The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (56 page)

11: Revolutionary

1.
Joan never remarried after Roger’s death, nor did she enter a nunnery. One can only interpret this as a sign she was content to be Lady Mortimer for ever, and remained faithful to her husband’s memory.

2.
Eyton,
Shropshire
, xi, p. 329. If Roger and Joan did not meet up at Pembridge in November 1326, then, unless she came to court in the meantime, the next most likely date is March or April 1327, when Roger was probably in the Marches and away from Isabella.

3.
Vale,
Edward III and Chivalry
, p. 169.

4.
CPR 1321–1324
, p. 77.

5.
Roger, as mentioned, included her in the Leintwardine chantry list of prayers, and never sought a separation from the Pope. Joan was close enough to Roger in 1330 that Edward III accused her of complicity in some of Roger’s dealings. Roger occasionally made trips to the Welsh Marches, sometimes with and sometimes without the royal family; and those undertaken by himself may well have been to see Joan.

6.
The chroniclers are very confused on the order and details of events concerning the deposition of Edward II. Several writers have attempted reconstructions, most notably Clarke, ‘Committees of Estates’; Fryde,
Tyranny and Fall
, pp. 195–200; Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, pp. 35–53; and most significantly Valente, ‘Deposition and Abdication’. Valente’s is the most recent, convincing and useful of these. The parliament had originally been summoned for 14 December; it had probably been delayed owing to the continued rioting.

7.
I suspect that they never intended to bring the king to the parliament. Had the king’s presence been truly desired, a more important delegation would have been sent to him, headed at least by an earl, and a stronger retinue would have been sent than that likely to have been commanded by two bishops.

8.
Fryde, in her
Tyranny and Fall
, p. 197, states that the bishops went to Kenilworth on 7 January and that the assembly adjourned during their absence, until their return on 12 January. As Harding points out, this is not realistic, as Kenilworth is ninety miles from London and the round trip in January would take at least seven days. See Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 38. Valente agrees, although she seems not to have consulted Harding. See Valente, ‘Deposition and Abdication’, p. 855.

9.
Valente’s otherwise convincing account is very slightly marred here by her error in timing the events of 13 January. She places the Guildhall meeting before the session in Parliament at Westminster on the grounds that Orleton ordered Parliament to turn up in the afternoon. The text of the
Historia Roffensis
which she uses here, which reads that Parliament should return ‘at the third hour after eating and drinking’, does not indicate an afternoon session but a morning one. The medieval day was counted from about 6 a.m., and thus the third hour was about 9 a.m. The reference to eating and drinking is due to the fact that in the fourteenth century most people ate two meals a day, one at about 10 a.m. and another in the late afternoon. Thus they were being asked to assemble earlier than usual, and to eat earlier than usual in preparation for a long session.

10.
Fryde,
Tyranny and Fall
, p. 200. This speech, which is longer in the unreferenced passage quoted by Fryde, may have been part of a speech delivered at a later occasion. So confused are the chronicles on the actual details of these proceedings that it is difficult to say for certain which prelates’ speeches were delivered when, except Orleton’s, which was definitely given on 13 January.

11.
Notes and Queries
, 6th series, viii, pp. 404–5.

12.
Doherty states that the only explanation of why the eventual oath was different
to the oath de Bethune mentioned in his letter was that de Bethune overstepped the mark. It is equally possible and far more likely, given the order of events of the day, that the deposition oath was held as a threat over those not in favour during the Parliamentary discussions, enforcing the silence of the opposition. Once the deposition had been agreed in Parliament, there was no need to include this element of the oath. The prince is still referred to as Isabella’s son (rather than as the king) because the deputation to Kenilworth had not yet seen the king to force the king to abdicate, which was always the prime intention of the deposers, and to do the official acts of renouncing homage and disbanding the royal household, etc. See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 187, and Valente, ‘Deposition and Abdication’,
passim
.

13.
Valente, ‘Deposition and Abdication’, pp. 880–1.

14.
CCR 1327–1330
, p. 1.

15.
Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 41, quoting PRO E101/382/8.

16.
Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 54, quoting PRO E101/382/8.

17.
Some sources state Henry of Lancaster, not John of Hainault, knighted him. The matter remains in doubt.

18.
The description of the medal comes from Barnes,
Edward III
, p. 4.

19.
CPR 1327–1330
, p. 22. Note at this time only the marriage was granted; wardship of the lands was not granted until October.

20.
The wardship of Warwick was granted in 1318; that of Audley in 1316. These should not be regarded as new grants as some writers suggest.

21.
The only known membership of the council appears in
The Brut
. This lists the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Bishop Stratford and Bishop Orleton, the Earls of Lancaster, Norfolk, Kent and Surrey, and four barons: Thomas Wake, Henry Percy, Oliver Ingham and John de Ros. See Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, pp. 254–5. However, as Doherty has pointed out, the Rolls of Parliament mention fourteen members of the council, there being six barons. See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 199.

22.
Doherty accounts for the queen’s expenses, and points out that she only needed from this vast wealth to pay her mercenaries’ expenses for one month. See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 203–4.

23.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 208–9.

24.
Clarke
et al
. (eds),
Foedera
, iii, p. 309.

25.
Thompson (ed.),
Galfridi le Baker
, p. 31. For his service with Roger, see
CPR 1321–1324
, p. 17.

26.
Doherty doubts that Edward was removed by force from Kenilworth, claiming that there is evidence of a peaceful transfer of custody because there was a contract drawn up between Berkeley and Lancaster, and also because Roger would have had to use an army to take the king. One suspects that some trickery was afoot. It is possible that Isabella prevailed upon Lancaster, who was still at court, to draw up the indenture with Berkeley, while Roger at or near Kenilworth prevailed upon the constable to hand over the deposed king. It seems very strange that Lancaster should have accused Roger the following year of taking the king from Kenilworth by force if it was a false accusation, as he was trying to keep the moral high ground. One suspects that, even if the indenture was made in good faith, Roger was nearby with a force of men-at-arms. See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 208.

