by Penny Lawne
Edmund’s arrest and execution was not just devastating for his family; it shocked and appalled his contemporaries, as it was intended to. Just four years before, in September 1326, Queen Isabella had swept her husband, Edward II, from power in a bloodless invasion, bringing to an end five years of tyrannical rule by the king and his favourites, the Despensers. In the January parliament of 1327 it was publicly announced that the captive Edward II had agreed to abdicate in favour of his fourteen-year-old son and heir, Prince Edward. The majority of the nobility were solidly behind the queen, and hoped the king’s deposition would herald an era of political stability. At first the liberality of the new regime towards their supporters had contrasted favourably with the miserly and vindictive behaviour of Edward II and the Despensers. A council was set up to rule on behalf of the young Edward III which included his father’s two half-brothers, Thomas Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, and Joan’s father, Edmund, Earl of Kent. However, it quickly became apparent that the council had little real authority, and that power remained with the queen, and her lover, Roger Mortimer, and it was not long before the nobility realised they had replaced Edward II with a different form of tyrant in Roger Mortimer. Retaining firm control, the queen and her lover issued orders in the king’s name, ensuring that neither Edward III nor his council were able to act freely. By 1328 Mortimer, newly created Earl of March, was king in all but name. Inevitably, Isabella and Mortimer’s exercise of power became resented, and their increasingly aggressive and acquisitive behaviour, reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Despenser rule, successively alienated most of the nobility, while Edward III’s dislike of Mortimer grew and he chafed at his lack of independence. By the autumn of 1328 opposition had united under the most powerful of the earls, Henry of Lancaster, the king’s second cousin. But when Lancaster’s forces gathered outside London in December 1328, it was Mortimer who took the initiative and launched an attack in the king’s name, and his quick thinking and decisive action induced Lancaster and his followers to withdraw. However, the encounter was not conclusive, as the opposition remained intact and entrenched in resistance, and throughout 1329 there was an uneasy peace. Isabella and Mortimer knew they could not hope to rely on securing their position through her son for much longer. Their agenda in calling the Winchester parliament in March 1330 was to reinforce their hold on power by giving the gathering of lords, prelates and knights a demonstration of the extent of their authority. They planned to do this by targeting someone with rank and status, close to the throne, but who lacked support among the nobility and who could be safely attacked with little fear of reprisal. Lancaster was too strong to openly challenge. They found a perfect victim instead in Joan’s father.
Joan’s Father, Edmund, Earl of Kent
Edmund, Earl of Kent, was the youngest son of Edward I and his second wife, Margaret of France.7 Edward I was sixty-two when his youngest son was born, and at the height of his powers. A powerful and authoritative ruler, Edward I was regarded with awe and respect by both his subjects and his enemies, and he remained vigorous and forceful despite his advancing years. Having enjoyed a long and happy marriage with Eleanor of Castile, their contentment together reflected by their numerous progeny (they had at least fourteen children, although only five survived to adulthood), nine years after Eleanor’s death Edward put aside his grief and entered into a second marriage with Margaret of France in 1299 as part of a diplomatic rapprochement to foster better relations with France.8 Despite the difference in their ages (Margaret was seventeen when she married Edward I, over forty years younger than her husband), their marriage was also reputedly a happy one, and soon blessed in 1300 with the birth of a son, Thomas, born at Brotherton in Yorkshire as Margaret journeyed north to join her indefatigable husband as he engaged in yet another campaign against his unruly Scottish neighbours. Within a year Margaret bore him a second son, this time in the more comfortable surroundings of the royal palace at Woodstock, and the king named his youngest son Edmund, a family name shared by the king’s brother, Edmund of Lancaster, who had died in 1296, and his cousin Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, who had also just died. Five years later, Margaret gave birth to a girl, Eleanor, their last child.
