The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (59 page)

43.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 304–5.

44.
Childs and Taylor (eds),
Anonimalle Chronicle
, p. 145.

45.
Aungier (ed.),
French Chronicle of London
, p. 63.

46.
Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, ii, p. 268.

47.
Maxwell (ed.),
Scalacronica
, p. 157.

48.
Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, ii, p. 268.

49.
Shenton, ‘Edward III and the Coup of 1330’, p. 4.

50.
This is partly conjecture. It is unthinkable that one of the strongest military fortifications
in the country could have an undefended passage into its heart which was not kept locked from the inside, especially given the castle’s high state of alert. It is equally unthinkable that the constable and others within the castle did not know of the existence of the tunnels. An internal lock would explain their confidence, and why ‘enemies of the queen’ were not permitted within the castle, and also why the author of the
Scalacronica
calls the passage a ‘postern gate’. An internal lock would require someone to open it, however; Edward’s presence at the scene being assumed by the queen in both the
Brut
and Geoffrey le Baker’s account suggests she was assuming he had undone the fateful lock and allowed in the assailants.

51.
The king’s feigned illness is an attempt to explain how Edward joined the conspirators, having been in the castle after the gate was shut, and why his physician was rewarded for probably playing a part in the plot. Caroline Shenton’s suggestion that he was rewarded for his role on account of his tending to the wounded and dying is unconvincing, as such a role was associated with no risk, and therefore would have been very unlikely to merit a very valuable reward. See Shenton, ‘Edward III and the Coup of 1330’, pp. 24–6.

52.
‘Fair son, have pity on the gentle Mortimer’ are the words attributed to Isabella by Geoffrey le Baker. I have concatenated them with the similar but more wooden phrases in the
Brut
. In fact probably neither chronicler was informed as to what the queen’s words were, but one cannot write a book about Roger Mortimer and ignore the most famous phrase associated with him. See Thompson (ed.),
Galfridi le Baker
, p. 46; Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, ii, p. 271.

53.
Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 317. Isabella was sent to Berkhamsted Castle.

54.
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, p. 53.

55.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 317.

56.
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, pp. 52–3.

Epilogue

1.
Maunde Thompson (ed.),
Murimuth
, p. 62.

2.
CCR 1330–1333
, p. 403. Roger’s body may have been appropriated by the Coventry friars eager to obtain such an eminent corpse.

3.
Some doubts remain as to whether Roger’s body was relocated to Wigmore. A petition from Joan dated 1332, now in the Public Record Office (PRO SC8/61/3027), suggests he might have remained buried in Coventry, despite Edward’s order of the previous year. Since Coventry was a city within Isabella’s sphere of influence, it is possible that she persuaded her son to leave Roger buried in the friary there. I am grateful to Paul Dryburgh for alerting me to this argument and to Barbara Wright for sharing her knowledge of the original petition. All I can add is that the Wigmore Chronicler states that Roger was buried in the Greyfriars Church in Shrewsbury a year and a day after his execution (Dugdale,
Monasticon
, 6, iii, p. 352). If he
was
removed from Coventry in 1331 it is by no means certain that he was reburied in Wigmore Abbey.

12: Chapter Twelve Revisited

1.
Hope, ‘On the Funeral Effigies of the Kings and Queens of England’. Elizabeth Hallam, writing more recently but less specifically, states that in fourteenth-century England, in contrast with thirteenth-century practice, ‘a funeral effigy occupied the place of the royal corpse on the bier’, adding that the first time this happened was ‘probably at Edward II’s funeral’. See Hallam, ‘Royal Burial and Cult of Kingship in France and England 1060–1330’, pp. 366–7.

