Ralph Fulshurst

M, #1591

Marriage* as her second husband, Principal=Anne Chamberlayne1,2,3 
Probate*1530 mentions wife Anne and "my sonne Cope."2 
Name Variation Ralph Foulshurst3 

Last Edited3 Jul 2004

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-37.
  2. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 5.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 16.

Sir Edward Raleigh Knt.1

M, #1592, b. circa 1441, d. before 6 June 1513

Father*William Raleigh Esq.2,1,3,4 b. s 1420, d. 14 Oct 1460
Mother*Elizabeth Greene5,6,3,4 b. c 1416
Sir Edward Raleigh Knt.|b. c 1441\nd. b 6 Jun 1513|p54.htm#i1592|William Raleigh Esq.|b. s 1420\nd. 14 Oct 1460|p54.htm#i1599|Elizabeth Greene|b. c 1416|p54.htm#i1598|John Ralegh|b. c 1382|p54.htm#i1600|Idony Cotesford||p54.htm#i1601|Sir Thomas Greene Knt.|b. 10 Feb 1400\nd. 18 Jan 1461/62|p54.htm#i1602|Philippa de Ferrers||p54.htm#i1603|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*circa 1441 2,1,7 
Birthcirca 1442 8,9 
Marriage*1467 Principal=Margaret Verney2,1,10,11,8,12 
Death*before 6 June 1513 13,12 
Probate*6 June 1513 2,13,8 
Occupationbetween 1461 and 1503 Justice of the Peace1 
Occupation*1467 Warwickshire, England, Sheriff of Warwickshire1,8 
Occupation Sheriff of Leicestershire8 
Residence* Farnborough, Warwickshire, England7,8,12 
Residence Ilfracombe, Devonshire, England8,12 
Will*20 June 1509 refers to father William and mother Elizabeth. Requested burial in Chapel of Our Lady at Farnborough1,8,12 
Note Birth place in question; may be Farneborough Warws. vs. Wrks., England?

Death date: family group record indicates "will 20 JUN 1509"

Info. sources: Marbury Ancestry A9A27, p. 37; B10B7, p. 173
 

Family

Margaret Verney b. c 1445
Children

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 37.
  2. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-36.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 7.
  4. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 14.
  5. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-35.
  6. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-11.
  7. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-13.
  8. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 6.
  9. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 16.
  10. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 16.
  11. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-12.
  12. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 15.
  13. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 17.
  14. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-37.

Margaret Verney1

F, #1593, b. circa 1445

Father*Sir Ralph Verney M.P.2,1,3,4,5,6 b. c 1412, d. Jun 1478
Mother*Emme (?)5,6
Margaret Verney|b. c 1445|p54.htm#i1593|Sir Ralph Verney M.P.|b. c 1412\nd. Jun 1478|p54.htm#i1594|Emme (?)||p380.htm#i11383|Ralph Verney||p446.htm#i13365||||||||||

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*circa 1445 London, England 
Marriage*1467 Principal=Sir Edward Raleigh Knt.2,1,3,4,5,6 
Married Name1467 Raleigh2,1 
Living*1509 6 

Family

Sir Edward Raleigh Knt. b. c 1441, d. b 6 Jun 1513
Children

Last Edited3 Jul 2004

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 37.
  2. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-36.
  3. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 16.
  4. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-12.
  5. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 6.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 15.
  7. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 17.
  8. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-37.

Sir Ralph Verney M.P.

M, #1594, b. circa 1412, d. June 1478

Father*Ralph Verney1
Sir Ralph Verney M.P.|b. c 1412\nd. Jun 1478|p54.htm#i1594|Ralph Verney||p446.htm#i13365||||||||||||||||

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*circa 1412 London, England 
Marriage* Principal=Emme (?)2,3 
Marriage* Principal=Eleanor Poole1 
Death*June 1478 4 
Apprenticed*1434 London, Middlesex, England, He finished his apprenticeship to Thomas Faulconer, mercer.5 
Occupation1456 City of London, England, Sheriff4 
Occupation1457 Castle Baynard, City of London, England, Alderman4 
Occupation1459 City of London, England, M.P. for London, 1459, 1469, 14724 
Occupation*1465 London, England, Lord Mayor of London in 5 Edward IV6,7,2,3 
Occupation City of London, England, a mercer4 
Knighted*21 May 1471 City of London, England4 
Will*11 June 1478 8 
Note* This partial coalescence of the interests of the bourgeoisie and the landowners is excellently illustrated by the history of the Verney family. The founder of the line, the merchant Ralph Verney, became Lord Mayor of London in 1465. After the Battle of Tewkeshury which ended the Wars of the Roses, Edward IV knighted twelve citizens in testimony of gratitude to his supporters; among these, Verney stood first and received a grant of land.9 
HTML* 
Verney
and Middle Claydon an estate Ralph Verney apparently purchased.

British History Online  

Family 1
Child

Family 2

Eleanor Poole
Children

Family 3

Emme (?)
Children

Last Edited5 Jul 2004

Citations

  1. [S285] Leo van de Pas, 30 Jun 2004.
  2. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 6.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 15.
  4. [S211] Rev. Alfred B. Beaven, Aldermen of the City of London.
  5. [S288] Sylvia Thrup, Merchant Class of Medieval London.
  6. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-36.
  7. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 37.
  8. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 16.
  9. [S212] Aleksandr A. Smirnov, Shakespeare: A Marxist Interpretation.
  10. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-12.

Richard Chamberlayne

M, #1595, b. between 1436 and 1439, d. 28 August 1496

 

Father*Richard Chamberlayne1,2,3 b. 1391, d. 1439
Mother*Margaret Knyvet1,2,4 b. c 1412, d. shortly before 12 May 1458
Richard Chamberlayne|b. bt 1436 - 1439\nd. 28 Aug 1496|p54.htm#i1595|Richard Chamberlayne|b. 1391\nd. 1439|p56.htm#i1671|Margaret Knyvet|b. c 1412\nd. shortly before 12 May 1458|p56.htm#i1672|Sir Richard Chamberlayne|b. 1320\nd. 24 Aug 1396|p75.htm#i2232|Margaret Loveyne|b. c 1372\nd. 18 Apr 1408|p75.htm#i2233|Sir John Knyvet|b. c 1380\nd. 9 Nov 1445|p56.htm#i1673|Elizabeth Clifton|b. c 1392\nd. b 8 Dec 1461|p56.htm#i1674|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*between 1436 and 1439 Titchmarsh Parish, Coates, Northampton, England1,5,6 
Marriagebefore 30 November 1476 Principal=Sibyl Fowler6 
Marriage*before 1484 Conflict=Sibyl Fowler7,8,9 
Burial1496 Shirburne, Oxfordshire, England7,6 
Death*28 August 1496 1,7 
Probate*19 October 1496 7,6 
Feudal* Coates (in Titchmarsh), Northamptonshire; Standbridge and Tilsworth, Bedfordshire; Petsoe (in Emberton), Buckinghamshire; North Reston, Lincolnshire; Barton St. John, Oxfordshire; Swaffham Prior, Cambridgeshire.6 
Name Variation Richard Chamberlain Esq.6 
(Witness) Probate1470 Principal=William Chamberlayne6 
Will*18 August 1496 7 

Family

Sibyl Fowler b. c 1448, d. 1525
Children

Last Edited10 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 238-13.
  2. [S192] F. N. Craig, "Chamberlains in the Marbury Ancestry", p.319.
  3. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 53-10.
  4. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 53-11.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 16.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Chamberlain 12.
  7. [S195] Ronny Bodine, Chamberlain of Buckinghamshire and Northhamptonshire in "Chamberlain," listserve message 26 Mar 1999.
  8. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 53-12.
  9. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 5.
  10. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 18.
  11. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-37.
  12. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 42.
  13. [S192] F. N. Craig, "Chamberlains in the Marbury Ancestry", p.318.

Sibyl Fowler

F, #1596, b. circa 1448, d. 1525

Father*Richard Fowler1,2
Mother*Joan Danvers d. 1505
Sibyl Fowler|b. c 1448\nd. 1525|p54.htm#i1596|Richard Fowler||p54.htm#i1597|Joan Danvers|d. 1505|p56.htm#i1670|||||||John Danvers||p470.htm#i14086||||

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*circa 1448 Of Rycott, Great Haseley, Oxfordshire, England 
Birthcirca 1456  
Marriagebefore 30 November 1476 Principal=Richard Chamberlayne2 
Marriage*before 1484 Conflict=Richard Chamberlayne3,4,5 
Death*1525 4 
Burial* Shirburn, Oxfordshire, England2 
Married Name Chamberlayne6 

Family

Richard Chamberlayne b. bt 1436 - 1439, d. 28 Aug 1496
Children

Last Edited6 Oct 2004

Citations

  1. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 18.
  2. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Chamberlain 12.
  3. [S195] Ronny Bodine, Chamberlain of Buckinghamshire and Northhamptonshire in "Chamberlain," listserve message 26 Mar 1999.
  4. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 53-12.
  5. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 5.
  6. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-37.
  7. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 16.

Richard Fowler

M, #1597

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Marriage* Principal=Joan Danvers1 
Occupation* Chancellor of the Exchequer to King Edward IV2,3,4,5 
Residence* Sherbourne, Oxfordshire, England6,3,4 
Title* Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster6,5 

Family

Joan Danvers d. 1505
Child

Last Edited6 Oct 2004

Citations

  1. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 18.
  2. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-37.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 5.
  4. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 16.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Chamberlain 12.
  6. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 53-12.

Elizabeth Greene

F, #1598, b. circa 1416

 

Father*Sir Thomas Greene Knt.1,2,3 b. 10 Feb 1400, d. 18 Jan 1461/62
Mother*Philippa de Ferrers1,2
Elizabeth Greene|b. c 1416|p54.htm#i1598|Sir Thomas Greene Knt.|b. 10 Feb 1400\nd. 18 Jan 1461/62|p54.htm#i1602|Philippa de Ferrers||p54.htm#i1603|Sir Thomas Greene Knt.|b. bt 1369 - 1370\nd. 14 Dec 1417|p8.htm#i233|Mary Talbot|d. 13 Apr 1434|p54.htm#i1604|Sir Robert de Ferrers|b. 31 Oct 1357 or 31 Oct 1359\nd. 12 Mar 1413 or 13 Mar 1413|p71.htm#i2114|Margaret le Despencer|d. 3 Nov 1415|p58.htm#i1731|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*circa 1416 Green's Norton, Northhamptonshire, England 
Marriage*before 1433 Principal=William Raleigh Esq.4,5,6,7,8,9 
Married Name Raleigh 

Family

William Raleigh Esq. b. s 1420, d. 14 Oct 1460
Children

Last Edited13 Mar 2008

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-35.
  2. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-10.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 13.
  4. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-36.
  5. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 15.
  6. [S191] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, "Royal Ancestry of Anne Marbury", p. 180.
  7. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-11.
  8. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 7.
  9. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 14.
  10. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 16.

William Raleigh Esq.1

M, #1599, b. say 1420, d. 14 October 1460

Father*John Ralegh b. c 1382; son and heir2,3,4
Mother*Idony Cotesford2,3,4
William Raleigh Esq.|b. s 1420\nd. 14 Oct 1460|p54.htm#i1599|John Ralegh|b. c 1382|p54.htm#i1600|Idony Cotesford||p54.htm#i1601|Sir Thomas de Ralegh Knt.|b. c 1330\nd. 6 Nov 1396|p73.htm#i2177|Agnes Swinford||p73.htm#i2179|Sir Thomas Cotesford Knt.||p73.htm#i2185||||

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*say 1420 3 
Marriage*before 1433 Principal=Elizabeth Greene5,6,7,8,3,4 
Death*14 October 1460 2,1,8,4 
Name Variation Ralegh9 
Residence* Farnborough, Warwickshire, England3 

Family

Elizabeth Greene b. c 1416
Children

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 37.
  2. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-35.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 7.
  4. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 14.
  5. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-36.
  6. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 15.
  7. [S191] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, "Royal Ancestry of Anne Marbury", p. 180.
  8. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-11.
  9. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 14.
  10. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 16.

John Ralegh1

M, #1600, b. circa 1382

Father*Sir Thomas de Ralegh Knt.1 b. c 1330, d. 6 Nov 1396
Mother*Agnes Swinford2
John Ralegh|b. c 1382|p54.htm#i1600|Sir Thomas de Ralegh Knt.|b. c 1330\nd. 6 Nov 1396|p73.htm#i2177|Agnes Swinford||p73.htm#i2179|John de Ralegh|b. b 1314\nd. b 29 Sep 1348|p73.htm#i2168|Rose Helion||p73.htm#i2170|Sir William Swinford Knt.||p73.htm#i2181||||

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*circa 1382 3 
Marriage*before 1397 Principal=Idony Cotesford4,5,6 
Name Variation Raleigh 
Residence* Thornborow, Warwickshire, England5 

Family

Idony Cotesford
Child

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 13.
  2. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 12.
  3. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 14.
  4. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-35.
  5. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 7.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 14.

Idony Cotesford

F, #1601

Father*Sir Thomas Cotesford Knt.; daughter and heir1,2,3
Idony Cotesford||p54.htm#i1601|Sir Thomas Cotesford Knt.||p73.htm#i2185||||Roger Cotesford||p449.htm#i13446||||||||||

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Marriage*before 1397 Principal=John Ralegh4,2,3 
Name Variation Idoine5 
Married Namebefore 1397 Ralegh4 

Family

John Ralegh b. c 1382
Child

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 14.
  2. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 7.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cheseldine 14.
  4. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-35.
  5. [S374] Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, Cheselinde 11.

Sir Thomas Greene Knt.

M, #1602, b. 10 February 1400, d. 18 January 1461/62

 

Father*Sir Thomas Greene Knt.1,2,3,4 b. bt 1369 - 1370, d. 14 Dec 1417
Mother*Mary Talbot1,5,2,3,4 d. 13 Apr 1434
Sir Thomas Greene Knt.|b. 10 Feb 1400\nd. 18 Jan 1461/62|p54.htm#i1602|Sir Thomas Greene Knt.|b. bt 1369 - 1370\nd. 14 Dec 1417|p8.htm#i233|Mary Talbot|d. 13 Apr 1434|p54.htm#i1604|Sir Thomas Greene Knt.||p63.htm#i1887|Maud Mablethorp||p63.htm#i1888|Sir Richard Talbot|b. c 1361\nd. bt 8 Sep 1396 - 9 Sep 1396|p54.htm#i1605|Ankaret le Strange|b. 1361\nd. 1 Jun 1413|p69.htm#i2061|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Of Green's Norton and Boughton, Northamptonshire6 
Birth*10 February 1400 Greene's Norton, Northamptonshire, England1,7,8 
Marriage*before 16 December 1421 Bride=Philippa de Ferrers1,7,8,4,9 
Marriage*before 7 December 1434 Private chapel in the house of Richard Knyghtley, Fawesley, Northamptonshire, England, This marriage was clandestine, 1st=Marine Bellars8,4 
Death*18 January 1461/62 1,10,11,7,8,4 
Burial* Greene's Norton, Northamptonshire, England5,8,4 
Note The source of the children's names was the 1585 King of Arms Greene pedigree. Contemporary records have been found only for Thomas and Isabel., Principal=Philippa de Ferrers12 
Occupation*4 November 1454 Northamptonshire, England, Sheriff of Northamptonshire1,5 

Family 1

Marine Bellars b. c 1415, d. 10 Sep 1489
Children

Family 2

Philippa de Ferrers
Children

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-34.
  2. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-9.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 9.
  4. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 13.
  5. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 36.
  6. [S374] Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, Greene 10.
  7. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-10.
  8. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 8.
  9. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 105.
  10. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 15.
  11. [S191] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, "Royal Ancestry of Anne Marbury", p. 181.
  12. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-35.
  13. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Hardwick 14.

Philippa de Ferrers1

F, #1603

Father*Sir Robert de Ferrers2,3 b. 31 Oct 1357 or 31 Oct 1359, d. 12 Mar 1413 or 13 Mar 1413
Mother*Margaret le Despencer2,3 d. 3 Nov 1415
Philippa de Ferrers||p54.htm#i1603|Sir Robert de Ferrers|b. 31 Oct 1357 or 31 Oct 1359\nd. 12 Mar 1413 or 13 Mar 1413|p71.htm#i2114|Margaret le Despencer|d. 3 Nov 1415|p58.htm#i1731|Sir John de Ferrers|b. 10 Aug 1331\nd. 3 Apr 1367|p71.htm#i2110|Elizabeth de Stafford|b. c 1337\nd. 7 Aug 1375|p71.htm#i2111|Sir Edward le Despenser K.G., M.P.|b. 24 Mar 1335/36\nd. 11 Nov 1375|p89.htm#i2646|Elizabeth de Burghersh|b. 1342\nd. c 26 Jul 1409|p89.htm#i2647|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Marriage*before 16 December 1421 1st=Sir Thomas Greene Knt.4,5,6,7,8 
Burial* Greene's Norton, Northamptonshire, England8 
Note The source of the children's names was the 1585 King of Arms Greene pedigree. Contemporary records have been found only for Thomas and Isabel., Principal=Sir Thomas Greene Knt.9 
Name Variation Philippe Ferrers7 
Living*1427 7 

Family

Sir Thomas Greene Knt. b. 10 Feb 1400, d. 18 Jan 1461/62
Children

Last Edited20 Feb 2005

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 37.
  2. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 115-8.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Ferrers 11.
  4. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-34.
  5. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-10.
  6. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 8.
  7. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 13.
  8. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 105.
  9. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-35.
  10. [S190] F. N. Craig, "Ralegh of Farnborough", p. 15.

Mary Talbot

F, #1604, d. 13 April 1434

Father*Sir Richard Talbot1,2,3 b. c 1361, d. bt 8 Sep 1396 - 9 Sep 1396
Mother*Ankaret le Strange1,2 b. 1361, d. 1 Jun 1413
Mary Talbot|d. 13 Apr 1434|p54.htm#i1604|Sir Richard Talbot|b. c 1361\nd. bt 8 Sep 1396 - 9 Sep 1396|p54.htm#i1605|Ankaret le Strange|b. 1361\nd. 1 Jun 1413|p69.htm#i2061|Sir Gilbert Talbot|b. c 1332\nd. 24 Apr 1387|p54.htm#i1606|Pernel Butler|d. 1368|p54.htm#i1607|Sir John le Strange|b. 19 Apr 1332\nd. 12 May 1361|p69.htm#i2060|Mary FitzAlan|d. 1361|p91.htm#i2716|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Marriage*before 1383 Groom=Sir Thomas Greene Knt.1,4,5,6 
Marriagebefore 23 October 1398 Conflict=Sir Thomas Greene Knt.6 
Marriage*before 14 June 1420 without license, Groom=John Notyngham5,7 
Burial* Greene's Norton, Northamptonshire, England8,7 
Death*13 April 1434 1,4,5,7 

Family

Sir Thomas Greene Knt. b. bt 1369 - 1370, d. 14 Dec 1417
Child

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-33.
  2. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 8.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 11.
  4. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-9.
  5. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 9.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 13.
  7. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Greene 12.
  8. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 36.
  9. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-34.

Sir Richard Talbot1

M, #1605, b. circa 1361, d. between 8 September 1396 and 9 September 1396

 

Father*Sir Gilbert Talbot2,3,4,5,6 b. c 1332, d. 24 Apr 1387
Mother*Pernel Butler7,4,5,6 d. 1368
Sir Richard Talbot|b. c 1361\nd. bt 8 Sep 1396 - 9 Sep 1396|p54.htm#i1605|Sir Gilbert Talbot|b. c 1332\nd. 24 Apr 1387|p54.htm#i1606|Pernel Butler|d. 1368|p54.htm#i1607|Sir Richard Talbot M.P.|b. c 1305\nd. 23 Oct 1356|p91.htm#i2718|Elizabeth Comyn|b. 1 Nov 1299\nd. 20 Nov 1372|p91.htm#i2719|Sir James Butler K.B.|b. 1305\nd. 6 Jan 1337/38|p54.htm#i1609|Eleanor de Bohun|d. 7 Oct 1363|p54.htm#i1608|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Of Eccleswall (in Linton), Wormelow, Herefordshire, Ley (in Westbury upon Severn), Lydney Shrewsbury, Moreton Valence, and Painswick, Gloucestershire.8 
Birth*circa 1361 7,9,10,11,1,5 
Marriage*before 23 August 1383 1st=Ankaret le Strange12,13,10,11,1,5 
Death*between 8 September 1396 and 9 September 1396 7,12,10,11,1,5 
Knighted*16 July 1377 by Richard II at his coronation, Witness=Richard II Plantagenet5 
Event-MiscJanuary 1381 Ireland, was in Ireland with Edmund, Earl of March5 
Event-Misc*between 3 March 1384 and 17 December 1387 summoned to Parliament in consequence of his marriage to the heiress of Strange of Blackmere.11,1,5 
Event-Misc13 June 1385 Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northumbria, England, summoned to be present 14 Jul for service against the Scots5 
Event-Misc18 June 1387 seised of his father's lands5 
Event-Miscbetween 1 December 1387 and 13 November 1393 was summoned to Parliament by writ directed Ricard Talbot de Godriche Castell.5 
Event-Misc31 December 1389 was (upon the death of the 3rd Earl of Pembroke) awarded the Honor of Wexford in Ireland, as coheir through Elizabeth Comyn, his grandmother.5 
Event-Misc1 March 1392 Shropshire, England, was commissioner of array for Shropshire5 
Event-MiscFebruary 1395 Ireland, was in Ireland in the King's service.5 
Arms* Gules a lion and a border engrailed or1

Family

Ankaret le Strange b. 1361, d. 1 Jun 1413
Children

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 11.
  2. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 39.
  3. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 141-6.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 9.
  5. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, XII - 616.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 10.
  7. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-32.
  8. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 8.
  9. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p.36.
  10. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 141-7.
  11. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 8.
  12. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 36.
  13. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-8.
  14. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-33.
  15. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 246.
  16. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, XII - 617.
  17. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 7-31.

Sir Gilbert Talbot1,2

M, #1606, b. circa 1332, d. 24 April 1387

Father*Sir Richard Talbot M.P.3,2 b. c 1305, d. 23 Oct 1356
Mother*Elizabeth Comyn3,4,2 b. 1 Nov 1299, d. 20 Nov 1372
Sir Gilbert Talbot|b. c 1332\nd. 24 Apr 1387|p54.htm#i1606|Sir Richard Talbot M.P.|b. c 1305\nd. 23 Oct 1356|p91.htm#i2718|Elizabeth Comyn|b. 1 Nov 1299\nd. 20 Nov 1372|p91.htm#i2719|Sir Gilbert Talbot|b. 18 Oct 1276\nd. 24 Feb 1346|p365.htm#i10933|Anne le Boteler||p365.htm#i10934|John Comyn|d. 10 Feb 1306|p91.htm#i2720|Joan de Valence||p91.htm#i2721|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Of Eccleswall (in Linton), Wormelow, Herefordshire, Ley (in Westbury upon Severn), Lydney Shrewsbury, Moreton Valence, and Painswick, Gloucestershire.5 
Birth*circa 1332 6,1,4,7,8 
Marriage*before 8 September 1352 Bride=Pernel Butler9,4,7,2,10 
Marriage*before 16 November 1379 Pardoned on that date for marrying without license., 2nd=Joan de Stafford7,10,2 
Death*24 April 1387 Roales, Spain, of pestilence9,1,4,7,10,2 
Event-Misc1 February 1357 Gascony, France, was in the King's service in Gascony with the Prince of Wales.8 
Event-Misc*14 August 1362 Member of Parliament6,4,7 
Event-Miscbetween 14 August 1362 and 8 August 1386 was summoned to Parliament10,2 
Event-Misc16 July 1377 did homage to Richard II at his coronation10 
Event-Misc6 June 1380 pardoned for failing to appear to answer John Sewal, citizen and mercer of London, touching a debt of £300.10 
Event-Miscbetween 1381 and 1382 Portugal, accompanied Edmund of York on his expedition to Portugal7 
Event-Miscbetween 1381 and 1382 Higuera la Real, Badajoz, Portugal, accompanied Edmund of Langley, Earl of Cambridge on his expedition to Portual, taking part in the capture of Higuera la Real.10 
Event-Misc7 July 1381 Hereford, England, was commissioner for hereford at the time of the Peasants' Revolt with duties to array the lieges against the insurgents10 
Event-Misc13 June 1385 Newcastle-on-Tyne, Northumbria, England, summoned to be present 14 Jul for service against the Scots10 
Event-MiscJuly 1386 Spain, was with John of Gaunt on his expedition to Spain. Present at the capture of Vigo and the affair at Noya, and accompanied the Duchess Constance to visit the King of Portugal at Oporto.7,10 
Title* 3rd Lord Talbot2 

Family

Pernel Butler d. 1368
Children

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 39.
  2. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 10.
  3. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 95-31.
  4. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 141-6.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 7.
  6. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-31.
  7. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 9.
  8. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, XII - 614.
  9. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-31.
  10. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, XII - 615.
  11. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, XII - 616.

Pernel Butler1,2

F, #1607, d. 1368

Father*Sir James Butler K.B.3,4,5 b. 1305, d. 6 Jan 1337/38
Mother*Eleanor de Bohun6,4,5 d. 7 Oct 1363
Pernel Butler|d. 1368|p54.htm#i1607|Sir James Butler K.B.|b. 1305\nd. 6 Jan 1337/38|p54.htm#i1609|Eleanor de Bohun|d. 7 Oct 1363|p54.htm#i1608|Sir Edmund Butler Knt.|b. c 1282\nd. 13 Sep 1321|p70.htm#i2081|Joan FitzJohn||p54.htm#i1610|Sir Humphrey V. de Bohun|b. 1276\nd. 16 Mar 1322|p54.htm#i1612|Elizabeth Plantagenet|b. 7 Aug 1282\nd. 5 May 1316|p54.htm#i1613|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Marriage*before 8 September 1352 1st=Sir Gilbert Talbot7,8,1,2,9 
Death*1368 6,1,9,2 
Name Variation Petronilla le Boteler 
Event-Misc1363 She was a legatee in the will of her mother10 
Living*28 May 1365 6,1,9,2 

Family

Sir Gilbert Talbot b. c 1332, d. 24 Apr 1387
Children

Last Edited7 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 9.
  2. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 10.
  3. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 39.
  4. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 26-7.
  5. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 10.
  6. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-31.
  7. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-31.
  8. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 141-6.
  9. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, XII - 615.
  10. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Talbot 7.
  11. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 14-32.
  12. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, XII - 616.

Eleanor de Bohun

F, #1608, d. 7 October 1363

 

Father*Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun1,2,3 b. 1276, d. 16 Mar 1322
Mother*Elizabeth Plantagenet2,3 b. 7 Aug 1282, d. 5 May 1316
Eleanor de Bohun|d. 7 Oct 1363|p54.htm#i1608|Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun|b. 1276\nd. 16 Mar 1322|p54.htm#i1612|Elizabeth Plantagenet|b. 7 Aug 1282\nd. 5 May 1316|p54.htm#i1613|Sir Humphrey V. de Bohun|b. Sep 1248\nd. 31 Dec 1298|p70.htm#i2084|Maud de Fiennes|b. c 1254\nd. b 31 Dec 1298|p70.htm#i2085|Edward I. "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England|b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239\nd. 7 Jul 1307|p54.htm#i1614|Eleanor of Castile|b. 1240\nd. 28 Nov 1290|p54.htm#i1615|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Marriage*1327 Groom=Sir James Butler K.B.1,2,4,5,6 
Marriage*before 20 April 1344 Chapel of the Manor of Vachery, Surrey, England, Groom=Sir Thomas Dagworth Knt. M.P.4,7 
Death*7 October 1363 8,2,4 
Married Name Butler 

Family 1

Sir Thomas Dagworth Knt. M.P. d. bt Jul 1350 - Aug 1350
Child

Family 2

Sir James Butler K.B. b. 1305, d. 6 Jan 1337/38
Children

Last Edited6 Feb 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-30.
  2. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 24-6.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 8.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 10.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 9.
  6. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, X - 117.
  7. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 32.
  8. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-12.
  9. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, FitzWalter 8.
  10. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-31.
  11. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 26-7.
  12. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 7-31.
  13. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 9.

Sir James Butler K.B.1,2

M, #1609, b. 1305, d. 6 January 1337/38

 

Father*Sir Edmund Butler Knt.1,5,3,2,4 b. c 1282, d. 13 Sep 1321
Mother*Joan FitzJohn3,2,4
Sir James Butler K.B.|b. 1305\nd. 6 Jan 1337/38|p54.htm#i1609|Sir Edmund Butler Knt.|b. c 1282\nd. 13 Sep 1321|p70.htm#i2081|Joan FitzJohn||p54.htm#i1610|Theobald Butler|b. 1242\nd. 26 Sep 1285|p70.htm#i2080|Joan FitzJohn|d. bt 25 Feb 1303 - 26 May 1303|p70.htm#i2083|Sir John FitzThomas FitzGerald Knt.|b. bt 1260 - 1270\nd. 12 Sep 1316|p70.htm#i2082|Blanche Roche|d. a Feb 1329/30|p92.htm#i2737|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Of Knocktopher, co. Kilkenney, Turvy, co. Dublin, Nenagh and Thurles, co. Tipperary, Aylesbury, Great Linford, and Totherfield Peppard, Buckinghamire, Sopley, Hampshire, La Vacherie (in Cranley) and Shere, Surrey, Weeton, Lancashire6 
Birth*1305 7,5,8 
Marriage*1327 1st=Eleanor de Bohun9,5,3,2,8 
Death*6 January 1337/38 1,10,5,3,2,11 
Burial* Gowran, Tipperary, Ireland3,2,12 
DNB* Butler, James, first earl of Ormond (c.1305-1338), magnate, was the eldest surviving son of Edmund Butler (d. 1321) and his wife, Joan, daughter of John fitz Thomas Fitzgerald (d. 1316), who was created earl of Kildare in 1316. He married in 1328 Eleanor de Bohun (d. 1363), daughter of Humphrey (VII) de Bohun, earl of Hereford (d. 1322), and granddaughter of Edward I, an alliance that augmented the Butlers' English properties. James's name may reflect his father's devotion to Santiago de Compostela, for in 1320 Edmund, his wife, and son were released from a vow to visit the shrine of St James. James, who was in Ireland when Edmund died at London, was summoned to England and by February 1323 was a yeoman (valettus) in Edward II's household. In 1325 the king granted him his lands and marriage before he was of full age and the court speeded his return to Ireland where his lordships in Munster and Leinster were threatened by Irish raids. The first steps of his career were thus taken during the ascendancy of the Despensers, who established links with several leading Anglo-Irish families. Their fall in 1326 left Ireland unstable and the new rulers of England uncertain of the allegiance of the magnates. James Butler was drawn into regional feuds and was among those who received reprimands from England between December 1326 and June 1328. At that point, however, his father's close relations with Roger Mortimer (Edmund had been justiciar of Ireland during Mortimer's lieutenancy in 1317–18 and they had negotiated a marriage alliance in 1321), and the search for stability in Ireland on the part of the Mortimer regime, worked to his advantage. At the Salisbury parliament in October 1328, where Mortimer became earl of March, James Butler was created earl of Ormond and given a life-grant of the liberty of Tipperary, which in the event his descendants were to hold until 1716. At the same time his marriage to Edward III's cousin drew him towards the apex of aristocratic society.

The new earl's career was often dominated by campaigns against the native Irish who threatened his lands in Tipperary and south Leinster. In 1329, for instance, he burnt the territory of the Ó Nualláin family in Carlow in revenge for the capture of his brother; and in 1336 he made a compact with the Ó Ceinnéidigh family of north Tipperary, in which they agreed to provide rent and military service, while Ormond accepted arrangements for mutual compensation between the Irish and the English settlers. His role in Irish marcher society was compatible with a career on a wider stage and could indeed be used to advertise his indispensability. The fall of Mortimer in 1330, and the resumption of grants made under his influence, rendered Ormond's gains of 1328 vulnerable. Faced by the strong methods of the justiciar, Anthony Lucy, the earl crossed to England and spent part of 1332 at his town of Aylesbury, subjecting Edward III to petitions in which he stressed his military services in Ireland, his relationship to the royal house, and the antiquity of his family and its possession of the butlerage of Ireland since the time of King John. As well as protecting his threatened endowments, he obtained financial rewards. His relations with Edward were further advanced when he led a retinue of 318 men from Ireland to the Scottish campaign of 1335.

Ormond died on 16 or 18 February 1338 at Gowran, Kilkenny, before his intention to endow a Franciscan house at Carrick-on-Suir in Tipperary was carried through. The Kilkenny chronicler, Friar John Clyn, an admirer of the Butler family, lamented his death: he was ‘a generous and amiable man, elegant and courteous; in the bloom of youth the flower withered’ (Annals of Ireland, ed. Butler, 28). Ormond was buried with his father at Gowran. Inquisitions taken at his death show that, besides his Irish lordships, he had property in ten English counties, all held jointly with his wife, who by 1344 had married Sir Thomas Dagworth. The earl was succeeded by his surviving son, James Butler, who was granted his lands in 1347 while still under age.

Robin Frame
Sources

Chancery records · PRO · E. Curtis, ed., Calendar of Ormond deeds, IMC, 1: 1172–1350 (1932) · C. A. Empey, ‘The Butler lordship’, Journal of the Butler Society, 1 (1970–71), 174–87 · R. Frame, English lordship in Ireland, 1318–1361 (1982) · The annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn and Thady Dowling: together with the annals of Ross, ed. R. Butler, Irish Archaeological Society (1849) · J. T. Gilbert, ed., Chartularies of St Mary's Abbey, Dublin: with the register of its house at Dunbrody and annals of Ireland, 2, Rolls Series, 80 (1884) · CEPR letters, 2.196; 3.263–4 · G. O. Sayles, ed., Documents on the affairs of Ireland before the king's council, IMC (1979) · RotP · CIPM, 8, no. 184
Archives

NL Ire., deeds


© Oxford University Press 2004–5
All rights reserved: see legal notice      Oxford University Press


Robin Frame, ‘Butler, James, first earl of Ormond (c.1305-1338)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/50021, accessed 23 Sept 2005]

James Butler (c.1305-1338): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/5002113 
Name Variation le Boteler6 
Name Variation le Botiller14 
Event-Misc1317 Dublin, Ireland, held hostage for his father in Dublin Castle3,2 
Event-Misc1321 He was a legatee in his father's will6 
Event-Misc2 December 1325 He was given license to marry whom he would, and although under age, Edward II took his homage.12 
Protection*1326 to Ireland6 
Knighted*1326 as a Knight of the Bath8 
Event-Misc*2 November 1328 Created Earl of Ormond7,3,2,4 
Title* Chief Butler of Ireland, Lieutenant of Ireland3,2 

Family

Eleanor de Bohun d. 7 Oct 1363
Children

Last Edited23 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 39.
  2. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 9.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 10.
  4. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, II - 450.
  5. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 24-6.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 6.
  7. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 7-30.
  8. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, X - 117.
  9. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-30.
  10. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 73-32.
  11. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 48.
  12. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 49.
  13. [S376] Unknown editor, unknown short title.
  14. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, FitzWalter 8.
  15. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 26-7.
  16. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, X - 119.
  17. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 24-7.

Joan FitzJohn1

F, #1610

Father*Sir John FitzThomas FitzGerald Knt.1,2,3,4,5 b. bt 1260 - 1270, d. 12 Sep 1316
Mother*Blanche Roche6,5 d. a Feb 1329/30
Joan FitzJohn||p54.htm#i1610|Sir John FitzThomas FitzGerald Knt.|b. bt 1260 - 1270\nd. 12 Sep 1316|p70.htm#i2082|Blanche Roche|d. a Feb 1329/30|p92.htm#i2737|Thomas FitzMaurice FitzGerald|d. 1271|p365.htm#i10930|Rohesia de St. Michael||p493.htm#i14774|John Roche of Fermoy||p92.htm#i2738||||

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Marriage*1302 Principal=Sir Edmund Butler Knt.1,6,3,4,5 
Deathbefore 2 May 1320 7 

Family

Sir Edmund Butler Knt. b. c 1282, d. 13 Sep 1321
Child

Last Edited6 Feb 2005

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 39.
  2. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 178A-7.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 10.
  4. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 9.
  5. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, II - 450.
  6. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 73-31.
  7. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 48.

Sir James Butler Earl of Ormond1

M, #1611, b. 4 October 1331, d. circa November 1382

 

Father*Sir James Butler K.B.2 b. 1305, d. 6 Jan 1337/38
Mother*Eleanor de Bohun3,4 d. 7 Oct 1363
Sir James Butler Earl of Ormond|b. 4 Oct 1331\nd. c Nov 1382|p54.htm#i1611|Sir James Butler K.B.|b. 1305\nd. 6 Jan 1337/38|p54.htm#i1609|Eleanor de Bohun|d. 7 Oct 1363|p54.htm#i1608|Sir Edmund Butler Knt.|b. c 1282\nd. 13 Sep 1321|p70.htm#i2081|Joan FitzJohn||p54.htm#i1610|Sir Humphrey V. de Bohun|b. 1276\nd. 16 Mar 1322|p54.htm#i1612|Elizabeth Plantagenet|b. 7 Aug 1282\nd. 5 May 1316|p54.htm#i1613|

Birth*4 October 1331 Kilkenny, Ireland3,2,4 
Marriage*13 May 1346 Principal=Ann Darcy3,2,4 
Death*circa November 1382 3,2,4 

Last Edited2 Aug 2004

Citations

  1. [S287] G. E. C[okayne], CP, X - 119.
  2. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 24-7.
  3. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 7-31.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Butler 9.

Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun1

M, #1612, b. 1276, d. 16 March 1322

 

Father*Sir Humphrey VII de Bohun2,3,4,5 b. Sep 1248, d. 31 Dec 1298
Mother*Maud de Fiennes2,3,4,5,6 b. c 1254, d. b 31 Dec 1298
Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun|b. 1276\nd. 16 Mar 1322|p54.htm#i1612|Sir Humphrey VII de Bohun|b. Sep 1248\nd. 31 Dec 1298|p70.htm#i2084|Maud de Fiennes|b. c 1254\nd. b 31 Dec 1298|p70.htm#i2085|Sir Humphrey V. de Bohun|d. 27 Oct 1265|p70.htm#i2087|Eleanor de Braiose|d. b 1264|p92.htm#i2743|Sir Enguerrand de Fiennes|d. 1265|p70.htm#i2086|Isabel de Condé|b. c 1210|p231.htm#i6907|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*1276 7,5 
Marriage*14 November 1302 Westminster, Middlesex, England, by papal dispensation, Principal=Elizabeth Plantagenet7,2,8,9,5,1 
Death*16 March 1322 Battle of Boroughbridge, Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, England, slain at Boroughbridge fighting against the King.7,2,10,8,5,11 
Burial* Church of the Friars Preachers, York, Yorkshire, England5 
Feudal* Kington, Herefordshire, Pleshy, Debden, Fobbing, Saffron Walden, Shenfield, Essex, Kimbolton, Huntingdonshire, Enfield, Middlesex, Brecknock and Hay, Breconshire, Caldicott, Monmouthshire12 
Occupation Lord High Constable of England10 
Event-Misc22 July 1298 Battle of Falkirk, Falkirk, Scotland, See Battle of Falkirk.
1 
(English) Battle-Falkirk22 July 1298 Principal=Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England13,14,15 
Event-Misc*1 July 1300 Carlaverock Castle, Scotland, present at the seige of Carlaverock. "A rich and elegant young man." A poem commemorates the battle.5,1,11 
Event-Misc1301 He signed the barons' letter to Pope Boniface as Com' Hereford et Essex & Constab' Angl'.12 
Event-Misc*1303 Enfield, Essex, They were granted market and fair, Principal=Elizabeth Plantagenet12 
Event-Misc1306 He was granted the castle of Lochmaben and lordship of Annandale12 
Event-Misc18 October 1306 He had his lands confiscated for desertion in Scotland11 
Event-Misc28 February 1308 He bore the sceptre at the Coronation of Edward II11 
Event-Misc1310 He was sworn as one of the Lords Ordainers to reform the government and the King's household.12 
Event-Misc1312 Scarborough, He was one of the Barons who besieged and captured Piers de Gaveston, favorite of Edward II12 
Event-MiscOctober 1313 He was pardoned re Gaveston12 
Note*24 June 1314 Battle of Bannockburn, fought at Bannockburn . He and the Earl of Gloucester wer in dispute as to whom would take precedence in the battle line; when the Earl of Gloucester dashed forward, his horse fell and he was killed. After the English were defeatred, Hereford retreated to bothwell, where Gov. Sir Walter Gilbertson gave him up to the Scots, who later exchanged him for Elizabeth de Burgh, wife of Robert the Bruce and the Bishop of St. Andrews2,5,11,16 
Event-Misc11 February 1315/16 He was captain of the forces against Llywelyn Bren ap Rhys in Glamorgan, Wales16 
Will*11 August 1318 5 
Event-Misc8 November 1318 He was on a diplomatic mission to the Counts of Flanders, hainault, Holland, and Zealand16 
Event-Miscbetween May 1321 and June 1321 Humphrey ravaged the lands of Hugh le Despenser the Younger, Witness=Sir Hugh le Despenser16 
(Rebel) Battle-Boroughbridge16 March 1321/22 Principal=Edward II Plantagenet, Principal=Sir Thomas of Lancaster17,18,16 
HTML* 
History of the Bown Surname
 
Arms* Azure with a bend of silver and cotises of gold between six golden lioncels1
Arms Az. A bend arg., cottised or, bet. 6 lioncels or. A label gu. (Carlaverock).19 

Family

Elizabeth Plantagenet b. 7 Aug 1282, d. 5 May 1316
Children

Last Edited14 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 8.
  2. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 39.
  3. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 21-12.
  4. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 18-4.
  5. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 12.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 7.
  7. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 6-29.
  8. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 18-5.
  9. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  10. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 96-31.
  11. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, p. 108.
  12. [S374] Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, Bohun 5.
  13. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 5.
  14. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 125.
  15. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 35.
  16. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 31.
  17. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, v. 2, p. 114.
  18. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, v. 5, p. 3.
  19. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, p. 107.
  20. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-30.
  21. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 24-6.
  22. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 15-30.
  23. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 11.
  24. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 6-30.

Elizabeth Plantagenet

F, #1613, b. 7 August 1282, d. 5 May 1316

Father*Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England1,2,3 b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239, d. 7 Jul 1307
Mother*Eleanor of Castile1,4,3 b. 1240, d. 28 Nov 1290
Elizabeth Plantagenet|b. 7 Aug 1282\nd. 5 May 1316|p54.htm#i1613|Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England|b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239\nd. 7 Jul 1307|p54.htm#i1614|Eleanor of Castile|b. 1240\nd. 28 Nov 1290|p54.htm#i1615|Henry I. Plantagenet King of England|b. 1 Oct 1207\nd. 16 Nov 1272|p54.htm#i1618|Eleanor of Provence|b. 1217\nd. 24 Jun 1291|p54.htm#i1619|Fernando I. of Castile "the Saint"|b. bt 5 Aug 1201 - 19 Aug 1201\nd. 30 May 1252|p95.htm#i2832|Joan de Dammartin|b. c 1218\nd. 16 Mar 1279|p95.htm#i2833|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*7 August 1282 Rhudlan Castle, Caernavon, Wales1,2,5,6,3 
Marriage*7 January 1297 Ipswich, England, Principal=Graf Johann von Holland6,3 
Marriage*14 November 1302 Westminster, Middlesex, England, by papal dispensation, Principal=Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun1,7,5,2,6,3 
Death*5 May 1316 Quendon, Essex, England1,7,2,5,8 
Burial* Walden Abbey, Essex, England2,6,8 
Event-Misc*1303 Enfield, Essex, They were granted market and fair, Principal=Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun8 

Family

Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun b. 1276, d. 16 Mar 1322
Children

Last Edited14 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 6-29.
  2. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  3. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 8.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 14.
  5. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 18-5.
  6. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 12.
  7. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 39.
  8. [S374] Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, Bohun 5.
  9. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 24-6.
  10. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 31.
  11. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 18-6.
  12. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 11.
  13. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-30.

Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England1

M, #1614, b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239, d. 7 July 1307

 
 

Father*Henry III Plantagenet King of England b. 1 Oct 1207, d. 16 Nov 1272; son and heir2,3,4,5
Mother*Eleanor of Provence b. 1217, d. 24 Jun 1291; son and heir6,3,7,5
Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England|b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239\nd. 7 Jul 1307|p54.htm#i1614|Henry III Plantagenet King of England|b. 1 Oct 1207\nd. 16 Nov 1272|p54.htm#i1618|Eleanor of Provence|b. 1217\nd. 24 Jun 1291|p54.htm#i1619|John Lackland|b. 27 Dec 1166\nd. 19 Oct 1216|p54.htm#i1620|Isabella of Angoulême|b. 1188\nd. 31 May 1246|p55.htm#i1621|Raymond V. Berenger|b. 1198\nd. 19 Aug 1245|p94.htm#i2797|Beatrice of Savoy|b. 1198\nd. Dec 1266|p94.htm#i2798|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*17 or 18 Jun 1239 Westminster, London, England, 17 or 18 Jun 12392,8,9 
Marriage*18 October 1254 Monastery of Las Huelgas, Burgos, Spain, Bride=Eleanor of Castile2,10,8,4,9 
Marriage*8 September 1299 Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, Kent, England, by dispensation dated 1 Jul 1298, they being related in the 2nd and 3rd degrees), Principal=Marguerite Of France2,10,8,4,9 
Death*7 July 1307 Burgh-on-Sands, Cumberland, England, 7 or 8 Jul 13072,10,8,9 
Burial*28 October 1307 Westminster Abbey, Westminster, England10 
Dickens* 11
Hume* 12
DNB* Edward I (1239-1307), king of England and lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, was born at Westminster on the night of 17–18 June 1239, the eldest son of Henry III (1207-1272) and Eleanor of Provence (c.1223-1291).
Childhood and youth, 1239–1258
Widespread delight at the news of Edward's birth was tempered when the king made it known that he expected gifts from his subjects. ‘God gave us this child, but the king is selling him to us’ was one comment (Prestwich, Edward I, 4). The name Edward was chosen by the king, who was devoted to the cult of Edward the Confessor. The boy was soon given his own household, and provided with companions, of whom the most notable was his cousin Henry of Almain (d. 1271), son of Richard, earl of Cornwall (1209–1272). Letters from the king demonstrate a fatherly concern: in 1242 he expressed worry that Edward and the other children had no good wine to drink, and the sheriff of Gloucester was ordered to send him a regular supply of lampreys. Hugh Giffard was the first to be given charge of the young Edward; in 1246 Bartholomew Pecche took his place. There were serious concerns about the boy's health in 1246, 1247, and 1251, but he grew up to be strong and healthy. Little is known of his education, but by seventeen he was skilled enough in arms to take part in a tournament at Blythe. As heir to the throne he was known simply as ‘Dominus Edwardus’, the Lord Edward. There was no question of his being crowned king during his father's lifetime, in the way that Henry II had his eldest son elevated to kingly status in 1170.

In 1254 alarm at the possibility of a Castilian invasion of Gascony led to the plan for Edward's marriage to Eleanor of Castile (1241-1290). Alfonso X was anxious that his son-in-law should receive a substantial endowment of land, and Edward, who was given Gascony, Ireland, the earldom of Chester, major estates in Wales, Bristol, Stamford, and Grantham, gained some measure of independence. Yet it was not until 1256 that orders were given for Edward's seal to replace Henry's in Ireland, and even then the king occasionally countermanded his son's orders. There were more significant disagreements between the king and Edward over policy in Gascony, the former following a policy of reconciliation, the latter giving his firm backing to one faction in Bordeaux, the Soler family. In Wales policies of Anglicization pursued by Edward's officials, notably Geoffrey Langley, provoked rebellion in 1256, and an ineffective royal campaign in the north of the country in the following year. At this period Edward's income was probably in the region of £6000 a year; that this was insufficient is indicated by his sale of the wardship of Robert Ferrers for 6000 marks, and a loan he obtained from the archbishop of Canterbury of £1000.

Politically, from 1254 until 1257, Edward was under the influence of the powerful court faction of the Savoyards, relatives of his mother, Eleanor of Provence, of whom the most notable was Peter of Savoy. In 1258, however, he linked his cause to that of the Lusignans, the Poitevin half-brothers of the king. Stamford and Grantham were handed over to one of them, William de Valence, in return for a loan. Edward planned to make Geoffrey de Lusignan seneschal of Gascony, and his brother Guy keeper of Oléron and the Channel Islands. Given the extreme unpopularity of the Lusignans, this was a dangerous line for Edward to take, and it is not surprising that the veteran chronicler Matthew Paris viewed the prospect of his succeeding one day to the throne with no enthusiasm at all.
The baronial reform movement, 1258–1264
Edward's role in the difficult period of baronial reform and rebellion was understandably ambivalent, for the man who emerged as the most formidable opposition leader was his uncle by marriage, Simon de Montfort. When the crisis first erupted in 1258 Edward initially, with considerable reluctance, swore to accept what should be decided. When a reform scheme was drawn up at the Oxford parliament in May 1258, Edward made his attitude very plain, by giving public support to the Lusignans. Four councillors, John de Balliol, Roger de Mohaut, John de Grey, and Stephen Longespée, were then appointed to curb Edward, the first two being baronial supporters, the latter experienced officials who had served him previously. As the success of the reformers became increasingly apparent, so Edward's attitude softened. He began to build up a new following, which included his cousin Henry of Almain, John, Earl Warenne (d. 1304), Roger Clifford, Roger Leyburn, Hamon L'Estrange, and others, men who were to play very significant roles later in Edward's career. In March 1259 Edward entered into a formal alliance with Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, one of the leading reformers. One possible reason for this is that Edward was anxious to have the support of at least one of those about to negotiate peace terms with the French, for it was important that his interests in Gascony should be safeguarded. In October 1259 an appeal was made directly to Edward and Gloucester by a body calling itself the ‘community of the bachelors of England’. The complaint was that the king had done all he had been asked to do, while the baronial reformers had not acted. Edward's response was that he had been initially reluctant to swear to the oath demanded of him at Oxford, but that he was now ready to stand by it. He was ready, indeed, to die in the cause of the community of the realm. Various interpretations of this incident have been proposed, but it seems likely that Edward was indeed enthusiastic about the cause of reform. On 15 October he issued letters announcing that he had sworn to do all in his power to support Simon de Montfort, and that he was committed to support the baronial enterprise. Montfort, it should be noted, had quarrelled with Gloucester, and was the man most likely to carry influence in the negotiations with the French. Edward may have been motivated by idealistic concepts, but there was hard political sense to his alignments in this difficult period.

From November 1259 until April 1260 Henry III was in France for the peace negotiations. Edward used his father's absence to make a bid for independence, and Henry at least was persuaded that his son was plotting to depose him. Edward was certainly in dispute with the earl of Gloucester. On the king's return to England Henry initially refused to see Edward, but reconciliation was achieved by the earl of Cornwall and the archbishop of Canterbury. Edward and Gloucester's dispute was to be settled by arbitration. Roger Leyburn and Roger Clifford were removed from the respective commands of Bristol and the ‘Three Castles’ (Grosmont, Skenfrith, and Whitecastle) in south Wales to which Edward had appointed them. Edward himself was sent abroad, to take part in tournaments, but returned briefly in the autumn after allegedly failing to distinguish himself. In November he went back to France, and made common cause once more with the Lusignans.

When Edward arrived in England again, in the spring of 1261, it seems probable that he once more briefly changed sides, uniting with Montfort and Gloucester. If so, he was soon brought back to his father's cause, and in July went to Gascony, where he achieved some success in bringing order to an unruly province. Early in 1262 he came back to England, to face a crisis in his own private affairs. Roger Leyburn was accused and found guilty of misappropriating Edward's funds, a move that alienated Edward from the group of young English magnates, headed by Henry of Almain, Earl Warenne, and Roger Clifford, who had provided him with significant backing. To prevent further financial mismanagement Edward handed the bulk of his lands over to his father, receiving in exchange the receipts of the English Jewry for a three-year period. Once again Edward, presumably in some disgrace, was sent away to amuse himself in tournaments in France, and returned to England early in 1263.

A fresh problem faced Edward in the spring of 1263. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd had taken advantage of the confused political situation in England to extend his power in Wales and the marches. Edward led a campaign against him in April and May, but although he had the support of Llywelyn's brother Dafydd ap Gruffudd, the expedition achieved little. In England Henry III's situation deteriorated; Simon de Montfort had left England in 1261, but returned in the spring of 1263, determined to re-establish the baronial reform movement. The death of the earl of Gloucester in 1262 made it easier for him to assert his dominance. Edward was by now staunchly royalist. He went to Bristol, where the conduct of his men caused the townspeople to besiege him in the castle. Only when the bishop of Worcester organized a truce could he escape. Provocatively, he garrisoned Windsor Castle with foreign mercenary knights. Lack of money was a major problem, which he remedied in part by the forcible seizure of funds deposited for safe keeping in the New Temple in London. On 16 July Henry III accepted the baronial terms, but Edward continued to resist. In August he re-established links with his former supporters, notably Henry of Almain, Earl Warenne, and Roger Leyburn, and abandoned his unpopular use of foreign mercenaries. Attempts to reach a settlement in parliament in October failed, and Edward withdrew, seizing Windsor Castle, which his men had surrendered earlier. Lengthy negotiations eventually produced agreement that the dispute between the king and his opponents should be settled by the arbitration of the French king, Louis IX. Edward went with his father to Amiens for the discussions, which in January 1264 predictably yielded a firm justification for the royalist position.
The civil war, 1264–1267
The mise of Amiens was the prelude not to peace, but to civil war. The initial outbreak was in the Welsh marches. At Gloucester Edward displayed his lack of good faith; he forced an entry to the town, but when a relieving force under Robert Ferrers, earl of Derby, appeared, he agreed to a truce. Once Ferrers had departed, Edward ignored the terms of the agreement, and pillaged the town. In April the conflict moved to Northampton, where Edward played a leading role in the assault on the town where Montfort's son Simon had gathered baronial forces. Edward then pursued his quarrel with Ferrers, capturing Tutbury Castle and ravaging the earl's lands. Despite the scale of royalist success, London remained staunchly baronial, and a royal campaign to secure the south-east was countered by the Montfortian forces when they advanced on the royalists encamped at Lewes. Battle was joined on 14 May 1264. Edward, in command of the cavalry on the right, charged the Londoners to great effect, routing them. Unfortunately he did not control his troops effectively, and by the time he had regrouped them after a lengthy pursuit, the main battle was lost. Following negotiations during the night Edward and his cousin Henry of Almain gave themselves up as hostages, not to be released until a final settlement was achieved.

Edward's imprisonment lasted until March 1265. He then agreed to accept the scheme of government introduced by Montfort, and handed over Bristol as a pledge that he would keep his word. Five royal castles were to be transferred to Edward, who would then entrust them to Montfort for five years as a further guarantee. Nor was he fully free; close surveillance was the order of the day. At the end of May he went riding with his escort, and succeeded in making his escape, fleeing from Hereford to Roger Mortimer's castle of Wigmore. He joined forces with the young earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare (d. 1295), who had quarrelled with Simon de Montfort earlier in the year. Men soon flocked to Edward's standard; there was growing alarm at the increasingly autocratic attitude taken by Montfort. The marcher lords were quick to make common cause with Edward, and Earl Warenne and William de Valence rapidly joined him. Worcester fell without a fight, and the Gloucester garrison soon surrendered. Simon de Montfort looked to Llywelyn of Wales for support, and made a formal alliance with him on 19 June. By breaking the bridges across the Severn the royalists cut Montfort off from potential support. Meanwhile the younger Simon de Montfort marched north from his siege of Pevensey to Kenilworth, where he was surprised by Edward's troops who had made a swift night march from Worcester. The elder Montfort marched to Evesham, hoping to join forces with his son. On 4 August battle was joined. Montfort was completely outmanoeuvred before the battle, and the defensive formation of his troops was not strong enough to resist Edward's and Gloucester's men. Montfort and his eldest son, Henry, were killed, along with many of their supporters. The campaign had been a triumph for Edward, though how far he had personally masterminded it is not apparent from the sources.

The battle of Evesham did not mark the conclusion of the civil war. The political mood of the victors was not one of reconciliation, and late in the year Edward campaigned against the younger Simon de Montfort and other rebels who had taken refuge in the Isle of Axholme in Lincolnshire, coming to terms with them at Christmas 1265. A campaign together with Roger Leyburn against the Cinque Ports followed, with success achieved by 25 March. A mopping-up operation in Hampshire saw Edward engage a notable rebel knight, Adam Gurdun, in single combat. The romantic story was that Edward was so impressed with Gurdun's courage that he gave him his lands back, and regarded him with great favour. The reality was that he was given to the queen as a prisoner, and made to buy his lands back at a heavy price.

The major military operation against the rebels was the siege of Kenilworth, though it was not until May 1266 that Edward himself joined the royalist forces engaged in a complex and expensive operation there. Nor does it appear that he played any significant part in the negotiations that led to the promulgation of the dictum of Kenilworth at the end of October. This set out the principles by which former rebels were allowed to repurchase their lands, and was not enough to persuade the Kenilworth garrison to surrender; they held out, cold and hungry, until mid-December. Edward, meanwhile, had gone north to deal with John de Vescy, who had rebelled in protest at the policy of confiscation of lands adopted by the royalists. He had to pay 3700 marks to redeem his lands, but bore Edward no ill will, and became in time one of his most loyal associates. The one remaining problem was the continued resistance of John d'Eyville, which became acute in April 1267 when the earl of Gloucester joined forces with him and marched on London. Gloucester, who had done so much to secure Edward's success in 1265, had received little recognition for his services, and there was a real danger that civil war would break out again on a big scale. Negotiations, however, were successful, and Gloucester left London. The government adopted a more conciliatory line toward the former rebels, and Edward reduced the final rebel redoubt in the Isle of Ely with little difficulty. The summer was dry, making it easy to advance through the fens, and on 11 July the rebels surrendered.
The settlement of England, 1267–1270
Important steps were taken in the autumn of 1267 to secure the royalist position. On 29 September the treaty of Montgomery was agreed with Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. The English recognized him as prince of Wales, and as the feudal lord of all other Welsh princes with the sole exception of Maredudd ap Rhys of Ystrad Tywi, who owed homage directly to Henry III. The lands of the Four Cantrefs in the north were conceded to Llywelyn. Edward had earlier handed over important interests in Wales to his brother Edmund (1245-1296), to whom he granted Cardigan and Carmarthen in 1265. Edward therefore had largely abandoned his interests in Wales; although he gave his consent to the treaty of Montgomery, it is hard to imagine that he did so very willingly. In November 1267 the Statute of Marlborough was issued. This lengthy series of legal measures continued in many respects the work of legislative reform begun by the king's opponents in 1259, and in many ways it anticipated the legal reforms of Edward's reign, though it is not clear that he took any part in the debates which must have taken place about the measures.

It is, indeed, difficult to determine what Edward's role was in the years following the pacification of England. In some respects his behaviour did not seem statesmanlike. His relations with the earl of Gloucester remained stormy; the two men were in dispute over the ownership of Bristol, while decisions Edward made in 1269 when hearing disputes between the marcher lords and Llywelyn of Wales antagonized the earl. In 1269 he was involved in the harsh treatment of his former ward Robert Ferrers, earl of Derby. Ferrers was forced to acknowledge a huge debt of £50,000 to Edward's brother Edmund, in return for his release from captivity. Inevitably, the money could not be found, and Edmund acquired the bulk of Ferrers's estates. Edward undoubtedly took a leading part in the discussions in the royal council, but the only measures that can be clearly associated with him were one for the holding of tournaments, and another dealing with debts owed to Jewish moneylenders. He received some major grants, which gave him the custody of London, seven royal castles, and eight counties, but this was presumably in order to pay off the debts he must have incurred in his military operations, rather than as a means of giving him added political authority. The evidence does not suggest that he played a dominant political role in all areas. Until 1268 the papal legate Ottobuono had played a leading role in the affairs of state, and after that Edward's concerns were increasingly directed towards his planned crusade.

Edward had a hard political apprenticeship. He had found it difficult to balance the various pressures that were placed upon him, and it is not surprising that he gained a reputation for unreliability as a result of his various changes of side since 1258. One contemporary saw him as on the one hand a leo, a brave lion, proud and fierce; and on the other as a pard, a leopard, inconsistent and unreliable, a man who made promises when in difficulties and then broke them when it suited him. The ambivalence in his character was very clear in this period of his life; such traits may have been less obvious later, but they did not leave him.
Edward on crusade, 1270–1274
The papal legate Ottobuono was ordered to preach the crusade in the autumn of 1266, as part of a campaign throughout Europe. Louis IX decided to participate, and took the cross with his sons in March 1267. There was little initial support in England, and this was not to be a movement buoyed up by popular enthusiasm. The important step was taken in 1268 at Northampton, when Edward, his brother Edmund, Henry of Almain, Earl Warenne, the earl of Gloucester, William de Valence, and others agreed to go on crusade. It is not obvious why Edward himself took the cross. His father had done so in 1250, and in 1268 Henry III probably still hoped to go to the East. Should he not do so, it was his second son Edmund, not Edward, who was seen by the pope as an acceptable substitute. The papal view was that the situation in England demanded Edward's presence there. Edward, however, was undoubtedly enthusiastic about the crusading cause, and perhaps welcomed the opportunity to leave England and its problems. He may also have felt honour-bound to go: if the king of France's sons were setting out for the East, so should the king of England's.

The core of Edward's expedition was provided by his own household. In July 1270 contracts were made with eighteen men to provide a total of 225 knights. The force was largely composed of men who had fought on the royalist side in the civil war; only for a few former rebels did the crusade provide a means of gaining royal favour. The earl of Gloucester was one opponent of Edward who did take the cross, but he became increasingly reluctant to go. Richard of Cornwall had to negotiate an agreement between him and Edward at the Easter parliament in 1270, which provided that the earl should follow Edward to the East within six months. In the event he did not do so, Welsh attacks on his lands providing him with an excuse. The expedition that set off in the summer of 1270 was, by any standards, a small one. Recruitment for the crusade had not been easy, nor was its financing. Louis IX provided a loan of about £17,500 in 1269, while lengthy discussions in a series of parliaments eventually led to the grant of a tax of a twentieth in 1270.

Edward's forces arrived at the crusading port of Aigues-Mortes on the southern French coast at the end of September 1270, long after the main expedition had departed for Tunis. When Edward's small fleet reached Tunis, it was to discover that the French king had died of dysentery in August, and that his successor was also stricken. Charles of Anjou had entered into negotiations with the Tunisian emir, and reached agreement on 1 November. An indignant Edward had to accept the decision of the crusade leaders to sail for Sicily, with the intention of going on to the East in the spring. He was the only one to stick to the plan, sailing from Sicily early in May 1271, and revictualling his troops in Cyprus. On 9 May he landed at Acre. English sources suggest that had he not arrived, the port would have been lost to the mameluke leader, Baibars, but Arab sources do not suggest that Baibars intended any major assault. When Baibars rode up to the walls, Edward was in no position to take any action against his vastly superior forces. Late in June the English force finally made a sortie, to St Georges-de-Lebeyne, about 15 miles from Acre. Heat and food poisoning took their toll of the troops, and little was achieved. In November a further raid took place under Edward's command, this time with the support of a good many local nobles and members of the military orders. Qaqun, 40 miles from Acre, was the target, and an enemy force of some numbers but little strength was defeated, but the citadel itself was not taken. It was clear that little could be achieved, and in May 1272 Hugues III, king of Cyprus and titular king of Jerusalem, agreed a ten-year truce with Baibars. Edward was angry at this, and remained in the East until 24 September 1272, perhaps in the hope that further military action might be possible. His return to the West may also have been delayed because of the after-effects of the most celebrated incident of his crusade. In June 1272 a Muslim assassin attempted to kill him with a poisoned dagger. Edward kicked him, seized his knife, and slew him; but he was himself wounded in the arm. The master of the Temple provided a remedy, which failed; the wound began to putrefy. Eventually an English doctor cured Edward, by cutting away the decaying flesh. The classic story is, of course, that Eleanor of Castile devotedly sucked the poison from the wound. The same tale is told of Edward's close Savoyard friend Otto de Grandson; neither account has contemporary support.

Edward returned from the East to southern Italy, where he heard news of the death of his father, Henry III. He did not, as might have been expected, hasten to England for his coronation. His journey through Italy was leisurely; he then made an important visit to Savoy, and engaged in a tournament at Châlons-sur-Marne, which turned more violent than was proper for such an occasion. He did homage for his French lands to Philippe III of France at Paris, where he stayed in late July and early August, and then, instead of directing his journey to England, went to Gascony, where there was serious news of the rebellion of Gaston de Béarn. Not until 2 August 1274 did Edward finally return to England.
Crusading and diplomacy, 1274–1291
Edward undoubtedly enhanced his reputation by taking part in the crusade. He distinguished himself by persisting longer in an obviously futile cause than any of the other leaders who set out in 1270. His diplomatic efforts to win Mongol support failed, his military efforts were mere pinpricks to the mamelukes. The expedition was marked by a curious mixture of over-ambition and a full awareness of the limitations of the resources available. In the military sense Edward showed himself to be suitably cautious; in financial terms he displayed less realism. The crusade had proved an extremely expensive venture. The money raised before the expedition proved sufficient only until Edward arrived at Acre. Thereafter he borrowed funds from Italian merchants and others. The company of the Riccardi of Lucca lent him over £22,000 for the period from his landing in Sicily in 1272 until his return to England. In all, the crusade probably cost £100,000 or more.

Edward hoped to be able to go on crusade once more, and was to take the cross again in 1287. His role in European diplomacy in the first half of his reign was directed at the prevention of conflict, so as to make this possible. The dispute between the Angevins ruling in Naples and the kingdom of Aragon was a major obstacle to the European peace that was needed if a major crusade was to be mounted. Edward hoped to act as a peacemaker in the 1280s in this dispute. In 1283 he even made available his city of Bordeaux as the venue for single combat to settle the issue between Charles of Anjou and Peter of Aragon, but the engagement never took place. In 1286 Edward was successful in brokering a truce between France and Aragon, and two years later he provided money and hostages to Peter of Aragon so as to secure the release of the Angevin Charles of Salerno. Edward was a major figure in the European politics of this period, but in the end his peacemaking efforts were in vain. He had planned marriage alliances with Navarre, Aragon, and the Habsburg dynasty, but all failed, and it was only the marriage of his daughter Margaret to the duke of Brabant's heir, John, that was carried through in 1290. Charles of Salerno's release was secured, but at great cost and without securing lasting peace between Aragon and the Angevins. Edward hoped for a grand alliance between the forces of the West and those of the Mongols in the East, but this was too ambitious an idea, and came to naught. The city of Acre fell in 1291, and though Edward still dreamed of going on crusade, nothing came of his hopes.
The government of England, 1274–1290
Edward's first concern on his return to England in 1274 was of course his coronation, which took place on 19 August. There was some dispute with his brother Edmund over the role the latter was entitled to play in his position as steward of England; there was also a problem over the perennial argument between the archbishops of Canterbury and York, which resulted in the latter's exclusion from the ceremony. Otherwise, the coronation went smoothly, with celebrations on a truly exceptional scale.

The coronation over, Edward could give his attentions to the affairs of his realm. The first task, after some changes of personnel, which included the appointment of Edward's close associate Robert Burnell (d. 1292) as chancellor, was to conduct a major inquiry into the state of the realm. On 11 October 1274 commissioners were appointed to inquire into a wide range of matters, the prime purpose being to discover what rights and lands had been lost by the crown. By March of the following year the process of investigation was complete. Only some of the returns, known as the hundred rolls, survive, but they are sufficient to show the immense scale of the inquiry. Jurors often found it hard to know whether or not royal rights had been usurped by magnates; they found it much easier to tell tales about official wrongdoings. The scale of the returns was such that it was hard for the government to make much use of them; the Dunstable annalist cynically commented that no good came of the inquiry. There were no judicial commissions set up to hear the complaints against royal and private officials that were brought up. Yet many of the issues raised in the hundred rolls were the subject of legislation in the first Statute of Westminster, promulgated in the April parliament of 1275, though it is not clear that the clauses of the statute were directly based on the huge mass of material in the hundred rolls.

Edward I's statutes are one of the great achievements of the reign. The sweep of the legislation was extensive, and the majority of the statutes were not dedicated to a single topic, but covered a range of matters. They were not the work of a single legislator, and many clauses had their origins in specific issues that had arisen in the courts. The most important of the statutes were: Westminster I (1275); Gloucester (1278); Mortmain (1279); Acton Burnell (1283); Westminster II (1285); Winchester (1285); Merchants (1285); Quia emptores (1290); Quo warranto (1290).

Land tenure was one important theme in the legislation. The first clause of Westminster I, De donis conditionalibus, was designed to meet the grievance of those who found that even if they made gifts of lands on precise conditions, these were often flouted. Family settlements were the major issue here. Quia emptores ensured that if feudal tenants disposed of lands the new holder would enter into the same feudal relationship with the lord as the former holder. Much was done to clarify relations between lords and tenants, providing protection for tenants against unjust distraint, and giving lords ways of dealing with recalcitrant tenants. Landlords were provided by Westminster II with new methods of dealing with fraudulent bailiffs. The question of the grant of lands to the church was dealt with in what was perhaps the most political of the statutes, Mortmain. In the course of a dispute with Archbishop Pecham the king forbade the grant of lands to the church without royal licence, a measure that reiterated a clause of the provisions of Westminster of 1259.

The question of debt was the subject of the Statute of Acton Burnell, which was revised in the Statute of Merchants. Merchants were provided with a new mechanism for the registration of debt. If a debt was not paid off promptly, the debtor was threatened with prison, and eventually with handing over his lands to his creditor. The Statute of Winchester dealt with the maintenance of law and order, updating earlier provisions setting out the military equipment all free men should possess (necessary if they were to prevent crime), and making local hundreds responsible for bringing forward indictments. Arrangements were outlined for watch and ward in towns and cities; roads were to be widened, so that there should be no undergrowth nearby in which highway robbers might lurk.

It is impossible that so major a programme of legal change should have been carried out without the active encouragement of the king himself, but evidence for Edward's own involvement in the statutes is hard to find. It is unlikely that he was much concerned in the detailed work of drafting the new measures; that was a task for the experts. Much of the drive for change, however, must have been due to the king, and his experiences of the baronial reform movement of the late 1250s and early 1260s surely help to explain his determination to improve the way in which the law operated.
The church and the bench
The appointment of John Pecham to the see of Canterbury in 1279 was followed by a series of arguments between king and primate. Proposals for ecclesiastical reform set out by Pecham at Reading in 1279 directly attacked royal officials, and threatened royal rights. The archbishop was forced to retreat in parliament in the autumn of that year, but in 1280 a massive list of clerical grievances was presented in parliament. Pecham continued his practice of excommunicating royal officials, and another church council, at Lambeth in 1281, continued the work of reform. Pecham sent a long letter to Edward, stressing the king's obligation to bring English practices into line with the rest of Christendom. Further clerical grievances were put forward in 1285. From the crown's point of view it was claimed that church courts in the see of Norwich had overstepped their proper bounds in over 150 cases. But in the next year Edward issued a conciliatory writ, Circumspecte agatis, ordering Richard of Boyland, the justice active in the bishopric of Norwich, to act with due circumspection towards the clergy. Edward's readiness to compromise was probably because he wanted to avoid troubles while he was abroad in Gascony. In taking this course he displayed statesmanlike good sense.

Edward clearly did not believe that the country could be ruled well in his absence, and his return from Gascony in 1289 was followed by a major purge of judges and officials. The first scandal was that Thomas Weyland, chief justice of the common pleas, had protected two of his men who had committed murder. He was forced out of sanctuary by blockade, and driven into exile. A commission was set up to hear complaints against royal officials, and eventually some 1000 men were charged with a wide range of offences. The greatest to be brought down was Ralph Hengham, chief justice of the king's bench. The fact that Edward accepted fines from most of those convicted won him little favour with the chroniclers. A sad blow to Edward at this time was the death of his beloved queen, Eleanor, on 28 November 1290, and there were other deaths that transformed the character of the administration: those of the treasurer, John Kirkby, in 1290, and the chancellor, Robert Burnell, in 1292. A new generation of officials would dominate the policies of the 1290s, the most difficult decade of Edward's reign.
The conquest of Wales, 1274–1284
In 1267 Edward had abandoned most of his interests in Wales, but when he returned to England from crusade in 1274 Welsh affairs soon came to the fore. The Welsh prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd had taken advantage of the political troubles in England in the 1260s; he failed to appreciate how the situation had changed by the 1270s. He refused to do homage to Edward I, invaded English territory, began building a threatening new castle at Dolforwyn, and planned to marry Simon de Montfort's daughter Eleanor. His own brother Dafydd, and the powerful Welsh magnate Gruffudd ap Gwenwynwyn, found his ambitions unacceptable, and took refuge at the English court. War became unavoidable, and in the autumn of 1276 Edward I decided to act. In the summer of the following year a great royal host, over 15,000 strong, advanced from Chester along the coast of north Wales to Deganwy. Naval support was essential, and ships were used to take English troops to Anglesey, where they reaped the grain harvest, so reducing Llywelyn's capacity to resist. No major fighting took place; Llywelyn appreciated the overwhelming strength of Edward's army, and came to terms in the treaty of Aberconwy. The Four Cantrefs, originally granted to Edward in 1254 but regained by the Welsh in 1267, were handed over to the English. Llywelyn's political authority was severely curtailed; he was in future to receive homage only from the lords of Snowdonia, not of all Wales. A massive war indemnity of £50,000 was imposed, though not in practice collected.

War broke out again in 1282. The imposition of English jurisdiction caused much discontent in Wales. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd had been involved in a complex and humiliating legal dispute over the cantref of Arwystli with his former enemy Gruffudd ap Gwenwynwyn. Llywelyn's appeal to Welsh law stressed the threat that Edward I presented to the very identity of the Welsh people. Llywelyn's brother Dafydd, ill-rewarded by Edward for his part in the first Welsh war, made the first move in 1282, attacking Hawarden Castle on 21 April. Concerted attacks soon came on other English castles. Edward was quick to respond, making plans at a council at Devizes in April. The overall strategy was similar to that of the first Welsh war, with a major royal campaign in the north, and operations on a smaller scale by other commanders in the marches and the south. Logistical planning was on an impressive scale; the king even called on his overseas dominions of Ireland, Gascony, and Ponthieu for aid, and arrangements were made to link Anglesey to the Welsh mainland by a great pontoon bridge. By the autumn of 1282 Llywelyn's heartland of Snowdonia was threatened on all sides, notably by the royal army, which had advanced from Chester, and by a force under Luke de Tany, which had established itself in Anglesey. At this stage Archbishop John Pecham attempted to negotiate a settlement. Luke de Tany, disobeying orders, tried to take advantage of the peace negotiations by advancing across the bridge from Anglesey to the mainland. He was ambushed and killed; his force suffered heavy losses. The setback was no more than that. Edward's determination was hardened, and Llywelyn attempted to break out of the stranglehold in which he had been placed. A bold move into mid-Wales led to disaster. He was lured into a trap at Irfon Bridge, and was killed in battle. The war was continued by his brother Dafydd, but to little real effect. Castell y Bere, the last Welsh stronghold, surrendered in April 1283, and in June Dafydd himself was captured by men of his own nationality and handed over to the English for execution at Shrewsbury as a traitor.

The victory of 1283 was followed by a full-scale English settlement. The Statute of Wales of 1284 extended the English system of administration, and new counties of Flint, Anglesey, Merioneth, and Caernarfon were created with the full institutional complexity of sheriffs, county courts, and coroners, though at the local level of the commote it proved impossible to reconstruct local government on a purely English pattern. Welsh land law was not eradicated, but English criminal law was instituted for all major felonies. The settlement was limited to those areas of Wales under direct royal control, and did not extend to the marcher lordships. It was not therefore comprehensive, but it was statesmanlike. The policy adopted toward the Welsh aristocracy was less admirable. Disinheritance was on a huge scale. Llywelyn's dynasty was destroyed, and other Welsh princely families lost their lands. New lordships were created for Edward's followers, such as Bromfield and Yale for John, Earl Warenne, and Denbigh for the earl of Lincoln.
The consolidation of English rule in Wales, 1284–1295
The conquest was symbolized in physical terms by a most elaborate and ambitious castle-building programme. The first Welsh war had been followed by the building of new castles at Flint, Rhuddlan, Builth, and Aberystwyth; to these were now added Conwy, Caernarfon, and Harlech, with works also taking place at Cricieth. Edward looked to Savoy for expertise in castle building after his first Welsh campaign, perhaps because he did not want to divert his English masons from their work on the Tower of London. The man chiefly responsible for the Welsh castles was James St George; his selection was indicative of Edward's skill in choosing the right man for a job. With him came a number of other Savoyard experts, masons, and carpenters, though the bulk of the workmen were of course recruited in England. Details of window design, of scaffolding structure, and even the measurements of the latrine chutes prove the connection between these castles in Wales and those in Savoy. The castles were not built to a standard pattern; where the site allowed, concentric lines of defence added to the strength of round towers and massive curtain walls. Twin D-shaped towers formed the gatehouses at Rhuddlan, Harlech, and elsewhere. At Conwy and Caernarfon the exigencies of the site demanded not a concentric plan, but an elongated twin bailey. At the latter Master James abandoned his usual style and built a magnificent structure with polygonal towers and dark stripes of masonry decorating the walls. This echoed the Theodosian walls of Constantinople, for Edward, in a romantic gesture, wanted to express in the building a traditional Welsh legend that the father of the emperor Constantine was buried at Caernarfon. Three eagles on the great Eagle tower emphasized imperial ambitions, as well as perhaps providing a further symbol of the link with Savoy.

Along with the castles went new towns. Flint, Aberystwyth, and Rhuddlan were creations after the first Welsh war; Caernarfon, Conwy, and Harlech after the second. Cricieth and Bere were Anglicized. In the new lordships new boroughs were set up at Holt, Denbigh, and Ruthin. The intention was that these towns should be peopled by Englishmen, brought in on very favourable terms.

Conclusive as the conquest of 1283 had been, rebellion still broke out in 1287 and 1294. In 1287 Rhys ap Maredudd, lord of Dryslwyn, a man who had been loyal to the English in 1277 and 1282, rebelled. He was furious at the way he had been treated by English officials and considered that he had been humiliated, rather than rewarded, by Edward. As in other cases, Edward was very conscious of his own rights, but unsympathetic to the feelings of others; he had rebuked Rhys publicly for taking seisin of lands granted to him before formal investiture had taken place. Rhys's rebellion took place while the king was in Gascony. The regency government had little difficulty in putting it down, capturing Dryslwyn in September, though not its lord. Rhys then took Newcastle Emlyn, but after it fell in January 1288 he was left a fugitive and an outlaw until finally captured and executed in 1292.

Far more serious than Rhys's localized rising was the rebellion of 1294. The imposition of an English-style tax of a fifteenth in 1292, in addition to the generally oppressive English administration, provided the background. The outbreak of war with France provided an obvious opportunity for rebellion. The main leader was Madog ap Llywelyn, a man distantly related to the princely family of Gwynedd. This was a widespread, popular, and national uprising, which took the English completely by surprise. With the exception of Caernarfon, which was only half-completed, the new royal castles held out, but many baronial strongholds fell to a concerted series of assaults. Edward's response was to adopt once more the strategy that had served him so well in the past. The royal army advanced from Chester, while baronial forces operated in south and mid-Wales. Over 30,000 men in all were employed in the various operations. The campaign was not without its problems. Edward himself was for a time besieged in Conwy, with supplies running short during the winter months. But in March 1295 a force under the earl of Warwick defeated Madog and his men at Maes Moydog, near Oswestry, and although Madog himself was not captured in the fight, the rebellion began to collapse. The king was able to go on a triumphant tour of a defeated country. Hostages were taken to England, and heavy fines imposed on Welsh communities. One new castle was built, at Beaumaris in Anglesey. The overall lines of the settlement of 1284 were maintained, though the revolt certainly meant that English officials viewed the Welsh with increased suspicion. ‘Welshmen are Welshmen, and you need to understand them properly’, wrote one in 1296 (Prestwich, Edward I, 231). The rebellion had been a major embarrassment to Edward. It had diverted his attention from the French war at a significant moment, and had cost him some £55,000.
Fiscal reform, 1275–1289
Financial problems at the start of Edward's reign were acute, for there was a heavy debt resulting from the crusading expedition. Major measures were taken in 1275 to put the crown's finances on a secure basis. In the April parliament a customs duty was negotiated of 6s. 8d. on every sack of wool exported. There were some precedents for this. Edward had imposed a levy on imports and exports by foreign merchants in 1266, which was used as a means to repay the Riccardi bankers of Lucca for their loans, but the bankers were undoubtedly anxious for a more secure and lucrative form of repayment. The profitability of a levy of 10s. a sack taken from merchants who had disobeyed an embargo on wool exports to Flanders imposed in 1273, pointed the way forward. The new customs duties agreed in 1275 yielded some £10,000 a year. This was still not sufficient, and in the October parliament of 1275 a tax of a fifteenth, assessed on a valuation of moveable goods, was granted. This was assessed at over £81,000. Measures were also taken to improve the efficiency of the financial organization. New procedures for the exchequer were set out, and three officials were appointed to take charge of royal demesne lands. This was a radical scheme; it foundered upon the resistance of the sheriffs, and was abandoned after three years. The pattern for the future financial structure of Edward's government was largely set in 1275. Customs duties provided good security for loans from Italian bankers, while grants of taxation were an essential supplement to the ordinary revenues of the crown. One missing element was that there was no grant of taxation from the clergy in 1275; that was remedied in 1279, when the province of Canterbury agreed to pay a fifteenth for three years, and in 1280 when the province of York agreed to a tenth for two years. Clerical taxes were a valuable resource throughout the reign.

Reform of the currency was a further part of the overall financial reforms. Edward decided on a recoinage early in 1279. Large numbers of foreign workmen were recruited; provincial mints, long closed, were reopened. The new currency was issued at a slightly lower standard than the old, though since much of the coin in circulation was heavily worn and clipped, the new money was in practice much superior to the old. By 1281 silver to the value of at least £500,000 had been minted, and the mints remained active for the rest of the decade. The reminting was thoroughly successful, although in 1300 it proved necessary to take action against low-quality foreign imitation sterlings that had come into the country in considerable numbers.

War inevitably required additional financial resources, though the first Welsh campaign, in 1277, did not see a request made to the laity for a tax, perhaps because it was too soon after the grant of 1275, and because the expedition was not particularly costly. The second Welsh war, of 1282–3, was a different matter. The Welsh rising came too suddenly for a parliament to be summoned, and initially loans were raised from urban communities, totalling about £16,500. This was not enough, and regional assemblies were called to meet in York and Northampton in January 1283, resulting in the grant of a tax of a thirtieth. The Riccardi played a major role in financing the war, and about £20,000 was collected in forced loans from other Italian companies. The experience of the problems involved in financing the war led to a further attempt to reform exchequer administration. The Statute of Rhuddlan of 1284 simplified bookkeeping, clearing the large number of unrecoverable old debts from the pipe rolls of the exchequer. But an estimate of crown revenue still made depressing reading. As a result commissioners were sent round the country to inquire into debts owed to the crown, and the exchequer court was ordered to limit itself to cases involving the king and his officials. The campaign to recover debts was, of course, unpopular, and it achieved little, though in more general terms the overhaul of the financial administration did result in some clear gains.
Financial problems and taxation, 1290–1307
When Edward returned from Gascony in 1289, he faced new financial problems in England, initially because of the expenses incurred during his stay abroad. In the April parliament of 1290 he obtained permission to levy a feudal aid, a tax to which he was entitled by custom on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter Joan to the earl of Gloucester. This, however, was unlikely to raise much money, and the plan was shelved. In its place, knights of the shire were summoned to Westminster for 15 July, to give their consent to a tax of a fifteenth. The contemporary view was clear: the tax was granted in return for the expulsion of the Jews from England in that year. The assessment was over £116,000. In addition, the clergy were asked for taxes, and tenths were duly granted by both provinces. The tax placed Edward in a strong financial position in the early 1290s; the outbreak of war with France in 1294, followed by a major Welsh rebellion in the same year, and a campaign in Scotland in 1296, put a very different complexion on affairs. To make matters more difficult, the Riccardi company, which had played such an important part in the finances of the first part of the reign, with the crown incurring an aggregate debt to it of £392,000 in all, was effectively bankrupted.

Demands for taxes on moveable goods resulted in successive grants in parliament in 1294, 1295, and 1296, though with each tax the level of assessment fell sharply. The attempt to impose a further tax, of an eighth, in 1297, foundered on political opposition, though in the autumn it was replaced by a properly granted ninth. The clergy proved less obliging than the laity. In 1294 a half was demanded from them, by threatening them with outlawry. In 1295 a tenth was granted, but in 1296, at Bury St Edmunds, Archbishop Robert Winchelsey used the papal bull Clericis laicos as a means of postponing an answer to the king's request for a further tax. The bull forbade the payment of taxes by the church to the lay power, a device intended by Pope Boniface VIII to hasten the end of the Anglo-French war. Early in 1297 Edward, faced by Winchelsey's refusal to grant a tax, duly outlawed the clergy, and collected in fines what they would have paid in taxation.

Trade offered further possibilities for raising money. The initial plan in 1294 was for a seizure of all the wool in England; this would then be exported by the crown at a substantial profit. The merchants protested, and a scheme whereby an additional duty of 40s., known as the maltote, was paid on each sack of wool exported, replaced the seizure. In 1297, however, a new seizure of wool was ordered at Easter. This yielded little, and a further order for the taking of 8000 sacks of wool was issued in August. Both additional customs duties and wool seizures, or prises, were abandoned in the autumn following protests. In his final years, Edward had to rely on what had become traditional sources of income. A tax of a fifteenth was granted in 1301, and one of a thirtieth and a twentieth in 1306. It proved possible in 1303 to negotiate an additional duty of 3s. 4d. on each woolsack exported by foreign merchants. Taxes, ostensibly for crusade purposes, were imposed on the clergy by the papacy, and the proceeds shared with the crown. Such resources were not adequate to meet the needs of the crown, heightened as they were by the Scottish war. Loans from the Italian company of the Frescobaldi were of considerable assistance to Edward, but many men owed money by the crown went unpaid. By the end of the reign the debt probably stood at some £200,000.
Gascony
Gascony was important to Edward, perhaps in part because it was there that he had his first real taste of independent power in 1254–5. He visited it twice, and perhaps three times, in the early 1260s, and it was to Gascony, not England, that he first directed his attention on his return from crusade in 1274. The main reason was to bring the powerful and rebellious magnate Gaston de Béarn to heel. It had been intended that Gaston should accompany Edward on crusade, and the marriage of his daughter to Henry of Almain had been meant to reinforce his links with the English crown. Henry, however, was murdered at Viterbo in 1271, and Gaston refused to appear in court before the English seneschal of Gascony. He refused to do homage to Edward when he arrived in Gascony. Edward acted carefully, following legal forms, but eventually marched against Gaston and forced his surrender. Further legal argument followed; taking advantage of the fact that Gascony was held by the English as a fief from the French king, Gaston appealed to the parlement of Paris. It was not until 1278 that final agreement was reached, after which Gaston caused no further trouble. It may be that the affair gave Edward a false sense of confidence when it came to dealing with Welsh and Scottish leaders later in the reign; they were not to be brought to heel as easily as Gaston de Béarn.