With only one surviving son by Eleanor, Edward of Carnarvon, it is probable that Edward I welcomed the birth of his two younger sons, Thomas and Edmund. Although Thomas was born while Margaret was travelling to meet Edward, no expense was spared, with his cradle provided with fine Lincoln scarlet, dark-blue cloth, sheets of Rheims linen and fur coverlets and decorated with heraldic arms.9 Born in a secure and comfortable palace, Edmund would have been cosseted and spoiled. Delighted with his youngest son’s arrival, Edward I rewarded the messenger John Prade handsomely for bringing news of Edmund’s birth.10 Although little is known of the young princes’ childhood years, it can be assumed that they were well cared for and enjoyed the normal accoutrements of noble childhood; they did, for example, have a toy drum which was so well used it needed repair, and an iron bird cage given to them by their mother.11 The boys were kept together, and when their sister was born in 1306 she joined their nursery, the royal siblings all within the same household.12 Their shared childhood forged a bond between Thomas and Edmund which they retained in adulthood. However, they had very different personalities. Edmund appears to have been easy-going and peaceable, a likeable young man but lacking in the leadership and drive which characterised his father, whereas Thomas was an altogether more difficult man, prone to outbursts of temper. Contemporary chroniclers present a generally favourable impression of Edmund, with Jean le Bel describing him as a man who was most honourable and courteous (‘qui estoit moult proeudomme et debonnaire’), and Jean Froissart as ‘wise, affable and much beloved’, whereas Thomas had a ‘wild and disagreeable temper’.13 There are no portraits or descriptions of them physically. Their mother, Margaret, was described in complimentary terms in her youth; her brother Philip, who became King of France, was known as Philip the Fair for his handsomeness, and chroniclers considered their cousin Isabella, Philip’s daughter, with her long, blond hair, to be lovely.14
Edward I died in July 1307 when Thomas was seven years old and Edmund a year younger. Given the king’s advanced age at their birth it was hardly surprising that the princes lost their father while they were so young. Initially his loss would have made little difference to their lives, and their education would have continued as before under the supervision of their mother. The now dowager Queen Margaret was no longer required to preside over the court and therefore probably spent more time with her children as a widow than she would otherwise have done. Sadly, their sister Eleanor did not long survive her father, but despite this tragedy, and the loss of their father, there is no reason to suppose that Edmund and Thomas had anything other than a happy childhood. It was customary for the royal nursery to remain reasonably static, while the court in contrast travelled from place to place following the king, and it is therefore unlikely that the children spent much time with their much older half-siblings, Edward of Carnarvon and his sisters. There is no evidence that Edward II took an active part in his brothers’ upbringing, and he probably saw them infrequently, but he was likely to have been fond of them as he had a good relationship with his stepmother, and may have had some sympathy for them as he too had experienced the loss of a parent at an early age (his mother, Queen Eleanor, had died when he was six). They quickly acquired a sister-in-law when Edward II married Isabella of France in January 1308. The new queen was their twelve-year-old cousin, daughter of their mother’s brother, Philip IV of France. The princes attended their brother’s coronation at Westminster Abbey in February 1308.15
Edmund’s relationship with his older half-brother, and his involvement in his affairs, would dominate his career. It is likely that, young as they were, the princes quickly became aware that their brother was having a difficult time. Edward I’s legacy to his heir of the campaigns in Wales and Scotland, resulting in more or less empty coffers, with the ongoing requirement fo
r vigilance and possible military enforcement, together with the uneasy peace with France, would have challenged a more able and politically astute man than Edward II. As it was, Edward II managed to exacerbate his own problems and create an immediate crisis at the very beginning of his reign by antagonising the majority of the nobility over his friendship with Piers Gaveston and in ennobling and enriching him within a month of the old king’s death. Gaveston was the son of a French baron and had entered royal service, being placed in the then Prince Edward’s household as a squire. The two young men had quickly developed a very close friendship, the nature of which has been much debated by historians but was probably fraternal rather than homosexual. Edward II’s coronation, which should have been a splendid and festive occasion, was marred by the barons’ anger at the prominence given to Gaveston during the ceremony, and by Gaveston’s behaviour at the banquet afterwards.16 It is notable that the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi interpreted Gaveston’s elevation to the earldom of Cornwall in 1307 as a direct insult to Thomas and Edmund.17 They were far too young to feel personally aggrieved, but the chronicler’s observation was acute. Edward II’s action was to be symptomatic of his attitude towards providing for his younger brothers, creating a problem he never satisfactorily addressed.
As royal princes Thomas and Edmund could reasonably expect to become, as adults, among the most powerful and influential at the king’s court, but this could not be sustained on birth alone. Traditionally princes were given an earldom (the highest noble rank) which brought with it attendant lands and income to support their status. However, earldoms were scarce, with limited opportunities for obtaining one through death and forfeiture. The option of creating new titles was impractical without ensuring the availability of estates which could be attached. The business of ensuring adequate financial provision for royal siblings had vexed successive English kings who had struggled to find suitable endowments for their progeny. Henry II, for example, despite the huge Angevin empire he created, had notably failed to satisfy his sons. Edward I was more prudent than many of his predecessors, and took considerable care to provide for Thomas and Edmund. He was obliged under the terms of the marriage settlement with Margaret to assign to any male children of their marriage land to the value of 10,000 marks a year, and in 1306 he set out his plans for their children. In the charter dated 31 August 1306, Edward I promised that Thomas should be endowed with land with an annual income of 10,000 marks (a mark was worth 13s 4d), that Edmund would receive land with an annual income of 7,000 marks (in May 1307 the king increased this to 8,000 marks), and that Eleanor would have a dowry of 10,000 marks with 5,000 marks for her trousseau.18 The charter was a formal promise, intended to be binding, and a copy of the charter was made for each child, sealed and sent to the wardrobe under the chancellor’s seal for safekeeping. Very few of the nobility would have incomes greater than those the king promised his sons, and it is clear that Edward I was being intentionally generous; he wanted and expected his sons to become powerful and influential noblemen.
