of the other knights who were captured. See Antonia Gransden,
Historical Writing in England
, ii, p. 9. I am grateful to Paul Dryburgh for pointing out to me the reference in the continuation of the chronicle of Nicholas Trivet.

16.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 57.

17.
Both the new Chancellor, John Sandall, Bishop of Winchester, and the new Treasurer, Sir Walter de Norwich, were later (in 1318) selected by the king to form a panel with Roger and others to administer the reform of the royal household, and Sir Walter was trusted by Roger so much that, although Walter was forced to sit on the committee which in 1322 would sentence Roger and his uncle to death, Roger later forgave him and allowed him to remain in office.

18.
Philips,
Aymer de Valence
, p. 83.

19.
CPR 1313–1317
, pp. 276, 279, 285.

20.
Connolly (ed.),
Irish Exchequer Payments
, pp. 242–59.

21.
Barrow,
Robert Bruce
, p. 314.

22.
Otway-Ruthven,
Medieval Ireland
, p. 226.

23.
Hennessy (ed.),
Annals of Loch Cé
, p. 567.

24.
Phillips,
Documents on the Early Stages of the Bruce Invasion of Ireland, 1315–1316
.

25.
Gilbert (ed.),
Chartularies of St Mary, Dublin
, pp. 407–16.

26.
If this suggestion is correct it may mean the whole ‘Coigneris’ campaign described in Barbour’s
The Bruce
(pp. 347–61), which refers to the Battle of Connor at great length, has mixed up elements of later battles in one long description of Connor. Orpen, in
Ireland Under the Normans
, iv, pp. 167–8, suggests as much, and Frame in
‘The Bruces in Ireland’ does not discount the possibility. However, the chronology in
The Bruce
is not strong enough to warrant a reconstruction of what may have happened at Kells, and we constantly fall back on the annals in the
Chartularies of St Mary’s, Dublin
, and the 1317 court case (printed as an appendix in the second volume) for guidance, and these give only the slightest details.

27.
Gilbert (ed.),
Chartularies of St Mary’s, Dublin
, ii, p. 348.

28.
Gilbert (ed.),
Chartularies of St Mary’s, Dublin
, ii, pp. 407–16.

29.
Orpen,
Ireland Under the Normans
, iv, p. 173.

5: The King’s Lieutenant

1.
Palgrave (ed.),
Parliamentary Writs
, iv, p. 1203.

2.
Denhom-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 66.

3.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 67.

4.
See Griffiths,
Conquerors and Conquered in Medieval Wales
, pp. 84–91, for a good overview of this campaign.

5.
Wilkinson, ‘Attack on the Despensers, 1321’, p. 25.

6.
CCR 1313–1318
, p. 376.

7.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, pp. 69–70.

8.
An overview of the background to this dispute is given in the first part of the article by Fuller, ‘The Tallage of Edward II and the Bristol Rebellion’, pp. 171–278.

9.
On 21 May 1316 Badlesmere acknowledged a debt of 2,000 marks to Roger, to be levied on his lands in Kent in default of the payment (See
CCR 1313–1317
, p. 339). On the day of the wedding itself Badlesmere bound himself to pay £20,000 to Roger, in case of default on the marriage. See BL Harley 1240 fol. 114.

10.
Elizabeth de Badlesmere was reportedly twenty-five in 1338. See
Complete Peerage
, ix, p. 285.

11.
PRO DL 27/93. In addition the Abbot of Wigmore’s seal is appended to the charter.

12.
Some rolls and accounts from the Mortimer family archive, dating from the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, survive in the British Library in the two Egerton series (Egerton Charters 7350–54; Egerton Rolls 8723–60). Egerton Roll 8723 is a list of charters and other muniments confiscated from Roger’s treasury at Wigmore in 1322. Also in the British Library is the Black Book of Wigmore, the principal family cartulary, in the Harleian collection (BL Harley 1240). A contemporary abstract of this is BL Add. MS 6041. These cartularies were drawn up c. 1380 but contain transcripts of deeds extant at that time from much earlier periods. A reference system in the Black Book shows that the originals of the grants mentioned were stored in the treasury at Wigmore. A single receiver’s account for 1384 is in the National Library of Wales (see
Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research
, 10 (1932–3)). At least one late fourteenth-century Wigmore court roll is in the custody of the Harley family of Brampton Bryan, one-time vassals of the Mortimers, who owned the castle when it was dismantled in the seventeenth century (HMC: NRA 686 (Harley family papers)). Certain other odd muniments have found their way into the British Library (e.g. BL Add. Roll 58896, Harley 704 f1,
etc; these references may be supplemented with others noted on the British Library MSS catalogue) and other repositories (e.g. PRO DL 27/93). The family chronicles in the John Rylands Library (12th century to 1307; Latin MS 215), Trinity College Dublin (1355–77;MS E. 2. 25) and Chicago University Library (eleventh to fifteen centuries MS CS 439 fM82 W6) were almost certainly compiled within Wigmore Abbey and formed part of the abbey’s library, so did not form part of the family’s muniments. At the Dissolution it is quite likely that such chronicles were removed from the abbey separately to the charters and records; in 1574 the abbey’s administrative records were lying in a disused chapel of the castle, as shown by a letter from Dr Dee to Lord Burghley published in T.H. Bound,
History of Wigmore
(1876), and the likelihood is that the family’s archive was then in the same place. Nothing more is known of it after this date.

13.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 73. This is also the source for the previous quotation.

14.
The account of the siege of Bristol is taken from
Vita
, pp. 73–4.