Edward's first visit to Gascony as king saw a major inquiry into the feudal duties owed by the nobility to himself as duke. This was not complete by the time he left for England, but demonstrated his intention of reorganizing and reaffirming his rule. The importance he attached to the duchy was demonstrated by the fact that in 1278 he appointed two of his most important advisers, the Savoyard Otto de Grandson and the chancellor, Robert Burnell, to go there to investigate complaints against the rule of Luke de Tany, the seneschal, who was duly replaced by Jean de Grailly, a Savoyard. In the autumn of 1286 Edward himself returned to Gascony, and the energy with which the problems of the duchy were tackled testifies to the king's own vigour and determination. Feudal obligations in the Agenais were investigated. A series of charters to new towns, or bastides, were issued. The Jews were expelled from the duchy. Lands were purchased for the crown. Finally, in March 1289, near the end of the king's stay, a set of ordinances for the government of the duchy was drawn up at Condom. The duties of the seneschal and of the constable of Bordeaux were clearly laid out; rates of pay for officials were specified. Separate ordinances dealt with the provinces of Saintonge, Périgord, Limousin, Quercy, and the Agenais. The ordinances were specifically Gascon in character. Edward was not attempting to impose a standard administrative system on all his dominions, but there was a strong sense that he was bringing order and method to replace incoherence and individualism. What Edward could not do, however, was to alter the inconvenient situation by which he held Gascony as a fief from the French king. This was to be a major reason for the outbreak of the Anglo-French war in 1294.
The French war, 1293–1303, and marriage to Margaret of France
In the first half of the reign relations with the French monarchy had been reasonably good. Edward had visited Paris in 1279, so that Queen Eleanor might do homage for the county of Ponthieu. At Amiens outstanding differences with the French, notably over the Agenais, were settled. A French request that Edward, who as duke of Aquitaine was a vassal of the French monarchy, should serve in the campaign of 1285 in Aragon created problems, but the failure of the campaign and the death of Philippe III averted crisis. In 1286 Edward did homage to the new king, Philippe IV (r. 1285–1314), at Paris, and good relations were re-established. The war with France that broke out in 1294 was, from Edward's standpoint, unexpected. He was the victim of an aggressive French monarchy, which regarded Edward, in his capacity as duke of Aquitaine, as an overmighty vassal whose subjection to French sovereignty and jurisdiction needed to be emphasized. Philippe was presented with his opportunity by a private naval war, which began in 1293 between English and Norman sailors. The involvement of some Gascons provided the French king with the opportunity to summon Edward to appear before the parlement of Paris. Edmund of Lancaster, Edward's brother, was sent to try to negotiate a settlement. Early in 1294 a secret agreement was reached. Edward was to marry Philippe IV's sister Margaret (1279?-1318). Gascon hostages, fortresses, and towns were to be handed over to the French for a period, and then returned to the English. The summons to the parlement would be withdrawn. The English negotiators were duped. Edward kept his part of the bargain; but the French did not withdraw the summons, and declared Gascony forfeit when Edward failed to appear.

In October 1294 the first English contingents sailed to Gascony, to achieve some success at Bayonne, though none at Bordeaux. Edward's war plans, however, extended much further than campaigning in south-western France. On the advice of Antony (I) Bek, bishop of Durham and a long-standing supporter of the king, an elaborate series of continental alliances was planned, above all with princes in the Low Countries, Germany, and Burgundy. The main assault against Philippe IV would come from the north, not from Gascony. The English schemes prospered at first. Agreement was swiftly reached with the German king, Adolf of Nassau, while the duke of Brabant, Edward's son-in-law, readily accepted English subsidies. The counts of Gueldres and Holland joined the alliance, and the promise of the marriage of his daughter to Edward's son, together with a large subsidy, won over the count of Flanders. In 1295, however, Philippe IV succeeded in detaching the count of Flanders from the alliance, and early in the following year the count of Holland also abandoned Edward's cause. The Welsh rebellion of 1294–5, followed by the Scottish campaign in 1296, meant that the planned English campaign in concert with allies was put off until 1297. Early in that year Edward managed to win the count of Flanders over once again, and in May he added to the alliance an important group of Burgundian nobles. The alliance was at long last ready to act.

The English, meanwhile, had mixed fortunes in Gascony. A substantial expedition sailed early in 1296, led by Edmund of Lancaster, who died in June of that year. In January 1297 the earl of Lincoln suffered a significant defeat at Bellegarde, though in the following summer he was able to conduct a successful raid into French territory. The outcome of the war did not depend on these events, but on Edward's own expedition to Flanders, which eventually sailed on 22 August. By that time his allies had suffered defeat at the battle of Veurne, and the city of Lille had surrendered. The most serious fighting that Edward encountered was that between his own sailors from the Cinque Ports and those of Yarmouth, at the time of disembarkation. The small English army moved first to Bruges, and then to Ghent, but the assistance that had been hoped for from the German king never materialized, and on 9 October a truce was agreed with the French. It took time for Edward to extricate himself from the Low Countries; he faced serious riots early in February 1298 in Ghent, and there were problems in paying off his allies. He eventually returned to England in March 1298 after an ignominious campaign. It took until 1303 to agree a final peace with the French, but Edward's marriage to the French princess Margaret took place in 1299, and there was little danger of further hostilities. For both the English and the French the war had proved expensive and unrewarding. The war account for Gascony alone showed expenses approaching £360,000. The various allies were promised some £250,000, and paid about £165,000. The Flanders campaign probably cost over £50,000.
The Great Cause and the Scottish revolt, 1286–1297
Edward's earliest experience of Scotland had probably been in the autumn of 1266, when he may have travelled to Haddington in Lothian to visit his sister Margaret, the queen of Scots. Relations with Scotland during the first part of the reign were smooth; the thorny issue of the homage due from Alexander III to Edward was settled without much argument in 1278. Problems arose only when Edward tried to take advantage of the dynastic problems that faced Scotland on the death of Alexander in 1286. The latter's heir was his granddaughter, Margaret of Norway, and in 1290 agreement was reached for her to marry Edward's own heir, Edward of Caernarfon. Though it was agreed that Scotland should remain independent of England, Edward's actions once the treaty was agreed suggested that he intended to exercise effective lordship there. His plans were dashed by the death of Margaret in Orkney in the autumn of 1290. The right to the Scottish throne was then disputed between Robert Bruce and John Balliol, and eventually eleven other claimants. Edward determined that the dispute should be resolved by himself, as feudal overlord of Scotland. The Scots were not prepared to accept such a claim, but in negotiations at Norham in May and June 1291 Edward obtained sufficient recognition of his rights from the competitors to the throne to be able to act. The hearings were lengthy and complex, with a long adjournment between August 1291 and June 1292. A full record was made by an English notary, John of Caen, though this was not drawn up contemporaneously. The final judgment, in November 1292, went in favour of John Balliol; his was the strongest case in law.

The resolution of the Great Cause, as the dispute to the Scottish throne became known, was followed by determined efforts by Edward to make good his claims to the superior lordship of Scotland. Appeals against judgments made in the court of the guardians of Scotland (who had ruled that kingdom between 1286 and 1292) were quickly heard. In the case of Macduff, the Scottish king himself was summoned to appear before the English parliament, which he did at Michaelmas 1293, thereby acknowledging Edward's rights of lordship. In 1294 Edward summoned King John Balliol and eighteen Scottish magnates to perform feudal service against the French, an unprecedented step. John was a weak monarch, and in 1295 effective power was taken from him by a council of twelve. The French naturally looked to Scotland as an ally against Edward in the Anglo-French war, and early in the next year a treaty was concluded. At the same time Edward was able to use the Macduff case, and King John's refusal to come to court in March 1296, as an excuse for action. At the end of March he invaded, and took Berwick.

The campaign of 1296 was a triumphant success for Edward. The Scots were defeated at Dunbar, and the expedition developed into little more than an unopposed military promenade. Scotland, it appeared, was conquered in twenty-one weeks, and its king removed ignominiously from office. The removal of the coronation stone from Scone to Westminster made it clear that this was a true conquest. The government of the country was, as far as was possible, entrusted to Englishmen. However, the victory had been too easy. In 1297 the Scots revolted. Robert Bruce (later Robert I, king of Scots), grandson of the competitor to the throne, was one of the leaders, but the most effective resistance to the English was provided by William Wallace, a man of knightly not baronial rank, and Andrew Moray. This was a genuinely popular rebellion, and it triumphed in September when an English army under Earl Warenne was defeated at Stirling Bridge.
Victory and settlement in Scotland, 1298–1305
Edward retaliated promptly on his return from Flanders in 1298. A large army, approaching 30,000 strong, was completely victorious on 22 July over the Scottish defensive formations, or schiltroms, at Falkirk, the only major battle fought by the king himself since Evesham. Yet despite this triumph, the English were able to establish only limited control of areas around the castles they held in southern Scotland. No campaign was possible in 1299, for political reasons, and the Scots recovered Stirling Castle after a lengthy siege. In 1300, 1301, and 1303 great English armies marched north under Edward's command, but the Scots would not come to battle. Robert Bruce came over to the English side in the winter of 1301–2, but it was not until early 1304 that the majority of the Scottish leaders surrendered. The capture of Stirling Castle by Edward marked the end of this phase of the war. It appeared once more that conquest had been achieved. Edward deserves some praise for his determination, and his officials credit for the way in which a vast military enterprise had been organized. At the same time, the fact that the Scots had lost the backing of the French when the latter made peace with Edward in 1303 was an important element in the Scottish surrender. In 1305 one of the heroes of Scottish resistance, William Wallace, was finally captured, tried, and executed.

In parliament in 1305 Edward agreed a scheme for the government of Scotland. John of Brittany, the king's young nephew, was to become royal lieutenant, and English officials were given the offices of chancellor and chamberlain. Sheriffs were appointed; naturally, in the important southern part of the country they were to be Englishmen. Pairs of justices, one Englishman and one Scotsman, were nominated, and arrangements were put in hand for a review of Scottish law. The ordinance was limited in its nature, displaying no far-sighted statesmanship. No resolution was proposed to the problems of the many rival claims to land which resulted from the war, and the only indication that thought was given to the long-term future of Scotland is the fact that the country was no longer described as a kingdom, but as a land.
The revival of Scottish resistance, 1305–1307
The settlement did not last. On 10 February 1306 Robert Bruce murdered John Comyn, lord of Badenoch. Like those Welsh princes and nobles who had rebelled against Edward, Robert no doubt felt that he had been inadequately rewarded for the assistance he had given the English king, and he must have judged correctly that he had a real chance of gaining the Scottish throne for himself. Edward was astonished by what had happened, and was not in proper physical shape to respond. Forces under Aymer de Valence and Henry Percy moved into action, followed by a major army under the prince of Wales. Edward himself was ill in the summer of 1306, and moved only slowly northwards. He wintered at Lanercost Priory. The policy he adopted was ferocious. Simon Fraser, a Scot who had formerly been a knight of Edward's household, was savagely executed in London, as were other Scots. Robert I's sister Mary and the countess of Buchan, taken soon after the siege of Kildrummy Castle in September 1306, were imprisoned in cages at Roxburgh and Berwick, in full public view; a cruel and unusual punishment. Edward regarded the war as a rebellion, not as a conflict between equal and independent countries. Robert's cause was at a low ebb over the winter of 1306–7, but by May 1307 separate forces under Aymer de Valence and the earl of Gloucester were defeated in skirmishes, to Edward's fury. The king himself was in no fit state to campaign, though at Whitsun he reviewed troops at Carlisle. He finally set out for Scotland, only to die at Burgh by Sands on 7 July. He had come near to success in Scotland, or so it seemed, in 1304, but the task was beyond his capabilities in both military and political terms. He had not the flexibility of mind to develop appropriate strategies and tactics to deal with the novel style of warfare developed by Wallace and his countrymen, and, for all his experience, he had not learned how to win the support of those he aimed to dominate.
The king and the magnates: manipulating inheritances
Edward I, like all medieval kings, depended greatly on the co-operation of his magnates. He did not, however, achieve this co-operation by means of skilful patronage; rather, his policies have been described as ‘masterful’. His relationship with some great men was consistently good: Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, was a staunch friend and ally, and at a slightly lower level of society he could rely on such men as the Cliffords to provide consistent support in war and in council. His relationship with the earl of Gloucester, however, remained stormy from the 1260s, and the fact that no earls sailed with him for Flanders in 1297 was noted as providing an indication of the nature of the king's rule.

Edward was keen to take advantage of the accidents of family history, manipulating the rules of inheritance in his own interests when he could. He created no new earldoms, and displayed a certain reluctance to permit succession to existing ones. After the death of the countess of Aumale in 1274 the king supported a bogus claimant to the earldom, and then bought him out for a mere £100 a year, so acquiring a major inheritance for the crown. Pressure was put on the widowed countess of Devon to sell her very substantial estates to the crown, disinheriting her rightful heir, Hugh de Courtenay. Finally, in 1293, when she was on her deathbed, she was persuaded to hand over the reversions of the Isle of Wight and other estates to the king in return for £6000. When Edward married his daughter Joan of Acre to the earl of Gloucester in 1290, the earl handed his lands over to the king, receiving them back on terms that effectively disinherited his children by his first marriage, and ensuring that future earls would be members of the royal family. There were similar arrangements made in 1302 when another daughter, Elizabeth, married the young earl of Hereford. In 1306 the childless earl of Norfolk was persuaded to surrender his lands to the crown, and to receive them back on condition that they should be inherited in the strict male line of descent. This meant that their reversion to the crown on his death was virtually inevitable. Another manipulation of the rules of inheritance took place when Alice, daughter of Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, married the king's nephew Thomas of Lancaster in 1294. Once the marriage had taken place, Alice's parents surrendered most of their lands to the king, to be regranted them for life. Arrangements were made to ensure that if Alice had no children, her family estates would go, not to her rightful heirs, but to the crown. The intention of these unscrupulous policies was to provide land for the royal family, not to increase the resources of the crown by building up its landed wealth.
Quo warranto and the Welsh marchers
Edward's manipulation of rights of inheritance affected relatively few families. The assault between 1278 and 1290 on private rights of jurisdiction by means of writs of quo warranto (‘by whose authority’) was more extensive. The hundred rolls inquiry in 1274 showed that often there was real uncertainty over the rights by which magnates exercised rights of jurisdiction. The king first intended to challenge such rights in parliament, but by Easter 1278 it was clear that this method was not working. Other business had caused the postponement of cases. In parliament at Gloucester in 1278 a new procedure was worked out. Those claiming rights to jurisdictional franchises should set out their claims before justices on eyre, while the crown might proceed against them by means of a writ of quo warranto, asking them to justify their claims to exercise jurisdiction. There was much argument in the courts, particularly over claims to tenure by prescriptive right, or tenure from time out of mind. Even if a charter did exist, there might be problems over its interpretation. The campaign did make it clear that the exercise of rights of local jurisdiction was a delegation of royal authority, but there was a lack of proper clarity over what claims were acceptable. Many cases were postponed; few franchises were in practice recovered by the crown. It was perhaps only the ineffectiveness of the campaign that prevented a major confrontation between crown and magnates before 1290. In that year, soon after the king's return from Gascony, matters came to a head. Gilbert of Thornton, one of the most aggressive royal attorneys, was appointed chief justice of the king's bench, and his judgments on previously postponed cases were clear: long tenure of a franchise was not sufficient warrant in the absence of a charter. In parliament at Easter 1290 the matter was angrily discussed, and in May it was settled by the issue of the Statute of Quo warranto. Anyone who could show that he and his ancestors had exercised franchisal rights continuously since 1189 could have them confirmed. The issue was not finally settled, as in 1292 royal attorneys began once again challenging claims just as they had done in the past. In 1294, however, the king abandoned the inquiries, ‘as a favour to his people’ (Prestwich, Edward I, 347), and in acknowledgement of the fact that he needed their support in the French war.

Edward had not extended the quo warranto inquiries into the Welsh marches, no doubt partly because he needed the support of the marchers for his Welsh wars. In 1290, however, he intervened in the affairs of the march in dramatic fashion. A feud was taking place in the southern march between the earls of Gloucester and Hereford, over a castle built by the former in territory claimed by the latter. Hereford, rather than relying on the customary marcher methods of settling disputes by negotiation or by private war, appealed to the king, though when Gloucester refused to cease his raids, Hereford's men retaliated in kind. The case was heard at Abergavenny in 1291, and eventually settled at Westminster in 1292 when the two earls submitted themselves to Edward. Both men were humbled; they forfeited lands and incurred fines. The lands were soon regranted to them, and the fines were not paid, but nevertheless the incident was very significant, as it displayed the way in which Edward was prepared to cut through arguments about traditional rights and privileges. There were other cases concerning the marches. Edmund (I) de Mortimer was sentenced in 1290 to lose his liberty of Wigmore because he had tried and executed a criminal rather than handed him over to a royal official. The liberty was eventually given back to him, but the dent in his pride could not so easily be restored. For obstructing a royal sheriff Theobald de Verdon was sentenced in the same year to lose his liberty of Ewyas Lacy, though he too soon recovered his lands. Such actions directed against members of the most militarily powerful group of magnates demonstrated Edward's toughness and his determination to control the nobility.
Threats and rewards
Threats might well be as effective as persuasion. When a group of magnates, headed by the earl of Arundel, refused to go to fight in Gascony in 1295, the king simply threatened that the exchequer would collect the debts that they owed to the crown, a move that had the desired effect. Yet it was noted by the chronicler Peter Langtoft that Edward did not obtain all the support that he might have had for campaigns, notably those in Wales in 1294–5 and Flanders in 1297, and this he blamed on the king's lack of generosity. Edward, however, did not wholly neglect the arts of patronage. He was generous in his grant of estates in Ireland to his friend Thomas de Clare, who received Thomond in 1276. Otto de Grandson was well rewarded for his loyal service with lands in Ireland and in the Channel Islands. The conclusion of the second Welsh war was marked by major grants to some of the leading English magnates. A substantial redistribution of estates in Scotland took place at Carlisle after the Scottish campaign of 1298, and Edward then adopted a policy of making grants of important Scottish estates before their conquest. Bothwell was promised to Aymer de Valence in 1301, a month before the castle was actually conquered. By 1302 some fifty Englishmen had been granted Scottish lands by Edward I. The king, however, was not notable for his generosity. Even so, he obtained good service from those who were devoted to him.
The crisis of 1297
The immense burden that was imposed on the realm by the wars in Wales, Scotland, and Gascony from 1294 created much resentment among Edward's subjects. Edward attempted to give his policies legitimacy by obtaining parliamentary consent. In 1294 knights of the shire were summoned with full powers (plena potestas) to act on behalf of their communities, and in 1295 the writs used to call knights and burgesses to what was much later termed the Model Parliament employed what became the standard formula for such summonses. In summoning the clergy in the same year the king's clerks used the phrase ‘what touches all should be approved by all’ (‘quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur’; Prestwich, Edward I, 451) . Such devices were not enough. Opposition was first voiced at the Salisbury parliament, which met on 24 February 1297; Roger (IV) Bigod, earl of Norfolk, objected strongly to the king's plans to campaign in Flanders, while sending him and others to fight in Gascony. The issue of military service was an important theme in the growing crisis. A novel form of summons was used to request attendance at a muster in London on 7 May, extending service to all those holding at least £20 worth of land. When the muster took place, Edward asked Bigod, as marshal, and Humphrey (VI) de Bohun, earl of Hereford (d. 1298), as constable, to draw up registers of those who attended, just as if it were a normal feudal occasion. The earls refused and were dismissed. An offer of wages to all those who served with the king, made at the end of July, produced a very limited response; Edward's military plans found few supporters outside the royal household.

Added to the grievances over military services were complaints about taxation, and the prises of wool and other commodities. Prises of foodstuffs were taken by the crown in order to supply armies with victuals; Edward had greatly extended a traditional right to take goods for the use of the royal household, and there was much bitterness at the inevitable corruption that accompanied the process. In July it was even suggested in a very able statement of grievances, the Monstraunces, that the various royal exactions might serve as a precedent for reducing the people to a state of servitude. The complaints at this stage were essentially over the level of royal demands, rather than their unconstitutional nature. In August, however, the demands for a tax of an eighth, and for a further prise of wool, provided the opposition with fresh arguments. The clergy, led by Archbishop Winchelsey, were also bitterly opposed to Edward's actions in 1297, as a result of the way in which he had carried out his threat of outlawry if they did not pay the tax he demanded. Edward, however, achieved a reconciliation of sorts with Winchelsey on 11 July. But a demand on 20 August that the exchequer collect a new harsh levy on the church did nothing to cement this understanding.

The crisis of 1297 was characterized by attempts by both sides to explain their position publicly. On 12 August Edward issued a long letter setting out a justification for his actions. He apologized for burdening his people so heavily, but stressed the need to bring the war to a quick conclusion. When that happened, the grievances of the people would be met. The king's case did not convince many; he sailed for Flanders with a relatively small force, largely recruited from his own household. To leave the country when civil war seemed imminent was a bold step. On the day the king was about to embark, 22 August, Bigod and Bohun appeared at the exchequer to prevent the collection of the tax of an eighth, and of the prise of wool. The news of the defeat in Scotland at Stirling Bridge in September shifted the confused political situation in favour of a settlement. The opposition's demands were almost certainly those set out in a document known as De tallagio, a draft of articles to be added to Magna Carta. Consent was to be obtained for taxes and for prises, the maltote was to be abolished, and those who had refused to campaign in Flanders were to be pardoned. The council, in the king's absence, agreed to grant the Confirmatio cartarum of 10 October. This was not added to Magna Carta, but promised that ‘aids, mises and prises’ would not be taken without common assent. No precedent would be made of the wartime exactions. The maltote was abolished. On 12 October promises were made that everything would be done to persuade the king to abandon the ‘rancour and indignation’ in which he held the earls and their associates. Edward must have been angered by the concessions, which almost certainly went further than he wished, but he had little option other than to confirm the Confirmatio in his own name on 5 November, and to pardon Bigod, Bohun, and their followers.
Reform and recovery, 1298–1307
Edward's reaction when he returned from Flanders in 1298 was to set up a nationwide inquiry into official corruption and malpractice. He was undoubtedly right in seeing such problems as part of the reason for the problems he had faced, but the crisis was largely the result of his determination to carry through his military plans come what may. The crisis left a lasting legacy of suspicion. In 1298 there was concern that the king would go back on his promises of the previous year. Then the question of the investigation of the boundaries of the royal forest became a test of his good faith; it was widely suspected that these had been improperly extended. The issue of the statute De finibus levatis in 1299 made it clear that the investigation of the boundaries would not be permitted to curtail royal rights, and when the forest charter was reissued important clauses were omitted. In 1300 Edward agreed to the issue of the Articuli super cartas, detailed provisions that set limits on the use of the courts of household and exchequer, and on the use of the privy seal. Sheriffs were to be elected locally, and a new procedure for the enforcement of Magna Carta, now reissued, was set out. What Edward was not prepared to do was make formal concessions on the issue of military service, as was demanded of him.

Arguments continued in parliament in 1301, when a bill highly critical of the government was submitted by a knight of the shire. Edward had to concede the demands made about the boundaries of the forests, and although no concessions were made on military service, he ceased attempting any innovations in methods of recruitment. The final years of the reign were politically relatively quiescent, even though many of the issues raised in the 1290s were still simmering. In the autumn of 1305 Edward was in a strong enough position to obtain a papal bull revoking the concessions he had made, and in the following year he reversed the disafforestations of 1301. He did not, however, go too far in trying to restore his position, and at the final parliament of the reign, summoned to Carlisle in January 1307, the main controversies were over the exactions of papal tax collectors and other papal demands. There were other problems during these years: the king became involved in a series of disputes in Durham between the bishop, his old friend Antony Bek, and the cathedral priory, which led to the seizure of the bishopric into royal hands on two occasions. Edward also had a dispute with the archbishop of York, Thomas of Corbridge, over the nomination of a royal clerk to a living. The rebuke that the archbishop received was so severe that it was said to have been the cause of his death in September 1304. Edward was a formidable man.
Physique and character
In physical terms Edward was an impressive man, 6 feet 2 inches tall. His curly hair was blond in youth, dark in maturity, and white in old age. He spoke with a slight lisp, but was said to be persuasive and fluent. He possessed all the physical competence appropriate to knighthood. Edward was conventional. All the evidence indicates that he was a faithful and devoted husband to both his wives. His marriage to Eleanor of Castile, in particular, was a notably happy one; Eleanor accompanied her husband wherever possible, even on crusade, and Edward's distress at her death in 1290 was given magnificent visual expression in the famous sequence of Eleanor crosses that marked the places where her body rested on its journey from Harby in Nottinghamshire to Westminster. There were probably fourteen children of the marriage, though only one son, Edward of Caernarfon, the future Edward II, born in 1284, survived the perils of childhood. Five daughters, Eleanor, Joan of Acre, Margaret, Mary of Woodstock, and Elizabeth, also survived into adulthood. With his second wife, Margaret of France, Edward had three children, Thomas of Brotherton, Edmund of Woodstock, and Eleanor.

Edward's religious habits were orthodox, as is demonstrated by his foundation of Vale Royal Abbey in fulfilment of a vow made when shipwreck threatened during a channel crossing in the 1260s. Accounts show that he was a regular attender at chapel services, and that he was a generous giver of alms. Little is known of his literary tastes; the only literary work from which he is known to have quoted is an obscene parody of a chivalric romance. His architectural patronage was more notable. The Eleanor crosses were very significant, as was St Stephen's Chapel, Westminster, on which work began in 1292. Edward continued his father's patronage of the painter Walter of Durham, and was probably responsible in the 1290s for extensive additions to the decoration of the Painted Chamber at Westminster.

A record of a bet Edward had with the royal laundress Matilda of Waltham suggests an amiable side to his character; other evidence, such as a payment for the repair of his daughter Elizabeth's coronet after Edward had thrown it into a fire, points to a violent temper. He was a keen huntsman, being particularly fond of falconry and hawking. He was interested in the Arthurian past, and was responsible for the translation of the bodies of Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury in 1278. Direct evidence for Edward's views on government is scanty. His arguments lacked sophistication; in 1297 an instruction that his people ‘should do their duty toward their lord with good will, as good and loyal people ought, and are bound to do toward their liege lord in so great and high an affair’ reflects his attitude well (Prestwich, Edward I, 564). The case he put in the same year, that ‘it seems to us that we should be as free as any man to buy wool in our own country’ (ibid., 563), showed a lack of understanding of the objections of those whose wool was being arbitrarily seized by royal officials. A concern that the king should not be dishonoured is a frequent theme in letters that can be closely linked to Edward. A request for the recruitment of the impossibly large number of 60,000 men in 1296 argues that he had little care for administrative detail, while correspondence with the exchequer in 1301 suggests that the king had no detailed understanding of the financial situation, though there is no doubting his overall drive and determination to push his policies through.
Reputation and achievement
Edward and his reign have been subject to varied interpretations. Bishop William Stubbs saw Edward as acting on high constitutional principles; the ‘English Justinian’ was the nineteenth-century vision of him. Twentieth-century commentators have been less kind, with the notable exception of F. M. Powicke, whose treatment of him was very sympathetic. T. F. Tout's detailed work on royal administration brought to light the immense labour of the many clerks who worked to achieve so much under Edward; his overall view of the king was of an autocrat, who used ‘the mass of the people as a check upon his hereditary foes among the greater baronage’ (Tout, Admin. hist., 2.190). G. O. Sayles saw Edward as arbitrary and untrustworthy both as a youth and in his later years, rather than as a man convinced that he should rule according to principles of counsel and consent. K. B. McFarlane emphasized the unreasonableness of Edward's policies towards the higher nobility. Nor, unsurprisingly, has he had a good press from Welsh and Scottish historians.

Nevertheless, Edward's achievements were most impressive. The reconstruction of royal government after the traumas of the 1260s was a major task, and the legislative changes enshrined in a series of statutes were a monumental work. The years up to 1290 were astonishingly productive. Parliament evolved rapidly, both as a mechanism through which the crown could achieve its aims, and as an occasion where petitions could be presented and wrongs corrected. In Europe the king displayed himself as a peacemaker, while his mobilization of massive military resources enabled him to destroy the independent authority of the princes of Gwynedd. Gascony was ruled far more effectively by the English than in the past, in part as a result of the king's two visits to the duchy. Edward was not, however, able to build on his achievements as he would have liked, by leading a successful crusade. Instead, in his later years he was embroiled in war. Conflict with Philippe IV of France from 1294 to 1298, which presaged the Hundred Years' War, proved expensive and frustrating; campaigns against the Scots promised success in 1296, 1298, and 1304, but Edward was never able to subject Scotland as he had done Wales. The demands of war, for manpower, supplies, and money, led to political crisis at home in 1297. The king was opposed by the leading earls, and by Archbishop Winchelsey. The crisis was not easily settled, and arguments continued in the succeeding years. There was no longer the same impetus to reform law and government. Edward's leadership in his final years was characterized by the unreliability that had dogged his reputation as a young man, and that was now combined with inflexibility. In the long term the positive achievements of the reign need to be balanced against the fact that Edward's policies had set England on a long course of war against the Scots.
Death
Edward died at Burgh by Sands, having been intermittently ill for some time. At the end he was suffering from dysentery, and his determination to go north to fight the Scots was misguided; he was in no fit state to travel. His servants came to him at noon on 7 July 1307 to lift him from his bed so that he could eat; he died in their arms. The corpse was brought south, and on 27 October the funeral service took place in Westminster Abbey, conducted by his old friend, and recent adversary, Antony Bek, bishop of Durham.

Michael Prestwich
Sources

Ann. mon. · Bartholomaei de Cotton … Historia Anglicana, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series, 16 (1859) · E. B. Fryde, ed., Book of prests of the king's wardrobe for 1294–5 (1962) · Close rolls of the reign of Henry III, 14 vols., PRO (1902–38) · CClR · CDS · CPR · Chronica Johnannis de Oxenedes, ed. H. Ellis (1859) · W. Stubbs, ed., Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 76 (1882–3) · The chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. H. Rothwell, CS, 3rd ser., 89 (1957) · F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney, eds., Councils and synods with other documents relating to the English church, 1205–1313, 2 vols. (1964) · M. Prestwich, ed., Documents illustrating the crisis of 1297–98 in England, CS, 4th ser., 24 (1980) · Peter of Langtoft, Le règne d'Édouard Ier, ed. J. C. Thiolier (Créteil, 1989) · E. L. G. Stones and G. G. Simpson, eds., Edward I and the throne of Scotland, 1290–1296, 2 vols. (1978) · H. R. Luard, ed., Flores historiarum, 3 vols., Rolls Series, 95 (1890) · Rymer, Foedera, new edn, vol. 1/2 · J. Topham, Liber quotidianus contrarotulatoris garderobae: anno regni regis Edwardi primi vicesimo octavo (1787) · Paris, Chron. · B. F. Byerly and C. R. Byerly, eds., Records of the wardrobe and household, 1285–1286 (1977) · B. F. Byerly and C. R. Byerly, eds., Records of the wardrobe and household, 1286–1289 (1986) · A. Luders and others, eds., Statutes of the realm, 11 vols. in 12, RC (1810–28), vol. 1 · G. W. S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland (1965) · P. Binski, The Painted Chamber at Westminster, Society of Antiquaries of London Occasional Papers, new ser., 9 (1986) · R. Brown, H. M. Colvin, and A. J. Taylor, eds., The history of the king's works, 1 (1963) · P. Chaplais, ed., ‘Some private letters of Edward I’, EngHR, 77 (1962), 79–86 · R. R. Davies, Conquest, coexistence, and change: Wales, 1063–1415, History of Wales, 2 (1987) · G. L. Harriss, King, parliament and public finance in medieval England to 1369 (1975) · S. D. Lloyd, ‘The Lord Edward's crusade, 1270–2: its setting and significance’, War and government in the middle ages, ed. J. B. Gillingham and J. C. Holt (1984) · R. S. Loomis, ‘Edward I, Arthurian enthusiast’, Speculum, 28 (1953), 114–27 · K. B. McFarlane, The nobility of later medieval England (1973) · J. E. Morris, The Welsh wars of Edward I (1901) · J. C. Parsons, Eleanor of Castile: queen and society in thirteenth-century England (1995) · T. F. T. Plucknett, Legislation of Edward I (1949) · F. M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward: the community of the realm in the thirteenth century, 2 vols. (1947) · F. M. Powicke, The thirteenth century (1962), vol. 4 of The Oxford history of England, ed. G. M. Clarke, 2nd edn · M. Prestwich, Edward I (1988) · M. Prestwich, War, politics, and finance under Edward I (1972) · H. Rothwell, ‘Edward I and the struggle for the charters, 1297–1305’, Studies in medieval history presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt and others (1948), 319–32 · L. F. Salzman, Edward I (1968) · G. O. Sayles, The king's parliament of England (1975) · J. R. Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and King Henry III’, BIHR, 50 (1977), 4–19 · D. W. Sutherland, Quo warranto proceedings in the reign of Edward I, 1278–1294 (1963) · Tout, Admin. hist., vol. 2 · E. B. Fryde and others, eds., Handbook of British chronology, 3rd edn, Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks, 2 (1986)
Archives

BL, Add. MSS 7965, 7966a, 8835 · PRO, accounts of the royal wardrobe and household, largely in exchequer, accounts various, E101 · PRO, Chancery miscellanea, accounts of the royal wardrobe and household, C47 · PRO, ancient correspondence, SC 1 · S. Antiquaries, Lond., wardrobe book and inventory of plate and jewels, MSS 119, 545


Likenesses

corbel, 1230–70, Westminster Abbey, London · manuscript, 1297–8, PRO, memoranda roll E 368 · L. P. Boitard, line engraving, pubd 1757 (after a portrait), BM, NPG · G. Vertue, line engraving (after a portrait), NPG · manuscript illumination, BL, Cotton MS Vitellius A.xiii, fol. 6v [see illus.] · manuscript painting, BL, Rochester chronicle, Cotton MS Nero D.ii, fol. 191v; see illus. in Edward II (1284–1327) · statue, choir screen, York Minster · wax seals, BM · wax seals, King's Cam.
© Oxford University Press 2004–5
All rights reserved: see legal notice      Oxford University Press


Michael Prestwich, ‘Edward I (1239-1307)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8517, accessed 23 Sept 2005]

Edward I (1239-1307): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/851713 
(Witness) Knighted22 May 1233 Gloucester, by the King, Principal=Sir Hugh de Vere14,15,16 
Event-Misc*1254 Alfonso X ceded all rights in Gascony to Edward I, Principal=Alfonso X 'the Sage' of Castile9 
Battle-Lewes*14 May 1264 and was captured by Simon of Montfort9
Event-Misc*May 1265 Sir Gilbert met Prince Edward, who swore to remove aliens from the royal councils and observe the "good old laws.", Principal=Sir Gilbert de Clare "the Red"17 
(Witness) Event-MiscJune 1265 Roger de Mortimer conceived the plan and furnished a horse that allowed Edward I to escape from Hereford Castle, and the Prince came to Wigmore Castle. Roger de Mortimer and Roger de Clifford fought off Edward's pursuers as the prince approached Wigmore., Principal=Sir Roger de Mortimer, Principal=Roger de Clifford18,19 
Battle-Evesham*4 August 1265 Evesham, Principal=Simon VI de Montfort, Simon=Sir Nicholas de Segrave, Edward=Sir John Gifford, Simon=Sir Hugh le Despenser, Simon=Sir Humphrey VI de Bohun, Simon=Sir Ralph Basset of Drayton, Edward=Sir James de Audley20,21,22 
Event-Misc*1270 Jean went on crusade with Prince Edward, Principal=Jean II de Dreux23 
(Witness) Event-Misc18 June 1270 Partition of his lands to Rob. de Nevill and Rob. de Tateshale. Grant to Prince Edward wardship and marriage of his 2nd daughter coheir Anastasia., Principal=Sir Ralph FitzRanulph24 
(Witness) Event-Misc10 July 1270 Protection 4 years going on crusade to the Holy Land with K. and P. Edw. (P. R.), Principal=Sir James de Audley25 
Event-Misc*between 11 August 1270 and 15 August 1272 He was on crusade in the Holy Land4,9 
Residence*between May 1271 and September 1272 Acre, Palestine4 
King-England*19 August 1274 Westminster, Middlesex, England, King of England, Witness=Sir Robert de Vere2,4,9 
Event-MiscMichaelmas 1278 Westminster, Middlesex, England, Alexander III gave homage to Edward I, Principal=Alexander III of Scotland, Witness=Sir Walter Helion, Witness=Sir Thomas de Weyland26,27 
Event-Misc1296 invaded Scotland4 
Event-Misc*10 July 1296 Sir John Comyn swore fealty to Edward I of England following the death of the Maid of Norway, Principal=Sir John Comyn28 
(Witness) Knighted24 June 1298 Northumberland, England, Principal=Sir Theobald de Verdun29,30 
Battle-Falkirk*22 July 1298 English=Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun, English=Sir Humphrey VII de Bohun, English=Sir Reynold de Grey, English=Sir William de Ferrers, English=Sir Richard FitzAlan, English=Sir Theobald de Verdun, English=Sir John de Warenne9,31,32 
Event-Misc*9 February 1303/4 Comyn was defeated by Edward I at Strathord, and was banished unless he would deliver William Waleys, Principal=John Comyn28 
(Witness) Knighted22 May 1306 The Festival of the Swans, Principal=Edward II Plantagenet33,34 
HTML* 
National Politics Web Guide
Kings and Queens of England
Brittania.com
Chris Butterworth's Pages with many Edward links
Charles Dicken's Child's History of England
Bundy Genealogy site
 

Family 1

Eleanor of Castile b. 1240, d. 28 Nov 1290
Children

Family 2

Marguerite Of France b. 1279, d. 14 Feb 1318
Children

Last Edited23 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 38.
  2. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-28.
  3. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-6.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 14.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 4.
  6. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-29.
  7. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 13.
  8. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-7.
  9. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 5.
  10. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  11. [S336] Charles Dickens, A Child's History of England.
  12. [S337] David Hume, History of England.
  13. [S376] Unknown editor, unknown short title.
  14. [S183] Jr. Meredith B. Colket, Marbury Ancestry, p. 36.
  15. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 253.
  16. [S374] Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, Vere 2.
  17. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Montagu 6.
  18. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Mortimer 6.
  19. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 170.
  20. [S342] Sir Bernard Burke, Extinct Peerages, p. 15.
  21. [S342] Sir Bernard Burke, Extinct Peerages, p. 27.
  22. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 31.
  23. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Wydeville 5.
  24. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, v. 2, p. 55.
  25. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, p. 25.
  26. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, v. 2, p. 216.
  27. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, v. 5, p. 184.
  28. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 64.
  29. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 70-32.
  30. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Verdun 8.
  31. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 125.
  32. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 35.
  33. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Fitz Alan 9.
  34. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 84.
  35. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 34-4.
  36. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 6-29.
  37. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 8.

Eleanor of Castile

F, #1615, b. 1240, d. 28 November 1290

 
 

Father*Fernando III of Castile "the Saint"1,2,3,4 b. bt 5 Aug 1201 - 19 Aug 1201, d. 30 May 1252
Mother*Joan de Dammartin1,5,2,3,6 b. c 1218, d. 16 Mar 1279
Eleanor of Castile|b. 1240\nd. 28 Nov 1290|p54.htm#i1615|Fernando III of Castile "the Saint"|b. bt 5 Aug 1201 - 19 Aug 1201\nd. 30 May 1252|p95.htm#i2832|Joan de Dammartin|b. c 1218\nd. 16 Mar 1279|p95.htm#i2833|Alfonso I. of León|b. 1166\nd. 24 Sep 1230|p95.htm#i2835|Berenguela I. of Castilla "la Grande"|b. b Aug 1180\nd. 1244|p95.htm#i2834|Simon d. Dammartin|b. c 1180\nd. 21 Sep 1239|p109.htm#i3256|Marie de Ponthieu|b. b 17 Apr 1199\nd. Sep 1250|p109.htm#i3257|

ChartsAnn Marbury Pedigree

Birth*1240 Castile, Spain5 
Birth1241 7,3 
Marriage*18 October 1254 Monastery of Las Huelgas, Burgos, Spain, 1st=Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England8,5,7,3,9 
Death28 November 1290 Harby, Nottinghamshire, England9 
Death*28 November 1290 Grantham, England8,10,5,7,3 
Burial*17 December 1290 Westminster Abbey, Westminster, England9 
DNB* Eleanor [Eleanor of Castile] (1241-1290), queen of England, consort of Edward I, was the daughter of Ferdinand III of Castile (1201–1252) and his second wife, Jeanne de Dammartin (d. 1279), heir to the French county of Ponthieu. Ancient claims to Gascony in Aquitaine, raised in 1252–3 by Eleanor's half-brother Alfonso X, were transferred to Edward [see Edward I] upon his marriage to Eleanor at the convent of Las Huelgas near Burgos on 1 November 1254. Though diplomatically advantageous the marriage was unpopular in England, as it was feared Edward's bride would bring a crowd of Castilians in her wake. Eleanor came to England in October 1255, but little is recorded of her before the barons' wars. She supported Edward's turn to the Lusignans in 1258, and was abroad with him between 1260 and 1263. When he returned from France in February 1263, mercenaries whom Eleanor obtained from Ponthieu were among the troops he installed in Windsor Castle. Contrary to general belief, she did not leave England during the crisis. She lived at Windsor after the battle of Lewes, when Henry III ordered her to join him (17 June 1264), probably at Montfort's wishes as it was thought she might be hiring Castilian mercenaries. After the battle of Evesham she secured grants of rebels' lands and began to acquire the rich estates for which she became notorious.

In August 1270 Eleanor and Edward left England for the Holy Land. At Acre in June 1272 an assassin wounded Edward with a poisoned knife; his life was despaired of until a surgeon cut the inflamed flesh from his arm. The legend that Eleanor instead sucked poison from the wound is first found in the Historia ecclesiastica by the Dominican Ptolemy of Lucca (d. 1327?), who gave it only as a popular story. Camden first published it in England in Britannia (1586). Walter of Guisborough's chronicle states merely that Eleanor, weeping and lamenting, was led from Edward's bedside before the operation.