Edward I had planned his charter meticulously. The basic endowments for Thomas and Edmund were the two vacant earldoms of Cornwall and Norfolk which, with their attendant lands and incomes, the king already had within his gift. He had inherited the earldom of Cornwall on the death of his cousin Edmund in 1300, and in 1302 Edward I persuaded the childless Earl of Norfolk, Roger Bigod, to entail his title and lands to the Crown. When the earl died in 1306, the king secured the earldom. Edward I’s intentions were simple; Edmund, naturally, would have the Cornwall earldom after his namesake, while Thomas, as the charter made clear, would receive the earldom of Norfolk. The respective incomes attached to each earldom would provide the majority of their promised income, and he would make up the shortfall, probably anticipating arranging a suitable marriage for them to an heiress, or possibly by making separate grants at a later stage. The king’s confidence in his plans was apparent in his promised timescale, which envisaged each of his children being endowed by the age of seven or eight; Thomas could receive his immediately, Edmund within two years and Eleanor within seven.
When Edward I died in July 1307, less than a year after creating the charter, he had not had a chance to implement its provisions, but he had foreseen this possibility and had known that he might have to rely on his heir to carry it out. It was unfortunate that the king had fallen out with his eldest son, first in a spectacular row in 1305 over the treasurer Walter Langton, which resulted in a four-month estrangement, and then a further unpleasant row in January 1306 over Prince Edward’s close friendship with Piers Gaveston.19 Edward I was particularly incensed by his heir’s demand that Gaveston be granted a title, and by the further suggestion that this might be the earldom of Cornwall, which the king had specifically earmarked for his youngest son. Queen Margaret, at her stepson’s request, acted as peacemaker and intervened on his behalf in an attempt to patch things up with his father, persuading her short-tempered husband to forgive his son, and after Prince Edward had reluctantly agreed to Gaveston leaving his household and going into exile an uneasy peace between father and son was restored. When it came to making the charter in August 1306, Edward I took the precaution of making his son a party to it, clearly intending to bind his heir by the public promise to honour the charter.20 It was hardly surprising that his son did not see the fulfilment of the charter as a priority after Edward I’s death, but no one anticipated what was to happen next. Within a month of his father’s death Edward II had given the earldom of Cornwall to Gaveston, newly returned to his household and high in his favour, thus upsetting his father’s carefully laid plans. In effect, he had given away Edmund’s inheritance. The author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi noted this as an insult to the young princes, fuelling the general hostility and uproar generated by Edward II’s ill-considered action and adding to the resentment and hatred of Gaveston.21 Although Edmund and Thomas were far too young to have seen it as a personal affront, their mother may well have done, and she, and probably others close to the princes, would have made sure they became aware of it.
Edward II was nevertheless morally, if not legally, bound to carry out his father’s intentions, and it is unlikely that the new king forgot his father’s charter, or intended to ignore it. However, he made no immediate attempt to make any award to his brothers. The indications are that Edward II initially failed to appreciate the limitations on the Crown’s resources, and having squandered the Cornwall earldom on his favourite he subsequently found it difficult to find a suitable replacement. Edward II ignored or avoided the issue of providing for his brothers, as, beset on all sides, he struggled with his father’s inheritance. Within months of his marriage to Isabella, the French king was complaining that his daughter had not received the promised dower. While his marriage to Isabella temporarily satisfied the French, Edward II found the continuing problems with neighbouring Scotland, Wales and Ireland almost intractable, lacking Edward I’s military competence and implacable will, but worst of all was his continued inability to reach an accord with his most powerful subjects. Having antagonised the nobility so early in his reign over his marked favouritism towards Gaveston, Edward II paid no heed to their protests, and his fondness for his friend increased rather than diminished as time passed. Under the leadership of his cousin Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the opposition of the nobility grew. Civil war seemed increasingly inevitable, initially averted when Edward II bowed to pressure and sent Gaveston to Ireland and reached an accommodation with the earls by submitting to ordinances restricting his powers. Matters came to a head when Gaveston, having returned from Ireland early in 1312 and surrendered himself to the Earl of Pembroke, was forcibly removed by the Earl of Warwick in June 1312 and taken to Warwick Castle, and then, on the orders of the Earl of Lancaster, executed. Shocked and grief-stricken, Edward II was distraught; but he was also angry, and intent on revenge. Plotting and planning what he would do, preoccupied with arranging his friend’s funeral, the king had no time to spare for his brothers
.
