Eleanor of Castile: The Shadow Queen

by Sara Cockerill

  29. Eleanor of Aquitaine’s seal.

  30. Eleanor’s pet project – Leeds Castle. Though much changed over the years, her original concept of the ‘gloriette’, possibly derived from the ‘pavilion on pool’ type of Castilian garden, remains one of its notable charms.

  31. The whole family loved birds – and Eleanor made sure that Alphonso would have enjoyment in his psalter, with amusing pictures of many varieties. The arms at the bottom reference Alphonso’s projected marriage to the daughter of the Count of Holland.

  32. The young boy hunting is very possibly young Alphonso, who was just emerging into public view at the time of his death on the tenth anniversary of his parents’ coronation.

  33. He was buried at Westminster Abbey, and probably lies today here, where the bones of all Eleanor and Edward’s dead children were joined with those of their aunt Katherine. The ‘tomb’ is in fact probably the original altar from St Edward the Confessor’s shrine.

  34. Despite her taste for outdoor pursuits, and peripatetic life, Eleanor had a clear taste for domestic luxury. Records remain of her commissioning candles decorated in red and green, just like this one in the British Museum.

  35. She even took her own goldsmith on campaign to Wales. This, however, is French work. The clasp, marked with Eleanor’s arms, may have been a thoughtful Christmas gift from one of her inner circle.

  36. Produced for an event in 1285 designed to encourage men to take up knighthood, the Winchester round table still graces the hall where it first was used. The Arthurian themes may well have been Eleanor’s idea.

  37. An unsubtle reminder that the Plantagenets had arrived, Conwy Castle played host to Eleanor during the course of its construction and was the site of one of the many gardens made especially for her.

  38. But it is at Caernarfon that Eleanor’s influence is most clearly felt. The Eagle Tower is plainly intended to reference ‘The Dream of Macsen Wledig’ in the Mabinogion (exactly the kind of tales in which Eleanor took an interest) – but it also bears a more than passing resemblance to the Castilian castle on Eleanor’s arms.

  39. Eleanor’s wardrobe book shows the small doings of her household. Here we see them brought to a grinding halt by the words ‘Decessus Regine’, marking Eleanor’s death.

  40. Eleanor’s death continued to be marked by her family and friends for years to come. Here it is inserted into the calendar in the Alphonso Psalter, which passed to her daughter Elizabeth, and from her to Eleanor’s faithful servants, the Haustede family.

  41. The tomb of Eleanor’s childhood acquaintance Isabelle of Aragon gives the lie to the suggestion that portraiture was not intended (note her sweet, dimpled hands). It also provides fascinating contrasts with Eleanor’s tomb.

  42. Eleanor’s effigy is gilt bronze, like a great king, and she is presented as if for coronation, with flowing robes and loose hair. The full view of her tomb shows a striking resemblance between her seal and her final effigy.

  43. This modern reproduction of the lost Lincoln viscera tomb provides an impression of how the shields would have appeared in the Westminster Abbey tomb.

  44. Sheltered from public view, the ambulatory side of Eleanor’s tomb echoes her tendency to hide away. But again, her full heritage is emphasised in the shields. that decorate the sides of the tomb.

  45. A few feet away and standing guard over Eleanor’s tomb is that of Edward. Amusingly, he achieved the simple tomb to which Ferdinand, Berengaria and Louis IX had all aspired.

  46. The one depiction which remains of the Stamford Cross: The Revd Dr William Stukeley’s diary sketch of the excavated top portion, with its roses.

  47. The first and least obviously lovely of the surviving crosses, the Geddington Cross, situated near the site of one of Eleanor’s favourite hunting areas as well as many of her properties, has an idiosyncratic charm.

  48. It is little changed from how it appears here, lovingly recorded by the Society of Antiquaries in their Vetusta Monumenta in the late eighteenth century.

  49. One of the first prints of an Eleanor cross, this 1716 depiction of the Hardingstone Cross marks the turning point for the fortunes of the crosses.

  50. The record of the Hardingstone Cross’s restoration in 1713, now sited to one side of the cross, with some of the remants of the repaired statues.

