by Ian Mortimer
13. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 229.
14. CCR 1327–1330, p. 261.
15. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 234.
16. CPR 1327–1330, pp. 163, 166.
17. CPR 1327–1330, p. 326.
18. See also Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 244, for a second opinion on the use of the privy seal. He uses evidence from the parliament at Northampton which sought to curb the use of the privy seal.
19. Tout, Chapters in English Administrative History, vi, p. 46. Obviously this appointment was to the king’s satisfaction, as Gilbert kept the post until 1334.
20. CCR 1327–1330, p. 262. Roger had been promised 2,000 marks at the English Exchequer, and the same at the exchequers of Dublin and Carnarvon. He had bought the right of marrying Thomas de Beauchamp for his daughter with 500 marks of the English debt, and had received only 225 marks from Wales and 348 from Dublin.
21. Thompson (ed.), Murimuth, p. 57.
22. Murimuth (p. 57) states that at this time there was a double wedding at Hereford in which two of Roger’s daughters married two heirs, namely Laurence de Hastings and Edward of Norfolk. This is almost certainly a mistake. It is unlikely that Roger’s daughters, Agnes and Beatrice, could have been so advantageously matched before Roger was himself an earl, which did not occur until October 1328. Also it is unlikely that the Earl of Norfolk would have allowed his son and heir to marry Roger’s daughter when he was considering rebellion against him, as he was in the summer of 1328. The jousting mentioned by Murimuth in the context of the double wedding is probably the same as the jousting mentioned by Knighton and the longer version of the Brut as a Round Table tournament. The earliest of these sources, the Brut, places this in 1329; Knighton (p. 449) seems to have copied Murimuth in having one Hereford event, a Round Table tournament, in 1328 (his copyists in turn have mistaken ‘Hereford’ for ‘Bedford’ in one manuscript and ‘Hertford’ in another). It is likely therefore that there were in fact two Mortimer double weddings, one at Hereford at the end of May 1328, and one in autumn 1329, possibly also at Hereford. If this is correct, the pair of daughters married on the first occasion were Catherine and Joan, not Agnes and Beatrice, whose husbands were granted their lands in February and June 1329 respectively. Since Murimuth was working from his memoranda book, it seems likely that he copied his entry relating to the wedding in 1328 at Hereford correctly, since the court was indeed at Hereford at the time he mentions, but then in 1337 he added from memory the names of two of the most eminent heirs to have married Mortimer daughters, who were married at the later event. The text only includes the names of the heirs as an afterthought, the original seems merely to have read that Roger’s daughters married ‘quosdam nobiles’. See Appendix 2.
23. CCR 1327–1330, p. 293. The association of this lead with Wigmore is an assumption based on the fact that Ludlow was probably completed by June 1328, as indicated by Roger’s invitation to the king to visit, but Wigmore was not fit for royal inspection for another year. It is also possible that Roger rebuilt one of his manor houses which has not survived, and that the lead went there instead.
24. While there is every possibility that the good burghers of Wigmore themselves paid for this, the architectural style of the early fourteenth-century south aisle, its features in common with Ludlow and Wigmore, its demonstrative and aristocratic use of light, and the dramatic rise in Roger’s fortunes at this time suggest he was involved in this project.
25. Blom (ed.), Calendar of Papal Registers, ii, p. 349.
26. Dugdale, Monasticon, vi, part iii, p. 352. The priests were not financed until later in the year, but it is probable that in Roger’s presence a mass was sung on the occasion of its consecration.
27. This inventory is from an account made by William de Shalford in the PRO, dated 25 November 1331, and transcribed as appendix iii of Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, pp. 389–91. The original is PRO E372/179, m22.
28. Notes and Queries, 11th series, x, p. 126.
29. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 249.
30. Edward did not trust Lancaster enough to tell him of the survival of Edward II, as shown by later evidence from 1328 showing Lancaster almost certainly learnt this from the Earl of Kent. Lancaster also approached Edward in a hostile fashion later in the year.
31. Geoffrey appears several times on the Charter Rolls as a witness. He was also made heir to Joan’s inheritance of the lordship of Trim in Ireland in 1336, although her grandson Roger was the rightful heir.
32. Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 162; Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 251.
33. The accusations are from Brie (ed.), The Brut, i, p. 259.
34. The usually accepted date is 7 October, but 15 October has been proposed as more likely. See Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, pp. 166–7 for a discussion of the actual date.
35. Thomas (ed.), Plea & Memoranda Rolls, p. 82; Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 260.
36. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 260; Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 170; Thomas (ed.), Plea & Memoranda Rolls, p. 82.
37. PRO C53/115 (no. 26, dated 30 October). This shows Roger was not referred to as an earl on the second to last day of the parliament, so either he was created that night or the following day. He is referred to as Earl of March in PRO C53/115 (no. 11, dated 3 November).
