The Greatest Traitor

by Ian Mortimer

55. Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 317.

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

  Epilogue

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

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

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

  12: Chapter Twelve Revisited

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

  2. Hope, ‘Funeral Effigies’, p. 529.

  3. Hope, ‘Funeral Effigies’, p. 533.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  11. Rotuli parliamentorum, ii, 53.

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

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

  14. Rotuli parliamentorum, ii, p. 243.

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

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

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

  18. Rotuli parliamentorum, ii, p. 57.

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

  20. CCR 1330–1333, p. 270.

  21. Smyth, Lives, i, p. 297.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  32. Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 80.

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

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

  35. Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 68.

  36. Haines, ‘Afterlife’, pp. 65–6.

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

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

  39. Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 69.

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

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

  42. CCR 1323–1327, p. 686.

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

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

  45. CPR 1334–1338, p. 489.

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

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

  48. Edward was crowned Vicar of the Holy Roman Empire on 5 September 1338 at Koblenz.

  49. There is no doubt that the two entries relating to William the Welshman’s guardian refer to the same man. In the first he is Francisco Lumbard and in the second Francekino Forcet. Both of these are Italian forms of the Christian name, he is not referred to as ‘Francis’. The second is merely his Italian diminutive. In the first reference his surname refers to his place of origin, which was used while the royal clerk did not know him so well. See Cuttino and Lyman, ‘Where is Edward II?’, p. 530. Although the royal account first calls Francisco Lombard a king’s sergeant-at-arms, this is probably in order to establish his status. He does not appear elsewhere as a member of the English royal household.

  50. The meeting at Koblenz must have taken place in early September; the king then returned to Antwerp by the end of the month. William the Welshman was at Antwerp as his custodian was paid 13s 6d for his expenses for three weeks in December at Antwerp on 18 October. If William the Welshman was not with the king, he did not follow very far behind.

  51. The principal objections to William the Welshman being Edward II, given the likelihood that Edward survived Berkeley Castle, are that the man was ‘in custody’ and that his expenses in Antwerp amounted to so little. This sounds very much like a political prisoner, as Chaplais suggests. However both objections are easily answered: Edward was in the custody of the Genoese, or more particularly Nicholinus de Fieschi. Indeed the testimonial to Nicholinus’s good services the day after Edward III’s coronation may relate to his production of William the Welshman. In other words, Edward II’s status had not changed very much; he was still in custody, brought from Lombardy by Nicholinus de Fieschi. As for the small amount of money for his expenses, Manuele de Fieschi explains this with his reference to the fact that Edward had become a holy man, and lived in a hermitage. He seems to have taken the habit of a monk in Ireland not just to leave Ireland incognito but as a matter of faith. One mark was easily enough for a hermit to live on for three weeks in December, even in Antwerp.

  52. CPR 1338–1340, p. 190.

  53. CCR 1341–1343, pp. 83, 182. In addition to his salary on this journey, all his expenses were paid, amounting to more than £86.

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

  55. Gransden, Historical Writing, ii, p. 43.

  56. Haines, ‘Afterlife’, p. 75.

  Afterword

  1. That Isabella chose to be buried in this dress is suggested on the strength of it being kept for more than fifty years. See Blackley, ‘Isabella and the Cult of the Dead’, p. 26.

  * * *

  APPENDIX 1

  * * *

  Itinerary of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1306–30

  * Those dates given in brackets in the period 1317–20 refer to locations at which the Irish government is known to have operated when Roger was the king’s representative in charge, either as King’s Lieutenant or Justiciar. The itinerary is therefore not that of Roger himself but of the administrative system which followed him around. As Edmund Butler continued to act as Justiciar during Roger’s period of Lieutenancy (1317–18), and certainly did exercise royal authority, dates given here need to be treated with great caution.

  ** Those dates given in brackets at the end of 1326 refer to locations at which the queen can be placed; Roger is presumed at this time to have been with her most, if not all, of the first five months after the invasion. Roger’s visit to Pembridge seems to be the one exception.