  51. By the end of the century the crosses were fawned over by antiquarians, as Cruikshank mockingly shows …

  52 & 53. But restoration was needed: the tender attentions of the passing carriages are all too apparent in the Vetusta Monumenta depiction of Waltham Cross. Each Vetusta Monumenta depiction also showed details of the crosses, enabling the layouts to be discerned and details of the figures appreciated.

  54. The object of a hate campaign for years, the Cheapside Cross is destroyed – to great acclaim – in 1643.

  55. But modern homages continue to be made. The nineteenth-century Charing Cross is the most famous, but this tribute in Stamford was raised at the start of the twenty-first century. The surviving rose detail on the original Stamford Cross forms the basis of the design.

  56. And, now rescued from the more obtrusive attentions of restorers, the Hardingstone Cross still stands by the A45 (London Road), reminding passers-by of one of England’s most remarkable queens.

  Appendix 1

  The Robert Burnell Letter

  This letter, dated ‘October 14 Guildford’, from the Tower of London Collection is now in the National Archives under the reference SC 1/22/29. It runs as follows:

  Eleanor, by God’s grace queen of England, lady of Ireland and duchess of Aquitaine, to Lord Robert Burnell, sends loving greeting.

  We require and affectionately entreat you to give counsel and assistance in this affair that the transgression injuriously committed against the bearer of these presents, the servant of the lady Constance our cousin, which Master John Clarell will show you, may be reasonably redressed. For the confidence which we have in your benevolence is the cause why we so often direct our prayers on behalf of our friends. And do you for love of us give such diligence in this affair, that we may henceforth be bound to you by special favour.

  It has been published twice: Wood, Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies pp. 46–47 and Crawford, Letters of the Queens of England p. 74. In both sources it is ascribed to Eleanor of Castile and given the date of 1274–8. The reason for the ascription appears to be (i) that Eleanor of Castile was then queen and (ii) that if it was written after 1278 Eleanor would be using the title of Countess of Ponthieu, to which she succeeded in March 1279.

  The National Archives, however, have until recently filed the letter as belonging to Eleanor of Provence with a date of 1273–4. The only other source offering a view as to ascription is Parsons, who seems to accept that the letter is one by Eleanor of Provence, although the precise chain of his reasoning is not clear.1

  There are reasons to sympathise with the ascription to Eleanor of Provence: the location (Guildford) is one more associated with Eleanor of Provence than Eleanor of Castile, and in broad terms the very lively style is perhaps more consistent with the surviving letters of the older queen. Moreover, Constance of Béarn was a closer cousin by blood of the former than the latter (though she was a direct cousin of Eleanor of Castile by marriage to Henry of Almain), and Eleanor of Provence is documented as assisting her in her pecuniary difficulties over her dowry.2

  However, on further consideration some questions hang over this ascription. One is the content: Eleanor of Provence was not an intimate of Burnell, and therefore one might suppose that she would be unlikely to address him informally or send him ‘loving greeting’. By contrast, Eleanor of Castile was a very close friend indeed of Burnell. Moreover, Eleanor of Castile has ‘form’ for sending love to her regular business correspondents: ‘health and good love’ to John of London, ‘her beloved clerk, Sir John de Kirkeby’, ‘greetings and good love’ to Richard Knout. Having said that, Eleanor of Provence was herself prone to fairly warm addresses to he
r correspondents: ‘discreet and well-beloved’ to Burnell’s predecessor as Chancellor Walter de Merton, or ‘her beloved Peter of Bordeaux, seneschal of Gascony’. The letter’s ‘loving greeting’ to Burnell would therefore be a little warmer than expected from Eleanor of Provence, but not completely out of the way.3