38. CPR 1327–1330, p. 343.
39. There is no hard evidence as to the dates of either of these deaths. Roger died some time before 27 August 1328, as shown by the shift of the grant of all the Irish estates to John at this time. See CPR 1327–1330, p. 317. John’s death is recorded by the Wigmore chronicler as occuring some time in 1328, and was clearly after 27 August. See Dugdale, Monasticon, vi, part iii, p. 352.
40. Thompson (ed.), Murimuth, p. 255.
41. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 294, quoting Thomas, Plea & Memoranda Rolls, p. 77.
42. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 265.
43. The clause in Magna Carta to which they were probably referring was no. 39: ‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way … except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land’. See Davis, Magna Carta, p. 28.
44. See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 253–68 for a good outline of the move towards war in 1328–9.
14: King of Folly
1. Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, pp. 180–1; Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 274.
2. Later his supporters managed to organise his removal to the custody of the Bishop of London, on his estates in Essex.
3. Brie (ed.) The Brut, ii, p. 262.
4. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 279.
5. PRO E101/384/1 f17v. My thanks to Paul Dryburgh for this reference.
6. Brie (ed.), The Brut, ii, p. 261.
7. Joliffe (ed.), Froissart’s Chronicles, p. 52.
8. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 287. Although she had not made a similar settlement before the births of her other three children, as Doherty says, there was no need as the initial grant would have held good for all four.
9. This is taken from the account in the published version; CPR 1327–1330, p. 343.
10. Eyton, Shropshire, xi, p. 324. This relates to BL Harley MS 1240, the later fourteenth-century Mortimer family cartulary.
11. This is according to Complete Peerage. It is to be noted that the Anonimalle Chronicle mentions an Earl of Lincoln arrested in March 1330 along with the Earl of Kent. This is difficult to explain. Ebulo Lestrange, who is the most likely person mistakenly to have been called Earl of Lincoln, seems not to have been arrested at this time. He was no friend of Roger’s, however, as shown by the fact that his lands were assumed late in 1330 by Roger. Also he, together with Thomas Wake, and the sons of the Earl of Hereford, were ordered to bring Isabella to Edward after Roger’s death. See CPR 1327–1330, p. 36.
12. See Rotuli parliamentorum, ii, p. 57, for a list of what was claimed. Clifford, Donnington and Dinbaud castles
were among those Roger had acquired or would acquire for himself and his family, along with the manor of Glasebury.
13. A few further words might be added to this theory. Firstly it is highly likely that any child of Roger’s and Isabella’s would be created an earl, as all English royal sons for the past century had been created earls. This was despite the illegitimacy: a son would have been the half-brother of the King of England, half-brother of the Earl of Cornwall, a half-brother of the future Earl of March, a first cousin once removed of the King of France, and a brother-in-law of the King of Scotland and the Earls of Warwick, Pembroke and Norfolk. The Countess of Lincoln could have been induced to adopt the boy as her own, perhaps by pretending he was her own offspring, and thus to perpetuate the title while removing from Roger and Isabella the possible embarrassment of having very publicly to create a new earldom. This was not possible with any other English earldom at this time. As for making a baby an earl, Edward III himself had been made Earl of Chester at the age of eleven days, so such a move was not strange to Isabella. Finally if this theory is correct, it may possibly explain the unidentified Mortimer effigy in Montgomery church. This figure, which is normally said to be that of Sir Edmund Mortimer, d. 1409 (Roger’s great-great-grandson), dates from about 1400. It is of a member of the main line of the Earls of March, but the arms are differenced by a bend. Montgomery Castle was granted to the Mortimers after Isabella’s death in line with her settlement, and it would be expected that, if allowed to live, the illegitimate son of Roger and Isabella joined the retinue of his elder brother’s son, Roger Mortimer, second Earl of March, of whom he would have been a contemporary. See ‘Two Effigies in Montgomery Church’, pp. 76–9.
14. The otherwise explicable periods of stasis are: the stay at London during and following the deposition and abdication proceedings, the Scots campaign that same year (during which Isabella remained at York), and the prolonged stay at Nottingham just after the death of Edward II. Although one might suggest that a confinement could have taken place during these periods, there is no other evidence for a pregnancy in 1327 or 1328.
15. The date usually assigned to this gift-giving, recorded in the original MS (PRO E101/384/1, f18v) is 20 June. The court was still at Canterbury at this time, and so if this date is accurate, the gift-giving took place in private and a long way from the court, and very shortly after Edward’s return from France. A possible later date for the gift-giving is 20 July, when the court was indeed at Windsor. Junii/Julii errors are quite common in manuscripts.
16. PRO E101/384/1, f18v. My thanks to Paul Dryburgh for this reference. Also see Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 295.