2.
Hope, ‘Funeral Effigies’, p. 529.

3.
Hope, ‘Funeral Effigies’, p. 533.

4.
Thompson (ed.),
Murimuth
, pp. 52–3, 63–4. The text reads: ‘
Et licet multi abbates, priores, milites, burgenses de Bristollia et Gloucestria ad videndum corpus suum integrum fuissent vocati, et tale superficialiter conspexissent
…’ There is no context to support Fryde’s interpretation of the word
superficialiter
as ‘from a distance’. See Fryde,
Tyranny and Fall
, p. 203.

5.
Edward III was embalmed ‘immediately’ after his death. See Hope, ‘Funeral Effigies’, p. 532.

6.
Smyth,
Lives
, i, 297. The body was publicly taken from Berkeley before this date.

7.
Cuttino quotes H.M. Colvin to this effect. See Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, p. 525.

8.
The monument is generally considered to be some years later than the supposed burial. See Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, p. 525.

9.
Thompson (ed.),
Murimuth
, p. 135.

10.
To clarify this point: because the funeral service in 1327 had to be seen to be correct in every respect, the heart was given to the man’s widow as part of the aristocratic burial procedure. After the ceremony, she might have disposed of the false organ discreetly, probably placing it in a church where it could still be noticed as Edward’s and thus perform a propaganda function. Her husband’s heart may have been procured for her on the actual death of her husband, and later buried with her. There were plenty of precedents for burying hearts separately after death; for example, Henry of Almaine’s, for one, was brought back in a silver vase from Italy.

11.
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, 53.

12.
Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 332.

13.
CPR 1338–1340
, p. 378;
CPR 1343–1345
, p. 535; Rymer (ed.),
Foedera
, iii, p. 56. For his service in Ireland see
CPR 1343–1345
, pp. 244, 245, 334.

14.
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, p. 243.

15.
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, p. 57. To the line ‘
Qualiter se velit de morte ipsius Regis acquietare?
’ Berkeley’s reply was unambiguous: ‘
Dicit, quod ipse nunquam fuit consentiens, auxilians, seu procurans, ad mortem suam, nec unquam scivit de morte sua usque in presenti Parliamento isto
.’

16.
Tout, ‘Captivity and Death’, pp. 91–2; Smyth,
Lives
, i, p. 296.

17.
Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 85, n. 98; Smyth,
Lives
, i, pp. 296–7.

18.
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, p. 57.

19.
Rymer (ed.),
Foedera
, ii, p. 960.

20.
CCR 1330–1333
, p. 270.

21.
Smyth,
Lives
, i, p. 297.

22.
Hunter, ‘Measures Taken for the Apprehension of Sir Thomas de Gurney, One of the Murderers of Edward II’, pp. 274–97.

23.
Hunter, ‘Measures Taken’, pp. 282–3.

24.
CPR 1334–1338
, p. 399. This was two days after Berkeley was finally acquitted of any part in the death of Edward II.

25.
The possibility that there was an error in the recording of the charges is ruled out by the fact that no charges relating to the ex-king’s death were mentioned on the two occasions when Maltravers received permission to return to England to face trial in 1345 and 1347, or when he was in custody in 1352.

26.
However, it is worth noting that he was almost certainly alive in March 1330. Even if Edward III was uncertain about his father’s existence, Roger was certainly better informed. His ability to convince the king that Kent’s plot to reinstate Edward II was genuine, and required Kent’s execution, strongly suggests that he was confident that the ex-king was still alive then, and that Edward III believed him.

27.
This text has been transcribed from the version in Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, pp. 526–7, this being their translation of the corrected Latin original given by them on pp. 537–8 of the same article.

28.
Tout, ‘Captivity and Death’, p. 103.

29.
Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, pp. 530–1.

30.
Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, p. 531.

31.
Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, p. 531.

32.
Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 80.