  * * *

  APPENDIX 2

  * * *

  Children of Sir Roger and Lady Mortimer

  IT IS EASY to list the names of the children of the marriage of Roger and Joan but much harder to establish their order and dates of birth. With twelve children surviving to adulthood, it is quite possible that Joan’s confinements included a multiple birth. There is no evidence of twins, however, except in the tenuous connection that two of the daughters, Agnes and Beatrice, were certainly married at the same time, and Catherine’s and Joan’s marriages were probably also simultaneous.

  1. Edmund, the son and heir of Roger and Joan, was probably born in late 1302 or early 1303. The earliest likely date is nine months after the marriage of Roger and Joan, who were fourteen and fifteen years old respectively at the time of the marriage. However, the Wigmore Abbey Annals in John Rylands Library does not note his birth, and it is therefore possible that he was born after Margaret, as late as 1305. Since he was married in 1316, at which time he had had his own seal made, he was most probably of sufficient age to inherit, and since Roger himself was married at fourteen, and this was also the age at which the Counts of La Marche (ancestors of Joan de Geneville) came of age, the probability is that he was born in 1302–3. He married the three-year-old Elizabeth, daughter of Bartholomew de Badlesmere, at Ernwood in Kinlet, Shropshire, on 27 July 1316, and had by her two sons, Roger, born in 1327, and John, who died young. Edmund was imprisoned at Windsor Castle during his father’s exile, along with his brother Roger and the sons of the Earl of Hereford, and moved to the Tower on 1 October 1326. According to the Wigmore chronicler, he was a clever young man. He was knighted in 1327 at the coronation, but was arrested along with his father in 1330. He did not inherit his father’s titles, as these were all forfeited by the sentence of treason, but he soon regained the king’s favour, and was summoned to Parliament in his own name. The Inquisitions Post Mortem on his estate shows that Wigmore and a number of core Mortimer estates on the Marches were restored to him in 1331. He died in December 1331 or January 1332. His widow later married the Earl of Northampton.

>   2. Margaret was born on 2 May 1304 ( John Rylands Lib., Latin MS 215). According to the marriage agreement in the Black Book of Wigmore (BL Harley MS 1240), she married Thomas de Berkeley, the heir of Maurice, Lord Berkeley, in May 1319. After Roger’s submission in 1322 she was arrested, and in 1324 she was sent to Sholdham Priory. Her marriage to Berkeley was confirmed, and her offspring declared legitimate by the Pope in 1329. According to the Complete Peerage, her eldest surviving son was born in 1330. She died in 1337, supposedly under the age of thirty, and was buried in St Austine’s Abbey, Bristol (now Bristol Cathedral).

  3. Roger, the second son, was born about 1305–6. This date is suggested because it was in 1321 that he was married to Joan, the daughter of Edmund Butler of Ireland, at which time he would have been fifteen. In the same year Roger and Joan decided to settle all their Irish lands on him, and to create a separate Mortimer line through him there. He was arrested and imprisoned at Windsor in 1322, moved to the Tower on 1 October 1326, and released on Roger’s return in 1326. In 1327 he was knighted, and, his wife Joan having died without bearing children, his father proposed that he should marry the young widow of the Earl of Pembroke. The right of the marriage was granted him on 3 September 1327 (CPR 1327–1330, p. 166). He seems to have died before 27 August 1328, on which day his Irish inheritance was settled on his youngest brother, John.

  4. Maud. The reason for suggesting Maud as Roger’s second daughter is that she was the first married, before 13 April 1319 (according to the Complete Peerage). Since Roger’s method of betrothing his daughters was to obtain permission for ‘one of his daughters’ to marry, he may simply have chosen the next in line. Either way, on the above date she appears as the wife of John de Charlton the younger. If twelve at the time of marriage, then she was born about 1307. She was not arrested in 1324 as by then John de Charlton the elder had made his peace with the king. Her first surviving son was born in 1334. She was still alive in 1345.