17. PRO E101/384/1 f16v, f18r. My thanks to Paul Dryburgh for his transcription of this.
18. See Rotuli parliamentorum, ii, p. 53 for Roger ordering that his word was to be obeyed before the king. This was at the very end of his administration, at Nottingham, in October 1330.
19. Thompson (ed.), Murimuth, p. 256.
20. Knighton records a Round Table tournament held by Roger at Bedford in 1328, probably drawing his information from Murimuth. The royal party did not visit Bedford in 1328 except late in the old-style year, on 19–21 January 1328–9, when Roger was just finishing his war with Henry of Lancaster. A Round Table tournament was certainly not held then. Although some writers like the old DNB have taken Knighton at his word, it seems far more likely that the Round Table tournament took place in 1329. Robert of Avesbury states it happened at Wigmore, which would place it in early September 1329. See Thompson (ed.), Murimuth, p. 284. It is significant that another Knighton manuscript records ‘Hertiford’ as the place, and a few pages further on, ‘Bedford’ appears mistakenly written in place of ‘Bereford’. It seems possible therefore that Knighton’s Round Table is the same as the jousts Murimuth records at Hereford, mistakenly at the end of May 1328, and which Avesbury mentions at Wigmore. The issue is probably confused by the various Mortimer weddings of 1328–9. See Appendix 2.
21. Edward acknowledged a debt to the Bardi of £1,000 for the marriage of Beatrice with Edward, daughter of the Earl of Norfolk, 21 March 1330. See CPR 1327–1330, p. 502.
22. Murimuth records that Isabella oversaw the proceedings, and if this was a Round Table as suggested above, her role would naturally be that of Guinevere.
23. Brie (ed.), The Brut, ii, p. 261.
24. Brie (ed.), The Brut, ii, p. 262.
25. The recent translation of the Anonimalle Chronicle’s original French reads that ‘Sir Geoffrey through madness even called himself king’. This is not convincing, not least because it does not make historical sense. The mid-fourteenth-century English translation of the longer Brut, which would reflect the commonly understood meaning of the original French much more closely than a modern literal translation, is much more creditable, reading ‘Sire Geffray the Mortymer the yonge, that was the Mortymer’s sone, lete him calle Kynge of Folye; and so it bifelle aftirward indede, ffor he was so ful of pride and of wrecchednesse, that he helde a rounde table in Walys … and countrefetede the maner & doyng of Kyng Arthures table.’ The fourteenth-century sense of the longer Brut was undoubtedly that Roger drew attention to himself as a king, and that Geoffrey called Roger ‘King of Folly’, or that Geoffrey, in folly or madness, addressed Roger as king. See Brie (ed.), The Brut, ii, p. 262; Childs and Taylor (eds), Anonimalle Chronicle, p. 145.
26. Crump, ‘Arrest of Roger Mortimer’, pp. 331–2.
27. Crump, ‘Arrest of Roger Mortimer’, pp. 331–2.
28. Small defensive repairs were made to the walls of the castle in August, to be completed to the satisfaction of John Maltravers. CCR 1327–1330, p. 487. Maltravers was not appointed custodian of Corfe until the following month, and so this may well relate to Maltravers’ responsibility for guarding the king.
29. CFR 1327–1337, p. 149.
30. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 287.
31. Complete Peerage, vii, p. 399.
32. BL Harley 1240 f41v.
33. Eyton, Shropshire, x, p. 116.
34. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 289.
35. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 289–90.
36. The Brut refers to Howel as Hammond, and Harding follows this; Howel is the name in the original confession printed in Thompson (ed.), Murimuth, pp. 255–6, and Doherty follows this. Both original sources have the office as coroner of the king’s household. Tout in his Chapters uses the title clerk of the marshalsea of the household for Robert Howel, but the coroner title has been preferred in this instance, owing to the tally of the two primary sources.
37. This is from the mid-fourteenth-century English translation of the French longer Brut chronicle. The original letter would have been in French, but it is not known on what authority the author of the chronicle quoted it.
38. For the King wanting to forgive Edmund see Brie (ed.), The Brut, ii, p. 267. For the king being given the chance to revoke the death sentence, see ibid. For the fact that the death sentence was forced upon him by Roger, see Rotuli parliamentorum, ii, p. 52.
39. CPR 1327–1330, p. 511.
40. CPR 1327–1330, p. 514. John Galeys was probably a servant also of the royal household: on Isabella’s death a man of this name was paid for the time the body of the queen mother lay in his house. See Blackley, ‘Isabella and the Cult of the Dead’, p. 31.
41. Calendar Charter Rolls 1327–1341, p. 172.
42. Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 302. The proximity of the Arundel estates to Roger’s was a probable factor in the failure of the plot.
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. I
t 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.