Following Henry III's death the couple returned to England and were crowned together on 19 August 1274. With Edward's support Eleanor from 1275 expanded her estates by securing English knights' debts to Jewish moneylenders, and then taking over lands pledged for the debts. She obtained much land in this way between 1278 and 1281; thereafter she acquired more estates by purchase than through Jewish debts, but continued to collect such debts and probably exacted usury on them. Archbishop Pecham warned her in 1283 that this was causing scandal, and in 1286 wrote of continued outcry and gossip. By 1290 Eleanor's lands were worth upwards of £2500 yearly; the revenue was needed, but such economic activity was unprecedented for a queen. English reactions are seen in the Dunstable annals' description of Eleanor as ‘a Spaniard by birth, who acquired many fine manors’ (Ann. mon., 3.362), and Guisborough's verse noting her craving for land:

The king would like to get our gold
The queen, our manors fair to hold.
(Chronicle, 216)

Pecham's intervention in 1283 for some of Eleanor's overburdened tenants forecast her dying prayer that Edward name commissioners to assess damages for wrongs committed in her name; that inquest revealed many harsh practices by her officials, and found that she ordered them to harass or punish those who crossed her. Pecham's 1279 letter to the nuns of Castle Hedingham Priory indicates that Eleanor's ungracious behaviour when vexed was well known.

A highly cultured woman, Eleanor was a discerning patron of vernacular letters and supported the English universities. She founded several Dominican houses in England, but her liking for the friars and her dealings with the Jews distanced her from the bishops and older orders. Like Edward's parents, she arranged English marriages for many of her relatives, but discreetly enough that she incurred no criticism. None the less her liking for Castilian practices was made widely evident, and her protection of Castilian merchants irritated the men of Southampton. She was a devoted wife to Edward, with whom she had sixteen children, among them Edward II, Joan of Acre, and Mary of Woodstock; he esteemed her but allowed her no part in the affairs of the realm, and restrained her from extorting money improperly. Although Eleanor was active in Anglo-Castilian relations, Alfonso X's disastrous reign left her without effective support from abroad; she succeeded her mother in Ponthieu in 1279, but the inheritance did not alter her status in England. Her political influence was in fact negligible, but her harsh administration, her traffic with the usurers, the many reminders of her foreign birth, and ironically her close relationship with Edward, none the less led some to suspect, as Pecham warned her in 1283, that she was responsible for the king's strict rule.

While with Edward in Aquitaine in 1287 Eleanor contracted a quartan fever, probably the ‘low fever’ of which she died at Harby near Lincoln on 28 November 1290, survived by a son and five daughters. She was buried in Westminster Abbey on 17 December with great ceremony; her viscera were interred in Lincoln Cathedral, her heart in the Dominicans' London church. Her Westminster tomb survives, its superb gilt bronze effigy cast by William Torel. Edward marked her funeral procession with twelve monumental crosses between Lincoln and Westminster; those at Geddington, Hardingstone, and Waltham survive. Camden portrayed these crosses as a bereaved king's tribute to a loved and respected queen, and embellished this view of Eleanor in Remains (1607). A late eulogy of her from Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana (after 1392), first printed by Archbishop Parker in 1574, has helped to give Eleanor, a queen more controversial than politically influential, a far more attractive reputation in recent centuries than she enjoyed in her lifetime.

John Carmi Parsons
Sources

J. C. Parsons, Eleanor of Castile: queen and society in thirteenth-century England (1995) · M. Prestwich, Edward I (1988) · S. L. Waugh, The lordship of England: royal wardships and marriages in English society and politics, 1217–1327 (1988) · The chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. H. Rothwell, CS, 3rd ser., 89 (1957) · Ann. mon. · G. Camdeno [W. Camden], Britannia, sive, Florentissimorum regnorum, Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae (1586) · L. A. Muratori, ‘Ptolemaei Lucensis historia ecclesiastica’, Rerum Italicarum scriptores, ed. F. Argellati, 11 (Milan, 1727) · Registrum epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham, archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. C. T. Martin, 3 vols., Rolls Series, 77 (1882–5) · J. C. Parsons, ed., The court and household of Eleanor of Castile in 1290, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies: Texts and Studies, 37 (1977) · Thomae Walsingham, quondam monachi S. Albani, historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, 2 vols., pt 1 of Chronica monasterii S. Albani, Rolls Series, 28 (1863–4) · W. Camden, Remains (1607) · J. C. Parsons, ‘The year of Eleanor of Castile's birth and her children by Edward I’, Mediaeval Studies, 46 (1984), 245–65
Likenesses

W. Torel, gilt-bronze effigy, 1291–3, Westminster Abbey, London [see illus.] · electrotype (after an effigy by W. Torel), Westminster Abbey, London, NPG · statue (Eleanor cross), Geddington, Northamptonshire · statue (Eleanor cross), Hardingstone, Northamptonshire · statue (Eleanor cross), Waltham, Hertfordshire · wax seal, BM
Wealth at death

approx. £2500—value of lands p.a.: Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 84
© Oxford University Press 2004–5
All rights reserved: see legal notice      Oxford University Press


John Carmi Parsons, ‘Eleanor (1241-1290)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8619, accessed 23 Sept 2005]

Eleanor (1241-1290): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/861911 
Arms* Sealed: (1) Quarterly, Castile and Leon. (2) A lion of England (Birch).12
Name Variation Leonor de Castilla 
Note*between 1270 and 1273 accompanied her husband on crusade.7 
(Witness) Event-Misc1275 William de Fiennes pledged part of his estates, including Martock, Somerset, to his kinswoman, Eleanor of Castile, when at his request, she agreed to pay £1000 to Humphrey de Bohun for the marriage of his sister, Maud de Fiennes, Principal=Sir William de Fiennes13 
HTML* 
Eleanor of Castile
Richard Croft's Page
 

Family

Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239, d. 7 Jul 1307
Children

Last Edited23 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 110-29.
  2. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 20-7.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 14.
  4. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 8.
  5. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Castile 5.
  7. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-7.
  8. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-28.
  9. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 5.
  10. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 110-30.
  11. [S376] Unknown editor, unknown short title.
  12. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, p. 185.
  13. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Brienne 7.
  14. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 8-28.
  15. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 6-29.

Margaret de Bohun

F, #1616, b. 3 April 1311, d. 16 December 1391

Father*Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun1,2 b. 1276, d. 16 Mar 1322
Mother*Elizabeth Plantagenet3,4 b. 7 Aug 1282, d. 5 May 1316
Margaret de Bohun|b. 3 Apr 1311\nd. 16 Dec 1391|p54.htm#i1616|Sir Humphrey VIII de Bohun|b. 1276\nd. 16 Mar 1322|p54.htm#i1612|Elizabeth Plantagenet|b. 7 Aug 1282\nd. 5 May 1316|p54.htm#i1613|Sir Humphrey V. de Bohun|b. Sep 1248\nd. 31 Dec 1298|p70.htm#i2084|Maud de Fiennes|b. c 1254\nd. b 31 Dec 1298|p70.htm#i2085|Edward I. "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England|b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239\nd. 7 Jul 1307|p54.htm#i1614|Eleanor of Castile|b. 1240\nd. 28 Nov 1290|p54.htm#i1615|

Birth*3 April 1311 5 
Marriage*11 August 1325 Principal=Sir Hugh de Courtenay K.G.5 
Death*16 December 1391 1,5 

Family

Sir Hugh de Courtenay K.G. d. 2 May 1377
Child

Last Edited11 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 6-30.
  2. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 8.
  3. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 13-30.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Bohun 12.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Courtenay 9.
  6. [S374] Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry, Vere 5.

Marguerite Of France

F, #1617, b. 1279, d. 14 February 1318

 

Father*Philip III (?)1,2 b. 3 Apr 1245, d. 5 Oct 1285
Mother*Marie of Brabant (?)1 b. bt 1250 - 1256, d. 12 Jan 1321
Marguerite Of France|b. 1279\nd. 14 Feb 1318|p54.htm#i1617|Philip III (?)|b. 3 Apr 1245\nd. 5 Oct 1285|p109.htm#i3258|Marie of Brabant (?)|b. bt 1250 - 1256\nd. 12 Jan 1321|p229.htm#i6846|St Louis I. of France|b. 21 Apr 1214\nd. 25 Aug 1270|p109.htm#i3260|Margaret o. P. (?)|b. 1221\nd. 20 Dec 1295|p109.htm#i3261|Henry I. (?)|b. c 1226\nd. 28 Feb 1901|p229.htm#i6844|Alix o. B. (?)|b. c 1231\nd. 23 Oct 1273|p229.htm#i6845|

Birth*1279 Paris, Seine, France1,3 
Birthcirca 1280 4 
Marriage*8 September 1299 Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, Kent, England, by dispensation dated 1 Jul 1298, they being related in the 2nd and 3rd degrees), Principal=Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England5,1,4,3,2 
Burial* Church of the Grey Friars, London, Middlesex, England1 
Death*14 February 1318 Marlborough Castle, Wiltshire, England1,4,3,2 
Burial Church of the Grey Friars, London, England2 
Name Variation Margaret of France (?)1 
Married Name Plantagenet 

Family

Edward I "Longshanks" Plantagenet King of England b. 17 or 18 Jun 1239, d. 7 Jul 1307
Children

Last Edited17 Sep 2004

Citations

  1. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  2. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 5.
  3. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 14.
  4. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-7.
  5. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-28.

Henry III Plantagenet King of England

M, #1618, b. 1 October 1207, d. 16 November 1272

 
 

Father*John Lackland1,2,3,4 b. 27 Dec 1166, d. 19 Oct 1216
Mother*Isabella of Angoulême1,2,3,4,5 b. 1188, d. 31 May 1246
Henry III Plantagenet King of England|b. 1 Oct 1207\nd. 16 Nov 1272|p54.htm#i1618|John Lackland|b. 27 Dec 1166\nd. 19 Oct 1216|p54.htm#i1620|Isabella of Angoulême|b. 1188\nd. 31 May 1246|p55.htm#i1621|Henry I. Curtmantel|b. 5 Mar 1132/33\nd. 6 Jul 1189|p55.htm#i1622|Eleanor of Aquitaine|b. 1123\nd. 31 Mar 1204|p55.htm#i1623|Count Aymer de Valence of Angoulême|b. b 1165\nd. 1218|p97.htm#i2884|Alice de Courtenay|b. c 1160\nd. c 14 Sep 1205|p97.htm#i2885|

Birth10 October 1206 Winchester, Hampshire, England2 
Birth*1 October 1207 Winchester Castle, Winchester, Hampshire, England1,6,7 
Marriage*1235 by proxy, 1st=Joan de Dammartin8 
Marriage14 January 1236 Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, Kent, England, 1st=Eleanor of Provence2,7,8 
Marriage*24 January 1237 Canterbury, Kent, England, 24 or 25 Jan 1236/7, Principal=Eleanor of Provence1,9,6 
Death*16 November 1272 Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, England2,7,8 
Death16 November 1272 Westminster, London, England1,6 
Burial* Westminster Abbey, London, England2,7 
Dickens* 10
Hume* 11
DNB* Henry III (1207-1272), king of England and lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, called Henry of Winchester from his birthplace, was the eldest of the five children of King John (1167-1216) and his second wife, Queen Isabella of Angoulême (d. 1246). He was born on 1 October 1207 and named after his grandfather Henry II. His fifty-six year reign, the third longest in English history, may be conveniently divided into four periods. The first, of some sixteen years, was largely that of the king's minority, during which policy was to a considerable extent directed by others. It was followed by a brief period of turbulence, from 1232 to 1234, which was formerly regarded as one in which the king began to take control of affairs, but is better seen as one in which Henry was still the tool of faction, but in different hands. The years from 1234 to 1258 were those of Henry's personal rule: it was a period of political peace, albeit with intermittent difficulties arising from rivalries within the royal family, finance, and foreign policy. In 1258, however, factional struggles at court, combined with wider discontents in the country at large, launched an extended period of instability which lasted almost until the end of the reign. At first a sudden but peaceful coup by what is often mistakenly referred to as a ‘baronial reform movement’ produced three years of conciliar government, not unlike that of the minority; however this developed, in response to the king's recovery of power in 1261, into a period of civil war from 1263 to 1267. Henry emerged victorious and in his last years resumed his personal rule, over a kingdom shakily at peace when he died. Unable to reverse the disasters of 1204–5, he maintained the continental claims of his forebears until forced by pressures at home to surrender most of them in 1259. In England his reign was at its best characterized by peace and prosperity for most of propertied society; it also saw important institutional, legal, and social developments. Hardly a stereotypically ideal king, Henry none the less restored the fortunes of the Angevin dynasty in England after the disasters of his father's reign.
Childhood and early reign, 1207–1219
Not much is known about Henry's childhood. He saw little of his father, but was close to his mother. He later pensioned his wet-nurse—Ellen, wife of William Dun—comfortably at Havering. In 1209 John ordered a general oath to Henry, and about 1212 handed him over to the guardianship of his Touraingeau henchman Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester. Des Roches supervised Henry's education until he was fourteen. He commissioned for him a 2200-line grammar from Master Henry of Avranches. By the age of nine Henry spoke with unusual ‘gravity and dignity’ (Paris, Historia Anglorum, 2.196); years later he could still recite lists of barons and sainted kings of England, perhaps from early lessons. Des Roches probably influenced Henry's reverence for his Angevin ancestors (especially Richard I and Eleanor of Aquitaine), his taste for art, and his devotion to Anglo-Saxon saints. Henry's knightly training under des Roches's Breton retainer Philip d'Aubigny was less successful. Ralph of St Samson, Henry's bodyguard, may have taught him to ride.

The civil war of 1215–17 following John's repudiation of Magna Carta left a lasting impression on Henry, detectable in documents of fifty years later. John died unexpectedly on 19 October 1216. Nine months later, Isabella deserted her children and returned to France to remarry. Henry did not see her again until 1230. Not surprisingly, he became dependent on father figures until well into his twenties.

Against the background of civil war the throne was an uncertain legacy. But John had secured the pope's protection, personified by the legate Guala, and nearly all the higher clergy were loyal, permitting the royalists to arrange Henry's coronation at Gloucester Abbey on 28 October. It was poorly attended. Henry came over from Devizes and William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, knighted him on 27 October. During the coronation Guala tactfully permitted the bishops of Winchester, Worcester, and Exeter to anoint Henry and crown him with a lady's chaplet. Henry immediately performed homage to Guala and, four days later, took the cross. William Marshal assumed regency of the realm, and it was decided on 12 November to issue a modified form of Magna Carta in order to enhance the royal cause's popularity.

The rebels imported as their leader Louis, son of King Philip Augustus of France, who had a claim to the throne. Few defected, and stalemate was broken only by military victory, at Lincoln on 20 May 1217, when the regent captured many rebels, and on 24 August when Louis's supply fleet was defeated by Hubert de Burgh's navy near Sandwich. Louis lost heart and was bribed to depart, while his supporters were treated leniently. Magna Carta, further modified, was reissued in a great council held at Westminster in October and November, with a new charter of the forest. Alexander II of Scots came to peace but Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (Llywelyn the Great) of Gwynedd kept most of his recent conquests.

Guala discreetly deferred to the regent, whose prestige and diplomatic skills slowly restored order to government. In November 1218 Henry was given a great seal, entrusted by common consent to Ralph Neville; no perpetual grants could be made, however, until the king came of age. Progress was slowed, though not halted, by the Marshal's last illness. On 9 April 1219 he resigned Henry to the protection of a new legate, Pandulf. He also warned him not to follow the example of a ‘criminal ancestor’ (King John) or else God would deny him a long life, advice which Henry heeded. At a council in Reading next day des Roches reasserted his rights as tutor, boldly seizing the boy-king by the head, but was rebuked by the bystanders. The Marshal died a month later.
The minority and its problems, 1219–1227
A great council at Oxford in April sanctioned a triumvirate, confirming Pandulf as ‘first counsellor and chief of the kingdom’ (Carpenter, Minority, 128), with Hubert de Burgh as justiciar and Peter des Roches as Henry's tutor. This lasted until 1221. From the start Pandulf permitted the justiciar to dominate. In spite of its continuing impoverishment the regime performed Henry's second coronation with pomp in Westminster Abbey on 17 May 1220, and in the years which followed continued its work of rebuilding the administrative machinery disrupted by civil war, a process which advanced as much through bribery as force. The leading figure in its manoeuvrings and machinations was increasingly Hubert de Burgh. Pandulf resigned in July 1221 and des Roches's tutorship of the king was terminated in the autumn, and in the next three years Hubert steadily consolidated his position. Des Roches's influence was marginalized. At a council held in London in June 1222, after concessions including suspension of a forest eyre, a measure to resume the royal demesne was agreed, nearly doubling the king's income. While at Oxford with the king after Christmas, Hubert ensured that Henry confirmed the charters before a council at Westminster in January 1223, offsetting opposition to another inquiry into royal rights. In the following months war broke out in Wales where Hubert's ally, the earl of Pembroke, conquered most of the south-west, undermining Llywelyn's dominance. Hubert brought the king, decked in his first suit of armour adorned with the royal coat of arms, to relieve Builth on 23 September and then found a new castle at Montgomery, where on 7 October he received Llywelyn's submission.

On 10 December at Westminster, Archbishop Langton connived with Hubert to give Henry nominal control over his own seal. The government then demonstrated its domestic strength, at least, by forcing the remaining supporters of Peter des Roches to resign their shrievalties and royal castles. In summer 1224 the revolt of another former loyalist to King John, the dangerous Falkes de Bréauté, was suppressed. Falkes's castle of Bedford was captured after an eight-week siege (20 June – 15 August). The young Henry was present when it fell. He may himself have ordered, or more probably was induced by Hubert to order, that the entire garrison, over eighty knights, should be hanged.

These power struggles were exploited by Philip Augustus's successor, Louis VIII (r. 1223–6). In July 1224 he overran Poitou, capturing La Rochelle. Henry secretly blamed the justiciar for this. However, Hubert planned for its recovery. In a council at London in February 1225 he exploited rumours of another French invasion to obtain £40,000 through a fifteenth on movables, the first major tax of the reign, in return for what proved to be a definitive reissue of the charters. The success of the 1225 tax (and of other taxes until 1237), in contrast to the failure of the 1217 scutage and 1220 carucage, helped to establish the principle of political concessions in return for taxation. In the end it hamstrung Henry III's government, making the king financially dependent for major undertakings on the consent of great councils and later of parliaments. But although the charters imposed constraints on the crown's exploitation of feudal incidents and local government, notably the forest, their repeated confirmation constituted in the short term a series of timely concessions to gain acceptance for the re-establishment of royal government in the localities, for instance through a general eyre in 1218 and a forest eyre in 1221.

In the longer term the reissues established the charters and the principles they represented in the public imagination and gave them the force of law. Increasingly regarded as the yardstick for acceptable standards of royal government, they were especially highly regarded by knights and gentry, a development which helped stimulate a rapid increase in recourse to the increasingly professionalized royal courts. Henry III later committed himself publicly to the principles of the charters, often exhorting the barons to uphold them in their dealings with their own men. In 1255 he ordered the sheriffs to have them proclaimed in the county courts and to see that they were observed by all, on pain of punishment. But at the same time royal lawyers and local officials worked hard to find and exploit ambiguities and loopholes.

In August 1225 the king's sixteen-year-old brother Richard (d. 1272), now styled count of Poitou, who was knighted and created earl of Cornwall in February, nominally headed an expedition which recovered Gascony by the end of the year, perhaps the high water mark of Henry III's minority. 1226, by contrast, was probably a year of disillusion, thanks to disagreements with the papacy over ecclesiastical taxation and frustrated hopes of campaigning in France. In November, following the death of Louis VIII, Henry sent embassies to Normandy, Anjou, Brittany, and Poitou, plotting against the Capetians. Then on 8 January 1227, now in his nineteenth year, he held a council at Oxford at which ‘by common counsel’ he declared himself of full age, thereby ending the minority.
The dominance of Hubert de Burgh, 1227–1232
Henry did not really begin to rule in 1227, he merely assumed the power to make charters to buttress Hubert's justiciarship. He created Hubert earl of Kent and over the next year enriched him and his family, culminating in Hubert's barefaced elevation on 27 April 1228, ostensibly ‘on the advice of the magnates’, to the justiciarship of England for life. After this, Hubert's popularity declined, while between 1227 and 1231 Henry built up an independent household of nearly seventy knights and began to interfere in government, bringing him into periodic conflict with Hubert. However, he long lacked the resolve to part with his fatherlike justiciar.

In 1227 Henry's declaration of majority was turned into profit by forcing the confirmation of earlier royal charters, and the holding of general and forest eyres; several areas were reafforested. This produced a reaction, exploited by the king's brother Richard, who had only been invested earl of Cornwall during pleasure in May and resented Hubert's tutelage. Supported by seven earls, he threatened civil war, but was easily bought off. But Hubert continued to lose ground, his authority decisively dented first by his failure to strengthen Montgomery Castle, threatened by Llywelyn in September 1228, despite the levying of a scutage of 2 marks per fee, and then by his lukewarm attitude towards the recovery of the Angevin continental lands. Henry celebrated Christmas at Oxford in 1228 and received invitations from the nobility of Normandy and Poitou to invade. 1229 was spent ostensibly preparing for this. However, despite much warlike talk, a scutage of 3 marks per fee, and a tallage of the royal demesne, plans were bungled. There was no muster at Portsmouth before 13 October, the principal feast day of Henry's patron St Edward, too late for any fighting, and the fleet proved too small. Departure had to be postponed; only an alliance with Brittany was achieved. Henry is said to have blamed Hubert and to have attacked him with a sword. He had reason for suspicion: in secret negotiations with the French regent in 1229, Hubert had envisaged renunciation of Normandy, in order to concentrate on recovering Poitou. Nevertheless, after Henry spent Christmas 1229 at York with the king of Scots, another scutage was raised, and on 3 May 1230 Henry, decked in crown, sceptre, and a white silk mantle, landed at St Malo with a substantial force. But although Normandy was poised to revolt, Hubert is said to have advised against attacking Normandy, and there was little fighting, discouraging allies from rebellion. Subsequent efforts concentrated on Poitou, and there was an expedition as far as Bordeaux, but few permanent gains resulted. By the autumn Henry and Richard were ill, tired, and short of money. They retreated to Brittany. Leaving a token force, Henry sailed home to Portsmouth on 28 October. The campaign, arguably the last opportunity to recover Normandy, was a costly fiasco.

Upon his return, in a petty bid for independence, Henry began to use a privy seal in communicating with the chancellor. Even in Brittany in June 1230 he overrode justiciar and council and requested a papal legate (none arrived until 1237). None the less, Hubert continued his domination for more than another year. He entertained Henry for Christmas at Lambeth and received important wardships, including the lands and heirs of the earl of Gloucester. On 15 April 1231 to his grief, Henry's brother-in-law, William (II) Marshal, earl of Pembroke, died. Henry's exclamation at the Temple Church funeral, ‘Woe is me! Is not the blood of the blessed martyr Thomas fully avenged yet?’ (Paris, Chron., 3.201), reflected gratitude to William (I) Marshal, and perhaps also wider frustrations. Once more government languished as faction-fighting broke out at its centre. Hubert persuaded Henry to prevent the younger William Marshal's estranged brother Richard from succeeding to the earldom of Pembroke, claiming that his Norman lands made him a liegeman of the king of France. Richard Marshal's subsequent revolt, abetted by Richard of Cornwall, prevented Henry making any headway against Llywelyn in an early autumn campaign. Then Peter des Roches, Hubert's bitter enemy, returning heroically from the crusade, was received back to court with his supporters and gradually gained an ascendancy over the king. In an acrimonious council held at Westminster at the end of October, Henry was persuaded by Richard Marshal and the duke of Brittany to abandon plans to marry the youngest sister of the king of Scots in favour of the duke of Brittany's daughter Yolande, reviving prospects of another French campaign. According to Matthew Paris, Hubert had for years been blocking other marriage proposals by spreading rumours that Henry was malformed and impotent. Henry now snubbed Hubert, his customary host since 1224, by spending Christmas at Winchester, lavishly entertained by Peter des Roches.

Hubert's final decline started in January 1232 when des Roches was appointed a baron of the exchequer and began promised financial reforms. In truth few of these achieved much, but they generated wild expectations in the king, who was running into debt. Henry's recent failure in France had exposed his financial weakness, now compounded by the expense of campaigning in Wales and maintaining foreign subsidies, for instance to the duke of Brittany. Thanks to Hubert's patient restoration of government, the king's ordinary annual revenue by 1230 was about £24,000, a great improvement on the mere £8000 of 1218, but even without allowance for inflation only two-thirds of average income in the early years of John's reign. The limitations placed on royal finance by concessions resulting from civil war and the reissues of the charters meant that Henry's freedom to manoeuvre depended largely on his ability to bargain for subsidies from great councils. He could not even enjoy his remaining revenues to the full, as corrupt bailiffs pocketed the profits of office, well-connected ‘curial’ sheriffs kept the exchequer's receipts from the counties, the shire ‘farms’, at traditionally low rates while themselves harvesting most of the true profits, and royal manors were leased on unduly generous terms. Schemes to reverse this situation greatly exercised the king in the 1230s and 1240s. But until the mid-1240s they brought only temporary improvements, the curtailment of royal patronage implicit in fiscal reform generating more political tension than any moderate increase in revenue warranted. As was repeatedly demonstrated, only a long period of peace could produce the savings necessary for the king to live of his own—an admission of his limitations not to Henry's taste. Consequently his resources were never sufficient for his ambitions, and inadequate finance remained a fatal weakness of Henry's rule, one that dogged him throughout his reign.

On 7 March 1232, at a council held at Westminster, Hubert's enemies ensured rejection of a major tax on movables, greatly weakening the regime and forcing Henry into negotiations with Llywelyn. In May, Henry and Hubert left for the marches; on the 19th they stopped at Worcester to see the body of King John translated to a splendid new tomb, and on the 23rd met inconclusively with Llywelyn at Shrewsbury. During their return, on 11 June, des Roches's kinsman Peter de Rivallis was granted the treasurership of the king's household for life. Even now Henry was still balanced between factions. Seeking inspiration, he went on pilgrimage to the Holy Rood at Bromholm, Norfolk, and was entertained by Hubert de Burgh on 2 July, where he confirmed Hubert and his followers in all their offices for life; the justiciar, on the king's orders, swore to coerce Henry into keeping his oath.

During July, however, Henry turned decisively against Hubert. Des Roches reported (probably correctly) that Hubert had plotted riots against Italian clerics appointed by the pope to English benefices. Mindful of old obligations to the papacy, Henry ordered the arrest of several of Hubert's men. Finally, Hubert himself precipitated a breach, if Matthew Paris can be believed. For a king now aged twenty-four their violent quarrel at Woodstock was one liberty too many, and he dismissed Hubert as justiciar.
The regime of Peter des Roches, 1232–1234
The fall of Hubert de Burgh merely permitted the rise of Peter des Roches, another father figure, as well as initiating two years of almost continuous political tension. At first des Roches shared power with Richard Marshal and the stewards of the household. Hubert was quickly stripped of his offices and lands, and fled into sanctuary. His eventual trial in London in November before his peers may have been Henry's idea, reflecting either his leniency towards courtiers or his preference for baronial consent, following Magna Carta, chapter 39. Nevertheless, sentence was severe: indefinite detention at Devizes and confiscation of his treasure, albeit retaining his title and hereditary lands. This met with general approval. In September the council at Lambeth voted the fortieth on movables refused in March, the only time a grant was made without conditions throughout Henry's reign; but thanks to the poor harvests, it raised only £16,500.

Des Roches quickly took control of government. Despite posing as a financial reformer, he purged opponents and enriched followers with shrievalties and royal castles. Some of his party were foreigners, and his regime was generous to the Angevins' continental allies. However, he was less interested in Henry's continental ambitions than in his own accumulation of patronage. In January 1233 Gregory IX renewed Henry's authority to recover crown rights, permitting cancellation of charters to de Burgh's supporters; over fifty were overturned ‘by royal will’ alone. The beneficiaries were des Roches's men. This provoked opposition. In particular the regime quarrelled with Richard Marshal, who resented the advancement of des Roches's men at the expense of his own retainers. In February 1233 Richard retired to Wales and Ireland; by August he was in revolt.

For some six months or so there was a sharp, but limited, civil war. Richard Marshal was the only insurgent magnate. Although he courted popularity as a champion of Englishmen against foreign favourites—winning the chroniclers' sympathy—he was never supported by more than sixty knights, and King Henry, directing forces supplemented by foreign mercenaries, was able to reduce his castles of Hay, Ewyas, and Usk between 28 August and 8 September. Henry then characteristically offered negotiations, at a council summoned to Westminster for 2 October. This was delayed a week by Hubert de Burgh's escape into sanctuary. However, talks broke down. Goaded by his affinity the Marshal rebelled again, now allied with Llywelyn, while his retainer Richard Siward snatched Hubert de Burgh from Devizes. By 12 November, much to his discomfort, Henry resumed campaigning in the marches. While at Grosmont he suffered the humiliating capture of his baggage train in a night raid. After that the campaign ground to a halt during the winter. In the following February further fighting was averted only by the Marshal's sudden withdrawal to Ireland. Llywelyn then opened negotiations.

There was a stalemate. Henry was short of funds. In a council at Westminster on 2 February 1234 Edmund, the archbishop-elect of Canterbury, and several bishops denounced the regime. As baronial irritation at des Roches's autocratic rule increased, Henry promised to follow Edmund's advice as soon as he could. He then escaped on a tour of East Anglian shrines as the strain took its toll. He fell ill, and after gathering relics for his private chapel he ordered a silver votive-statue of himself to be deposited at Bromholm commemorating his recovery. On 8 March a council in Northampton authorized the bishops to treat with Llywelyn. Henry attended Edmund's consecration at Canterbury on 2 April; des Roches still sat next to him, but the other bishops theatrically faced them across the choir. At a council at Westminster on 9 May, Edmund threatened excommunication unless there was a change of regime. Henry thereupon ordered des Roches to retire to his diocese, while de Rivallis and other henchmen were dismissed. Thereafter the rebels were appeased by concessions, while des Roches's disseisins per voluntatem were reversed. Henry displayed grief on receiving news of Richard Marshal's death, possibly by assassination, in Ireland. However, his fortuitous demise curtained the most embarrassing process whereby Henry truly learned his lesson in kingship.
Marriage and the achievement of stability, 1234–1242
Henry III's personal rule began well, establishing a political stability which not only remained largely unbroken for over fifteen years, but was also resilient enough to persist for several years more after tensions began to revive in the early 1250s, finally succumbing only to the coup of 1258. Henry cultivated courtiers who were largely indifferent to the old factions, men like John Mansel, Robert Passelewe, Henry of Wingham, Bertram de Criol, William de Cantilupe, John of Lexinton, Paulinus Piper, and Robert Waleran; these men and their clans formed a tightly knit community. There were favourites, but none achieved the hegemony of the ministers of the minority. A new generation of magnates was wooed into peaceful political activity in parliament. Under the influence of Archbishop Edmund, Henry made his peace with Peter des Roches and Hubert de Burgh, both of whom received pardons before their deaths in 1238 and 1243 respectively. Their followers had almost all been restored to office by 1236. Henry could not afford further warfare. In June 1234 the archbishop secured a two-year truce with Llywelyn, extended until the latter's death in 1240. Another truce with the king of Navarre in January 1235 protected Gascony. In the following August a four-year truce was agreed with Louis IX, following the collapse in November 1234 of Henry's alliance with the duke of Brittany.

1235 was largely devoted to family matters. Henry's sister Isabella (1214-1241) married the emperor Frederick II in May, producing an ally against Louis IX, albeit at a cost of a dowry of £20,000. Himself almost into middle age, early in 1235 Henry proposed to Jeanne, heir to Ponthieu, but Louis IX persuaded the pope to prohibit the match. Nothing daunted, Henry turned to Raymond Berengar, count of Provence, for the hand of his eleven-year-old daughter Eleanor (d. 1291). She was not a rich match: Henry proposed a dowry ranging from 20,000 to only 3000 marks and was at one stage prepared to take her for nothing; the 10,000 marks eventually agreed was never fully paid. However, she was excellently connected; her elder sister had recently married Louis IX, while her mother's family, the counts of Savoy, controlled the passes into north Italy and were courted by both pope and emperor in their wars against each other. Thus Henry both gained leverage in the papal curia and significantly improved his relations with Louis IX, now his brother-in-law.

Betrothed at Canterbury on 14 January 1236, Eleanor and Henry were married at Westminster on the 20th by Archbishop Edmund, her coronation setting new standards of lavish ceremonial. Beautiful and clever, Eleanor quickly monopolized Henry's affections, helping him to break fully with earlier influences, though she favoured policies of moderation and reconciliation. She had been accompanied by one of her brilliant uncles, William of Savoy, bishop-elect of Valence, and early in April, Henry suddenly reconstructed his council at Windsor as a sworn body of twelve headed by William. Financial reforms—resumptions of demesne, exploitation of royal manors, increments on the shire farms—which increased the king's revenues by about 10 per cent were made tolerable in the shires by the dismissal of courtiers as sheriffs, to be replaced by local men on oaths of good conduct. Moreover, William was no Peter des Roches, for he cultivated men from all factions, supported the jurist and administrative reformer William of Raleigh, and promoted few foreigners. He also maintained peaceful relations with Scotland and France.

Richard of Cornwall resented his demotion after Henry's marriage. He boycotted the court for the next two years and to boost his position took the cross at Winchester in June 1236. But the discontent he hoped to foment was deftly offset by William of Savoy and Raleigh at a great council at Westminster in January 1237, a large assembly which may also have been attended by representatives of burgesses and knights: Magna Carta was reissued, and recent resumptions of royal demesne were abandoned; three magnate victims of resumptions were even co-opted on to the king's council. In return, Henry III was granted a thirtieth on movables; the last major parliamentary tax for over thirty years, it raised some £22,500. William of Savoy was so secure that he could even go abroad from February to April, while in June the newly arrived papal legate Otto (another moderating influence) publicly reconciled Hubert de Burgh with Peter des Roches. In September Alexander II relinquished ancient claims to the northern counties of England in return for lands worth £200 p.a. William of Savoy's brother, Thomas, married the countess of Flanders in the autumn, bringing Henry further allies.

The reissue of the charters in 1237 marked the culmination of a period of important legal development: ordinances enacted in great councils regulated watch and ward in 1233, and the holding of and attendance at local courts in 1234, while 1236 saw wide-ranging legislation in the form of the Statute of Merton, which dealt with such issues as the rights of widows, access to common pasture, and the payment of dead men's debts. The final separation of the court coram rege from the common bench, probably in 1234, marked the continued development and sophistication of royal justice, itself celebrated about that time in the famous legal treatise known as Bracton. The initiative in these processes, however, came less from Henry III himself, who except in artistic concerns was rarely (unlike his royal predecessors) the initiator of significant developments, than from his ministers and from the legal profession. Indeed, apart from a provision of 1253 concerning Jews, which though much to Henry's taste was essentially ecclesiastical in origin, there was little further legislation before the enactments of the period after 1258. Unlike King John, Henry interfered little in the workings of the courts, except in a handful of notorious cases to delay proceedings against favourites. The principal complaint which emerged against royal justice seems to have been its growing complexity, remoteness, and expense, which tended to favour richer litigants who could afford the means to influence its workings. This attitude may help to explain the appeal in some quarters during the 1240s and 1250s of a call to reform via a return to old ways: the revival of the lapsed offices of justiciar and chancellor, both subject to public scrutiny.

William of Savoy was again abroad when Simon de Montfort, a rising star at court, began a liaison with Henry III's widowed sister, Eleanor. To hush up the scandal, Henry planned their secret marriage in his chamber chapel at Westminster on 7 January 1238. This provoked Richard of Cornwall into rebellion supported by Gilbert Marshal, earl of Pembroke, and the earl of Winchester; they denounced Montfort and other favourites and condemned the marriage as contracted without magnate consent, winning much sympathy. On 23 February they met Henry in arms at Stratford-le-Bow, but he retreated to the Tower until 2 March. This was Henry's sharpest crisis until the 1260s. It was resolved by William of Savoy. Richard was bought off with 16,000 marks for his crusade, about half the proceeds of the thirtieth, and remained loyal for the remainder of the reign. On 4 March, now reconciled, Richard and Henry attended the deathbed of their sister Joan, queen of Scots, at Havering.

In May 1238 William of Savoy left to assist Frederick II in Italy and never returned. In June, Henry proposed William for the bishopric of Winchester, but lacking his counsel, bungled the election. The usually co-operative monks first proposed William of Raleigh and then, despite Henry's intervention, elected Ralph de Neville; enraged, Henry appealed to Rome and deprived Ralph of the chancellorship on 28 August. He soon relented, returning the title and emoluments of office to Ralph until his death in 1244. Soon afterwards, on the night of 9 September, Henry narrowly escaped assassination at Woodstock by a deranged clerk associated with William de Marisco and the pirates of Lundy. In November Henry was at Kenilworth for the baptism of Eleanor and Simon de Montfort's eldest son, Henry, a sign of Montfort's continuing advancement, which culminated in February 1239 when Henry created him earl of Leicester. William of Raleigh retired in April and a more relaxed policy towards the exploitation of the shires and the royal manors followed. Henry did have other resources at his disposal, and his finances remained reasonably healthy for several years. As well as feudal incidents, tallages, and the profits of justice, his right to the revenues of vacant bishoprics was important, and between 1240 and 1244 he derived 10 per cent of his income from them, thanks to the coincidence of vacancies at Winchester (exploited with unusual thoroughness), Canterbury, and London. Henry's officers often pushed his rights to the utmost, particularly through the general and forest eyres, but they still had to contend with the constraints imposed by the charters. To offset the resultant drop in income Henry adopted a new policy of tallaging the Jews, which exhausted their resources during the 1240s.

On the night of 17 June 1239, confounding rumours of sterility, Queen Eleanor gave birth at Westminster to a boy. While the Londoners celebrated by torchlight, Henry's clerks sang the ‘Christus vincit’. The infant was baptized by the legate at Westminster Abbey three days later; Richard of Cornwall and Simon de Montfort were the godparents. Henry's choice of Edward as a name for his heir (a departure from Angevin tradition) proclaimed his devotion to Edward the Confessor. Edward's birth ensured that Eleanor would henceforth be Henry's principal adviser. The number of Savoyards and Provençals at court began to grow, while Henry suddenly quarrelled with Simon de Montfort at the queen's churching and drove him into exile with his wife. King and earl were reconciled in the following April, but Simon's influence was never the same again.

Although Henry III was greatly grieved by the news of William of Savoy's death at Viterbo in November 1239 (Matthew Paris reports that he tore his clothes and threw them into the fire), 1240 and 1241 were good years for the English king. He took advantage of the death in April 1240 of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth of Gwynedd to exploit a succession dispute. He threw his weight behind Llywelyn's son Dafydd against his half-brother Gruffudd, and in a theatrical ceremony at Gloucester on 15 May knighted Dafydd and received his homage, reducing him to a client ruler. On 10 June at Dover, Henry and the legate saw Richard of Cornwall off to crusade; then, after a reconciliation with Henry possibly effected by the queen, who could now afford to be generous, Simon de Montfort departed on his own crusade. On 29 September, to further public joy, Eleanor produced a daughter who was baptized Margaret, probably after Eleanor's sister, the queen of France.

Henry III spent Christmas at Westminster, fêting the legate before his departure in January 1241. This left Henry even more dependent on Eleanor's family. Another of her uncles, Peter of Savoy, arrived and was knighted on 5 January, the feast of St Edward's deposition, in a great ceremony at Westminster Abbey. Soon dominant in Henry's council, where he favoured a continuation of moderate policies, Peter was granted the honour of Richmond in April, while in February another of Eleanor's uncles, Boniface, was elected archbishop of Canterbury. Tension rose briefly early in 1242 when it was thought that Richard of Cornwall might oppose the rise of the Savoyards when he returned from the east, but the court's fears came to nothing. When Richard landed at Dover on 7 January he was met by both the king and queen. Feasted on the 28th in London, which was decorated in his honour, he was immediately won over to the new regime by the flattery of Peter of Savoy, who offered to resign but was recalled by the king. Richard was probably too impoverished after his crusade to cause much trouble. Moreover Peter may have persuaded him that he could profit from an expedition to Poitou, of which he was still nominally count.
The expedition to Poitou, 1242–1243
Henry III had continued to hope to recover his father's lost continental lands. In August 1241 he had surprisingly halted an attempted rebellion by Dafydd of Gwynedd after only a fortnight's bloodless campaign, assisted by Welsh defections and unusually clement weather. At Gwerneigron Dafydd readily accepted a compromise, surrendering Gruffudd and his son Owain as hostages. For Wales was far less interesting to Henry than Louis IX's investiture of his brother Alphonse as count of Poitou in June 1241, a calculated snub to Angevin claims and one which immediately gave rise to plans for revenge. His eventual intervention in Poitou was, however, an ill-considered piece of opportunism, one that he threw himself into before he was ready, when Hugues de Lusignan, count of La Marche, and his wife, Isabella of Angoulême, Henry's own mother, rebelled against Louis IX at the end of 1241, shortly after making an alliance with the English king. Henry lacked effective allies, while his income, at this time about £40,000 per annum, was dwarfed by that of the French king, whose resources, worth over £70,000 per annum, made him a truly formidable adversary. Parliament was summoned to Westminster in January 1242 but whether from realism (having regard to Henry's lack of generalship and money) or from selfishness (few of them claimed lands in Poitou) the magnates refused taxation besides a scutage because there was a truce in force with King Louis. However, Henry was in religious mood and not easily deflected, and after a tour of his favourite East Anglian shrines, he sailed for Poitou in May in his ship fitted with panelled chambers, leaving the archbishop of York as regent. He ordered fifteen man-sized candles to burn perpetually around the shrine of St Edward at Westminster throughout his absence abroad. In the event of his father's death Edward would be protected by Queen Eleanor and her uncles, an interesting reflection on the position of Richard of Cornwall. Henry brought about £35,000, scraped together from a 20,000 mark Jewish tallage and other resources. Although seven earls accompanied him his forces were inadequate—hardly 200 knights, half of them from the household—and this doomed the expedition from the start.

Henry landed on 12 May, but did not reach Pons in Saintonge until the 20th. At first he characteristically delayed, preferring negotiations. He may have hoped that Louis would buy him off, or he may have sought a cause to generate more support in England. He recruited allies, betrothing Richard of Cornwall to Sanchia, another daughter of the count of Provence, and so freeing the count of Toulouse, who was engaged to her, to make a marriage alliance with the Lusignans. Then on 8 June he ended his truce with Louis and advanced first to Saintes (11–19 June) and then to Taillebourg on the Charente (30 June). But the additional troops he had summoned from England and Gascony failed to appear, and by 19 July he was back in Saintes. Louis now began reducing Lusignan castles; whereupon Henry suddenly dashed to secure Taillebourg, only to fall into a trap. Louis moved up on 20 July and surrounded him, heavily outnumbering his forces. Henry escaped only thanks to Richard of Cornwall, whose services on crusade led to the English army being given a day's grace by the French knights. Richard advised Henry to ‘get out of here quickly’ (Paris, Chron., 4.212) and they fled, Henry losing a coronet in the rush. Some English knights and Simon de Montfort were able to distinguish themselves on 22 July, beating off a French night ambush, but Saintes was abandoned. Only Louis IX's illness halted the French. Hugues and Isabella defected back to Louis on 1 August, destroying the Poitevin revolt. Only the isles of Oléron and Ré remained in Henry's hands in Poitou.

The failure was caused largely by inadequate finance. In the autumn Henry was forced to borrow at Bordeaux; a further £20,000 reached him from England and Ireland only after several months. In a letter to the emperor in September 1242 Henry castigated Poitevin treachery, a line followed by Matthew Paris. But his own inadequate generalship was also to blame: his indecision, inactivity, and tendency to fall into traps meant that allies lost confidence, as they had in 1230. Well might Simon de Montfort declare at Saintes that Henry, like Charles the Simple, should be locked up by his subjects—an insult the king remembered twenty years later.