  The reference to frequent requests might again be said to favour Eleanor of Castile, who worked closely with Burnell. However, both queens corresponded with Burnell regularly, and there is certainly quite a bulk of surviving correspondence between Eleanor of Provence and Burnell over the mid-1270s period as she took up the reins of her dower. Indeed Huscroft, Burnell’s biographer, has concluded that Eleanor of Provence was Burnell’s single most prolific correspondent based on the surviving letters. The reference to frequency of correspondence cannot be determinative. The playful terms in which the reference to repeated requests is couched is again ambivalent. On the one hand, it seems more consistent with the intimate friendship between Burnell and Eleanor of Castile than with the older queen. The latter part is also quite similar to the terms in which Eleanor of Castile asked other administrators to do favours for her. On the other, the playfulness could be just an aspect of the older Eleanor’s famous charm.4

  It would initially appear that the matter could be put simply to rest: if the letter is dated 1273–4, it cannot be by Eleanor of Provence, as Henry III died in November 1272 and after that date she would have written as dowager queen. But Eleanor of Provence certainly did write letters after that date as ‘Queen of England’ – all her numerous letters to Edward prior to her taking the veil are commenced ‘Eleanor by the grace of God Queen of England’, and she sometimes used the Irish and Aquitaine titles too; for example, a letter to William de Merton which must date from early 1273 or 1274 (the period of Merton’s chancellorship) and which cannot be from Eleanor of Castile, who was abroad at the time, commences with ‘Eleanor by the grace of God queen of England, Lady of Ireland, Duchess of Aquitaine’. There are also a number of other later letters which for reasons of location or content seem unlikely to be those of Eleanor of Castile and which are similarly commenced. An example is a letter to Robert Burnell of 1275–85 which deals with a jail at Milton Regis within the older queen’s dower properties. Indeed, looking through Eleanor of Provence’s correspondence after her widowhood, it looks very much like one clerk simply continued to use the form of address to which he was used, while another adopted the more correct ‘Eleanor by the grace of God Queen of England and mother of the King’. The introductory words therefore offer no real guide as to which queen is writing.5

  The fact that Eleanor of Provence did have direct involvement in financially assisting Constance of Béarn in November 1274 (referred to above) may be said to turn the scales in her direction. This appears to have been the factor which inclined Parsons’ ascription. However, the payment (covering non-payment of dower revenues) seems to have nothing to do directly with the subject of the letter (a wrong done to one of Constance’s agents). Further, another later letter in the National Archives from Constance of Béarn to King Edward prays the king to listen to the Bishop of Bath and Wells (Robert Burnell) and Otho de Grandison, the implication being that they were themselves au fait with the subject of her dower problems. The involvement of two such close associates of Eleanor of Castile’s rather suggests her involvement in Constance’s ongoing difficulties.6

  The only other indication is the despatch reported in the letter of one John Clarell on this business to Robert Burnell. John Clarell was a clerk in the king’s service. In 1277, we find him going to the French court on the king’s business. Although Clarell did previously serve Henry III, he would, at least from Edward and Eleanor’s return in 1274, be more likely to be despatched by them than by Eleanor of Provence.7

  Therefore, ascribing the letter with any degree of confidence to one queen or another seems almost impossible.

  The only other point which may assist is tying down the date; i.e. determining to what year it should be allocated. If it were dated 1273, this would determine the matter in favour of Eleanor of Provence, since Eleanor of Castile was not present to make the representation. Similarly, if it could be dated to the early 1280s, Eleanor of Castile could not conceivably have authored it, since she was then in or around Wales.

  The filing location in the National Archives is of no assistance in narrowing the field, as this grouping of letters runs from 1272 to after Eleanor’s death. The basis for the tentative year designation given to it of 1273–4 by the National Archives is not clear.

  The year 1273 can be eliminated. It seems that the letter must date from 1274 or later, since if it were written earlier it would be inconsistent with its filing in a series of chancery letters, since Burnell was only appointed chancellor in 1274.