27.
See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 214–34, and Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’,
pp. 203–28, for the basic narrative. To Doherty is due the credit for discovering the dealings between Roger and Isabella in exile and the Scots.

28.
Barbour,
The Bruce
, ii (1968 reprint of vols ii and iii in one vol.), pp. 473–94. Certain allowances have to be made for Barbour’s glorification of his hero, his being a literary work in praise of Bruce. Numbers of opponents and Englishmen killed are exaggerated. However, so complete was the Scottish success in outwitting the English on this campaign that Barbour did not have to exaggerate very often to make the Scots appear glorious in their retreat.

29.
Our knowledge of Edward’s escape from Berkeley Castle is based on a letter from Thomas de Berkeley dated 27 July. This was addressed to the Chancellor, John de Hothum, and so Roger had probably already been informed several days earlier by express messengers. Thus the release of the deposed king could have been achieved at any time before this. The dating of the receipt of the news to 1 July (Harding revised the calendered date of 11 July) is because on that day Maltravers and Berkeley were granted the position of keepers of the peace for almost all of the region in accordance with the Statute of Winchester. See
CPR 1327–1330
, p. 154; Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 136; Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 229; Haines, ‘Afterlife’, pp. 69–70.

30.
Complete Peerage
, vii, p. 399.

31.
Barbour,
The Bruce
, ii, p. 479.

32.
Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, pp. 250–1.

33.
This is touched upon, although not explicitly with reference to Scotland, in the final accusations against him at the end of his life, for which see
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, p. 52; Roger is more specifically referred to in the longer
Brut
as a traitor for his actions. See Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, pp. 250–1.

34.
Barbour says this was after eight nights; le Bel, quoted by Froissart, says the first night. Barbour seems more reliable, although not an eyewitness like le Bel, since he states that for eight days nothing happened while the Scots tried to find a way to attack the English from their well-defended position.

35.
CCR 1327–1330
, pp. 217–18. This order has possibly been very slightly misunderstood by certain writers. Roger had lieutenants in both North and South Wales, therefore he did not need to go in person to root out the ‘malefactors and disturbers of the peace’, and so the order cannot be seen as the reason for his departure. Significantly it was issued under the privy seal, i.e. probably at Roger’s order, and so was in reality an order to himself. Thus it was probably a cover for Roger’s departure from court at this time, not the reason for it.

12: The King’s Murderer?

1.
Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 145. Thomas Gurney carried the message from Berkeley, as shown by the sole entry in the Berkeley expenses. See Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 85, n. 98. Smyth,
Lives of the Berkeleys
, i, p. 296.

2.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 228.

3.
Moore, ‘Documents Relating to the Death and Burial of King Edward II’, p. 217. With regard to the date, although Doherty states that the corpse was moved
sometime after 10 November, the account states definitely that Maltravers and Berkeley on 21 October ‘liberaverunt corpus dicti defuncti Abbati Sancti Petri Cloucestrie apud Gloucestriam per breve Regis …’ See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 231; Moore, ‘Documents’, p. 223.

4.
Moore, ‘Documents’, p. 226. The text of the account specifies his watching from the day of the death, ‘videlicet xxj Septembris quo die Rex obijt usque xx diem Decembris proximum sequentem’.

5.
Moore, ‘Documents’, pp. 223–6.

6.
CPR 1327–1330
, p. 37.

7.
Hope, ‘On the Funeral Effigies of the Kings and Queens of England’, pp. 517–70, especially with reference to the bodies of Edward I, pp. 528–9, and Richard II, p. 533. See also report of the opening of Edward I’s tomb in the first volume of
Archaeologia
. The embalming process would have been expected to occur immediately after death, as happened with Edward III.

8.
According to PRO C53/114 (no. 20), Roger was at Doncaster with the court on 26 August. He was ordered on 4 September to inquire into conspiracies in South Wales against the government (
CCR 1327–1330
, pp. 217–18), and probably left the court at Nottingham at about that time. We have no certain information as to his whereabouts apart from the later court case involving William de Shalford in 1331, mentioned in the text, until he was once more back at Nottingham on 4 October (PRO C53/114 (no. 15)). The possibility that he met Berkeley and discussed the fate of Edward II with him is not out of the question. The acknowledgement in March the following year that he owed Thomas de Berkeley £850 might or might not reflect a deal between the two men. See
CCR 1327–1330
, p. 369.

9.
Tout, ‘Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon’, pp. 109–10. Confirmation that William de Shalford was indeed Roger’s deputy in North Wales at this time is to be found in
CPR 1327–1330
, p. 194.

10.
Stubbs (ed.)
Chronicles illustrative of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II
, i, pp. 337–8.

11.
According to the
DNB
, he travelled to Exeter in June, after the death of the Bishop of Exeter, James Berkeley. He remained in Exeter until the autumn, as John de Grandison was appointed in October.

12.
Gransden,
Historical Writing
, ii, p. 30. She refers to it as a diary but, as the ‘diary’ genre as we know it did not evolve until the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century, this description is perhaps a little misleading.

13.
Lords travelling on the Continent, of the status of minor earls or bishops, might expect about £2 for themselves. Maltravers and Berkeley, while lesser men, were doing a very dangerous and unusual job. A combined fee of £3 would not be unreasonable.

14.
Thompson (ed.),
Murimuth
, pp. 52–3, 63–4.