Henry remained at Bordeaux for a year, making no further forays, and on 5 April he came to terms with Louis, renewing the truce for five years. Concern for the queen delayed him: she had been pregnant at the start of the campaign and at Bordeaux on 25 June 1242 gave birth to a daughter, Beatrice, named after Henry's mother-in-law, Beatrice of Provence, who visited them in the following May. In August 1243 Henry made a new and more ample dowry settlement for his wife. Failure in Poitou had made him even more dependent on her, causing another quarrel with Richard of Cornwall, who returned to England in September 1242. Henry had probably granted Gascony to Richard in gratitude for saving him at Taillebourg, only to change his mind a few weeks later on the advice of Eleanor who wanted Gascony for the Lord Edward. Richard was bought off with wedding gifts from his brother. Henry's expedition to Poitou cost him a clear £80,000, leaving debts of £15,000. Limited fighting had kept costs low, and his debts were cleared by the end of 1244, while Henry stubbornly maintained his claims to Normandy and Poitou for another fifteen years. Nevertheless, he found this fiasco difficult to live down.
The aftermath of Poitou, 1243–1245
After Poitou, Henry avoided major confrontation for many years. He continued to be much influenced by the queen and her kinsmen, and by ministers like John Mansel. Thanks mainly to heavy taxation of the Jews, and to a decade of almost unbroken peace, his finances gradually recovered. It is significant that there was no rebellion against him on his return like the one that had confronted John after Bouvines. Fortuitous minorities in the ruling dynasties of Scotland and Wales, and among the English magnates, assisted him. Henry deliberately cultivated good relations with the baronage, to whom he was lavish with hospitality and generous with patronage. He was indulgent towards their debts to the crown, and relaxed in his approach to their liberties; although his justices periodically investigated these, Henry took no action to reduce them and sometimes even added to them. He paraded his unity with the aristocracy in major artistic commissions, for example for Westminster Abbey and Dublin Castle. For several years sustained criticism of his rule came only from those ranks of society which were excluded from court: merchants, county knights, and lesser clergy. Henry's government did at times show itself responsive to the grievances of these men. But as long as he kept the magnates on his side any opposition could be controlled.

Ceremonial repaired Henry's dented image somewhat. He sailed back to Portsmouth on 9 October 1243, to be received at Westminster four days later with a religious procession lit by innumerable tapers. Eleanor's sister, Sanchia, with their mother, Beatrice of Provence, arrived at Westminster on the 18th, and on 23 November Richard of Cornwall married Sanchia in Westminster Abbey. To mark the occasion Henry gave the abbey a gold-worked banner with his arms interwoven with those of the count of Provence. Richard renounced his claims to Gascony and was promised lands worth £500 p.a. Eleanor's vigilance over Edward's interests explains why Richard simultaneously waived claims to Ireland. Beatrice of Provence finally reconciled Henry to Simon and Eleanor de Montfort and Henry granted them 500 marks p.a. and Kenilworth Castle. Beatrice departed in the new year and Henry gave her an enormous jewelled eagle in gold and a loan of 4000 marks, and ordered that all the churches between London and Dover be lit up in her honour.

Finance remained a problem, one exacerbated by temporarily strained relations with Scotland, whose king was showing unwelcome signs of independence—in 1239 Alexander II had married Marie de Coucy, a French noblewoman. In the summer of 1244 Henry raised an army consisting largely of mercenaries supplied by Thomas of Savoy, but the differences were resolved without fighting, and on 15 August, Alexander agreed that his son and heir, another Alexander, aged three, should marry Henry's three-year-old daughter Margaret. A fresh Welsh rebellion, too, was cause for expense. Efforts to raise money prompted resentment, and in November, Henry faced criticism at a parliament of magnates and prelates (the latter objecting to recent challenges to monastic liberties and episcopal elections) in the refectory of Westminster Abbey.

Henry appealed in person for a major subsidy, foolishly emphasizing his need to settle debts arising from Poitou. Nobles and clergy elected a committee of twelve, mainly courtiers, to negotiate their response. They suggested a mild concession, modelled on that of 1237, in return for taxation: on their advice, Henry should appoint a justiciar and a chancellor, presumably in the belief that great officials would make Henry more popular with lesser subjects. Even when Henry refused, disliking the element of compulsion involved, they mildly replied that if he would voluntarily appoint these officials and take the committee's advice on expenditure, they would secure him an aid. It is most unlikely (despite a rubric stating the contrary) that a more radical ‘paper constitution’ (preserved by Matthew Paris), which would have effectively recreated the minority regime, was actually presented or approved by the king; it cannot have met with magnate approval and probably emanated from a radical minority of the clergy. Henry then attempted to negotiate a separate grant of clerical taxation, but in vain. What ultimately kept him afloat financially was perhaps the enormous Jewish tallage of 60,000 marks proclaimed in 1244; gradually collected, it had raised about 40,000 marks by 1249.

When parliament reassembled at London in February 1245, a compromise was agreed underlining Henry's warm relations with the magnates. The birth of his second son on 16 January, after concerns for Eleanor's health, won him sympathy; amid celebration, the infant was named Edmund after the great East Anglian saint. Henry was also committed to intervention in Wales. Consequently parliament agreed to an aid for the marriage of Henry's eldest daughter, while Henry promised to uphold the charters, and the bishops renewed the excommunication of those infringing them. Henry thus requested magnate consent even to prerogative taxation: it was levied at an old rate with low yield, but it cleared his debts as intended. In March, Henry made a thanksgiving pilgrimage to St Albans and Bromholm. He began his greatest work, the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey, and, perhaps in a bid for popularity, snubbed an attempt by the pope to tax the English clergy.

Westminster Abbey provides the main visual evidence for Henry's artistic tastes, a field in which his close personal interest, extending to the colours of vestments and the shape of windows, is recorded in scores of detailed written commissions. The abbey's lofty French-derived architecture, lavish use of statuary and coloured glass, and exotic decoration in Italian Cosmati marble were intended to project an image of the majesty of monarchy; Henry was deliberately copying Louis IX and Frederick II, mighty rulers whom he hoped to rival in magnificence even if he could not defeat them on the battlefield. Similarly intended to impress were his great palace complex at Westminster, which became the focus for a court life in whose ceremonial piety was as much in evidence as pageantry, and the numerous other commissions—wall and panel paintings full of symbolic figures and images of favoured saints like Edward the Confessor, statues, stained-glass windows, gold-worked embroidery—which transformed the appearance of over three-quarters of the royal residences, even those he never visited. Notable works included a processional gateway into the Tower of London (which collapsed in 1241) and a great hall at Winchester which still survives. Henry also lavished extravagant offerings, particularly statues of precious metal, on his favourite shrines at Westminster, Canterbury, and Walsingham. Like Charles I, Henry was a distinguished collector as well as patron. He amassed jewels (of which he was particularly fond), regalia, precious objects, and clothes, the latter of both English and foreign workmanship, intending them both for his personal use and for distribution as munificent gifts. Much of his collection had to be pawned in the 1260s.

It is sometimes argued that Henry's taste for splendour was intended to reinforce an absolutist ideology of kingship. He certainly enjoyed the company of kings, and was jealous of his prerogatives throughout his reign, from the 1240s onwards repeatedly rejecting proposals which might have limited them. He was no less determined in asserting his rights, especially that of choosing his own councillors, as he showed in the 1260s. But in practice Henry was a ruler who usually accepted some restraints, not least those imposed by the charters. This was in keeping with current legal doctrine, as expressed in Bracton, that the king was under the law. Henry did not coerce parliaments into submission, and even co-operated with conciliar measures from the 1240s onwards which were intended to preserve the interests of ‘the crown’ at the expense of the man who wore it. None the less, the fact that his councillors were among those who rebelled against him in 1258 suggests that he was far from consistent in accepting these limits, and that it is this inconsistency which provides an important key to the political tensions of his personal rule.
Family, France, and finance, 1245–1249
In June 1245 Welsh aggression finally caused Henry to summon the feudal host. He arrived at Chester on 13 August, dawdled there a week, and by the end of the month had reached the Conwy river. Here he characteristically got bogged down for two months, constructing Deganwy (or Gannoc) Castle. Amid demoralizing shortages and Welsh raids he may have lost control of his troops, who expressed their anger in savage sorties. He finally withdrew at the end of October, having accomplished little. Richard of Cornwall gave considerable assistance to the campaign in the form of loans, but his attempt to gain the earldom of Chester from Henry was thwarted by Queen Eleanor and Peter of Savoy, once more defending the claims of Henry's sons. Welsh resistance was effectively broken by Dafydd's sudden death, without a direct heir, early in 1246.

Henry continued to look abroad. In January 1246 he accepted the homage of the count of Savoy for key castles and transalpine routes in return for 1000 marks and an annual pension of 200 marks. This deal, concocted by the Savoyards, was approved by the council, in the hope that it would give Henry leverage in the succession to Provence. But in spite of murmurings in parliament, and Henry's own attempts at further resistance, papal taxation of the English clergy could no longer be prevented. Perhaps Henry was too pious, or grateful, to withstand the pope for long; he may, too, have feared excommunication, remembering King John or the recently deposed Emperor Frederick II. But he was also alarmed by Innocent IV's rapprochement with Louis IX, which soon enabled Louis to occupy Provence. In May he ordered his chaplains at Dover to pray day and night that death might be averted from the king and his household.

Against this background the death of his mother, Isabella, at Fontevrault on 4 June must have reminded Henry of past sorrows. He mourned her with grants of alms, especially to the scholars of Oxford and Cambridge. Henry's fortunes improved in 1247, however. He was entertained for Christmas at Winchester by William of Raleigh, now restored to favour, and a parliament held at Oxford in April approved a great recoinage covering England, Ireland, and Wales, a lucrative addition to royal finances. Henry immediately farmed this out to Richard of Cornwall, thereby acquiring the means to settle many debts. Henry also seemed completely triumphant in Wales: undermined by minorities and disunity, and sapped by a trade embargo, the native princes all came to heel. At Woodstock on 30 April, Henry was accepted as feudal overlord of Wales. The crown also absorbed Chester and vast tracts of the marches, more than reversing territorial losses under King John.

But Henry's greatest triumph lay in the expansion of his family. In May, Edmund de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, and Richard de Burgh, lord of Connaught, both royal wards, were married to two of Eleanor's kinswomen, underlining the importance of marriage in linking the king with the magnates. Later that month Henry received four of his half-brothers and a half-sister of the house of Lusignan at Westminster. He had invited them over, and immediately settled three of them in England: Aymer, promised a bishopric, studied at Oxford, and became bishop-elect of Winchester in 1250; William de Valence was established in the Welsh marches in August, marrying Joan de Munchensi, a Marshal coheiress, which brought him the lordship of Pembroke; in the same month Alice married John de Warenne, earl of Surrey, another royal ward. There were fears of French expansion into Gascony at this time, so closer links with the Lusignans made political sense.

Then on 13 October, the feast of the translation of St Edward, Henry staged a propaganda set piece at Westminster in the presence of all lay and ecclesiastical magnates. He had obtained from the community of Outremer a great relic: a phial of Christ's blood. After a vigil fasting on bread and water he received the relic at St Paul's the next day and in person carried it in liturgical procession 1 mile to Westminster, even through the palace, in a show of piety influenced by the new Corpus Christi devotion. He presented the holy blood to the abbey, and the bishops of Norwich and Lincoln preached that the relic was superior even to Louis IX's holy cross. The day ended with a mass knighting in Westminster Hall, when those dubbed included William de Valence and several Poitevins and Gascons. Henry, presiding in coronet and robes of gold, ordered Matthew Paris to record everything. Such typically grand ceremonial bound Henry still closer to his magnates. Nevertheless, by the end of the year many English knights were considering joining Louis's crusade.

Henry attempted to maintain pressure on Louis in 1248, but wavered between policies. He wished to participate in Louis's crusade; indeed, he amassed a gold treasure for it and requested papal permission for a contingent under the captaincy of Gui de Lusignan. This plan failed thanks to the French king's opposition. But Henry also plotted to recover the Angevin lands once Louis had departed, and cultivated more allies for the purpose. However, all his resources were soon diverted towards Gascony, threatened by rebellion and the ambitions of Alphonse of Poitiers and the king of Navarre. Henry's failure to exploit this opportunity to turn the tables on the Capetians might seem a major mistake, but its unpopularity at home never made it a realistic option. In February he approached a very well-attended parliament (possibly including knights) for money, but failed to obtain a grant of taxation. Instead, there were complaints, especially from merchants and clergy, and demands for the election of three great officers. Henry prorogued parliament, but further sessions at Westminster in July, and in the following January and April, were equally obdurate. After the Poitou fiasco, another major war was probably rated a waste of money.

The king's advisers thought a limited expedition to Gascony would sidestep demands for change. After a pilgrimage to Walsingham and Bromholm, Henry managed in May 1248 to persuade Simon de Montfort to abandon another crusade for the lieutenancy of Gascony, with a seven-year contract so generous to be almost a bribe. Queen Eleanor pressed Montfort's appointment. Financed by sales of royal silver plate, Jewish tallages, and further loans from Richard of Cornwall (completely mortgaging the recoinage), a small army set sail in August, ironically the same month in which Louis embarked for the east. For about a year Montfort enjoyed considerable success. Yet even such a modest force strained the royal finances, prompting Henry to try to raise a loan from the principal English abbots in December, and to step up the fiscal pressure on sheriffs and royal bailiffs, a development which did little for the popularity of his rule in the localities and Wales.

Indeed, from this point the conduct of Henry's government strained his observance of the charters. His refusal to burden the magnates meant that the weight of his rule fell instead on his lesser subjects. Judicial and forest eyres became much more exacting, and there were attempts at reafforestations. The exchequer demanded increments on the shire farms that were sometimes treble or quadruple those imposed in the 1230s, driving the sheriffs—often of the harshest professional type and strangers in their counties—into introducing new obligations or reviving old ones, and imposing a whole host of petty exactions. Merchants complained about the abuses of royal purveyance, goods taken for the king's household but not paid for. Alan de la Zouche extorted double the sums raised by his predecessors from Henry's ‘new conquest’ of the Four Cantrefs in north-east Wales. The oppressions of government were if anything made worse by the wide variety in its intensity (it was relatively lenient in some counties), as well as by high levels of corruption. The king sold hundreds of franchises in this period, many of them involving exemption from the burdens of knighthood and local administration; these prolonged the acceptability of his rule in some quarters but exacerbated social divisions in general. But though there were grumblings Henry did not hear them, and his mood remained assured and relaxed. In September 1249, on the advice of Queen Eleanor and Peter of Savoy, he bestowed Gascony on the Lord Edward, and two months later was so confident of success in the duchy that he pardoned the rebel Gaston de Béarn.
Crusading plans and Gascon crisis: the beginnings of decline, 1250–1254
Louis IX's defeat at Mansourah in February 1250 spurred Henry, flushed with his apparent success in Gascony, into taking the cross in a grand public ceremony presided over by the archbishop of Canterbury at Westminster on 6 March. He planned to take the queen, who supported the plan, and most courtiers with him. Henry's crusading is now considered sincere; he undertook to embark in 1256 and meanwhile earnestly began to collect funds. The pope granted a crusading tenth of clerical revenues for three years. From now on, Henry prevented English crusaders, even his half-brother William de Valence, from sailing independently. Meanwhile, imitating Louis IX's crusading preparations, he ordered the reduction of expenses of the royal households and inquiries into alienations from his demesne, demanded further taxation of the Jews, and made promises of better government. Even Henry's artistic commissions had a crusading theme, with Antioch chambers ordered at Winchester, Clarendon, and Westminster. After witnessing the dedication of Richard of Cornwall's Cistercian foundation at Hailes, Gloucestershire, in November 1251, the king spent Christmas at York, where, in further preparations for the crusade, the alliance with Scotland was renewed, with her new king, Alexander III, marrying Henry's eldest daughter, Margaret, amid scenes of great pageantry. Henry knighted Alexander, who performed homage for his English lordship (in accordance with the 1237 treaty) but not for Scotland itself.

However, as with so many of his schemes, Henry's crusade came to nothing, greatly to his disappointment, due to the eruption of rebellion in Gascony against Montfort's harsh rule. While at York, Henry forbade Montfort to return to Gascony; concerned to protect Edward's interest, Eleanor narrowly prevented a quarrel. But when Henry sent envoys to investigate Montfort's rule, a harvest of complaints resulted. On 28 April 1252, on Peter of Savoy's advice, he attempted to mollify opposition by regranting Gascony to Edward, while from May to June Montfort was forced to answer charges put by leading Gascons before the king in parliament. Henry took the Gascons' side and had some sharp exchanges with Montfort, who claimed that the king had undermined his lieutenancy. Thanks to the support of Eleanor, Richard of Cornwall, and other powerful magnates, Montfort escaped condemnation, but he refused to resign, and the only way to prevent further rebellion was for Henry to announce on 13 June that he would pacify Gascony in person before the following February. He planned to arrive in October but could not complete his preparations in time. Montfort returned to Gascony and started up another fierce conflict, forcing Henry to dismiss him in October, and ultimately to buy him out of his contract at a humiliatingly high price.

Unfortunately the Gascon rebellion continued to escalate, to the extent that Gaston de Béarn, its leader despite his recent pardon, invited Alfonso X of Castile to revive his ancestral claims to Gascony. Henry's failure to obtain taxation from parliament in October forced delay. The clergy, led by Robert Grosseteste, opposed the papal crusading tenth because it was to be levied at a new rate, and the laity refused taxation without the participation of the clergy. There also seems to have been confusion over Henry's ambitions in France. Even now he still hoped for a cheap victory while the French were weak: in June he wrote blusteringly to Louis IX at Acre offering to sail sooner than 1256 if Louis restored the Angevin lands.

However, Henry now encountered serious domestic political difficulties, ominously foreshadowing later developments. In his frustration over Gascony he quarrelled with Eleanor, their first public breach since 1236. Eleanor had sympathized with Montfort; their differences persisted throughout the year. But after Geoffrey de Lusignan intervened in Gascony in February and negotiated a truce, his success encouraged Henry to rely on the military contacts of his half-brothers. The political influence of the Lusignans began to grow and their arrogance made them unpopular. On 3 November, relying on Henry's support, they even raided the palaces of Eleanor's uncle, Archbishop Boniface of Canterbury. The tension grew into a sharp crisis reminiscent of that of twenty years earlier: the court divided into factions, and four earls threatened armed support for one side or the other.

Such was the Gascon emergency that Henry and Eleanor hastened to resolve their differences; in January 1253, assisted by the bishops, they pacified the baronial factions. Significantly, Eleanor became pregnant in the spring—perhaps her first successful pregnancy for eight years. The well-attended parliament which met in May proved more amenable. Alfonso of Castile's threat to Gascony strengthened Henry's case. Henry characteristically bargained again for prerogative taxation, but the magnates and knights only granted him an aid for the knighting of Edward, in return for reissuing Magna Carta. On 3 May the charters were confirmed in Henry's presence in Westminster Hall. But the aid met a bare fraction of the costs of the campaign, which was financed only by the exploitation of all available resources, including Irish revenues and a tallage on Jews and the demesne. Still intent on his crusade, in January Henry imposed restrictions on the Jews. In May the clergy consented to a crusading tenth for three years, provided that the magnates oversaw expenditure.

Henry drew up his only extant will on 1 July 1253. He made Eleanor sole custodian of his children and realm until Edward's majority, binding her and his executors to implement his crusade. She was given an enlarged dower and appointed regent during her husband's absence, assisted by Richard of Cornwall and a council. Henry probably hoped that Gascony could be speedily pacified. In May he negotiated for Edward to marry Alfonso's half-sister Eleanor, but too late to prevent a campaign. Eventually he set sail from Portsmouth on 6 August, to the last delayed by tardy preparations and contrary winds. He was reluctant to leave Eleanor when she was pregnant, and in July asked Alexander of Scots to let Margaret return to keep her mother company.

Henry arrived at Bordeaux on about 24 August. His Gascon campaign was unpopular: the feudal summons was poorly supported, and some of the magnates, notably the earl of Gloucester, arrived late; there were many quarrels, even desertions. Henry brought about 300 knights, many from the royal household. He also had his crusading treasure, approximately £20,000, which partly explains why this was his only successful overseas campaign. He was soon assisted by over 100 Poitevin knights recruited by the Lusignans. As ever, Henry's strategy was cautious. Fortunately potential enemies like the kings of France and Castile did not intervene. Bordeaux and Bayonne remained loyal, and the Dordogne valley was quickly secured. Only in the valley of the Garonne was there a serious resistance, needing a full year to overcome, albeit with a break in the winter. Bergerac was taken at the beginning of July 1254, La Réole in August, after which Henry could return to Bordeaux.

As usual Henry was generous with the aim of winning supporters. Gascons received pensions, concessions, and a new seneschal. Rebels who submitted were pardoned and restored to their lands. By February, Henry even offered to mediate between Simon de Montfort and Gaston de Béarn, but Gaston refused. Montfort, who had received overtures from the French, was enticed back to Henry at Benauges in October 1253 by a financial settlement which was not only generous in itself, but which even gave Montfort a claim on the revenues of several counties ahead of the royal exchequer. Alphonse of Poitiers's complaints received immediate compensation of £3000. Henry lavished grants on the Lusignans and others. Not surprisingly, by Christmas he was impoverished and had to borrow at Bordeaux before Queen Eleanor sent fresh supplies of money.

Essential to Henry's position in Gascony was peace with Alfonso of Castile. In February 1254 John Mansel and the Savoyard bishop of Hereford negotiated the marriage of Edward and Alfonso's half-sister Eleanor. Edward was in the same month put in possession of a huge appanage, including Gascony, Ireland, Chester, and the Channel Islands, nominally worth £10,000 p.a., but in fact worth £6000, while his future wife was offered a substantial dowry. Late in March, Henry heard rumours of a planned Castilian invasion, and wrote for assistance from England. Queen Eleanor had in February summoned a parliament for 26 April, its membership to include two knights from each shire and representatives of the parish clergy. Henry might have been voted a tax, albeit under most stringent conditions, had Montfort not returned with news that the emergency was over: on 31 March, Alfonso proposed peace, renouncing claims to Gascony in return for the marriage alliance and Henry's assistance in a crusade to north Africa, conditions only partly met. On 11 June, Eleanor, well recovered from giving birth to Princess Katherine on 25 November 1253, arrived at Bordeaux, accompanied by Edward, Edmund, and the archbishop of Canterbury. Richard of Cornwall tactfully remained in England. Edward, with a fairly modest retinue, was sent to Burgos. To Henry's disappointment, since he had planned a grand ceremony for him in England, Edward was to be knighted by Alfonso. The marriage took place on 1 November in the abbey of Las Huelgas. Three weeks later Edward and his consort returned, but Henry did not see them for nearly a year, for Edward remained in Gascony as ruler until the following summer.

As he waited for La Réole to fall in 1254, Henry dabbled in further and grander schemes. On 12 February 1254, now that Richard of Cornwall and Charles of Anjou had withdrawn their candidatures, he sent proctors to receive the crown of Sicily for Edmund from the pope. Confirmation from Innocent IV was received in May. In March he had prepared to dedicate Westminster Abbey in October 1255 before he departed for the Holy Land. Now he hoped to crusade from Sicily.

After three months (August–October) in Bordeaux settling Gascony, Henry set off home. He requested permission from Louis IX to cross France, partly because he disliked the long sea-crossing, but principally so that he could befriend Louis, thereby ensuring the security of Edward and Gascony when he departed on crusade. He is also said to have admired this recently returned crusader, and wished to meet him. Accompanied by Eleanor, Edmund, Archbishop Boniface, William de Valence, and others, Henry progressed through Poitou and Anjou in November. He reached Fontevrault on the 15th where with typical filial piety (which also pleased the Lusignans) he ordered his mother's tomb to be moved inside the abbey. He then made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Edmund at Pontigny. At Chartres he admired the cathedral with a connoisseur's eye and finally met King Louis. He paid a week-long state visit to Paris at the start of December, staying first at the Old Temple and then at the royal palace. Henry was reputedly eager to see all the city's churches and buildings, especially Louis's Sainte Chapelle. He won admiration from the Parisians for feeding crowds of poor at the Old Temple, for his spectacular state banquet for Louis and the king of Navarre, and for gifts to the French nobility. The occasion cemented the links between the two kings created by their marriages. Queens Marguerite and Eleanor, and Beatrice of Provence and her daughter, Beatrice, attended; Sanchia of Cornwall travelled over to complete the family party. Henry and Louis established a lasting understanding which set in motion an eventual peace-settlement. At the same time the presence of Thomas of Savoy, putative captain of Henry's expeditionary force, probably meant that Louis gave his blessing to the Sicilian plan. Henry had hoped to spend Christmas in England, but was delayed at Boulogne by bad weather. But he was able to cross on the 27th, and by 5 January, the feast of St Edward, he was back at Westminster. A few months later Louis sent him the impressive present of an elephant, the first seen in England, which was kept in his menagerie at the Tower.
The growth of political opposition, 1255–1258
Henry returned from Gascony in debt, having spent his crusader's gold treasure and incurred obligations to Edward, the Savoyards, the Lusignans, and Simon de Montfort, in vain efforts to calm tensions within the royal family. His finances were in disarray. His resources were shrinking: indulgence towards too many of his family in a period when escheats and great wardships were scarce reduced his supply of patronage; the English Jews, formerly such a good source of revenue, were drained dry, and in 1255 Henry made them over to Richard of Cornwall; the market for sales of liberties was shrinking. Yet he made no economies, and did not try to call in long-standing debts from the magnates. Instead he tried to live of his own, further intensifying the pressure on the localities (which served to increase the corruption of his officials) and resorting to occasional levies like tallages, for instance one of £2000 on London in February 1255. He also borrowed from his family: in the same month Richard of Cornwall advanced £5000 for his household expenses. As he sank further out of his depth in the Sicilian project, Henry's increasing dependence on his family and leading courtiers had the effect of making him ever more indulgent towards them, ignoring their arbitrary behaviour and permitting them a whole host of liberties, while simultaneously reducing his capacity to respond to the grievances which his exactions and their misconduct provoked. Thus the fuse was lit for the 1258 explosion.

Henry hardly changed policy. He again collected gold for the crusade, and by 1257 had £4000. In April 1255 his request to a large parliament of prelates and magnates, and perhaps wider representation, for help in settling his debts was refused. There were demands for three great officials responsible to parliament, perhaps signalling discontent in the localities, but Henry was still able to refuse. His trump card was the crusade and Sicily, which he thought the clergy and magnates could not obstruct. In April, using crusading funds, he bought up Frederick II's pawned crown jewels. An extension of the truce with Louis IX was negotiated in June. Pope Alexander IV, desperate for Henry's aid against the Hohenstaufen, committed himself to Edmund, and in May permitted Henry to substitute the Sicilian scheme for his crusading vow. In October the deal with Pope Alexander, which Henry and his council had already accepted, was published in parliament. Henry's undertaking to pay the papacy 135,000 marks by Michaelmas 1256, on pain of excommunication, and his vision of leading an army overland to Sicily through France, alike met with a frosty reception. Yet there was no effective opposition, and Edmund was invested as king of Sicily by the bishop of Bologna.

Many English ecclesiastics did not regard Sicily as a worthy destination for a crusade, illustrating the ambivalence of Henry's relations with the church. Unlike John, he was himself conspicuously pious. He and his wife were personally interested in ecclesiastical reform and gave generous support to friars and poor scholars. He was also grateful for the support of the papacy and its legates during his minority. But royal policy inevitably brought clashes with sections of the church. The potential grounds for disagreement were numerous. The English church expected the king to protect it against papal taxation and papal provisions to benefices (hence the riots of 1231–2 against the latter), but Henry found it difficult to do this and retain the pope's support. The first clause of Magna Carta declared that the church was to be free, but the king always needed to be able to reward his servants with bishoprics and to maintain his regalian rights over vacant sees; he also needed to be able to tax the clergy. From the 1240s, moreover, royal lawyers had a reputation for challenging ecclesiastical liberties, which made him many enemies and especially among the monks—this is reflected in the hostile image of Henry's rule projected in the writings of Matthew Paris of St Albans. Henry usually had his way, though not without occasional confrontations, but he was much more hesitant in imposing his will than his predecessors had been. The fact that he ruled in a period of ecclesiastical reform, personified by bishops like Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln, in which the church aspired to greater independence and higher standards, was a further cause of friction. Although Henry usually retained the backing of the papacy, ecclesiastics formed some of his most implacable—and also articulate—opponents in the 1260s.

During 1256 Henry remained committed to the crusade. He added his Dominican confessor, John of Darlington, to his council, and considered an expedition to north Africa with Alfonso of Castile; his order in April that landholders with estates worth £15 p.a. should take up knighthood or pay a fine, which deepened his unpopularity among the gentry, was probably designed to swell his campaigning fund. But the parliament which met at the end of April was unco-operative, and magnates who lacked confidence in his generalship tried to dissuade him from going. Ever optimistic—his querulously ineffective speech at the exchequer in October, ordering all sheriffs and bailiffs to account regularly in person, perfectly encapsulates his overconfidence at this time—Henry countered with another plan, to install Richard of Cornwall on the throne of Germany. After months of negotiations, the archbishop of Cologne came to Westminster at Christmas, and announced Richard's election to the crown of Germany. Encouraged by Henry and the Lusignans, Richard accepted. Henry could now impress magnates with his royal relations.

Within months Henry's plans collapsed. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, master of Gwynedd after the battle of Bryn Derwin (June 1255), launched a widespread Welsh revolt in November 1256 and overran the Four Cantrefs. Meanwhile, Richard's election backfired: Alfonso of Castile was a rival candidate, and again threatened Gascony. An Anglo-German alliance alarmed Louis IX, and Henry had to begin negotiations to detach him from Alfonso. Above all, Henry's crusading hopes floundered, following the defeat and capture of Thomas of Savoy in Italy. The lack of enthusiasm of the English magnates proved decisive. In January 1257 Henry was refused aid by an assembly of Cistercian abbots, while in March, Richard of Cornwall's election as German emperor was greeted with dismay by parliament because of his reputation for moderate counsel and for keeping Henry solvent (in February the latter had planned to accompany Richard to his coronation). When Henry and the bishop of Messina theatrically presented Edmund in Apulian dress and again requested taxation, there was uproar. Magnates and prelates composed a dossier of objections exposing the expedition's impracticality and complaining of lack of consultation; the clergy made the gesture of conditionally offering £52,000 to pay Henry's debts to the pope, but also began to organize opposition. Henry started to capitulate, and asked the pope for an extension of his terms.

Richard was crowned at Aachen on 17 May. Before his departure Henry's council, hoping to counteract opposition, took a new oath of good conduct which was envisaged as embracing other officials of central and local government and generating reform. On 10 April, desperate to keep his household solvent, Henry ordered that payment of fees should cease; the treasurer could disregard even Henry's personal orders to the contrary. These schemes were ineffective, but they helped inspire the reforming ideas of the following year. Meanwhile, Henry mourned the death on 3 May of his sickly three-year-old daughter, Katherine. Eleanor fell ill with grief at Windsor, and Henry suffered a long fever at Westminster. Katherine received a lavish funeral and monument in the abbey.

There were further disappointments in Wales. The disastrous defeat of Stephen Bauzan in the Tywi valley in June led to an escalation of the Welsh revolt. Very belatedly a two-pronged English riposte was prepared, but although the earl of Gloucester made headway in the south, Henry himself, operating from Chester, made little progress, and on 4 September, already fearing the onset of winter, he called off the campaign. It seems he was already in financial trouble. A better-prepared attack was planned for May 1258. In the meantime north Wales was left entirely in Llywelyn's hands, while in Scotland the magnates threw off the English tutelage established two years earlier and made a treaty with Llywelyn. The Londoners complained to the king's face of Henry's over-valued and impractical gold coinage, introduced in August 1257, while Archbishop Boniface ignored a royal ban and convened the first English convocation of prelates and lower clergy, which remonstrated against royal and papal exactions. Hopes of a settlement with Louis IX, including the return of Angevin territories, came to nothing.

Henry's wayward policies in the years 1254–8, like the problems of the close of the minority, can be explained by the breakdown of his court into factions. The Lusignan ascendancy, which began after the Gascon emergency which Henry believed they had helped him resolve, stung Eleanor and the Savoyards into action. They opposed this challenge to their long monopoly over Henry: Edmund's candidature for Sicily, and Henry's rapprochement with Louis IX, represented their bid to reassert themselves. By 1257 its perceived failure played into the hands of the Lusignans. They were celebrated warriors, and may well have encouraged Henry and Edward to reassert Angevin claims against the Capetians. After Richard of Cornwall's departure Henry found it difficult to hold the balance between factions, especially as he needed loans from the Lusignans, who were the principal beneficiaries of his order of about November 1256, forbidding writs in chancery against favourites. They quarrelled with Simon de Montfort and the earls of Gloucester, Norfolk, and Hereford, and were unpopular with courtiers who generally co-operated with the moderate Savoyards, not least because their claims on royal patronage were often thwarted by Henry's generosity to his half-brothers. The Lusignans' harsh estate officials, too, were hated. Their arrogance only intensified with the Welsh emergency, which made them indispensable. Most importantly, perhaps, late in 1257 they forged an alliance with the Lord Edward, who had hitherto been nurtured exclusively by Savoyards but now, anxious to assert his political independence, blamed Eleanor and the king's older councillors for Henry's inability to contain Llywelyn. He began to borrow from the Lusignans, completing the ascendancy of the latter in a new alignment which precipitated the 1258 revolution.
Crisis, 1258
Against a background of harvest failure and famine, defeat in Wales, and worsening relations with the church over his debt to the pope, Henry summoned a parliament to Westminster for early April 1258. But his hopes of financial relief were disappointed when the magnates split into factions, a development precipitated by Aymer de Lusignan's attack of 1 April on John fitz Geoffrey, a veteran royal servant and confidant of the queen, at Shere in Surrey. When John demanded justice, Henry refused. On the 12th, probably with the queen's blessing, a group of magnates led by Peter of Savoy, Simon de Montfort, and the earls of Gloucester and Norfolk swore to support one another against the Lusignans; on the 28th, finally provoked into action by Henry's request for aid against Llywelyn, they stormed into the palace, armed, with an ultimatum.

Faced with opposition within his own court, Henry capitulated, and on 2 May swore to accept a committee of twenty-four to reform the realm by Christmas, in return for a vague promise that the magnates would request taxation from the community of the realm, provided in turn that Alexander IV improved the terms for the Sicilian business. The twenty-four would settle Henry's debts and outstanding claims for patronage, and war against Llywelyn was to continue. This compromise was doomed to failure. Entitled to nominate half the committee, Henry mainly chose Lusignans and their adherents, but was so isolated that he could not find twelve suitable men. Another parliament was fixed for June, but in the meantime Henry's objections to peace with Louis IX were at last overruled, and on 8 May emissaries who included Simon de Montfort, Peter of Savoy, and—in a futile attempt to delay matters—the Lusignans began negotiating the renunciation of Normandy; they quickly drew up articles for peace.

Parliament reconvened at Oxford about 11 June, while a large assembly of knights mustered for a land and sea campaign in Wales. However the Lusignans' enemies had worked on Henry to negotiate with Llywelyn, whose emissaries were therefore present. Against a background of disputes over patronage, the magnates realized that the Lusignans must be removed. Since Henry and Edward had foiled their previous attempt in April, they canvassed the support of the ‘community of the realm’, promising a general reform which would embrace the localities and making the Lusignans scapegoats for Henry's misrule. A collection of grievances, the ‘petition of the barons’, was drawn up, and a common oath taken in the Dominican church against ‘mortal enemies’. Henry III's rule disintegrated, as the magnates resurrected the justiciarship, appointing Hugh Bigod to bring justice to high and low, while the war against Llywelyn was abandoned. On 22 June, Henry consigned the principal royal castles to magnate-appointed castellans, and on the same day four electors chose fifteen magnates, mostly courtiers, to form a royal council. The transfer of power from Henry to that council was quickly enacted under the so-called provisions of Oxford. About 28 June, in a foolhardy gesture of defiance, the Lusignans and the Lord Edward fled from Oxford to Aymer de Lusignan's castle at Winchester. The magnates pursued them and their resistance collapsed. Edward took his oath to the provisions on 10 July, and four days later the Lusignans left the realm, completing Henry's defeat.
The rise and fall of the magnate regime, 1258–1262
The new regime lasted three years. Although Henry complained in 1261 that he had hated his initial demotion he was slow to act, even when the magnate council fell into disarray, perhaps because he feared civil war—unlike his father in 1215. He was kept in honour and comfort, his beloved palaces and building projects well maintained. The council, by contrast, quickly consolidated its authority to prevent the Lusignans' return, and dominated the thrice-yearly parliaments, undermining the king's position. By 4 August four knights from each county had been ordered to collect grievances against officials, royal and seigneurial, and report to parliament by October. In addition the new justiciar toured some half-dozen counties, hearing complaints against officials and gaining much popularity. Envoys finalized a truce with Llywelyn and restored relations with the Scottish council; papal support was sought for the provisions, for renegotiating the Sicilian business, and for the deposition of Aymer de Lusignan from Winchester. When parliament met in October, Henry endorsed the council's actions and ordered all his subjects to swear obedience to its statutes. A further ordinance denounced the misdeeds of sheriffs and promised improvements. These proclamations went out in Latin, French, and English, a novelty and also effective propaganda. Baronial retainers were installed as treasurer and as a co-steward of the king's household. In November, Simon de Montfort's attempts to dominate the Anglo-French negotiations at Cambrai were foiled only because Louis IX refused to recognize Simon's emissaries.

During these months Henry was isolated. As Matthew Paris noted, he was acutely afraid of Montfort. Between July and October 1258 he accompanied the justiciar, but thereafter Bigod acted independently, and Henry retreated into religion. On 30 September he attended the dedication of Salisbury Cathedral; and in November and December, still mourning Katherine, paid visits successively to St Albans, Bury St Edmunds, and Waltham abbeys. Richard of Cornwall's return from Germany in January 1259 may have aroused Henry's hopes of reinstating the Lusignans, but it seems he was too impoverished to help his brother and immediately took the oath to the provisions.

It is a measure of Henry's persisting weakness that for much of 1259 he was almost entirely inactive, even though serious divisions opened up within the baronial regime, over the pace of reform and also over the Anglo-French peace negotiations. But the council was still strong enough in August to foil his attempt to admit a papal nuncio, sent to demand Aymer de Lusignan's restoration to Winchester—a rare gesture of royal independence, and a futile one. Nor could Henry prevent a rapprochement between Montfort and the Lord Edward, both of whom objected to the renunciations proposed in the negotiations with France. In October, following a protest against the council by the ‘community of the bachelors of England’, the provisions of Westminster enacted long-awaited reforms in law and government, and decreed a well-planned general eyre to hear complaints against royal and seigneurial officials. Nevertheless, at the same time the council retreated from the provisions of Oxford by allowing newly appointed sheriffs to farm their offices.

Only in November did Henry begin to recover some freedom of manoeuvre, when with Eleanor, Peter of Savoy, the earl of Gloucester, and some of the council he crossed to France to conclude the treaty with Louis, leaving Bigod and the remaining councillors in charge of the realm. By 26 November the party had reached Paris, to be warmly entertained by Louis and his queen. It was later said that because Henry tried to hear mass in every Parisian church he passed, Louis jocularly had them all closed to prevent him delaying business. On 4 December peace was proclaimed. Henry formally surrendered all the lost Angevin territory and received Gascony as a vassal with border concessions and a pledge to finance 500 knights for two years, probably for a crusade. In the apple orchard of Louis's palace Henry knelt, swore homage, and became a peer of France, with the title duke of Aquitaine. Although Louis reserved 15,000 marks due under the treaty until the claims of the Montforts had been met, the latter had lost their leverage. Montfort offensively deserted Henry later in December, to join Edward in plots against their enemies on the council.

After Christmas in Paris, Henry delayed another four months in France. He spent much of January 1260 in religious exercises at St Denis. He was much affected by the sudden death of Prince Louis, the French king's heir, and on 14 January acted as a pall bearer at his funeral at Royaumont. On the 22nd Louis and his queen reciprocated by attending the marriage at St Denis of Henry's daughter Beatrice to Jean, son of the duke of Brittany. Shortly afterwards, news came that Llywelyn had broken the truce and was now besieging Builth Castle. Instead of returning home Henry moved to St Omer, on the coast, for another three months. In vivid letters to the justiciar and council he explained his delay as resulting from further diplomatic negotiations; then went down with tertian fever in March and was visited by Louis IX during Holy Week. His delay cannot be seen as a deliberate tactic to postpone parliament, in defiance of the provisions. Rather Henry was controlled by faction. The queen and the earl of Gloucester sought time to raise mercenaries to crush Edward and Montfort's rebellion: the latter plotted to manipulate parliament, depose Peter of Savoy from the council, and restore the Lusignans. Late in March, Gloucester returned and both sides mustered around London where Henry summoned a handpicked armed parliament. It was rumoured that Edward planned to dethrone his father. Richard of Cornwall and the justiciar intervened to prevent this, with little fighting. Financed by a loan from Louis, 100 mercenaries escorted Henry and Eleanor home.

Henry landed at Dover on 23 April and entered London on the 30th. The rebellion largely collapsed. Some of Montfort's associates were removed from their castles and posts in the royal household, but Henry did not overthrow the provisions, and early in May he was reconciled to Edward by Richard of Cornwall and the archbishop of Canterbury. Moderation was necessary because Henry lacked the money to keep his mercenaries beyond July. Edward and Montfort had much support, partly because the treaty of Paris was widely unpopular. Their alliance lasted another year. On 5 June, perhaps acting on Gloucester's advice to bid for wider support, Henry cancelled the general eyre. Then, urged on by Eleanor and Gloucester, he arranged a public investigation of Montfort's recent actions before parliament in July. This was aborted after Builth Castle fell to Llywelyn. However, Gloucester prevented war by engineering a truce, waiving Llywelyn's proffered payment for a settlement, a disgraceful arrangement which Henry refused to ratify for several months.

Montfort and Edward were still working together in parliament in October, and were able to establish a grip on government, their supporters being elected to the great offices, so that even Gloucester came to terms. They prevented the revival of Montfort's trial, menacing the king's proctors, but at the same time the provisions were modified, so that no new sheriffs were appointed and the magnates were licensed to discipline their own officials. Henry knighted the duke of Brittany's son Jean, but he too defected to Edward, and the two young men departed with two of Montfort's sons for tournaments in France. A newly elected council remained in session until the end of the year and began to undermine the position of Peter of Savoy. Henry's only consolation for his continuing powerlessness was the visit at the end of October of his daughter Margaret, who was now pregnant, with her husband Alexander III of Scots. In December, Henry learned to his grief that Aymer de Lusignan had died at Paris, still plotting to return.