  The point made by Wood and Crawford – that it must predate Eleanor’s accession as Countess of Ponthieu – is tempting, but flawed. The other surviving letters of Eleanor as queen show that she did not in fact use her Ponthevin title. Exactly the same preamble as commences this letter also appears in letters of Eleanor dated 1283, 1288 and 1289. The absence of the Ponthevin title therefore cannot be regarded as significant in terms of ascribing the letter to one queen or the other, or of dating.8

  However, the letter referred to above from Constance of Béarn to King Edward dealing with her dower actually provides 1279 as the terminus ad quem for the letter, regardless of which queen was the author. That letter can be dated 1279 by reference to other records in Foedera, which show her dower situation being resolved prior to her remarriage. This would indicate that the letter under consideration predates this 1279 letter, with the consequence that the field narrows to 1274–8.9

  There appear to be no further references to Constance’s dower problems, which enable a better fix to be had. Only one fact provides a tentative indication. The letter is addressed simply to ‘lord Robert Burnell’. It does not cite him as Bishop of Bath and Wells, as the accepted mode would have required. Of course, between good friends this is not necessarily determinative. However, when one takes into account that Burnell was not made a bishop until 1275, and therefore in 1274 he would actually correctly have been addressed as lord Robert Burnell, there is at least some ground for saying the most likely year for dating the letter is 1274 – the year of young Henry’s death.

  In logistical terms, if that date is correct, either of the queens could have authored the letter. Eleanor of Provence is documented as being at Guildford then, and Eleanor of Castile is inferred to have been at Westminster, within easy reach of Guildford, where her son was ill.

  However, if the letter is a 1274 letter, this may provide one final small factor in favour of an ascription to Eleanor of Castile, since she and Edward had been in direct contact with Constance during their stay in Gascony the previous year. Constance, it will be recalled, had submitted to them on behalf of her father.

  Overall, the evidence therefore probably points towards a 1274 date for the letter. On authorship, the evidence is almost too close to call, but in my own view it inclines by fractions to an ascription to Eleanor of Castile. If this is so, it rebuts the suggestion that she did not visit young Henry on his deathbed in October 1274.

  Notes

  Further materials including supplementary maps and family trees can be found at www.saracockerill.com

  Preface

  1. Jones The Tower p. 53

  2. Botfield and Turner, Manners II, i

  3. Parsons C&H, p. 17

  4. Parsons C&H p. 3, Hilton, Queens Consort, pp. 199, 203

  1 The Backdrop

  1. Foedera 209. On marriages as a means of autonomy see Parsons ‘Mothers Daughters’ and authorities cited there.

  2. Parsons Q&S p. 7, Warren Henry II p. 42–5, Warren King John p. 19, Poole Domesday Book to Magna Carta p. 163, Turner Eleanor of Aquitaine p. 103, 105–6, 108

  3. Turner p. 109, Warren King John pp. 21–3, Warren Henry II p. 47

  4. Warren p. 117, Poole p.
329 Turner p. 194, Green Lives of the Princesses Vol I p. 264, 270–3, 278

  5. Green, 1 pp. 284–287 Turner p. 289. On the dowry debate, the suggestion that Gascony was an actual part of the dowry is unlikely given Eleanor of Aquitaine’s influence and the later abandonment of the claim by Alfonso X. Given the destruction of key documents at the time of Eleanor and Edward’s wedding, the true facts are unlikely ever to be known: Cerda in Cahiers De Civilisation Medievale 54, 2011 p. 225.

  6. O’Callaghan Alfonso X and the Cantigas de Santa Maria p. 39, Green Vol 1 pp. 287–289 Turner King John: England’s evil king? pp. 102–3, Bowie The Daughters of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine pp. 119–122 gives the best available account of the Alfonsine invasion.

  7. Bianchini The Queen’s Hand p. 5, Lomax The Reconquest of Spain pp. 119–20, 122, Green Vol 1 p. 279–282, 293, Parsons QCB p. 203–5, 207, Pratt, Gorey, The Battles that Changed History p. 104

  8. Green Vol 1 299–300, Lomax p. 126–7, Pratt, Gorey p. 106–110,

  9. Ridder Simoens, A History of the University in Europe Vol 1 p. 92 Green p. 283. Eleanor’s grandfather Alfonso IX of Leon founded the stadium of Salamanca in 1218, presumably in imitation of Palencia. On troubadour patronage: ed. Akehurst A Handbook of Troubadours p. 273, McCash Cultural Patronage of Medieval women pp. 15–16,. Bowie, The Daughters of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine pp. 165–7 considers Eleanor’s promotion of the Becket cult.