33.
Haines, ‘Afterlife’, pp. 72–4. His assumption about the viewing of the corpse is based on a more basic assumption that the exhibition of the corpse revealed the face. As regards the burial of the heart, there were several precedents for bringing back the heart and bones of dead members of the English aristocracy from Italy. One such heart – that of Henry of Almaine, a cousin of both Roger and Edward II, killed at Viterbo in 1271 – lay in a silver vase near the shrine of St Edward in Westminster Abbey, near the spot where Roger was knighted. Thus it is quite possible that the heart placed below Isabella’s tomb in 1358 was that of Edward II, brought back from Italy by Edward III, and not the one she was given in 1327. An alternative possibility is that Edward III purposefully buried the false heart under Isabella’s tomb against her wishes, partly to dispose of it (it might still have graced an altar) and partly as a silent witness to the charade of Edward II’s death.

34.
English Historical Documents 1327–1485
, p. 497. Haines states that, because Fieschi would have expected a clerk to translate a Latin document for Edward III, he would not have written ‘Edward [II]’s English (French?)’ in a local Italian form. Edward II’s first language was French, not English, and in any case he would have been able to tell Fieschi that his son could read Latin as well. As a papal notary, Fieschi may well have known from Edward’s contacts with Avignon that Edward was literate. As a result, Haines’s suggestion that Fieschi was not the author of the letter is difficult to accept. See Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 67. For the relationship between Fieschi and Edward III, see Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, p. 544.

35.
Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 68.

36.
Haines, ‘Afterlife’, pp. 65–6.

37.
Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 65. It was probably compiled by Arnaud de Verdale, not
Gaucelm de Deaux. In a footnote (p. 80, n. 4) he quotes Theodore Bent who states in a piece in
Notes and Queries
, 6th series, ii, p. 381, that Arnaud (Bishop of Maguelonne, 1339–52) ‘had a passion for collecting documents from all parts of the world’.

38.
The possibility that a chronicle error led to this mistake and thus indicates a forgery has been considered. This is mainly because the longer
Brut
states Kent died in 1329, which would result in a one and a half year stay. However, this also states that Kent was executed in October, making Edward II’s stay at Corfe appear to be two years. No chronicle so far looked at has this chronological error. See Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, ii, p. 267.

39.
Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 69.

40.
Deveril’s implication in the plot of the Earl of Kent, and the order to him to arrest Robert le Bore on 2 May 1330 and to imprison him in Corfe Castle indicate that he was castellan then. There is no indication that he was known to Edward, and so Edward might have been convinced by a false name. Alternatively the castellan may genuinely have been a ‘Thomas’ in 1327, before Deveril’s appointment. Lack of any official records on the subject means we cannot say when Deveril was appointed. He was rewarded in August 1330 with lands worth £20 per year. See
CPR 1327–1330
, pp. 549, 551.

41.
If it had been an impromptu communication for Edward’s interest, one would have expected some information about how the king had been found, and how his identity was proved.

42.
CCR 1323–1327
, p. 686.

43.
One Percival Rycius of Genoa, merchant, was on 27 July 1329 prosecuting to have the return of goods lost in the dromond or the value thereof. See
CCR 1327–1330
, p. 562.

44.
Haines states that there was a relationship, though he does not say what it was. See Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 68.

45.
CPR 1334–1338
, p. 489.

46.
On 2 May 1336, two months before Edward III replied to the Genoese administration, Joan was granted her petition that her Irish lands should be restored to her, which had been confiscated by the king owing to ‘alleged trespasses by her’. Not only were the lands restored, she was also compensated for the income lost. Since she promptly granted them to Geoffrey Mortimer, who had been arrested along with Roger, it is unlikely that the confiscation of the lands had had anything to do with Geoffrey. There is a very slight possibility that it was connected with William de Ockley, he being at one point a member of her household, as stated in the main text. Alternatively Edward may have believed that his father was being harboured on the Mortimer estates in Ireland still, and forgave Joan only when he learnt his father was in Italy. It is not possible to be certain.

47.
Cuttino dismissed it because he could not fit it in with his chronology, in which he wished to place Edward at Koblenz on his way to Italy; Haines presumes that William was an impersonator, and was a prisoner, although there is no good evidence to assume this. See Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, p. 530; Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 74.