Aymer's death allowed Eleanor and Peter of Savoy to persuade Henry during Christmas at Windsor to move against the provisions. In January 1261 John Mansel's nephew and namesake, one of Eleanor's closest confidants, was sent to Rome to secure papal annulment of Henry's oath to the provisions. Help was also requested from Louis IX. But Henry's mood was far from confident and on 9 February, in an apparent moment of panic, he dashed into the Tower of London. He proceeded to bid for baronial support while exploiting Eleanor's contacts to recruit mercenaries in Flanders. He also compiled a manifesto of grievances while pretending to support the provisions. During the parliament of February–March he negotiated from the Tower until on 14 March the council, unwilling to risk civil war, agreed to an arbitration over his grievances while the Montforts undertook to appeal to Louis IX over their disputes with the king. Although arbitration failed late in April, Henry could now present himself as a moderate. Early in May he sallied from the Tower, catching his opponents off guard, and seized Dover Castle and the Cinque Ports. This enabled papal bulls to be landed, and also about a hundred mercenary knights whom Henry retained until August. Late in May he moved to Winchester where about 12 June he published the papal annulment of the provisions and then appointed his own supporters as justiciar and chancellor. Soon afterwards he named new sheriffs and castellans as well.

The result was confusion and disorder, as Gloucester, Montfort, and their followers appealed to Louis IX and the pope, and also tried to appoint sheriffs of their own in several counties. There was also something of a propaganda war. On 16 August, Henry issued a general manifesto, stressing the peaceful benefits of his long reign, and promising to deliver the shires from magnate domination, and followed this up in October, by summoning all who owed military service to London and requesting help from ‘friends’ abroad. But by the start of November, before foreign assistance could arrive, the opposition collapsed. Gloucester and his supporters came to negotiate at Kingston, and on 28 November terms were finalized, with a compromise over shrievalties and agreement that points of variance would be adjudicated by a committee from both sides, with Richard of Cornwall mediating in the event of disagreement, and the possibility of a final appeal to Louis IX. Henry left the Tower, where he had been since October, and was back at Westminster for Christmas. Full pardons were offered to all sealing this ‘treaty of Kingston’. Early in 1262 its benefits to Henry matured. Richard of Cornwall's arbitration was invoked in February; by the end of May he inevitably awarded Henry full power to appoint sheriffs. In March the new pope, Urban IV, confirmed his predecessor's annulment of the provisions, whereupon Henry revived the profitable general eyre. His victory seemed so complete that Richard of Cornwall returned to Germany in June, while Henry himself visited France in July.
Recovery and relapse, 1262–1264
Henry owed his victory in 1261 principally to the advice of Eleanor, Peter of Savoy, and Richard of Cornwall, along with his old ministers John Mansel and Robert Waleran. He had avoided war and appeased opponents with arbitrations and grants, even allowing earls to retain some castles gained in 1258–61. He kept the justiciarship, the more willingly because Philip Basset, its new holder, was Richard of Cornwall's retainer, and unlikely to be independent. The magnates, remembering John's reign, were reluctant to cause civil war, and soon lost any chance of a legitimate figurehead when Edward returned from France and was won over by Eleanor late in May; in August he departed for Gascony. Eleanor even allowed Henry to recall William de Valence and the remaining Lusignans in April. Montfort was often abroad, pleading his disputes with Henry before Louis IX, and Gloucester, now a sick man, had less military ability. The majority of the barons, tired of instability, supported Henry's recovery of power as they had after 1234. His sheriffs, often loyalist local barons, held their offices under advantageous financial terms. The famine of the late 1250s was over and the shires gave little trouble, while Henry was careful not to abandon London to his opponents. The provisions also lacked international support. Henry craftily ratified the truce with Llywelyn in March. Louis IX's subsidies underpinned his success. With the pope and the kings of Scots and Germany also supporting him, Henry's coup in 1261 constituted his greatest political triumph.

Over the next two years, however, Henry made several miscalculations. In May 1262 he ordered his absolution from observing the provisions to be proclaimed in the shires and commanded the arrest of all preaching against him. For a while he even revived the Sicilian business, only for Urban IV to revoke it in July 1263. He also blundered into disastrous quarrels which further divided his court by mishandling his patronage. Early in 1262 Queen Eleanor secured the disgrace of Roger of Leybourne and other leading knights of Edward's household, sowing trouble for the future. In July the earl of Gloucester died, and Henry hamfistedly delayed admitting his son, Gilbert de Clare, to his inheritance, even though Clare was supported by William de Valence. In November he wooed Valence from Gilbert by granting him part of the latter's lands consequently driving the new earl of Gloucester into rebellion in 1263.

Most importantly Henry failed to reconcile Montfort. On 14 July 1262, in a remarkable gesture, he sailed with Eleanor from Dover, leaving the justiciar in charge, to resolve differences with Montfort through the queen of France's adjudication. Anticipating victory, Henry raked up every grudge since the start of Montfort's career, but when proceedings began in Paris in August they proved inconclusive. In September, moreover, Louis's court was hit by an epidemic, killing about sixty of Henry's entourage. Henry himself nearly died. On 30 September he wrote to Richard of Cornwall that he was still so weak that he could only leave his bed for short walks. He sent reassuring messages concerning his condition, but on 8 October also warned the justiciar that the arbitration had failed and that Montfort might cause trouble. It would appear that in October, Montfort did indeed return briefly to England, where he attempted to persuade parliament to observe the provisions. But still enfeebled, Henry delayed in France, travelling on pilgrimage to Rheims in November despite news of a new Welsh insurrection. Only on 20 December did he return to England. After Christmas at Canterbury, he was back at Westminster early in January.

Henry lay ill at Westminster for three months. Part of his palace was destroyed by fire in January, to his distress. In January he republished the provisions of Westminster, with additions, ‘of the mere and free will of the king and in his full and free power’ (CPR, 1258–66, 253). At the same time he wrote to Louis IX urging another effort to conciliate Montfort; on 22 February, Louis reported his failure. On 22 March, Henry ordered all to swear to maintain Edward as his heir. Tewkesbury monks mistook this to mean that Henry had died. Disorder followed, fanned by rumours about a succession struggle.

About 25 April, Montfort finally returned to England to co-ordinate an uprising around Leybourne and the other knights who had been ousted from Edward's retinue in favour of foreign mercenaries. The conspirators met Montfort at Oxford where they were joined by the earl of Gloucester, Richard of Cornwall's son Henry, and other malcontents, forming a narrow, but powerful, coalition which rallied around renewed oaths to the provisions of Oxford, and gained popularity by denouncing aliens. At the same time Henry, responding to Edward's initiatives, attempted to rally support through efforts to relieve Llywelyn's pressure on the Welsh marchers. Edward began an alliance with Roger Mortimer, and on 25 May Henry summoned the feudal host to Worcester. This was foiled by the opposition's sharp campaign of violence directed primarily against Eleanor, her kinsmen and associates, and against Edward; rebels imprisoned the bishop of Hereford, and ravaged the estates of Peter of Savoy and the archbishop of Canterbury. Outmanoeuvred and short of money, Henry retreated to the Tower on 19 June, whereupon Montfort dashed from the midlands and secured the Cinque Ports, cutting off the possibility of help from Louis IX. By 12 July, moreover, Montfort had secured the support of the Londoners, after a radical faction overthrew the city oligarchy. Henry vainly offered concessions, perhaps advised by Richard of Cornwall. Edward raided the New Temple and retreated with mercenaries to Windsor; other courtiers and aliens fled abroad. Eleanor, who had lost faith in Henry, attempted to leave the Tower to join Edward on 13 July, but was driven back with insults by the London mob. Two days later the rebels entered the city, and on the 16th, bottled up in the Tower, Henry had to accept their terms: restoration of the provisions, all offices and castles consigned to natives, and the banishment of all aliens except for those specifically excepted. Then, joined by Eleanor, he returned to Westminster.

Baronial nominees took control of government both at the centre and in the shires, but the new regime had little baronial and only modest knightly support; its main supporters were the clergy. It was quick to make a truce with Llywelyn, and even offered him peace in August, but it had no programme of reform and soon disintegrated. Montfort, acting as hereditary steward of England, alienated his allies by granting offices principally to his personal supporters, and by failing to implement the promise to restore plundered estates which he made to parliament early in September. He even allowed Henry to appeal to Louis IX in person, possibly a tactic suggested by Eleanor.

On 23 September, therefore, Henry, Eleanor, and their two sons crossed to Boulogne, along with Montfort and his supporters, for Louis's adjudication, promising to return immediately. Perhaps Henry muddled his case, for Louis surprisingly endorsed the July settlement, provided that the despoiled received restitution. Eleanor and Prince Edmund broke their oath and remained in France, plotting revenge, but Henry and Edward returned to Westminster for parliament in October. Amid recriminations over restitutions and Henry's demands to appoint his own officials, Montfort's regime collapsed, allowing Edward to take the initiative. From this point a strong ‘royalist’ party began to crystallize. Henry became increasingly dependent on Edward's advice and military skills, and consequently became ever more intransigent towards the Montfortians. Regardless of his mother's feelings, Edward was reconciled to Leybourne and the other knights expelled from his household eighteen months earlier, and on about 16 October he seized Windsor Castle, where Henry joined him. Most of Montfort's baronial supporters deserted him, forcing him to accept a truce negotiated on 1 November by Richard of Cornwall: Henry would maintain the provisions, pending Louis IX's further arbitration. Nevertheless, Henry marched on Oxford soon afterwards and there dismissed the ‘baronial’ treasurer and chancellor. Winchester Castle too was recovered and early in December, Henry attempted to seize Dover. Montfort himself was nearly cornered at Southwark, but was rescued by the Londoners. Across the channel Queen Eleanor raised support. On 22 November, Urban IV appointed Gui Foulquois as legate with instructions to restore the king's authority.

By now Montfort's supporters had woven together a persuasive propaganda case against Henry, portraying him as no longer fit to rule without the supervision of a council: he had consistently attempted to put himself above the law and had broken his oaths to the charters and to the provisions (it is from this period that the provisions of Westminster, which were acceptable to Henry, begin to be confused with those of Oxford, which were not); he had initiated disastrous and unpopular policies like the Sicilian project; he had violated the liberties of the church; he had abused the crusade; he had filled his court with aliens and squandered his resources; he had allowed the oppressions of his officials and his favourites in the provinces to go uncorrected. Henry answered his critics with a general proclamation reiterating his commitment to the provisions and promising to defend his people's liberties; he denied that he was planning to bring aliens into the country, as was widely preached.

On 28 December, Henry crossed to France and met baronial emissaries before Louis IX at Amiens. Both sides presented elaborate depositions setting out their claims. This time Louis's award, or ‘mise’, quashed the provisions entirely, asserting Henry's right to appoint ministers at will. Eleanor's diplomacy, papal support, irrefutable evidence that most of the magnates supported Henry, Louis's outrage over Montfortian attacks on royalist clergy, all prevailed. Montfort's absence after a riding accident could not have affected the outcome. The die seemed cast for Henry's victory.
War and peace, 1264–1267
That no easy victory ensued is explained by Henry's blunders in 1264 and Montfort's brilliant generalship. No sooner had Louis's award been published than Montfort gave the signal for rebellion, sending his sons early in February 1264 to attack enemies on the Welsh marches, probably with Llywelyn's connivance. Edward left France and managed to relieve Gloucester. Henry returned to England on 14 February, and within three weeks summoned an army. He had finally plucked up the courage to inaugurate the second civil war of his reign. He set up his headquarters at Oxford, but remained characteristically static during Lent (8 March to 3 April), though he rejected Montfort's offers to accept the mise of Amiens, provided that Henry only appoint natives to office: he again refused restraints on his prerogative. Meanwhile, the earls of Derby and Gloucester, who both hated Edward, rallied to Montfort, along with a group of younger barons, many of them formerly exploited as royal wards, to form the core of a narrowly based but still powerful rebellion.

Henry hoped to divide his enemies in the midlands. Ignoring attacks on royalists in the London area, he sallied north, and after making offerings in Oxford (thereby uncharacteristically defying the curse associated with St Frideswide on kings who entered the town) on 5 April he surprised and captured the castle and town of Northampton with its large rebel garrison, including Simon de Montfort the younger, which nearly won him victory at a stroke. These clever tactics should almost certainly be attributed to Richard and Edward. The capture of Nottingham and Leicester followed. In the meantime Montfort had besieged Rochester, whereupon Henry immediately swept south in a series of forced marches, even more uncharacteristically setting out on Easter day. He failed to surprise Montfort but relieved Rochester and captured Gloucester's castle at Tonbridge. Rebels in the Weald attempted an ambush: Henry, acting with unwonted brutality on Richard of Cornwall's advice, had 315 peasant archers beheaded in his presence at Ticehurst on 2 May, echoing the treatment of the garrison of Bedford in 1224. He reduced the Cinque Ports, and prepared to blockade London. Forced to evacuate the capital, Montfort moved south to offer battle. Alarmed, Henry began to wear armour every day. He reached Lewes by 11 May, and lodged in comfort at St Pancras's priory rather than in John de Warenne's castle. Montfort closed in and, for two days, offered terms: a diluted form of the provisions, mainly that Henry rule through Englishmen, and £30,000 damages for royalists. Henry might have accepted, rather than risk battle, but he was overruled by Edward and Richard, who refused any compromise. On the 13th the Montfortians finally renounced their allegiance.

The battle of Lewes, on 14 May, was a disaster for Henry. Although greatly outnumbered, Montfort routed him in just a few hours. Henry's error was to advance up a sharp hill along a broad front in three columns. His control over his army, often insecure, quickly broke down. Edward scattered the lightly armed London infantry, but his undisciplined pursuit left Richard, in the centre, and Henry, on the left, exposed to Montfort's charges. In fierce fighting Henry was much beaten by swords and lances and two horses were killed under him. Richard fled to a windmill; Henry's bodyguard got him back to Lewes Priory. When Edward reappeared everything was over; part of his force fled to the coast and he too retreated to the priory. Although they could have offered further resistance, the next day the royalists accepted Montfort's ‘mise of Lewes’: restoration of the provisions with contentious clauses renegotiated (terms Montfort failed to honour) and release for the marchers in Henry's entourage. Henry pointedly surrendered to Gloucester; Edward and Henry of Almain became hostages.

After nearly fifty years on the throne, Henry retained only ‘the shadow of a name’ (Flores historiarum, 2.505). He was now eclipsed by Simon de Montfort. Nominally he was supervised by a council of nine, but these and his household officers were Montfort's appointees, and he remained mainly with his captor, in relative comfort, but humiliated by having to endorse Montfort's acts. He consoled himself by repeatedly hearing the mass of Edward the Confessor. Delayed by negotiations conducted through the papal legate, Eleanor missed her chance to invade England with a mercenary army, and confined herself to securing Gascony for her husband.

Montfort's government failed to secure general acceptance. The writ summoning his ‘model parliament’ of Hilary 1265, with its ‘novel’ representation of knights and burgesses, reveals that he could count on only a handful of magnates, although over a hundred bishops and abbots were summoned. His regime was compromised by its collaboration with Llywelyn of Wales, which the marchers would never accept. Instead Montfort sought security by hiring a huge retinue of knights. While Henry spent a grim Christmas at Woodstock, Montfort feasted in splendour at Kenilworth. But his ever more exacting rule alienated his leading supporters. In February he quarrelled with Derby and ordered his arrest. Shortly afterwards Gloucester went into opposition, and on 28 May engineered Edward's escape from Hereford. Rebellion broke out in the Welsh marches, and Montfort marched west to suppress it, but was cornered by the royalists led by Edward, and routed and slain at Evesham on 4 August. Dragged along in the earl's entourage, Henry could not escape involvement in the battle. Dressed in a suit of Montfort's armour, he was wounded in the shoulder and would have perished had he not shouted, ‘I am Henry of Winchester your king, do not kill me’ (Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, 200–02). Roger of Leybourne rescued him. Had Montfort won, Henry could not have long escaped deposition and death.

It is unlikely that Henry ordered the slaughter of the Montfortians that accompanied the battle of Evesham, or the mutilation of Simon's body; some say he ordered it an honourable burial. His own instincts were conciliatory—witness his unusual concern even for the welfare of widows and orphans of his slain enemies—but his control over the triumphant royalists was weak, and his own family, especially Edward, wanted revenge. Consequently the civil war lasted another two years. After a few weeks' recuperation, Henry summoned parliament to Winchester in September. Already, royalists had seized Montfortian property. Henry belatedly took control of the situation when parliament met by seizing these lands into his own hands before distributing them to his supporters on the advice of his secretary Robert Waleran. Few joined Richard of Cornwall in dissenting. The estates of 254 rebels were officially granted to 71 favoured royalists, the lion's share going to members of Henry's family, household knights, and officials. Faced with ruin, hundreds took to guerrilla warfare.

Over the next two years the remaining pockets of rebellion were nevertheless relentlessly reduced, a process orchestrated mainly by Edward. Henry was happy to leave the work to him: it involved hard campaigning, not to his taste. Early in October he entered London, and on the 13th celebrated the feast of St Edward again at Westminster, wearing his crown in thanks for victory. The city's punishment included a fine of 20,000 marks. Then at the end of the month, Henry greeted Queen Eleanor at Canterbury, returning with her kinsman Cardinal Ottobuono Fieschi, the new papal legate. Henry celebrated by then and there creating his son Edmund earl of Leicester and steward of England, granting him all Simon de Montfort's lands. But he also treated his widowed sister, Countess Eleanor, with magnanimity, permitting her to evacuate Dover Castle and retire to a nunnery in France. Four Montfortian bishops were suspended and exiled.

The task of breaking down Montfortian resistance went slowly on, and late in June 1266 Henry himself commenced besieging Kenilworth Castle, the last rebel stronghold. It was not easily taken. Several blundering attacks were repulsed, and Henry soon opted for a blockade. Ultimately its resistance, along with a revolt based on the Isle of Ely, forced a reconsideration of policy. At the end of August, Henry empowered a committee of magnates and bishops to recommend peace measures. The result of their deliberations, the dictum of Kenilworth, with its unprecedented declaration of royal authority, was issued on 31 October. Total forfeiture was rejected in favour of redemption of estates at fixed terms, and many lesser rebels submitted. However, specified exemptions victimized leaders, and only appalling privation forced Kenilworth's surrender in mid-December.

Henry spent Christmas at Oxford. But in February 1267 he went to Bury St Edmunds for a campaign against the Isle of Ely. He was now so impoverished that he had to pawn even the jewels adorning St Edward's shrine at Westminster Abbey. Then in April, his campaign was interrupted by the earl of Gloucester. Indignant at being insufficiently rewarded for his services in the civil war, and determined to win better terms for disinherited rebels, he marched on London which rose in his support. He blockaded Ottobuono and another civil war looked possible, as Henry and Edward prepared to besiege London and Eleanor summoned Flemish mercenaries. Fortunately Gloucester's nerve failed, and after negotiations he submitted on 16 June, having obtained a vital concession. The dictum of Kenilworth was modified: rebels could recover their estates in order to raise the fines with which to redeem them; Ottobuono even promised financial assistance from the clergy. Henry re-entered London on 18 June and on 1 July the remaining rebels submitted. In August, Henry proceeded to the Welsh marches for negotiations with Llywelyn. Although it was Ottobuono who on 29 September concluded the treaty of Montgomery recognizing Llywelyn as prince of Wales (he had taken the title in 1258 against Henry's will), and confirming his recent gains in return for his homage and a yearly payment of 3000 marks, it embodied a compromise which showed that Henry had no further stomach for war. The Statute of Marlborough, issued on 18 November by a parliament possibly attended by representatives of the commons, reaffirmed the charters, the dictum, and, in a modified form, the provisions of Westminster. Thus the civil war ended on a note of moderation, in keeping with the best qualities of Henry's long reign.
The end of the reign, 1268–1272
Henry's last years were clouded by family tensions, illness, and bereavement. Most Montfortians quickly re-entered public life, and no tenurial revolution resulted from the civil war, but much discontent remained, exacerbated by debt. Royal officers were often as unpopular as ever, while public order was menaced by outlaws and magnate feuds. The royal finances were perilously weak; clerical taxation granted by the pope in 1266 barely paid off Henry's debts.

Henry's problems were compounded by Edward's decision in June 1268 to join Louis IX's new crusade. Early in 1269 his father gave him custody of London, seven royal castles, and eight shires, revenues he could hardly spare, to increase his income. Edward's crusade also forced Henry to appeal to parliament for taxation, a process which began in the autumn of 1268 and was not concluded until April 1270, when a grant of taxation was finally made. During the interval Henry bargained with his subjects in successive parliaments, and added to the strain on his finances by Edmund's marriage to Aveline, heir to the earldoms of Aumâle and Devon, and Henry of Almain's to Constance de Béarn, both in the spring of 1269. But as the year advanced his fortunes improved. In August, Richard of Cornwall returned with his new bride, Beatrix von Falkenburg. And two months later Henry realized his dearest dream, the translation of the body of St Edward to Westminster Abbey and the shrine in it that he had been constructing over many years, even during the recent troubles. Although the church was unfinished, Henry feared further postponement might rob him of his triumph; he may also have been moved by the consideration that the calendar of this year exactly matched that of the Confessor's first translation in 1163. On 13 October, Henry, princes Edward and Edmund, and Richard of Cornwall bore St Edward's relics on their shoulders to the shrine. The pomp was tarnished, however, by disputes over precedence between citizens of Winchester and London, and between the archbishops of Canterbury and York. Nor did Henry and Eleanor wear their coronation crowns, as originally planned, owing to last-minute misgivings.

Even so the ceremony was a splendid one, witnessed by knights, burgesses, and lesser clergy, but it did not sway the parliament which met at this time. Only on 27 April 1270 was the crusading twentieth finally approved by the laity in parliament, in return for confirmation of the charters and the excommunication of those who infringed them, while clerical opposition to the tax continued for several months. The full restoration of the liberties of London on 1 June may have been a necessary concession by the king.

On 4 August, Edward took leave of Henry at Winchester and departed on crusade. He left his children and affairs in the custody of councillors loyal to both Henry and himself, headed by Richard of Cornwall. Queen Eleanor was omitted, perhaps for fear of anti-alien sentiment. From now on, it is difficult to gauge what control Henry retained over government. He may already have been ill, hence his failure to mark the death of Louis IX in the autumn of 1270. He fell so ill in March 1271 that on the 7th Richard of Cornwall was appointed to protect the realm, and the council summoned Edward to return. Henry suddenly recovered in April, however, and himself vowed to go on crusade: on 16 April the council ordered severe economies, ostensibly to begin a crusading fund. But it is significant that early in 1272 it was ordered that revenues should be paid directly into the treasury in order to prevent Henry intercepting them, echoing the provisions of Oxford. Clearly his advisers had concluded he had learned no financial prudence from the barons' war. It seems that Henry's health was never really restored: he hardly moved from Westminster for the rest of his life and missed the funerals of his nephew Henry of Almain at Hailes on 21 May, and of his grandson John, Edward's five-year-old heir, in Westminster Abbey on 8 August. These bereavements, particularly Henry's murder by his cousins Guy and Simon de Montfort at Viterbo in March, must have deeply distressed him. Another blow was Richard of Cornwall's complete incapacitation by a stroke on 12 December; he died on 2 April following.

Henry was ill again at Winchester at Christmastide 1271, and could not depart until after Epiphany. In May 1272 he wrote to the new French king, Philippe III, excusing himself from performing homage in person for Aquitaine because of sickness. In August he rallied and reconsidered a visit to France, even raising loans for it. But he was prevented by a riot in Norwich during which the cathedral was burnt down; parliament met there in September and he punished the rioters harshly. Perhaps this strain hastened his end. After a final pilgrimage to Walsingham and Ely, Henry returned to Westminster in October for the feast of St Edward. On 4 November he ordered preparations for another Christmas at Winchester. He collapsed, and while London was convulsed with riots over a mayoral election, he died at Westminster on 16 November, aged just over sixty-five, having reigned fifty-six years and twenty days. It is likely, but not certain, that Queen Eleanor was with him at the last.

Henry had left his body to Westminster, but his heart to Fontevrault, showing that he remained an Angevin to the last. On 20 November his corpse was laid in the Confessor's old coffin, dressed in full regalia, and given a magnificent funeral attended by all the magnates, headed by the earls of Gloucester, Surrey, and Hereford. For some years a cult developed around his temporary tomb, near the high altar at Westminster. The Furness chronicle noted ‘frequent’ miracles in 1275, as did the Westminster-based Flores historiarum in 1276; the bishop of Bath and Wells issued indulgences to all visiting the tomb, as did other English, Irish, and French bishops until as late as 1287. The cult was supported from the start by Eleanor of Provence. In 1274 she hoped his miraculous power would save Edward I's mortally ill son Alfonso, but was disappointed. Edward himself was openly sceptical in 1281 when a knight claimed restoration of sight through Henry's merits, but Eleanor reproved him. Construction of a tomb with niches, typical of a shrine, and adorned with Italian Cosmati work, was probably under way when Edward purchased jasper from France for it in 1279. On 11 May 1290, shortly before Eleanor's death, Edward arranged for Henry's translation to the new tomb. It took place at night, with little ceremony. According to the Annals of London, Henry's body was intact with a luxuriant beard. Edward had hoped to upstage the developing cult of Louis IX by delaying the translation, but was disappointed: the cult of Henry III had lost its appeal. Not until 10 December 1291, after Eleanor's death, was Henry's heart surrendered to the nuns of Fontevrault, in a ceremony which took place without Edward I's presence. The heart may have survived the French Revolution, finally coming to the Ursuline convent at Edinburgh. Henry's majestic tomb, flanking Edward the Confessor's shrine, remains in Westminster Abbey, topped with his magnificent stylized crowned effigy in gilded bronze, completed by William Torel on Edward I's orders in 1291.
Henry III: appearance, personality, assessment
No contemporary description of Henry's appearance survives, suggesting that it was unremarkable. Nicholas Trevet, son of a royal justice, later recorded that Henry was of medium height and strong build, with a drooping eyelid covering part of the pupil. His health was sound until late middle age but deteriorated thereafter. His tomb was opened in November 1871 but no detailed investigation followed; his coffin measurement indicates that he was only about 5 feet 6 inches tall, the same height as his father but much shorter than Edward I.

Contemporaries agreed that Henry was a vir simplex, an uncomplicated, almost naïve man, pious, and a lover of peace. His unworldliness was noted by fourteenth-century chroniclers, and also by Dante and the gossipy Franciscan Salimbene. Such a characterization is in most respects accurate. Henry preferred a quiet life at Westminster or in one of his palaces in the Thames valley (on the beautifying and domesticating of which, especially with lavatories, he had spent so much money). In contrast to John he travelled little, either in England or abroad, until the 1260s. His personal demeanour was open and accessible, and he was easily moved to tears. His bouts of anger, which were relatively rare, were short and easily appeased. Unlike his son he was a generous patron of scholars and artists, but he was certainly no intellectual—his possession of ‘a great book of romances’ probably indicates his literary tastes (Calendar of the Liberate Rolls, 1226–40, 288). He was easily dominated by advisers, hence his reputation for inconsistency. He did, however, cling to certain policies, such as the crusade, but lacked the ability to foresee their consequences. He was served by able officials, but in politics these were always subordinated to his family.

From the 1230s Henry replaced the father figures who had acted as his justiciars with an influential family circle, albeit one within which the power of its individual members varied at different periods. His marriage was happy; there were difficulties in the 1250s and 1260s, but Eleanor of Provence preserved her power over him at least until 1263. He and Eleanor were also devoted to their five children, though Edward ultimately resisted their attempts to control him, and after 1263 emerged as a power in his own right. Henry also indulged his brother, his sister and brother-in-law, his wife's relations, and his own half-brothers. Ironically, it was rivalries within the royal family, of which Henry eventually lost control, that more than anything else created the turmoil of 1258 onwards.

Henry was genuinely pious, and he was considerably influenced by friars, especially his Dominican confessors. He heard mass at least every day and ordered tabernacles for the exposition of the eucharist. He loved personal luxury and clearly regarded it—unlike Louis IX—as vital to kingship, but though he liked to have his religion, too, celebrated with pomp, glittering vestments, and music (he heard the ‘Christus vincit’ sung eight times a year), it would be unjust to regard it as shallow. He ensured that his chapels were equipped with books as well as richly decorated. He naïvely believed that piety brought good fortune, but was also moved by sermons. He set a high moral tone at his court—unlike his father and grandfather he was unfailingly faithful to his wife. Matthew Paris relates that Henry customarily prepared himself for the feasts of St Edward by fasting on bread and water, dressed in plain woollen garments. Joinville later recorded his belief that Henry washed the feet of lepers and kissed them. His lavish charity is amply documented: his feeding 500 paupers a day in the 1240s; his help for orphans; his donations, often of building materials, to innumerable religious houses, hospitals, and houses for converted Jews; his gifts of vestments to bishops. He must have been the greatest patron in his day of the friars in England. The houses of the Dominicans at Canterbury, the Carmelites at Oxford, and the Franciscans at Reading, York, Shrewsbury, and Norwich were largely built at Henry's expense. He did not actually found any others (although he took over patronage of Peter des Roches's Netley Abbey, Hampshire, claiming to be its founder, in the 1250s). His great work was the rebuilding from 1245 at his own expense of Westminster Abbey, a new royal mausoleum to replace Fontevrault, at a staggering cost not far short of £50,000. Henry's love of pilgrimage (especially at moments of crisis), for example to Bromholm, Walsingham, and St Albans, is also well-attested, as is his devotion to numerous saints. St Edward the Confessor, like Henry an orphan and reputedly a man of peace, was both his patron, his role-model, and his ‘friend’. Significantly, he chose the imagery of the Confessor for his 1257 gold penny.

Henry was essentially a man of peace, kind and merciful. Unlike Edward I he was chivalrous to his foes, their children and womenfolk, and generous to state prisoners like his cousin Eleanor of Brittany and Gruffudd ap Llywelyn of Gwynedd (who grew enormously fat during his incarceration in the Tower). Although he ordered important improvements to many royal castles, he had no military ability, hated campaigning, and took little interest in tournaments and hunting. His peacefulness was both a strength and a weakness. He tried to avoid another civil war of the kind which had nearly destroyed his dynasty during his childhood. Until the 1260s he was remarkably successful in consolidating his dynasty and maintaining peace. He fostered peaceful conduct among the magnates; indeed, he can take some of the credit for the limited scope and successful aftermath of the barons' war. However, peace was often achieved by appeasing his family, courtiers, and magnates; under Henry their power and those of their bastard feudal affinities grew in the localities at the expense of lesser men, generating many of the tensions which arose in the 1260s. His government was on the whole lax and weak. This suited his relative poverty: the charters restricted his revenues, and he lacked the will to force parliament to grant supply. Nor could he persuade parliament to fund him in the hope of successful war. In the 1230s his yearly income rose to over £20,000, while by the early 1240s more vigorous management may have doubled it to over £40,000; but by the mid-1250s, it had dropped back to under £30,000, hence his inability to respond to political difficulties. His reign made it inevitable that the crown's freedom of manoeuvre would be limited without access to parliamentary taxation.

It is sometimes argued that Henry's difficulties after 1258, which have greatly damaged his reputation, stemmed from his autocratic rule, especially his favouritism towards aliens in disregard of growing national sentiment. However, this view is anachronistic, coloured by rebel propaganda disseminated in the localities during the barons' war. His Savoyard and Lusignan favourites and their followers—nearly 200 of the former and 100 of the latter—were well rewarded but only a small proportion were resident in England, and their role in public affairs was limited; they never supplanted native Englishmen in office. Henry competed with the Capetians in buying up international support and talent, especially to further his interests in Gascony and the papal curia. He hoped to learn from John's diplomatic mistakes. He also hoped naïvely to imitate the chivalry of Louis IX. But the mystique of monarchy to which Henry aspired was an outward show designed to bind him to his magnates: neither in theory nor in practice did he challenge their liberties. Indeed, he helped to set the fashions for aristocratic luxury for the rest of the century.
Historiography
The most valuable narrative sources for the reign of Henry III are the St Albans chroniclers, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris. The latter, in particular, is indispensable for the years before his death in 1259 thanks to his contacts with the court, though his biases against aliens, and indeed against foreigners generally, and suspicion of anything smacking of a threat to liberties, especially ecclesiastical ones, always need to be taken into account when evaluating his writings. Other thirteenth-century monastic chronicles are less useful, being provincially focused until the 1260s and usually violently anti-royalist during the barons' wars (though a few royalist accounts were attempted under Edward I, for instance the Westminster Flores and the chronicle of Thomas Wykes). The shortcomings of these sources, however, were precisely those which gave them considerable appeal in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the causes at issue during Henry's reign, and especially in the decade after 1258—kingship, nationalism, and anti-papal sentiment—were such as to stimulate research and the publication of sources. Archbishop Matthew Parker edited Matthew Paris under Elizabeth, and in the following century religious and political partisanship caused scholars and polemicists like Sir Robert Cotton (whose Short View of the Long Life and Raigne of Henry the Third appeared in 1627), William Prynne, and Sir William Dugdale to rescue and publish many valuable documents. Prynne's investigations of parliamentary antiquities and Dugdale's of the English baronage have by no means lost their value, but present-day scholarship is still most heavily influenced by the liberal-nationalist constitutionalist historians of the second half of the nineteenth century, for whom Henry's reign was relevant particularly in their quest for the origins of parliament. They edited most of the chronicles, above all in the Rolls Series, and though they used some documents it was upon the narrative sources that they mainly relied. Given their dependence upon chronicles, it is not surprising that the accounts of Henry III by historians like Bishop William Stubbs, Sir James Ramsay, and William Hunt (author of the article on Henry in the Dictionary of National Biography) should have tended to be nationalistic in focus, accepting uncritically the complaints of the king's opponents. Their views continued to carry weight well into the twentieth century.

The means to rectify the historiographical balance started to become available in the years after 1900, as the Public Record Office published the records of central government, and above all of the chancery. This was an enterprise which not only made an immense amount of factual information easily available for the first time, but also made it possible to scrutinize the workings of government from the point of view of those who controlled it. It was against this background that in the 1920s T. F. Tout and his followers began a reappraisal of Henry's government. Tout's view of Henry was not in fact particularly favourable—‘a thriftless, easy-going temperament, desiring chiefly to be surrounded by personal friends and dependents’ (Tout, Admin hist., 2.10)—but his work brought new perspectives, and also stimulated further research among financial and judicial records which remained unprinted. One of its first fruits was E. F. Jacob's exploration of the impact of the barons' wars on the localities, published in 1925. R. F. Treharne's account of the baronial movement (1932, revised edition 1971) was old-fashioned by comparison; though well-grounded in the record sources, it perpetuated a constitutionalist interpretation of Henry's reign.

In the years immediately after 1945 Treharne's assumptions came under challenge, through biographical studies of Richard of Cornwall by N. Denholm-Young (1947) and of Hubert de Burgh by Clarence Ellis (1952), and above all in the writings of Sir Maurice Powicke, whose two-volume King Henry III and the Lord Edward (1947) immediately acquired classic status. A many-layered analysis of thirteenth-century political culture, and of the forces which moved its development, written in a somewhat romantic style, Henry III—along with Powicke's The Thirteenth Century (1953, second edition 1962), which gave proportionately more space to administrative history—created an image of Henry's reign of such weight that it went almost unchallenged for some thirty years, while the thirteenth century, which had formerly been regarded as the high point of the English middle ages, was neglected in favour of other periods. In the early 1980s, however, a revival of interest in the thirteenth century (spearheaded by biennial conferences held at Newcastle and later at Durham) began to shed new light on Henry III, as on much else. Much valuable work remains accessible only in academic journals and unpublished dissertations, yet the last fifteen years of the twentieth century saw the appearance of major studies of Edward I (Michael Prestwich, 1988), Simon de Montfort (John Maddicott, 1994), Peter des Roches (Nicholas Vincent, 1996), and Eleanor of Provence (Margaret Howell, 1998), along with David Carpenter's reinterpretation of the minority (1990) and R. C. Stacey's of royal finance (1987). The complex relationship between Henry III and the church awaits modern treatment, but at the opening of the twenty-first century the principal desideratum remains a reappraisal of the king himself, to do for a new generation what Powicke did for his.

H. W. Ridgeway
Sources

Chancery records · Rymer, Foedera, new edn, 1/1 · W. W. Shirley, ed., Royal and other historical letters illustrative of the reign of Henry III, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 27 (1862–6) · A. Luders and others, eds., Statutes of the realm, 11 vols. in 12, RC (1810–28), vol. 1 · Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria / The historical collections of Walter of Coventry, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 58 (1872–3) · Radulphi de Coggeshall chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series, 66 (1875) · Rogeri de Wendover chronica, sive, Flores historiarum, ed. H. O. Coxe, EHS, 4–5 (1841–4) · Paris, Chron. · Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Historia Anglorum, sive … Historia minor, ed. F. Madden, 3 vols., Rolls Series, 44 (1886–9) · H. R. Luard, ed., Flores historiarum, 3 vols., Rolls Series, 95 (1890) · Ann. mon., vols. 1–4 · W. Stubbs, ed., Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, 1, Rolls Series, 76 (1882) · R. Howlett, ed., Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 2, Rolls Series, 82 (1885) · The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, 2: The minor works comprising the Gesta regum with its continuation, the Actus pontificum and the Mappa mundi, Rolls Series, 73 (1880) · The metrical chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, ed. W. A. Wright, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 86 (1887) · Willelmi Rishanger … chronica et annales, ed. H. T. Riley, pt 2 of Chronica monasterii S. Albani, Rolls Series, 28 (1865) · F. Nicholai Triveti, de ordine frat. praedicatorum, annales sex regum Angliae, ed. T. Hog, EHS, 6 (1845) · T. Stapleton, ed., De antiquis legibus liber: cronica majorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum, CS, 34 (1846) · The chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. H. Rothwell, CS, 3rd ser., 89 (1957) · E. A. Bond, ed., ‘Historiola de pietate Regis Henrici III’, Archaeological Journal, 17 (1860), 317–19 · Matthaei Paris, monachi Albanensis, Angli, historia maior, ed. M. Parker (1571) · R. Cotton, A short view of the long life and raigne of Henry the Third, king of England (1627) · W. Prynne, The history of King John, Henry III and Edward I (1670) · W. Dugdale, A short view of the late troubles in England … also some parallels thereof with the barons-wars in the time of King Henry III (1681) · W. Stubbs, The constitutional history of England, 2 (1876) · J. Ramsay, The dawn of the constitution (1908) · K. Norgate, The minority of Henry III (1912) · Tout, Admin. hist., vols. 1–2 · H. Johnstone, ‘Poor relief in the royal households of thirteenth century England’, Speculum, 4 (1929), 149–67 · M. A. Hennings, England under Henry III illustrated from contemporary sources (1924) · E. F. Jacob, Studies in the period of baronial reform and rebellion, 1258–67 (1925) · E. F. Jacob, ‘The reign of Henry III, some suggestions’, TRHS, 4th ser., 10 (1927), 21–53 · R. F. Treharne, The baronial plan of reform, 1258–63 (1932) · R. F. Treharne and I. J. Sanders, eds., Documents of the baronial movement of reform and rebellion, 1258–1267 (1973) · F. M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward: the community of the realm in the thirteenth century, 2 vols. (1947) · F. M. Powicke, The thirteenth century (1953) · N. Denholm-Young, Richard of Cornwall (1947) · N. Denholm-Young, Collected papers (1969) · M. R. Powicke, ‘Distraint of knighthood and military obligation under Henry III’, Speculum, 25 (1950), 457–70 · C. Ellis, Hubert de Burgh (1952) · C. H. Knowles, ‘The disinherited, 1265–89’, PhD diss., U. Wales, Aberystwyth, 1959 · C. H. Knowles, Simon de Montfort, 1265–1965 (1965) · C. H. Knowles, ‘The justiciarship in England, 1258–65’, British government and administration: studies presented to S. B. Chrimes, ed. H. Hearder and H. R. Loyn (1974) · C. H. Knowles, ‘The resettlement of England after the barons’ war, 1264–67’, TRHS, 5th ser., 32 (1982), 25–41 · C. H. Knowles, ‘Provision for the families of Montfortians disinherited after the battle of Evesham’, Thirteenth-Century England, 1 (1986), 124–7 · M. T. Clanchy, ‘Did Henry III have a policy?’, History, 53 (1968), 203–16 · G. O. Sayles, The king's parliament of England (1975) · G. L. Harriss, King, parliament and public finance in medieval England to 1369 (1975) · C. A. F. Meekings, Studies in thirteenth century justice and administration (1981) · R. Vaughan, Matthew Paris, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, new ser., 6 (1958) · A. Gransden, Historical writing in England, 1 (1974) · T. Borenius, ‘The cycle of images in the palaces and castles of Henry III’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, 6 (1943), 40–50 · R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, and A. J. Taylor, The history of the king's works, 1–2 (1963) · H. M. Colvin, ed., Building accounts of King Henry III (1971) · D. A. Carpenter, The battles of Lewes and Evesham (1987) · D. A. Carpenter, The minority of Henry III (1990) · D. A. Carpenter, The reign of Henry III (1996) · N. R. Vincent, Peter des Roches (1996) · R. C. Stacey, Politics, policy and finance under Henry III, 1216–45 (1987) · R. C. Stacey, ‘1240–60: a watershed in Anglo-Jewish relations?’, BIHR, 61 (1988), 135–50 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘The politics of the English royal court, 1247–65, with special reference to the role of aliens’, DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1983 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘The Lord Edward and the provisions of Oxford, a study in faction’, Thirteenth-Century England, 1 (1986), 89–99 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘King Henry III and the aliens, 1236–72’, Thirteenth-Century England, 2 (1988), 81–92 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘Foreign favourites and Henry III's problems of patronage, 1247–58’, EngHR, 104 (1989), 590–610 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘King Henry III's grievances against the council in 1261’, BIHR, 61 (1988), 227–42 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘The sheriffs of the baronial movement, 1258–61’, Regionalism and revision: the crown and its provinces in England, 1250–1650, ed. P. Fleming, A. Gross, and J. R. Lander (1999), 59–86 · M. Howell, Eleanor of Provence (1998) · M. Howell, ‘The children of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence’, Thirteenth-Century England, 4 (1992), 57–72 · J. R. Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta and the local community, 1215–1259’, Past and Present, 102 (1984), 25–65 · J. R. Maddicott, ‘Edward I and the lessons of baronial reform: local government, 1258–80’, Thirteenth-Century England, 1 (1986), 1–30 · J. R. Maddicott, ‘The crusade taxation of 1268–70 and the development of parliament’, Thirteenth-Century England, 2 (1988), 93–117 · J. R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (1994) · S. D. Lloyd, English society and the crusade, 1216–1307 (1988) · P. Brand, ‘The contribution of the period of baronial reform, 1258–67, to the development of the common law in England’, DPhil diss., U. Oxf., 1974 · P. Brand, ‘The drafting of legislation in mid-thirteenth century England’, Parliamentary History, 9 (1990), 243–85 · P. Brand, The origins of the English legal profession (1992) · P. Brand, The making of the common law (1992) · S. L. Waugh, ‘Reluctant knights and jurors: respites, exemptions and public obligations in the reign of Henry III’, Speculum, 58 (1983), 937–86 · S. L. Waugh, ‘Marriage, class and royal lordship under Henry III’, Viator, 16 (1985), 181–207 · S. L. Waugh, The lordship of England, royal wardships in society and politics, 1217–1327 (1988) · J. R. Studd, ‘The Lord Edward and King Henry III’, BIHR, 50 (1977), 4–19 · J. B. Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales (1998) · R. R. Davies, Conquest, coexistence and change: Wales, 1063–1415 (1987) · R. F. Frame, The political development of the British Isles, 1100–1400 (1990) · R. F. Frame, ‘King Henry III and Ireland’, Thirteenth-Century England, 4 (1992), 179–202 · M. Prestwich, English politics in the thirteenth century (1990) · P. R. Coss, Lordship, knighthood and locality: English society, c.1180–1280 (1991) · P. R. Coss, ‘Bastard feudalism revised’, Past and Present, 125 (1989), 27–64 · D. Crouch and D. A. Carpenter, ‘Bastard feudalism revised: debate’, Past and Present, 131 (1991), 165–203 · P. Binski, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets: kingship and the representation of power, 1200–1400 (1995) · J. C. Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd edn (1992) · N. Coldstream, The decorated style: architecture and ornament, 1240–1360 (1994) · J. R. Maddicott, ‘An infinite multitude of nobles: quality, quantity and politics in the pre-reform parliaments of Henry III’, Thirteenth-Century England, 7 (1999), 17–46
Likenesses

W. Torel, bronze tomb effigy, Westminster Abbey, London [see illus.] · W. Torel, tomb effigy, electrotype, NPG · coins, BM · manuscript drawing, CCC Cam., MS 16, fol. 56r; see illus. in Langton, Stephen (c.1150–1228) · wax seals, BM
© Oxford University Press 2004–5
All rights reserved: see legal notice      Oxford University Press


H. W. Ridgeway, ‘Henry III (1207-1272)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12950, accessed 23 Sept 2005]

Henry III (1207-1272): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12950

[Previous version of this biography available here: September 2004]12 
Crowned*28 October 1216 Gloucester, Gloucestershire, England7 
Event-Misc*14 July 1217 He joined Henry III after the royal faction won at Lincoln, had forfeiture of his possessions reversed and became justiciar., Principal=Sir William d' Aubigny13 
Event-Misc*1218 Llywelyn performed homage to King Henry III. He was ordered to restore the lands of some of the king's servants, and in return was put in pssession of his English estates., Principal=Llewelyn ap Iorwerth "the Great"14 
Crowned17 May 1220 Westminster Abbey, Westminster, Middlesex, England, Witness=Sir William de Ferrers Earl of Derby8 
(Witness) Knighted2 February 1224/25 by his brother, Henry III, Principal=Richard of England15 
Event-Misc*January 1227 He declared himself to be of full age and assumed rule8 
(Witness) Event-MiscJuly 1227 He supported Richard, Earl of Cornwall in a dispute with Henry III over the forest laws and misgovernment by Hubert de Burgh, Principal=Sir Gilbert de Clare16 
(Witness) Knighted1233 by the King, Principal=Sir William de Longespée17 
Annulment*27 April 1236 on grounds that they were related in the 4th degree of kindred., Principal=Joan de Dammartin8 
Event-Misc*1237 Richard openly rebuked his brother Henry III, the King, for his greed and maladministration., Principal=Richard of England15 
(Witness) KnightedWhitsuntide 1253 Winchester, by King Henry III, Principal=Sir Roger de Mortimer18,19 
Event-Misc1258 He agreed to the creation of a privy council of barons to advise him.8 
Event-Misc1259 He gave up his claim to Normandy to France in return for some territories in Gascony.8 
(Witness) Knighted1260 London, by King Henry III, Principal=Jean II de Dreux20 
(Witness) Event-Misc17 August 1260 Roger de Quency and Jn. Bayllol are to conduct the King and Queen of Scotland to england to speak with the King, her father, Principal=Sir Roger de Quincy, Principal=Sir John de Baliol21 
Event-Misc12 May 1264 Gilbert de Clare was denounced as a traitor by King Henry III, Principal=Sir Gilbert de Clare "the Red"22 
Battle-Lewes*14 May 1264 The Battle of Lewes, Lewes, Sussex, England, when King Henry and Prince Edward were captured by Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester. Simon ruled England in Henry's name until his defeat at Evesham, Principal=Simon VI de Montfort, Henry=Sir John FitzAlan, Simon=Sir Hugh le Despenser, Henry=Sir Humphrey V de Bohun, Simon=Sir Nicholas de Segrave, Simon=Sir John Gifford, Henry=Sir John de Baliol, Henry=Richard of England, Henry=Sir Henry of Cornwall, Simon=Sir Gilbert de Clare "the Red", Henry=Sir Roger de Mortimer, Henry=Sir Robert de Tateshal, Henry=Sir John FitzAlan, Henry=Sir John de Warenne, Henry=Sir Henry Percy, Simon=Sir Robert de Vere, Henry=Sir Hugh Bigod, Simon=Sir Humphrey VI de Bohun8,23,24,25,26,27 
(Witness) Event-Misc10 July 1270 Protection 4 years going on crusade to the Holy Land with K. and P. Edw. (P. R.), Principal=Sir James de Audley28 
HTML* 
National Politics Web Guide
Britannia.com
Columbia Encyclopedia Entry
Official Monarchy Site of the UK
 

Family

Eleanor of Provence b. 1217, d. 24 Jun 1291
Children

Last Edited23 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-27.
  2. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  3. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-5.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 16.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 3.
  6. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-6.
  7. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 13.
  8. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 4.
  9. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 111-30.
  10. [S336] Charles Dickens, A Child's History of England.
  11. [S337] David Hume, History of England.
  12. [S376] Unknown editor, unknown short title.
  13. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 8.
  14. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Wales 4.
  15. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Cornwall 4.
  16. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 55.
  17. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Longespée 4.
  18. [S285] Leo van de Pas, 30 Jun 2004.
  19. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 169.
  20. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Wydeville 5.
  21. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, v. 4, p. 107.
  22. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Montagu 6.
  23. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, v. 5, p. 10.
  24. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Fitz Alan 7.
  25. [S342] Sir Bernard Burke, Extinct Peerages, p. 21.
  26. [S301] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell, p. 218.
  27. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 34.
  28. [S325] Rev. C. Moor, Knights of Edward I, p. 25.
  29. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-28.
  30. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 14.
  31. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 17-28.

Eleanor of Provence

F, #1619, b. 1217, d. 24 June 1291

 

Father*Raymond V Berenger1,2,3,4 b. 1198, d. 19 Aug 1245
Mother*Beatrice of Savoy1,2,4 b. 1198, d. Dec 1266
Eleanor of Provence|b. 1217\nd. 24 Jun 1291|p54.htm#i1619|Raymond V Berenger|b. 1198\nd. 19 Aug 1245|p94.htm#i2797|Beatrice of Savoy|b. 1198\nd. Dec 1266|p94.htm#i2798|Count Alfonso of Provence|b. 1180\nd. 1209|p94.htm#i2799|Gersenda I. of Sabran|b. c 1180\nd. 1224|p94.htm#i2800|Count Thomas I. of Savoy|b. 20 May 1178\nd. 1233|p100.htm#i2993|Margaret of Geneva|b. c 1179\nd. 8 Apr 1257|p100.htm#i2994|

Birth*1217 Aix-en-Provence, Provence, France5,4 
Birth1222 Aix-en-Provence, France2 
Marriage14 January 1236 Canterbury Cathedral, Canterbury, Kent, England, 2nd=Henry III Plantagenet King of England2,4,6 
Marriage*24 January 1237 Canterbury, Kent, England, 24 or 25 Jan 1236/7, Principal=Henry III Plantagenet King of England5,7,3 
Death*24 June 1291 Ambresbury, Wiltshire, England5,2,4 
Burial* Priory of Ambresbury, Wiltshire, England2 
DNB* Eleanor [Eleanor of Provence] (c.1223-1291), queen of England, consort of Henry III, was born in Provence, the second of four daughters of the count, Raymond-Berengar (V) (1209–1245), and his wife, Béatrice (d. 1265), the daughter of Thomas, count of Savoy. The births of two sons—probably twins—preceded the births of the four daughters, but the boys died very young. The beauty of the daughters, who all became queens, was legendary. Marguerite, the eldest, married Louis IX of France (1234), Sanchia married Richard, first earl of Cornwall, brother of Henry III (1243), and Béatrice, the youngest, married Charles, count of Anjou (1246). Sanchia and Béatrice eventually became queens of Germany and Sicily respectively. By her marriage to Henry III at Canterbury on 14 January 1236, and her coronation at Westminster six days later, Eleanor of Provence acquired the titles of queen of England, lady of Ireland, duchess of Normandy and Aquitaine, and countess of Anjou. The ineffectual titles to Normandy and Anjou were dropped after the treaty of Paris in 1259.

The distinctive troubadour culture of the Midi, notably secular in tone, may have prompted Eleanor's later delight in reading romances, but it was in England as a young queen that her religious sensitivity was nurtured. Her medical care and early moral guidance were entrusted to the learned and urbane Nicholas of Farnham, later bishop of Durham (d. 1257), and she was on terms of friendship with the reforming bishops Robert Grosseteste (d. 1253) and Richard Wyche (d. 1253), and with the scholarly Franciscan Adam Marsh (d. 1259). Her major religious benefactions were prompted by personal associations: the hospital of St Katharine by the Tower, which was given additional endowment by Eleanor and a new charter in 1273, in memory of her husband, and the Dominican priory at Guildford which she founded in memory of her grandson Henry. She was also patron and benefactor of the Cistercian nunnery of Tarrant (Dorset), and an enthusiastic patron of the Franciscans.

It is likely that Eleanor bore only five children, the first four before she was twenty-two: the future king, Edward I (1239-1307); Margaret (1240-1275), who married Alexander III of Scotland; Beatrice, who was born in 1242 at Bordeaux and who married Jean, eldest son of Jean (I), duke of Brittany; and Edmund (1245-1296), later earl of Lancaster. Katharine (b. 1253) was disabled and to the grief of both her parents died in 1257. Eleanor was an attentive mother, strongly protective of her children's interests, and she spent time with them at Windsor when they were young. Later they became the vehicles of her own ambition.

Eleanor's enterprising Savoyard uncles shaped her early role in politics. William of Savoy established her in England; Thomas, count of Flanders (r. 1237–44), and Boniface of Savoy, archbishop of Canterbury (1243–70), used her influence with the king; and Peter of Savoy (d. 1268), who came to England in 1241 and received the honours of Richmond and Pevensey from Henry III, became her close adviser. He shrewdly encouraged Eleanor to strengthen her position at court as mother of the king's heir and to keep Edward's future appanage out of the grasp of Richard of Cornwall. More dubiously, he collaborated with the queen in securing offices and rich marriages for their Savoyard kinsfolk and dependants. This aroused criticism and brought Eleanor into political collision with the king's ambitious Lusignan half-brothers, who arrived in England in 1247 and resented the large share of royal patronage already absorbed by the Savoyards.

Eleanor accompanied Henry III on his ill-fated expedition to Poitou and Gascony in 1242–3, but when the king next left England, to suppress a serious Gascon rebellion in 1253, Eleanor remained as regent, with Richard of Cornwall as her adviser. She acquitted herself extremely well. In June 1254 she joined her husband in Gascony, and in December Henry and Eleanor were the guests of Louis IX and Queen Marguerite, in a friendly family gathering in Paris. This proved a step towards the peace between England and France later achieved by the treaty of Paris (1259).

Eleanor's influence in this case had been constructive, but in 1254 she also became deeply committed, together with her husband, to the disastrous scheme, backed by the pope and the Savoyards, to gain the crown of Sicily for her second son, Edmund. The crippling financial conditions imposed by the papacy aggravated the rising discontent against Henry III's government in England. In 1258 discontent erupted into revolution. The queen's attitude was ambivalent. She rejoiced in the speedy eviction of the unpopular Lusignans but she deplored the severe reduction in royal power achieved by the reformers in the provisions of Oxford (1258). A significant though temporary breach between Edward and his parents added to the complex cross-currents of what became an embittered and factious struggle. From the beginning of 1260 the queen gradually came to be seen as the arch-enemy of reform. In 1261 she colluded with a small group of activists around the king to achieve a royalist revanche, and the pope released Henry III, Eleanor, and their sons from their oaths to uphold the provisions. In June 1263 the queen's opponents struck and her lands and those of her kinsmen and supporters were ravaged. Eleanor angrily opposed the terms imposed on the king by the rebels, now led by Simon de Montfort, and in a defiant attempt to reach her son Edward in Windsor Castle by river, she was halted at London Bridge, pelted with stones, and treated to a volley of coarse insults from an excited mob of Londoners, who had learned to hate all aliens and especially the queen. The experience hardened her resolve. She went to France, where she enlisted the sympathy of the French king and her sister Marguerite. Louis IX's judgment in favour of Henry III in an arbitration at Amiens in January 1264 was thought to owe much to Eleanor's influence. It provoked immediate civil war in England.

In adversity Eleanor of Provence was indomitable. After the defeat of the royalists at Lewes in May 1264, which left Henry virtually a captive and Edward a hostage in the hands of Simon de Montfort, she assembled a formidable invasion force in Flanders. When this plan proved abortive she made Gascony her base, pressing the diplomatic offensive against Montfort with remorseless vigour and great skill. Her network of contacts, which reached out to the papacy and the French court as well as commanding material resources from Gascony, Ireland, the Welsh march, and the English refugees and exiles on the continent, helped to bring about the royalist victory at Evesham in August 1265, and she returned to England in November. Realistic and competent in financial affairs, she persuaded the pope to allocate her £60,000 (of Tours) from the tenth imposed on the English clergy in 1266, so that she might attempt to settle the extensive debts which she had incurred abroad.

Despite her strong sense of personal obligation in money matters, Eleanor, like many of her contemporaries, was oppressive in the administration of her lands, especially those which she received from the crown in wardship. While she was consort she used the financial services of both Jews and merchants, but she dismissed all Jews from her dower towns in 1275. After Henry III's death in 1272 she had emerged as a wealthy property holder. In addition to her dower assignment, valued at £4000 a year, she enjoyed bequests from Peter of Savoy, comprising the honour of Pevensey and an annual sum of £1805 in lieu of the honour of Richmond. Even when she became a nun she retained substantial wealth in England, although surrendering her Gascon revenues. Since her lands would revert to the crown on her death she was permitted to make her will from her landed revenues, up to a sum of 10,000 marks. Eleanor was in the top band of aristocratic landowners.

To the end of her life, in political or personal matters which concerned herself or her family, Eleanor's wishes carried considerable weight with her eldest son after he became king, although she would have liked him to be even more personally attentive to her. In July 1286 she took the veil at the prestigious priory of Amesbury (Wiltshire), a house of the order of Fontevrault, having first arranged that two of her granddaughters should precede her there. Eleanor died at Amesbury Priory on 24 June 1291 and was buried there on 9 September, after the king's return from Scotland, in the presence of a large gathering of magnates. Her heart was buried in the church of the Franciscans in London in early December. No funeral monuments have survived the dissolution. Many Englishmen hated her for her political stance, but her superb courage and practical capacity, used on behalf of her family, commanded respect, and chroniclers acclaimed her as a virago, a warrior heroine. The many letters written during her widowhood reveal a woman quick to defend her own rights, yet capable of tact, magnanimity, and warm personal kindness. She was revered by her husband and her children.

Margaret Howell
Sources

Chancery records · Paris, Chron. · H. R. Luard, ed., Flores historiarum, 3 vols., Rolls Series, 95 (1890) · Ann. mon. · R. F. Treharne and I. J. Sanders, eds., Documents of the baronial movement of reform and rebellion, 1258–1267 (1973) · M. Howell, Eleanor of Provence: queenship in thirteenth-century England (1997) · M. Howell, ‘The children of King Henry III and Eleanor of Provence’, Thirteenth century England: proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne conference [Newcastle upon Tyne 1991], ed. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd, 4 (1992), 57–72 · M. Howell, ‘The resources of Eleanor of Provence as queen consort’, EngHR, 102 (1987), 372–93 · D. A. Carpenter, ‘King Henry III's “statute” against aliens: July 1263’, EngHR, 107 (1992), 925–44 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘Foreign favourites and Henry III's problems of patronage, 1247–58’, EngHR, 104 (1989), 590–610 · H. W. Ridgeway, ‘King Henry III and the “aliens”, 1236–1272’, Thirteenth century England: proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne conference [Newcastle upon Tyne 1987], ed. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd, 2 (1988), 81–92 · E. L. Cox, The eagles of Savoy: the house of Savoy in thirteenth-century Europe (1974) · J. R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (1994)
Archives

PRO, SC 1 · PRO, E 101 · PRO, E 372


Likenesses

drawing, BL, Royal MS 14 C.vii, fol. 134 [see illus.]
© Oxford University Press 2004–5
All rights reserved: see legal notice      Oxford University Press


Margaret Howell, ‘Eleanor (c.1223-1291)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8620, accessed 24 Sept 2005]

Eleanor (c.1223-1291): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/86208 
Event-Misc*7 July 1286 Amesbury Prior, Wiltshire, England, She took the veil6 

Family

Henry III Plantagenet King of England b. 1 Oct 1207, d. 16 Nov 1272
Children

Last Edited24 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 111-29.
  2. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  3. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-6.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 13.
  5. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-27.
  6. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 4.
  7. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 111-30.
  8. [S376] Unknown editor, unknown short title.
  9. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-29.

John Lackland

M, #1620, b. 27 December 1166, d. 19 October 1216

 
 

Father*Henry II Curtmantel b. 5 Mar 1132/33, d. 6 Jul 1189; son and heir1,2,3,4,5
Mother*Eleanor of Aquitaine6,2,3,4,5 b. 1123, d. 31 Mar 1204
John Lackland|b. 27 Dec 1166\nd. 19 Oct 1216|p54.htm#i1620|Henry II Curtmantel|b. 5 Mar 1132/33\nd. 6 Jul 1189|p55.htm#i1622|Eleanor of Aquitaine|b. 1123\nd. 31 Mar 1204|p55.htm#i1623|Geoffrey V. "the Fair" Plantagenet|b. 24 Nov 1113\nd. 7 Sep 1151|p55.htm#i1624|Matilda Empress of England|b. 1104\nd. 10 Sep 1167|p55.htm#i1626|Count William V. of Poitou "the Pious"|b. 1099\nd. 9 Apr 1137|p95.htm#i2838|Eleanor de Chastellerault|b. c 1105\nd. a Mar 1130|p95.htm#i2839|

Mistress* Principal=Agatha de Ferrers7 
Birth24 December 1166 Oxford, Oxfordshire, England2 
Birth*27 December 1166 Oxford, Oxfordshire, England8 
Birth24 December 1167 Oxford, Oxfordshire, England1,9,10 
Marriage Contract*1172 Principal=Alice of Maurienne8 
Marriage*29 August 1189 Marlborough, Wiltshire, England, 1st=Isabel of Gloucester (?)2,10,8 
Divorce*1199 on grounds of consanguinity after ten years of childless marriage. This angered the Curia, who had given special permission for the marriage. Subsequently, Isabel was kept a state prisoner until 1214, Principal=Isabel of Gloucester (?)10,8 
Marriage*24 August 1200 Bordeaux, France, Bride=Isabella of Angoulême1,2,9,10,8 
Mistress* Principal=Anonyma de Warenne11,2,12 
Mistress* Principal=Clementia (?)2 
Death*19 October 1216 Newark Castle, Newark, Nottingham, England1,2,9,10,8 
Burial* Worcester Cathedral, England2,10,8 
DNB John (1167-1216), king of England, and lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and of Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, was the youngest son of Henry II (1133-1189) and Eleanor of Aquitaine (c.1122-1204), and was born at Oxford on 24 December 1167.
The king's son, 1167–1189
Virtually nothing is known of John's childhood and early education, though he clearly acquired a taste for books and, as king, possessed a library of both French and Latin works. Ranulf de Glanville was his magister by 1183, and may have encouraged an interest in the law.

By the early 1180s John was known as Lackland, a name contemporaries believed to have been bestowed upon him by his father. The wish to provide for his youngest son had already led Henry II to take steps that left behind a trail of resentments. John's eldest brother, Henry, had been provoked to rebel in 1173 by the decision to bestow Chinon, Loudun, and Mirebeau upon John, when the latter was betrothed in that year to the heiress to Maurienne. On 30 September 1174, after the suppression of that revolt, John was granted annual revenues to the value of £1000 from England and 1000 livres each from Normandy and Anjou. In 1175, after the death of Reginald, earl of Cornwall, Henry II reserved the earl's estates to John's use; this disinherited the earl's daughters and their husbands, including the vicomte of Limoges, who then rebelled. In 1176, after the death of William, earl of Gloucester, John was betrothed to Isabella of Gloucester (c.1160-1217) on terms that involved the disinheritance of her sisters and their husbands. In May 1177 Henry designated John as king of Ireland, and asked Pope Alexander III to provide him with a crown. All these grants were formalities. John remained subject to his father's authority; in charters his normal style was filius regis—‘the king's son’.

In August 1184 John embarked on his first political action. Henry II wanted Richard, now his eldest surviving son, to transfer Aquitaine to John, and when Richard refused, John—with his father's blessing and helped by his brother Geoffrey—attacked Richard's duchy. The attack failed. In December all three brothers were summoned to court by Henry; Richard kept Aquitaine. By this time Henry was becoming worried by the degree of independence enjoyed by Hugh de Lacy in Ireland and, despite John's own request that he be sent to help the beleaguered kingdom of Jerusalem, it was probably to curb Lacy that Henry dispatched him to Ireland. He knighted him in March 1185 and gave him a well-equipped and substantial force. It arrived at Waterford on 25 April. Some Irish rulers submitted at once, but when he made huge land grants to his own followers and friends in disregard of existing Irish rights, the kings of Thomond, Desmond, and Connacht took up arms against him—and they were, it seems, encouraged in this by Hugh de Lacy. John suffered several defeats and returned home in September, complaining to his father about Lacy. By far the most detailed account of the Irish expedition, a catalogue of acts of arrogant mismanagement by John and his advisers, is given by Gerald of Wales, one of the royal clerks who accompanied the expedition. Although he had ends of his own to serve, Gerald's version is confirmed by Roger of Howden's laconic comment that John's avarice and reluctance to pay his troops led to their deserting to the Irish. Roger of Howden and Gerald, both writing soon after the event, provide the earliest judgements made upon John's capacities.

The death of Hugh de Lacy in 1186, and the arrival of a crown sent by Pope Urban III, encouraged Henry II to plan another Irish expedition for John. However, the death of Geoffrey of Brittany in August 1186 raised the possibility of a far-reaching rearrangement of the family possessions. The Irish expedition was shelved, and the crown never used. John remained ‘lord of Ireland’—as did all subsequent kings of England until Henry VIII. The widely held belief that Henry loved his youngest son best led to rumours, quite likely fanned by Philip Augustus, king of France, that the Old King planned to disinherit Richard in favour of John. Some of Henry's actions gave colour to this gossip. After the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, Richard, Henry, and Philip all took the cross but Henry would not allow John to do so. In November 1188 Henry's public refusal to recognize Richard as his heir pushed Richard into revolt and an alliance with the French king which won widespread aristocratic support. In 1189 Henry II's position crumbled rapidly. The loss of Le Mans on 12 June seems to have convinced John that his father's cause was hopeless, and that he had better join the winning side. When the Old King conceded defeat he was informed that John had gone over to his enemies. In the judgement of many contemporaries this news precipitated Henry's death, betrayed, as they saw it, by the son he had most loved.
The king's brother, 1189–1192
John remained lord of Ireland, and Richard I rapidly put him in possession of the other estates promised to him by their father: in south-west Normandy the county of Mortain; in England the honours of Peverel, Lancaster, Marlborough, and Ludgershall (with castles), Tickhill, Wallingford, and the counties of Derby and Nottingham (without castles). On 29 August 1189 John married Isabella of Gloucester in defiance of the archbishop of Canterbury's prohibition of the marriage on grounds of consanguinity. John appealed to Rome, and a papal legate recognized the marriage as lawful pending the outcome of the appeal. However, since John did not pursue this, his marriage remained conveniently both lawful and voidable. His Gloucester estates included Bristol and the marcher lordships of Glamorgan and Newport, so Richard gave him command of an army and sent him to the relief of Carmarthen which was besieged by Rhys ap Gruffudd. He came to terms with the Lord Rhys, but Richard presumably thought them unsatisfactory, for when John brought the Welsh ruler to Oxford in October, Richard refused to meet him. In December 1189 Richard gave John four more counties: Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, and Dorset, perhaps to bring his English revenues up to £4000. From 1189 until 1194 John as count of Mortain ran these counties and honours with a well-developed administration centred on Marlborough. But in William of Newburgh's opinion Richard's affection for John had led him into an imprudent generosity which only whetted his brother's appetite.

In March 1190 at Nonancourt, Richard may have recognized John as heir to the duchy of Normandy, but the fact that he made him swear to stay out of England for three years suggests that he was uneasy about what his brother might do while he was on crusade. He later modified the arrangement, giving the justiciar, his trusted Norman-born minister, William de Longchamp, authority to release John from the oath if and when he saw fit. It is unlikely that Longchamp did so, but within a year John was back in England and at odds with the justiciar. The new arrangement, made at Queen Eleanor's request, had been bound to cause tension between the two men, but it was almost certainly Longchamp's readiness to accept Arthur of Brittany, Geoffrey's son, as heir to the kingdom in the event of Richard's dying on crusade—as envisaged in the treaty of Messina (October 1190)—which precipitated the crisis. When the sheriff of Lincolnshire, Gerard de Camville, did homage to John as heir presumptive (midsummer 1191), Longchamp laid siege to Lincoln Castle; while he was occupied there, the royal castles of Nottingham and Tickhill were handed over to John. From now until 1194 these great castles were to be the linchpins of John's bid for power. Longchamp called off his siege and agreed to meet John at Winchester in July. According to Richard of Devizes both men turned up to the conference with massive followings of Welsh troops. A settlement was mediated by the archbishop of Rouen, Walter de Coutances, whom Richard had dispatched from Sicily with authority to restore peace. John was required to restore the castles he had taken, but Longchamp withdrew his support for Arthur, recognizing John as heir presumptive and agreeing that in the event of Richard's death he should be given possession of these and other key castles. Any hopes Longchamp may have had of keeping him to the terms of the settlement were soon dashed when John took advantage of the scandal caused by the arrest of Geoffrey, archbishop of York, at Dover on 18 September 1191 to organize a coalition against the ‘foreign’ justiciar, and to present himself as the champion of English law and liberties. Although Geoffrey also had sworn to stay out of England for three years, public opinion, fuelled by John's populist campaign, forced Longchamp to set him free.

John summoned the justiciar and the leading men to a meeting at Loddon Bridge (between Reading and Windsor) on 5 October ‘to consider certain great and difficult matters concerning the lord king and the realm’ (Diceto … opera historica, 2.98). Longchamp refused to attend, asserting that John planned to usurp the throne. Archbishop Geoffrey's account of his arrest further inflamed feeling. Walter de Coutances urged John to take the lead in removing the justiciar from office. On 7 October John and his supporters set out towards Windsor (where Longchamp was staying) and London. The justiciar at once made for London himself and a skirmish took place when their households clashed on the road. Longchamp returned to the Tower of London, but by now his opponents had the more powerful friends in the city. That night a torchlight procession welcomed John into London, and he repaid the favour by granting the citizens a commune. Next day at St Paul's, John was again recognized as heir presumptive. According to Richard of Devizes, he was declared supreme governor of the realm and authorized to appoint keepers of all except three royal castles. At this point, according to Gerald of Wales (writing in 1193), John was tempted by Longchamp's offer of a bribe to change sides, but was persuaded by Geoffrey of York and Bishop Hugh of Coventry not to desert his friends. On 10 October Longchamp resigned as justiciar and was replaced by Walter de Coutances. Although, according to Devizes, the appointment was made by John, it is plain that if he had hoped for untrammelled authority once Longchamp was unseated, then he was disappointed and was compelled to act in consort with the new justiciar.

Enticing new prospects were opened up when Philip Augustus returned from crusade burning with anger against Richard. Philip offered to help John become ruler of the Angevin lands on the continent if he would marry his sister Alix (whom Richard had rejected). John was preparing to go to France in February 1192 when his mother arrived, and prevailed upon him to stay on pain of losing all his lands and castles, though it apparently took four meetings of ministers and magnates before he would accept the force of the argument. He then caused further embarrassment by tricking the keepers of Windsor and Wallingford castles into handing them over to men of his own, and being much amused—according to Richard of Devizes, who calls him ‘a flighty youth’ (Chronicon, ed. Appleby, 60)—by the somewhat ineffectual attempts of queen and ministers to counter this latest manoeuvre. Perhaps he had already been cheered by Longchamp's renewed attempt to bribe him. Roger of Howden thought that at a meeting at London in March 1192 John did his best to persuade Eleanor and the ministers to restore Longchamp to his former status. According to other accounts he informed them that Longchamp had offered him 1500 marks, but let it be known that he could be flexible; as soon as he had received 2000 marks (£500 according to Devizes) from the royal treasury, he joined them in ordering Longchamp to leave the country.
Rebellion and reconciliation, 1193–1199
Early the next year came the news that Richard was a prisoner in Germany. Philip Augustus renewed his offer to John, who believed that his moment had come and threw caution to the winds. In January 1193 at Paris he sealed a treaty ceding the Norman Vexin to Philip, and he agreed to marry Alix. While Philip took Gisors, the great fortress of the Vexin, and assembled an invasion fleet at Wissant, John returned to England, seeking allies among those who traditionally took advantage of times when the English crown was in difficulties. However, the king of Scots rejected his overtures; the best John could do was to hire some Welsh mercenaries with whom he garrisoned Windsor and Wallingford. According to Howden, Richard commented ‘my brother John is not the man to win lands by force if there is anyone at all to oppose him’ (Chronica … Hovedene, 3.198). Very few joined a rebellion against a crusader king, an enterprise widely perceived as treacherous. Telling the king's ministers that their lord was dead, John demanded their allegiance. The lie did not convince. They laid siege to John's castles, and the preparations they made to defend England led to Philip's calling off his invasion. On 20 April Hubert Walter returned from Germany, having spoken with Richard and knowing the ransom terms. On his advice John was offered a truce; he surrendered Windsor, Wallingford, and the Peak, but was left in possession of Nottingham and Tickhill castles. Throughout these years those who opposed John had none the less constantly to bear in mind that he might be their next ruler.

Soon afterwards John received a message from Philip: ‘the Devil is loosed’ (Chronica … Hovedene, 3.216–17). Assuming that Richard was about to be released, and that he would soon be facing a charge of treason, he fled to France. In the treaty of July 1193 negotiated between Richard's agents and Philip, it was agreed that if John acknowledged his obligation to contribute to the king's ransom, he could keep his lands. Accordingly he returned to his fealty to Richard and was given a royal writ restoring his castles, only to find that in Normandy their keepers refused to hand them over to him. Frustrated, he went back to Philip and was given possession of Arques, Drincourt, and Évreux. In January 1194 he ceded Philip the whole of Normandy east of the Seine except for Rouen. He and Philip then launched a new invasion of Normandy, and tried to bribe Heinrich VI either to keep Richard in prison for longer or to sell him to them. Allegedly John's contribution was to be 50,000 marks. In England, Hubert Walter and the council excommunicated and formally disseised him, and reinstated the sieges of his castles. Most surrendered at once, though Tickhill and Nottingham held out until after Richard's return in March 1194. At the Council of Nottingham (May 1194) all John's lands, including the lordship of Ireland, were declared forfeit. When Richard sailed to Normandy, John abandoned Philip, sought Richard out at Lisieux, and fell at his feet. He was forgiven and sent to recover possession of Évreux before the Capetian garrison there knew that he had changed sides. His record of treachery between 1189 and 1194 was such as to move the judicious William of Newburgh to call him ‘nature's enemy’ (William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum, ed. R. Howlett, Rolls Series, 1884, 402).

For the next five years John stayed prudently in the background, gradually regaining his brother's trust, and so also possession of the lordship of Ireland and the counties of Mortain and Gloucester. He was given subordinate military commands which occasionally led to successes that came to Howden's attention, as in 1196 when he retook Gamaches, and in 1198 when he captured eighteen French knights. Newburgh commented that John now fought hard and loyally for Richard against Philip. His prospects certainly improved after Arthur of Brittany went over to the French court in 1196. By 1197 he was recognized as heir presumptive, and, despite rumours of new tensions between the brothers in early 1199, Richard named John as his successor shortly before he died (6 April 1199).
Securing the succession, 1199–1202
Until John fled from Normandy to England in December 1203 he spent more than three-quarters of his time on the continent. From the moment of his accession his overriding concern was with the security of his continental dominions, and with good reason. Philip invaded Normandy and occupied the county of Évreux as soon as he heard the news of Richard's death. The barons of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, led by Guillaume des Roches, declared for the young duke of Brittany, and persuaded Angers to open its gates to Arthur and his mother, Constance. In Aquitaine, Philip's old allies the count of Angoulême and the vicomte of Limoges continued to resist ducal authority. Leaving Aquitanian affairs in his mother's capable hands, and perhaps calculating that his reputation there would never allow him to recover the Evrécin, John made Anjou his first priority. On 14 April he took possession of the castle and treasury at Chinon. A few days later he was very nearly trapped at Le Mans when Philip, Arthur, and des Roches met there on 20 April. After this narrow escape John proceeded to Rouen, and on 25 April was invested as duke of Normandy, before returning to Le Mans and sacking it to punish its citizens for their support for Arthur and Philip. Leaving his mother and the leading magnates of Poitou, Aimery de Thouars (whom he appointed seneschal of Anjou in opposition to Guillaume des Roches) and the Lusignans, to pursue the struggle against Arthur, he paid a brief visit to England to be crowned king at Westminster on 27 May 1199. Less than a month later he was back in Normandy with a large army. He forced Philip to raise the siege of Lavardin, but otherwise concentrated on making truces and negotiating peace.

In September 1199 John used some high-handed behaviour on Philip's part to persuade Guillaume des Roches to change sides. Des Roches brought Constance and Arthur to John at Le Mans. But that same day, according to Howden, Arthur was warned that he was in danger of being made John's prisoner, and the next night he and his mother fled for the safety of Philip's court. Aimery de Thouars (whom John had just deprived of the seneschalcy of Anjou) and Aimery's brother Gui (who married Constance) went with them. What could have been a decisive advantage had slipped out of John's hands. He was already paying a high price for the distrust with which he was regarded.

However, Philip too faced both diplomatic difficulties and resentment at the heavy burden of war taxation and was willing to negotiate. Terms were agreed in January 1200, and the treaty of Le Goulet was formally concluded on 22 May. In return for abandoning his allies, for a relief of 20,000 marks, and for territorial concessions which included the county of Évreux, the whole Norman Vexin except Les Andelys, and the lordships of Issoudun, Graçay, and Bourges in Berry, John did homage to Philip for his continental possessions. In addition, though he remained with Philip, Arthur was made to do homage to John for Brittany. Modern historians have felt—as presumably did John—that since Philip's gains since April 1199 meant that he already held virtually all the territories conceded, John had done well to get Philip to recognize him as Richard's sole heir, and hence to resolve the disputed succession. Some contemporaries, however, clearly felt that he had paid too high a price. Above all the abandonment of the diplomatic system that Richard had built up, especially the alliances with Otto IV (duke of Saxony and claimant to the imperial throne) and the counts of Flanders and Boulogne, meant that for peace John was now more than ever dependent upon the trustworthiness of the king of France.

Two of the best-informed contemporary historians (Howden and Coggeshall) report that it was on Philip's advice that John took his next step, his marriage on 24 August 1200 to Isabella (c.1188-1246), daughter of Audemar, count of Angoulême. Soon after his accession he had found bishops willing to terminate his always voidable marriage to Isabella of Gloucester, and he had then sent envoys to Portugal to negotiate for the hand of a Portuguese princess, so the choice of Isabella came as a surprise to many—and above all to Isabella's betrothed, Hugues de Lusignan. In view of Angoulême's strategic importance there was much to be said, from John's point of view, in favour of a marriage to Count Audemar's heir. But in the first twelve months of his reign he had owed much to the powerful Lusignan family—recognized in January 1200 when he granted La Marche to Hugues—and it was foolish to insult them now. Had he compensated them suitably they might have acquiesced, but he made no effort to do so. In the spring of 1201 he added injury to insult by ordering the confiscation of La Marche (granting it to his new father-in-law) and of the Norman estates (the county of Eu) of Lusignan's brother, Raoul d'Exoudun. His treatment of the Lusignans' pleas for justice led to their appealing to the court of France. John refused to attend Philip's court, so in April 1202 the king of France pronounced the confiscation of all his fiefs and accepted Arthur's homage for all except Normandy.
The loss of Anjou and Normandy, 1202–1205
Philip and the count of Boulogne invaded eastern Normandy; unimpeded by John they captured some key castles. The defence of Anjou remained in the hands of his mother—she had already achieved the near impossible in reconciling Guillaume des Roches and Aimery de Thouars—but in July 1202 she was trapped at Mirebeau by Arthur and the Lusignans. John was at Le Mans when he heard the news on 30 July 1202. With the help of Thouars and des Roches and covering over 80 miles in forty-eight hours, John turned the tables. Arthur and more than 200 barons and knights were captured. Soon afterwards the vicomte of Limoges was also taken prisoner. By thinking and acting faster than his enemies had imagined possible John had achieved a stunning success, and he was naturally exultant. In blatant disregard of local interests he denied Thouars and des Roches any say in deciding the fate of the prisoners, many of them their neighbours and kinsmen. According to the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, ‘he kept his prisoners so vilely and in such evil distress that it seemed shameful and ugly to all those who were with him and who saw this cruelty’ (vv. 12508–12). In September des Roches and Thouars turned against John; in October, with Breton support, they captured Angers itself. John remained in Anjou until December 1202, but he was unable to reverse this defeat and retreated to Normandy. His remarkable talent for driving families as powerful as Thouars, Lusignan, and des Roches into rebellion meant that Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and northern Poitou—the heartlands of the Angevin empire—had fallen into Philip's lap.

By spring 1203 John's reputation was being further damaged by rumours of Arthur's fate—unknown, but he had almost certainly been murdered on John's orders. Indeed the Margam annals, a source close to the Briouze family, asserted that John himself carried out the murder when drunk. In the early summer of 1203 Philip again invaded Normandy. In June 1203 Vaudreuil, guarding the western approaches to Rouen, surrendered without a fight. John announced that this had been done on his orders. In August Philip began the siege of Château Gaillard. John organized an attempt to break the siege employing both land and water-borne troops, but when this failed, he gave no more active help. On 5 December he sailed to England. On 6 March 1204 the castle surrendered. Its fall had a profound effect on morale. Throughout Normandy towns and castles opened their gates to Philip, Rouen doing so on 24 June 1204. By this date much of Poitou had also welcomed Philip. Eleanor's death on 1 April 1204 was followed by a scramble of Poitevin towns and lords to do homage to the king of France. In August 1204 Philip entered Poitiers in triumph. Further south Eleanor's death had been the signal for Alfonso VIII of Castile to invade Gascony, claiming that Henry II had promised his daughter Eleanor (Alfonso's wife) would have it as her dowry when her mother died. By the end of the year little was left of John's continental empire except the ports of the west coast of France from Bayonne to La Rochelle, and the isolated inland fortresses of Chinon and Loches.

In 1205 John suffered further setbacks. He made strenuous efforts to muster a large fleet and army at Portsmouth in May 1205, but the reluctance of the English magnates to follow him led to the expedition's being cancelled in humiliating circumstances. Loches and Chinon surrendered. The main Gascon towns held out, however; the Channel Islands were recovered, and in Poitou Savaric de Mauléon regained Niort. In June 1206 John disembarked at La Rochelle. Philip had moved to defend Normandy as soon as he heard John was preparing to sail, and this gave John a free hand to recover the Saintonge, to consolidate his hold on his wife's county of Angoulême (her father had died in 1202), and to drive the last Castilian garrison out of Gascony. In September he marched north into Anjou, but retreated as soon as he heard that Philip was approaching with an army. In October 1206 the two kings agreed on a two-year truce. Philip's lack of interest in Gascony and south-western Poitou (Angoulême, Aunis, and the Saintonge) allowed John to save something from the wreckage of his empire; but there was no gainsaying that wherever and whenever he and Philip met, John had been defeated.

Contemporaries explained these defeats in personal terms. By contrast in recent years many historians have been attracted to the theory that John was beaten by a richer king. John certainly had money worries. In November 1204 and January 1205 he initiated a reform of the English coinage. However, Philip also had financial problems, and there are too many gaps in the evidence for the question to be reduced to a matter of resources. What is certain is that in 1200 John was persuaded to abandon his allies, and that between 1202 and 1205 he lost a war that in the late 1190s his brother had been winning. The judgement of the Barnwell chronicler was that once John had been deserted by his own men he bowed to the inevitable. Some English annalists thought the loss of Normandy was due to Norman treachery, but most blamed John for the conduct which led to these desertions, conduct which justified his sobriquet Softsword.
The government of England
After the Poitou campaign of 1206 a new determination is evident in John's government of England. Hitherto it had continued much as it had been under Richard. Although a new record source, the chancery rolls, meant that from 1199 onwards day-to-day business was much better recorded than ever before, those responsible for raising men and money in England for Richard now did much the same in the same way for John. Hubert Walter became chancellor, holding the office until his death in 1205. Geoffrey fitz Peter was made earl of Essex and continued to hold office as justiciar until he died in 1213. The treasurer, William of Ely, and the chief forester, Hugh de Neville, both stayed in office until they rebelled in 1215. One novelty, the writ of attaint, to investigate the verdicts of local juries, was designed in the king's court in Normandy and sent to England in the usual way in the summer of 1201. The first real changes came after December 1203, when John stayed almost continuously in England, and brought over with him those Frenchmen, such as Peter des Roches, Peter de Maulay, Falkes de Bréauté, and Girard d'Athée, who threw in their lot with John after their own homes had been overrun by Philip. From 1204 onward the channel was in the front line of defence; the king's fleet of galleys had to be transferred from Norman to English and Irish ports, and further strengthened. After an invasion scare in January 1205 all males over the age of twelve were required to take a loyalty oath; in each shire chief constables were appointed to appoint local constables responsible for defence and peace-keeping. But until the autumn of 1206 the recovery of his continental possessions remained John's immediate goal.

For five years after 1206 John concentrated on the British Isles, and on raising and hoarding money. Not until 1212 did he announce a new expedition to the continent. In 1207 he levied a thirteenth, a tax at the rate of 1s. on each mark. This alone brought in £57,425, more than two years' ordinary revenue. Although he did not repeat this lucrative experiment, his government became distinctly more aggressive after 1207. Traditional ties between crown and baron had been based upon a mutual understanding that although an ambitious baron might incur very large debts when making agreements to pay for reliefs, wardships, and marriages, the king would not press hard for repayment. John, however, began to do so, and in an arbitrary fashion. In 1207 the earl of Leicester was deprived of his lands for non-payment of debt. In 1208 John ordered Girard d'Athée to occupy the estates of William (III) de Briouze, hitherto high in royal favour. Briouze and his family were pursued to Ireland and then either driven into exile or imprisoned; it was generally believed that John had Matilda de Briouze and her eldest son starved to death. According to John's own account, this action was initiated for non-payment of debt ‘in accordance with the custom of our kingdom and the law of the exchequer’ (Rymer, Foedera, 1.107–8)—hardly reassuring words for other landowners.

Other sources of income were also more intensively exploited. A series of heavy tallages on Jews culminated in a tallage of 66,000 marks in 1210. Brutal measures were employed to enforce payment; this tallage became unpopular even outside the Jewish community since John, in his determination to collect, put pressure on those who owed debts to the Jews. Towns also fared badly from the tallage of 1210, the heaviest in the history of this tax. Revenue from forest eyres was increased, and so too, especially from 1209 onwards, were the profits of justice. All this had a dramatic effect on royal income. Whereas in the years before 1207 revenues audited at the exchequer only once exceeded £30,000 (in 1205 when they reached £31,541), the equivalent figures (that is, excluding interdict and Jewish revenues) for 1210, 1211, and 1212 were £51,913, £83,291, and £56,612. It has been estimated that by 1212 John had 200,000 marks in coin stored in castle treasuries at Bristol, Corfe, Gloucester, and elsewhere. He was now an astonishingly wealthy king, but by taking so much coin out of circulation he made it hard for his subjects to meet his demands. In the Barnwell chronicler's opinion, he had become the plunderer of his subjects.
John and Pope Innocent III, 1198–1211
Like most rulers John wanted to control ecclesiastical appointments, and this at times led to quarrels with both local churchmen and the pope. As lord of Ireland he angered Innocent III by driving the archbishop of Dublin into exile in 1198 and again in 1202; as duke of Aquitaine he upset him by his treatment of the bishops of Limoges and Poitiers. In 1203 Innocent threatened to impose an interdict on Normandy when John objected to his confirmation of a bishop of Sées; in view of the military situation, John backed down. In England, however, the traditional authority of king over church was greater, and John was determined to uphold it. In September 1205 his hand seemed to stretch even to Rome, where a delegation of Winchester monks elected Peter des Roches—the king's candidate—as their bishop. This alarmed Innocent. In March 1206 he took the opportunity to annul as uncanonical the election of John de Gray, bishop of Norwich, John's candidate to succeed Hubert Walter at Canterbury. He then persuaded the Canterbury monks to elect Stephen Langton and consecrated him in June 1207. But Langton's long residence at Paris had made him unacceptable to John; the king seized the Canterbury estates and exiled the monks. Earlier that year he had confiscated the temporalities of York when Archbishop Geoffrey protested against the thirteenth and went abroad. Innocent responded by proclaiming an interdict in March 1208. In retaliation John confiscated all clerical property, and ordered the arrest of priests' and clerks' mistresses, though he soon allowed them to purchase their freedom; favoured churchmen even recovered their property. King and pope negotiated, but John was concerned that Langton's appointment should not become a precedent, and he refused to admit liability to pay compensation. In November 1209 Innocent excommunicated him. Thereupon all the bishops of the English church went into exile, with the exception of Peter des Roches, who stayed in England, and John de Gray, who became justiciar of Ireland. Negotiations continued in a desultory fashion; when they were broken off in 1211 rumours spread that Innocent had declared John deposed. By this stage, with no fewer than seven bishoprics and seventeen abbacies vacant, John's profits from the English church were so great that he preferred being excommunicated, as were his allies Otto IV and Count Raymond (VI) of Toulouse, to reaching a settlement.
Lord of Ireland, 1185–1216
No king of England, either predecessor or successor, ever came to the throne with a stake in Ireland matching John's. From 1185 onwards his instinct remained constant: to encourage the advance of English conquerors and settlers at the expense of the Irish. After the death of Domnall Mor Ó Briain in 1194 and the capture of Limerick, William de Burgh dismembered the kingdom of Thomond and was encouraged to take the English conquest over the Shannon by being given a speculative grant of the whole of Connacht. In 1201, however, John put a brake on William de Burgh's alarmingly successful advance by granting Limerick to William de Briouze; by 1203 he was even ready, though for a price, to support the new king of Connacht, Cathal Croibhdhearg Conchobair. In a similar policy of cutting a conqueror down to size, he connived at the attacks launched by Hugh de Lacy against John de Courcy in Ulster. Courcy was forced to take refuge with Ó Néill in Tyrone, and in May 1205 Hugh was made earl of Ulster. However, after the arrival of William (I) Marshal in Ireland in 1207, John's policy of setting one baron against another was markedly less successful. A Marshal–Lacy coalition defeated one justiciar in a winter war in 1207–8, and then flouted the orders of the new justiciar, John de Gray, by sheltering William de Briouze in 1208–9. Faced with this defiance John decided on a second expedition to Ireland.

Once the massive scale of his preparations—an armada of 700 ships—was plain, William Marshal prudently crossed to Pembroke, submitted, and gave more hostages. John landed at Crook on 20 June 1210. In a whirlwind nine-week campaign he drove Walter and Hugh de Lacy out of Meath and Ulster, and captured Matilda de Briouze and her elder sons. Not surprisingly in view of its devastating impact on the English lords in Ireland, John's expedition of 1210 made a big impact on English writers. Wendover was to claim that more than twenty Irish chiefs submitted at Dublin, and that John introduced English law and currency into Ireland. Unquestionably the process of transferring English governmental and legal institutions en bloc to a conquered country gathered pace during his reign. In 1204 he instructed the justiciar to found towns and assess rents. The counties of Desmond (Waterford and Cork) and Munster were created, and royal lands were augmented by the forfeiture of Meath, Limerick, and Ulster. In November 1210 a register of writs was sent to Ireland. Englishmen were appointed to bishoprics within areas subject to English control.

By contrast the Irish themselves remained marginal to John's concerns, and, with the exception of Donnchad Ó Briain of Thomond who was knighted by John, they were much less impressed. The expedition ended with John on very tense terms with the two most enterprising Irish kings, Cathal Croibhdhearg and Aodh Ó Néill; the latter's refusal to hand over hostages was applauded by the Inisfallen annalist, who commented, ‘The king of England came to Ireland and accomplished little’ (Mac Airt, Annals of Inisfallen, 339). None the less John's presence there, after a twenty-five-year interval, had been a forcible reminder of the power of the English crown. After his departure John de Gray built the castle and bridge at Athlone, controlling the key passage across the Shannon between Meath and Connacht, and then launched a joint English–Ó Briain invasion of Connacht which forced Cathal to hand over a son as hostage. In the north, however, Gray's forward policy in 1211 and 1212 signally failed to reduce Ó Néill to obedience, and there are signs that he was still at war in 1215–16. Cathal Croibhdhearg tried to exploit John's difficulties by more peaceful means. In September 1215 he secured a charter granting him and his son Aodh the whole of Connacht except Athlone for 300 marks a year ‘for as long as they faithfully served’ (Rotuli chartarum, 219). On the same day John made a—presumably secret—grant of the identical territory to Richard de Burgh. This manner of dealing with Irish kings, together with the restoration of Walter de Lacy to all his lands, sufficed to keep the English lords of Ireland uniquely loyal to the crown during the civil war of 1215–16.
Relations with Wales and Scotland, 1189–1211
As lord of Glamorgan since 1189 John came to the throne knowing Wales better than any king since 1066, but at the end of his reign the English crown was weaker there than for over a century. Until 1208 he continued traditional policy, content with the crown's overlordship over marcher lords and Welsh rulers, while exploiting any opportunities that the fissile nature of Welsh politics sent his way, for example obtaining Cardigan in 1199 as the price for his support for Maelgwyn ap Rhys in the latter's feuds with his kin. In 1199 he recognized William Marshal as earl of Pembroke, and in June 1200 he licensed William de Briouze to conquer all he could from his Welsh enemies. He acknowledged the rising star of Wales, Llywelyn ab Iorwerth of Gwynedd, even recognizing him as prince of all north Wales by treaty in 1201, and giving him his illegitimate daughter, Joan (Siwan; d. 1237) , in marriage in 1205.

In 1208 he adopted a much more aggressive policy. He first sent in his mercenary captains to break his old favourite William de Briouze. Then on 8 October he summoned Gwenwynwyn, prince of Powys, to Shrewsbury, arrested him, and released him only after utterly humiliating him. These two actions unleashed a chain of events that in the short run brought John great gains but were ultimately to bring him down. Llywelyn took advantage of Gwenwynwyn's downfall to annex southern Powys and Ceredigion. Alarmed by the growing number of Llywelyn's clients, John launched two invasions of Gwynedd in 1211; the second was devastatingly successful, penetrating further into Gwynedd than any previous royal expedition. Llywelyn was forced to surrender the whole of Gwynedd east of Conwy ‘for ever’, and agree that if he died without issue by Joan all his lands would revert to the king. By the end of the year John was in a much stronger position in Wales than any previous king.

In November 1200 William, king of Scots, came to Lincoln and did homage to John for the lands that he held of him in England. This put an end to a period of tension between them when William, in the hope of recovering Northumbria, had toyed with the idea of an alliance with Philip of France. Thereafter relations between the two kings were restrained; William lost no opportunity to ask for Northumbria, but took no action when John prevaricated. Then, in the summer of 1209, John suddenly marched north from Newcastle intent on invading Scotland—a kingdom of which he had hitherto taken little notice. It seems likely that he had learned of discussions about a marriage alliance between one of William's daughters and the king of France, and that in his newly belligerent style he immediately decided to take advantage of the fact that William was ill. William desperately needed to buy time; he acquiesced in the humiliating treaty of Norham (August 1209), promising to pay 15,000 marks in return for John's ‘good will’, and handing over thirteen hostages as well as his two daughters for John to arrange their marriages. The ailing Scottish king's dependence on John's goodwill was further increased in 1211 when he found himself in difficulties against a rival for the throne, Guthred Macwilliam. In these circumstances John agreed to assist in the succession of William's twelve-year-old son, Alexander. In 1212 he knighted Alexander at London and provided him with a contingent of Brabançons, with which he defeated and killed Macwilliam.
Crisis, 1212–1214
By this time there was, in the judgement of the Barnwell chronicler, ‘no one in Ireland, Scotland and Wales who did not obey his nod—something which, as is well-known, none of his predecessors had achieved’ (Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria, 2.203). Full of optimism, John turned to the recovery of his continental possessions. With the active support of Rainauld, count of Boulogne, and galvanized by the return of Emperor Otto IV to Germany in March 1212, he set about rebuilding the coalition he had sacrificed in 1200. In the Rhineland sterling once again abounded. By July preparations were well in hand for a return in force to the continent, when his plans were overtaken by events that showed his mastery of the British Isles to be more apparent than real.

It began with a Welsh revolt. The oppressive programme of castle building with which John had followed up his victorious campaign of 1211 provoked the Welsh into uniting behind Llywelyn ab Iorwerth. To counter this John ordered the land and naval forces that had been assembling at Portsmouth to muster at Chester. On 14 August he hanged twenty-eight Welsh hostages at Nottingham. There he learned of a plot against his life. Two magnates, Robert Fitzwalter and Eustace de Vescy, fled abroad. An exchequer official, Geoffrey of Norwich, was arrested and died in prison. From now on, wrote the Barnwell chronicler, John suspected everyone; he would go nowhere without an armed bodyguard. On 16 August he ordered his army to disband, allowing the Welsh to recover the lands east of Conwy. From those whom he suspected he took further guarantees of loyalty in the form of hostages and castles: this policy was applied with particular thoroughness to barons and knights of the northern counties. A popular preacher, Peter of Wakefield, prophesied the imminent end of his reign. In a bid for support from wider social groups John promised to reform abuses of power by sheriffs and forest officials, again especially in the north. His decision to reopen negotiations with Innocent III in November 1212 also indicated a new willingness to compromise. But he continued to treat English landowners with his usual capricious mix of bribery and coercion, and he pressed ahead with plans for a new continental expedition in 1213.

Philip forestalled him, announcing an invasion of England in April 1213. While he was negotiating with Aragon and Toulouse in the hope of opening a southern front against Philip, John stationed a large army in Kent from 21 April onwards. Thus virtually the entire baronage witnessed his surrender of the kingdom to the papacy on May 15 at Ewell near Dover and his promise to pay an annual tribute of 1000 marks. Although the Barnwell chronicler noted that many people saw this as a humiliating servitude, he felt that John's position was now so precarious that he had little choice. Indeed, the manoeuvre has often been praised as a master stroke of diplomacy. Although negotiations over payment of compensation meant that not until July 1214 was the interdict finally lifted, it none the less immediately converted Innocent into his most ardent defender and so—much to Langton's disquiet—John was able to promote his own clerks to vacant bishoprics. On the other hand the return of the exiles meant that his most determined enemies, including, at Innocent's insistence, Fitzwalter, Vescy, and a son of William de Briouze, namely Bishop Giles of Hereford, were now back in England. At least John was still on the throne on the anniversary of his coronation, 27 May, and he celebrated by having Peter of Wakefield and his son hanged. However, for those who believed the prophet, John's reign had ended on 15 May 1213.

John may have hoped that Philip would obey Innocent and cancel the invasion of England. None the less when the king's illegitimate half-brother, William (I) Longespée, earl of Salisbury, saw an opportunity to destroy the French fleet in harbour at Damme on 30 May, it was gleefully taken. In June John ordered his army to sail with him to Poitou. But, as in 1205, the magnates refused to go. Some northern barons, led by Eustace de Vescy, claimed that the terms of their tenure did not require them to serve in Poitou. This group, increasingly prominent in the opposition, came to be known as ‘the northerners’. John wanted to punish them but was thwarted by Langton; in November he promised to restore their ancient liberties. However, appointing Peter des Roches as justiciar after the death of Geoffrey fitz Peter in October 1213 was a provocative act, and the political situation, particularly in the north, was far from being settled when he pressed on with a new expedition to Poitou. This time most magnates either served in person or sent proxies, but among those who did neither were Fitzwalter, Vescy, William de Mowbray, and Geoffrey de Mandeville (who had just agreed to pay 20,000 marks for the hand of Isabella of Gloucester). In these months John's tactics had created a community of interest between Langton and the future rebels.

In February 1214 John landed at La Rochelle, while his half-brother William Longespée took an army to Flanders, where he was joined by Otto IV, Count Ferrand of Flanders, and Rainauld of Boulogne. A combination of John's subsidies and Philip's attacks on Flanders had revived the old coalition. A two-pronged attack from west and north-east was to force Philip to divide his forces. By the end of May John had persuaded the Lusignans to join him, in return for the grant of Saintes and Oléron and a marriage between his daughter Joan and Hugues de Lusignan's son. He advanced on Nantes, but Pierre, duke of Brittany, was unmoved by the offer of the honour of Richmond. On 17 June John entered Angers unopposed and then laid siege to Roche-au-Moine. However, he was unable to persuade the Poitevins to fight when Prince Louis of France advanced to its relief, and, on 2 July, he beat a hasty retreat. But by keeping an army intact he had at least prevented the Capetians from reuniting their forces. On 27 July his allies brought Philip to battle at Bouvines and suffered the overwhelming defeat that sealed John's fate. Otto IV escaped, but William Longespée and the counts of Boulogne and Flanders were captured and taken to Paris. Philip was now free to rejoin his son and to confront John in Poitou. On 18 September the two kings agreed on a five-years truce; on 13 October John landed at Dartmouth. Coggeshall reported rumours that the truce cost John 60,000 marks. There is, at any rate, no doubt that the enormous costs of the disastrous diplomatic and military campaign of 1214 had emptied John's coffers. Moreover the policy of reform of 1212–13 resulted in a huge reduction in royal revenue, which in 1214 amounted to less than half the total in 1212. John's days as a wealthy king were over; he would no longer be able to browbeat his subjects.
Magna Carta
The general refusal to pay scutage, which John had set at the high rate of 3 marks on the knight's fee, showed that individual grievances were turning into a co-ordinated movement. In January 1215 the king met his opponents at London—they came armed—and it was agreed that there should be another meeting at Northampton on 26 April, when he would reply to their demands for reform and for confirmation of the coronation charter of Henry I. But both sides pursued preparations for civil war. John borrowed from the templars to pay mercenaries brought over from Poitou and Flanders, and he relied increasingly on ‘aliens’. On 4 March he took the cross. The Barnwell chronicler regarded this as a cynical manoeuvre, but it led Innocent to describe those who opposed John as ‘worse than Saracens’ (Cheney and Semple, 208). He did not go to Northampton, and on 5 May his opponents formally renounced their fealty. Over the next few weeks they won a landslide of support. On 9 May John granted London the right to elect their mayor, but on 17 May the city opened its gates to the rebels. In Wales the alliance of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and the Briouzes achieved some dramatic successes; even Shrewsbury fell to the Welsh. Although John retained the loyalty of a few magnates such as William Marshal and Earl Warenne, he realized he would have to make—or appear to make—substantial concessions if he wanted to buy time to build up his armed strength. On 10 June he agreed to accept the articles of the barons as a basis for further negotiations. On 15 June terms were settled and John went to Runnymede where he confirmed the final draft of the charter. Four days later peace was proclaimed, and most of the rebel barons renewed their homages.

This long document—its length led to its being called Magna Carta (‘the great charter’)—was drawn up as a means of winning support in a crisis. Hence it was granted ‘to all the freemen of the realm and their heirs for ever’ and framed so as to contain something for virtually everyone. In these circumstances its sixty-three chapters came to include much that applied to English royal government in general, to John's father and brother as much as to John himself, beginning with the conventional assurance ‘that the English church shall be free’ (Holt, 448–73, chap. 1) and including promises as vague as ‘To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice’ (ibid., chap. 40), or as precise as the promise (ibid., chap. 33) to remove fish-weirs from the rivers of England. But Magna Carta was also, and this is particularly true of the most crucial clauses, a commentary on John's rule. His habit of pressing hard for the repayment of debts owed by tenants-in-chief and of turning dispossession, or the threat of it, into a regular instrument of policy resulted in the bulk of the early chapters' relating to the inheritance and property rights of the king's tenants (ibid., chaps. 2–11). His practice of taking hostages from his English subjects, as well as from the Welsh and Scots, is reflected in chapters 49, 58, and 59. His oppressive taxation led to chapter 12's stating that, except in three closely defined cases, ‘the common counsel of the realm’ had to be obtained before a scutage or aid could be levied; chapter 14 set out how that counsel was to be obtained. His employment of foreigners as castellans and troops led to the promises that they would be dismissed and expelled (ibid., chaps. 50–51).

Some of Magna Carta's chapters—those on taxation and chapter 2, which set levels of reliefs—were to be reissued and have a profound effect on subsequent government practice. But the charter of 1215 also contained chapters which guaranteed that, as a peace treaty, it would have a very short life. Anticipating that John would wriggle out of any commitments made at Runnymede, the rebels set up mechanisms designed to prevent this. John had to agree that:

if anyone has been disseised or deprived by us without lawful judgement of his peers of lands, castles, liberties or his rights, we will restore them to him at once; and if any disagreement arises on this let it be settled by the judgement of the Twenty-Five barons referred to in the security clause. (Holt, 448–73, chap. 52)

The security clause authorized the barons to:

choose any twenty-five barons of the realm they wish … so that if we transgress any of the articles … then those twenty-five with the commune of all the land shall distress and distrain us in every way they can, namely by seizing our lands, castles and possessions. (ibid., chap. 61)

Chapters 52 and 61 did not so much reform the realm as destroy the sovereignty of the crown. More than anything else they reveal the depths of distrust in which this king was held. In spite of the proclamation of peace on 19 June the inclusion of chapters 52 and 61 ensured that the renewal of war would come sooner rather than later.
Civil war and French invasion, 1215–1216
By mid-July John had written to Innocent asking him to annul the charter. For a few weeks more he continued with a façade of compliance with its terms, but early in September the arrival of papal letters excommunicating rebels, including the Londoners and nine barons, encouraged him to throw off the mask. His troops laid siege to Rochester Castle while the rebels asked for help from France, offering the throne to Prince Louis. Louis accepted but not until December did an advance guard of French troops arrive in London. By then Rochester had already surrendered (on 30 November after a seven-week siege). But while John was detained in Kent until 10 December, his enemies enjoyed a free hand elsewhere. In October Alexander II, king of Scots, having been awarded Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland by a judgment of the twenty-five barons, received the homage of the northerners. No fewer than eleven Welsh rulers joined Llywelyn in the triumphal progress that established him as the de facto prince of Wales; in three weeks they captured seven castles, including the traditional strongholds of the English crown at Cardigan and Carmarthen.

In December John took his army north, harrying as he went. The Yorkshire rebels retreated before him into Scotland, so John invaded Alexander's kingdom. On 13 January 1216 he captured Berwick, Scotland's richest town. He raided the Scottish lowlands and then fired Berwick before heading south again. In March 1216 he marched into rebel-held East Anglia, capturing Colchester. During these months he held the military initiative and brought some rebels to submit, but not one of their leaders was won over. Nor, though he badly needed a decisive success before Louis landed, did he try to recapture London. In April 1216 John found himself once again mustering land and naval forces in Kent to meet a French invasion. However, when Louis defied papal prohibitions and disembarked at Sandwich on 22 May, John withdrew westwards without a fight. He stayed in the west throughout June, July, and August while Louis visited London, captured Winchester, and laid siege to Dover, Windsor, and Lincoln castles, control of which would have completed his hold on the eastern counties south of the Tees. The earls of Arundel and Warenne, and even Salisbury (William Longespée) submitted to Louis. Alexander II met Louis at Canterbury, and did homage for the lands he held of the English crown. In September John moved north-east to reinforce his garrison at Lincoln, and perhaps also in the hope of intercepting Alexander on his way home. Although Louis's French troops were beginning to cause patriotic resentments, two-thirds of the most powerful barons had abandoned John, as had one-third of his household knights and a number of the most experienced crown servants such as Warin fitz Gerold, William of Wrotham, Hugh de Neville, and Reginald of Cornhill. By mid-October 1216 the key castle of Dover was on the verge of falling to the French.
Death and burial
At Lynn, John suffered an attack of dysentery on the night of 9–10 October 1216. According to Coggeshall it was brought on by gluttony. On 10 October he made a grant to Margaret, daughter of William de Briouze, for the sake of the souls of her parents and brother. Over the next few days his health deteriorated and he lost part of his baggage train in the Wash. He struggled on as far as Newark, where he died during the night of 18–19 October 1216. As he had requested, his body was taken to Worcester Cathedral (still safely in loyalist hands). He was buried wearing on his head the cowl-like coif of unction he had worn at his coronation. Monastic authors such as Coggeshall and Wendover believed that he went to hell. Matthew Paris disapproved of, but repeated, the acerbic comment that ‘Foul as it is, Hell itself is made fouler by the presence of John’ (Paris, Chron., 2.669).
Appearance and character
The effigy at Worcester cannot be treated as reliable evidence for John's features; it was probably made when his body was transferred to a new sarcophagus in 1232. Gerald of Wales described John in his early twenties as of average height (or a little below it) and of quite handsome appearance. Measurements taken when his tomb was opened in 1797 indicate that he was 5 feet 6½ inches tall. Coggeshall said he was a slave to his appetite and that in later life he ran to fat. In the last fifty years historians have been sceptical of the views of monastic authors soured by their experience of the interdict, and have turned instead to the evidence of records. The earliest extant fragments of royal household accounts date from John's reign, so it is in some respects possible to know his appetites and tastes better than those of any earlier king. In this case the accounts show that he frequently failed to observe the dietary restrictions of the church on Fridays and religious festivals—his favourite oath was ‘God's teeth’—and that as a penance he gave alms to paupers. He performed similar penances whenever he went hawking on holy days.

Such routine penitential acts reveal little about his religious views. Tales of a king ready to abandon Christianity for political advantage are late and lack substance. John's wish to be buried at Worcester suggests he venerated St Wulfstan. He helped to carry Hugh of Lincoln's coffin, and he may well have shared the general admiration for the saintly bishop; it was in the atmosphere of public grief at Hugh's death in 1200 that Hubert Walter persuaded John to remit his anger against the Cistercians and to promise to found a Cistercian abbey, which he did at Beaulieu in 1204. On the other hand Hugh's biographer, Adam of Eynsham, portrayed John as a superstitious man who indulged in hypocritical displays of humility.

From the household accounts it is possible to trace debts John owed as a result of losses when playing ‘tables’ against Brian de Lisle; in 1209/10 the king's ewerer was paid for providing twenty-three baths in sixteen months; in 1214 John sent one of his mistresses a chaplet of roses taken from Geoffrey fitz Peter's garden at Ditton. He had an unknown number of mistresses and at least seven illegitimate children—all of these seven were born before 1200 while he was still married to Isabella of Gloucester, with whom he had no children. After divorcing her in 1200 he retained her lands until 1214. According to Coggeshall, Isabella of Angoulême looked about twelve years old when she was crowned queen in 1200. Not until October 1207 did she bear her first child, Henry [see Henry III]. Over the next eight years she had another son, Richard, first earl of Cornwall, and three daughters, Joan, Isabella (1214-1241), and Eleanor, countess of Pembroke and Leicester (1215?-1275). Stories such as that while Normandy was being lost John stayed in bed with Isabella, or that she took lovers whom he had throttled on her bed, are first recorded by Wendover and Paris. Until 1207 the queen and John's first wife often stayed together, and both received gifts from him. But he never gave Isabella of Angoulême the landed endowment that a queen expected. In consequence she played no political role in England.

It was not just monastic authors who had a low opinion of John. According to the Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d'Angleterre, written c.1220 by an author in the entourage of Robert de Béthune, one of John's leading commanders in the civil war, the king ‘was a very bad man [molt mal homme], cruel and lecherous’ (Histoire des ducs de Normandie, 105). By the standards of his own milieu his treatment of Arthur of Brittany, of the Briouze family, and perhaps also of Geoffrey of Norwich, justify the charge of cruelty. By these standards the number of his mistresses is irrelevant, but accusations such as Robert Fitzwalter's widely aired complaint, that John tried to take his daughter by force, are not. Indeed if there is any substance to the charge that he subjected wives and daughters of his barons to sexual harassment, then it would indicate political stupidity as well as lechery. The Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal portrays an obsessively suspicious king. There may be nothing unusual in the fact that the members of John's household promised to report anything they heard against him. More revealing are entries in the chancery rolls which show that the king devised an elaborate system of countersigns enabling him to issue orders which he intended should not be obeyed. He instructed keepers of castles and prisoners not to hand over their charges when they received written orders to do so, unless those orders were accompanied by a prearranged sign—though he sometimes forgot what the sign was. So devious a man was inevitably distrusted, even at the start of his reign—as when Arthur fled his court in 1199. Men such as William the Lion and Stephen Langton had no confidence in his safe conducts, unless they were supported by an imposing array of prelates and barons. According to Bertran de Born the younger:

No man may ever trust him
For his heart is soft and cowardly
(Thomas Wright's Political Songs, 6)

Although sporadically capable of effective military action, a king believed to be soft, cowardly, and untrustworthy was incapable of winning a war.
The quality of John's kingship
The record evidence demonstrates that John was a busy king. He was, for example, a tireless and rapid traveller. This restless movement around the country has sometimes led historians to conclude that no king has ever known England better. Undoubtedly the loss of his continental lands meant that after 1203 he was able to give an unprecedented degree of attention to the north. He went to York seventeen times and was the first king to visit Newcastle since 1158. But whether he knew the people of England as well as he knew its roads is another question, and one which record evidence alone cannot answer. Record evidence demonstrates that John took a deep interest in the administration of justice and that during his reign the common law continued to develop: procedures in civil actions were being made more readily available to people from a wider social range. Was the latter a consequence of the former? At times, perhaps—although in 1209 he closed down the regular courts and for three years insisted that all cases be heard in the court coram rege (in the king's presence). During those three years John's busyness was, at best, a nuisance. Moreover, although on the whole under-tenants benefited from increased access to a relatively inexpensive and predictable judicial system, tenants-in-chief continued to be subjected to John's dangerously expensive and arbitrary personal justice. It seemed to the author of the Histoire des ducs de Normandie that his policy towards tenants-in-chief was to stir up mutual hatreds between them.

Fiscal records detail how much he collected, and how; they also throw light on how much he spent and on what. But whether he was generous or miserly was a matter of opinion. According to the Barnwell chronicle:

he was generous and liberal to aliens but he plundered his own people; he ignored those who were rightfully his men and placed his trust in strangers; before his end his people deserted him, and at his end few mourned for him. (Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria, 2.232)

In fact record evidence demonstrates that there were many Englishmen among his loyal supporters, magnates such as the earls of Chester and Derby as well as ‘new men’ (whose promotion often disturbed local élites) such as Robert de Vieuxpont, Brian de Lisle, Philip of Oldcotes, and Hubert de Burgh. But the chronicles voice a strongly held opinion which moved men to rebel.

The earliest description of John's character, written by Gerald of Wales in the late 1180s, emphasized John's youthful follies, his impatience with critics, his preference for pleasure rather than policy. Gerald's picture of the young prince and his courtiers in 1185, amusing themselves at Irish expense, is corroborated by the number of later writers—Devizes, Coggeshall, and the authors of the Histoire des ducs de Normandie, the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, and a fragmentary Canterbury chronicle—who describe John and his courtiers sniggering at the discomfiture of others. Gerald attributed John's failure in 1185 to the fact that he followed bad advice, and expressed the hope that when he had matured he would follow wiser counsels. But fifteen years later King John's dealings with his brother Geoffrey of York and the English magnates were, in Howden's view, ‘ill-advised’ (Chronica … Hovedene, 4.92, 161). According to Diceto, before the end of 1200 John had been imprudent, had acted on the advice of evil men, and had behaved in a manner unworthy of the royal majesty. These criticisms were voiced by men who knew government circles well and who were dead by 1202; written without hindsight they are all the more telling. They explain why he failed so badly in the crises of 1203–5 and 1214–16. The unanimity of surviving contemporary opinion is itself a significant political fact. Everyone disliked John. In the end, even though there was no rival member of John's family who could lead would-be rebels and give them a legitimate cause for which to fight, their dislike and discontent were so great that they invented a new kind of focus for revolt, a programme of reform, Magna Carta. Although John is the most common of English forenames, King John is the only king of England whose name requires no numerical qualification: he was the first and last King John.
Historiography
Two authors writing in the 1220s, the Barnwell chronicler and Roger of Wendover, were to be very influential. Historians who have taken a relatively positive view of John have turned for support to the Barnwell chronicler's judgement that ‘though he enjoyed no great success and, like Marius, met with both kinds of luck, he was certainly a great prince’ (Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria, 2.232). Historians who have taken a hostile view of John have preferred Roger of Wendover's account, particularly when enlivened by some of Matthew Paris's additions. With a few exceptions such as the relatively neutral Ranulf Higden (though even he blamed John for the death of Arthur of Brittany and for the loss of his dominions), historians writing before the Reformation tended to follow the views of Wendover and Paris. Then Henry VIII's quarrel with the papacy led to a new perception of John as an ‘illustrious predecessor’ of the protestant Tudors. In John Bale's play Kynge Johan (c.1540) Verity complains of the untruths told by historians. Hence John Speed's verdict (1611), that had his story not fallen into ‘the hands of exasperated writers, he had appeared a King of as great renown as misfortunes’ (Speed, 572). However, as is clear from Shakespeare's King John, where John's conduct weakens national unity (not only does he submit to the pope but his involvement in Arthur's death provides moral justification for potential rebels), it was not easy to see this king as a heroic patriot. With the revival of the cult of Magna Carta in the seventeenth century John's reputation sank again. For Hume, he was ‘mean and odious, ruinous to himself and destructive to his people’ (Hume, 1.313). For Stubbs, ‘he made no plans and grasped at no opportunities. He was persistent only in petty spite and greedy of easy vengeance’ (Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria, 2.lxxix).

The publication of judicial and financial records in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the increasing reliance of historians on this type of evidence led to a tendency to rehabilitate John. The notion that he was the founder of the Royal Navy can be traced back to 1847, and the publication of the chancery rolls in the 1830s and 1840s. J. R. Green, writing in the early 1870s, remained convinced of John's ‘supreme wickedness’, but also asserted that he was ‘no weak and indolent voluptuary but the ablest and most ruthless of the Angevins’ (Green, 114–15). Twentieth-century historians—with the notable exception of Sellar and Yeatman, for whom John was ‘the first memorable wicked uncle’ (W. C. Sellar and R. J. Yeatman, 1066 and All That, 1930, 25)—were to emphasize the ability and downplay the wickedness; indeed psycho-history has been invoked to suggest that he may have suffered from a sense of insecurity as a result of being scarred by his upbringing. Studies of the finances of Philip Augustus, and of prices and wages in England, led to John's failures being minimized on the grounds that the growing wealth of the French crown and high inflation in England made it virtually impossible to avoid both defeat abroad and fiscal oppression at home. D. M. Stenton, a prime mover in the publication of records, returned to John Speed's verdict: ‘No king of England was ever so unlucky as John’ (Stenton, 44). Work published in the early 1960s by J. E. A. Jolliffe, W. L. Warren, and, above all, J. C. Holt, established this orthodoxy for much of the rest of the twentieth century. However, work on French and English financial records undertaken in the late 1990s suggests that he was not facing insuperable odds in France, and that in England the period of steep price increases was over as early as c.1204. Hence judgements on John's record as king are increasingly returning to contemporary opinion as voiced in both English and non-English narrative sources.

John Gillingham
Sources

CHRONICLE SOURCES Ann. mon. · Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols., Rolls Series, 51 (1868–71) · W. Stubbs, ed., Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis: the chronicle of the reigns of Henry II and Richard I, AD 1169–1192, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 49 (1867) · Paris, Chron., vol. 2 · R. Howlett, ed., Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, 4 vols., Rolls Series, 82 (1884–9), vols. 1–2 · A. O. Anderson and M. O. Anderson, eds., The chronicle of Melrose (1936) · Chronicon Richardi Divisensis / The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, ed. J. T. Appleby (1963) · Giraldus Cambrensis, Expugnatio Hibernica / The conquest of Ireland, ed. and trans. A. B. Scott and F. X. Martin (1978) · A. Holden, S. Gregory, and D. Crouch, eds., The history of William Marshal, 3 vols., Anglo-Norman Texts [forthcoming] · Gir. Camb. opera · P. Meyer, ed., L'histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, 3 vols. (Paris, 1891–1901) · F. Michel, ed., Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre (Paris, 1840) · The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 73 (1879–80) · Adam of Eynsham, Magna vita sancti Hugonis / The life of Saint Hugh of Lincoln, ed. D. L. Douie and D. H. Farmer, OMT, 1 (1961) · Memoriale fratris Walteri de Coventria / The historical collections of Walter of Coventry, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 58 (1872–3) [incl. Barnwell Chronicle] · Œuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, historiens de Philippe-Auguste, ed. H. F. Delaborde, 2 vols. (Paris, 1882–5), 210, 224 · Radulphi de Coggeshall chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series, 66 (1875) · Radulfi de Diceto … opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Series, 68 (1876) · S. Mac Airt, ed. and trans., The annals of Inisfallen (1951) · T. Jones, ed. and trans., Brut y tywysogyon, or, The chronicle of the princes: Red Book of Hergest (1955) · S. Ó hInnse, ed. and trans., Miscellaneous Irish annals, AD 1114–1437 (1947) · D. Murphy, ed., The annals of Clonmacnoise, trans. C. Mageoghagan (1896) · RECORD SOURCES L. Deslisle, ed., Catalogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste (Paris, 1856) · Curia regis rolls preserved in the Public Record Office (1922–), vols. 1–7 · H. Cole, ed., Documents illustrative of English history in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, RC (1844) · Pipe rolls, 1–14 John · A. Teulet and others, eds., Layettes du trésor des chartes, 5 vols. (Paris, 1863–1909) · T. Stapleton, ed., Magni rotuli scaccarii Normanniae sub regibus Angliae, 1, Society of Antiquaries of London Occasional Papers (1840) · D. M. Stenton, ed., Pleas before the king or his justices, 4 vols., SeldS, 67–8, 83–4 (1952–67) · T. D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli chartarum in Turri Londinensi asservati, RC, 36 (1837) · T. D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli de liberate ac de misis et praestitis, regnante Johanne, RC (1844) · T. D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli de oblatis et finibus, RC (1835) · T. D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli litterarum clausarum, 2 vols., RC (1833–4) · T. D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli litterarum patentium, RC (1835) · T. D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli Normanniae, RC (1835) · The letters of Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) concerning England and Wales, ed. C. R. Cheney and M. G. Cheney (1967) · Rymer, Foedera, vol. 1 · Selected letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England, 1198–1216, ed. C. R. Cheney and W. H. Semple (1953) · Thomas Wright's political songs of England, ed. P. Coss (1996) · J. C. Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd edn (1992), 448–73 · SECONDARY SOURCES J. Bale, Kynge Johan: a play in two parts, ed. J. P. Collier, CS, 2 (1838) · J. Speed, The historie of Great Britaine, 3rd edn (1632) · D. Hume, The history of England from the invasion of Julius Caesar to the revolution in 1688, new edn, 8 vols. (1786) · J. R. Green, Short history of the English people (1915) · K. Norgate, John Lackland (1902) · F. M. Powicke, The loss of Normandy, 1189–1204: studies in the history of the Angevin empire, 2nd edn (1961) · S. Painter, The reign of King John (1949) · W. L. Warren, King John (1961) · J. C. Holt, The northerners: a study in the reign of King John (1961) · J. C. Holt, King John (1963) · J. C. Holt, Magna Carta and medieval government (1985) · J. E. A. Jolliffe, Angevin kingship, 2nd edn (1963) · C. R. Cheney, Innocent III and England (1976) · R. V. Turner, King John (1994) · N. Vincent, Peter des Roches: an alien in English politics, 1205–38, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser., 31 (1996) · S. D. Church, ed., King John: new interpretations (1999) · D. M. Stenton, English society in the early middle ages (1951)
Likenesses

coins · manuscripts, BL · seals · tomb effigy, Worcester Cathedral [see illus.]
© Oxford University Press 2004–5
All rights reserved: see legal notice      Oxford University Press


John Gillingham, ‘John (1167-1216)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14841, accessed 23 Sept 2005]

John (1167-1216): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/1484113 
Dickens* Dickens tends to take a dim view of John's character.14
Hume* 15
Name Variation John of England10 
Name Variation John Plantagenet 
Title*1177 King of Ireland10 
Knighted*March 1185 Windsor, England, Witness=Henry II Curtmantel8 
Title1189 Comte de Mortagne, bestowed by his brother Richard I10 
(Witness) King-England3 September 1189 Westminster, Middlesex, England, Principal=Richard I the Lionhearted12,5,8,16 
Event-Misc1191 Breaking his promise to Richard, who was on crusade, John entered England. After Richard's capture, he tried to seize control of England8 
Excommunication*1193 Following Richard's return, John was stripped of his lands and excommunicated8 
(Witness) Event-Misc1194 David and his brother-in-law the Earl of Chester beseiged the Castle of Nottingham in opposition to Prince John, Principal=David of Huntingdon, Principal=Ranulph III of Chester17 
Crowned*27 May 1199 Westminster Abbey, Westminster, Middlesex, England, King of England, Witness=Sir William de Ferrers Earl of Derby, Witness=Sir Richard de Clare, Witness=Sir Roger Bigod, Witness=Sir Hamelin Plantagenet, Witness=Sir William Longespée, Witness=Sir Geoffrey FitzPiers, Witness=Sir William Marshal, Witness=Sir Waleran de Newburgh1,10,12,8,18,19 
Event-Misc*1202 King John made peace with Llywelyn and his nobles, abandoning Dafydd ab Owain and his claims, Principal=Llewelyn ap Iorwerth "the Great", Witness=Dafydd ab Owain20 
Event-Misc1204 He lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Touraine to the French king.8 
Event-Misc*10 August 1204 King John wrote to Gwenwynwyn, Prince of Wales, that Robert Corbet and Hugh Pantulf would ensure his safe conduct if the prince would come to his court at Woodstock. Llywelyn attacked Gwenwynwyn when he sided with England, Principal=Robert Corbet21 
Event-Misc1205 He refused to accept Pope Innocent III's nomination of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, starting up a feud.8 
Excommunication1208 by Pope Innocent III, who also placed England under interdict.8 
Event-Misc1208 King John and Llywelyn combined forces against Gwenwynwyn, prince of Powys. John seized Gwenwynwyn at Shrewsbury, and Llywelyn took possession of all of Gwenwynwyn's territory and castles in Powys, taking Aberystwyth Castle, and conquering all Ceredigion north of the Aeron., Principal=Llewelyn ap Iorwerth "the Great"20 
Event-Misc1210 He went to Ireland, confiscated the lands of the Lacys and banished the Earl of Ulster.8 
Event-Misc1210 He arrested all the Jews in England, and forced them to pay 66,000 marks8 
Event-Misc1210 King John and Gwenwynwyn drove Llywelyn out of Powys., Principal=Llewelyn ap Iorwerth "the Great"20 
Event-Misc1210 Llywelyn joined in a widespread Welsh uprising against King John, Principal=Llewelyn ap Iorwerth "the Great"20 
(Witness) Death1210 Windsor Castle, starved to death by order of King John, Principal=William Braose22,23 
Event-Misc1211 He invaded Wales and forced Llywelyn to submit.8 
Event-Misc1211 King John defeated Llywelyn, reduced his holdings to Gwynedd and Meirionydd, and imposed a crippling tribute., Principal=Llewelyn ap Iorwerth "the Great"20 
Event-Misc15 May 1213 John agreed to reconcile with the Pope, becoming the Pope's vassal. The interdict and excommunication were lifted., Witness=Sir William Marshal8,24 
Event-Misc15 May 1213 He was a favorite of King John and witnessed the king's concession of the kingdom to the Pope, Principal=Sir William d' Aubigny25 
Event-Misc1215 Under Magna Carta, John promised to release Welsh hostages and restore their lands, Principal=Llewelyn ap Iorwerth "the Great"20 
Magna Carta*12 June 1215 Runningmede, Surrey, England, Barons=Sir Henry de Bohun, Barons=Sir Hugh Bigod, Barons=Sir Roger Bigod, Barons=Sir William d' Aubigny, King=Sir William Longespée, Barons=Robert FitzWalter, King=Sir William de Warenne, King=Alan of Galloway, Barons=Saher IV de Quincy, Barons=Sir Robert de Vere, Barons=Sir Richard de Clare, Barons=Sir Gilbert de Clare, Barons=John de Lacy, Barons=Sir William Malet, King=Sir William Marshal, King=Sir William Marshal26,27,28,29,25,30
Event-Misc*19 June 1215 Runnymede, England, forced to sign the Magna Charta, after suffering another disastrous defeat in France. Later he repudiated the charter and war ensued between him and the barons.8 
HTML* 
National Politics Web Guid
British Monarchy Site
Britannia site
Magna Charta
 

Family 1
Children

Family 2
Child

Family 3

Anonyma de Warenne
Child

Family 4

Clementia (?)
Child

Family 5

Isabella of Angoulême b. 1188, d. 31 May 1246
Children

Last Edited23 Sep 2005

Citations

  1. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-26.
  2. [S218] Marlyn Lewis, Ancestry of Elizabeth of York.
  3. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-4.
  4. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 17.
  5. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 2.
  6. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-25.
  7. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 83.
  8. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 3.
  9. [S232] Don Charles Stone, Ancient and Medieval Descents, 11-5.
  10. [S234] David Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, Plantagenet 16.
  11. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 218-27.
  12. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Warenne 2.
  13. [S376] Unknown editor, unknown short title.
  14. [S336] Charles Dickens, A Child's History of England.
  15. [S337] David Hume, History of England.
  16. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 79.
  17. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 115.
  18. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 29.
  19. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 84.
  20. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Wales 4.
  21. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 63.
  22. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 177-6.
  23. [S233] Frederick Lewis Weis, Magna Charta Sureties, 28A-2.
  24. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 148.
  25. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 8.
  26. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Longespée 3.
  27. [S284] Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry, Warenne 3.
  28. [S338] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 8th ed., 56-27.
  29. [S338] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 8th ed., 60-28.
  30. [S347] Carl Boyer 3rd, Medieval English Ancestors of Certain Americans, p. 34.
  31. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 29A-26.
  32. [S168] Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots, 1-27.
Close