The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (18 page)

In true conqueror style, on 19 February Roger held a great feast at Dublin Castle at which he exercised his right as the king’s representative to create new knights. One of those he dubbed was John de Bermingham, a ferociously loyal Anglo-Irish soldier and a commander of considerable ability, as later events would show. Another was Roger’s faithful retainer Hugh de Turpington. A third is described in the St Mary’s chronicle as ‘Lord John Mortimer’.
³⁶
This seems to have been his fourth son, who must have been a very young esquire in his father’s service, perhaps between seven and ten years old. In conferring the honour on his son Roger was able to demonstrate his family’s high status as well as his own authority.

In early March Roger undertook a last campaign to Drogheda, where he remained for four weeks. He held discussions with the king’s council over the partition of estates and the awards of lands to the Irish, and plans
were made for the final push towards Ulster. All resistance in Ireland had been crushed; Roger was master of all southern Ireland, but still Edward Bruce held out in the north. If he were to complete the reconquest and kill Bruce, a very great victory would be his, and most probably the dignity of an earldom too.

It was not to be. At the end of April Roger learnt that he was being summoned back to England. He returned to Dublin and set about winding up his activities. He appointed William FitzJohn, Archbishop of Cashel, to govern in his place, and then set about exacting a final shard of revenge upon the de Lacys. It seems that John de Lacy, the son of either Walter or Hugh, had been caught and imprisoned in Dublin. He was now taken to Trim for an audience with Roger. Unlike others, such as Miles de Verdon, who had begged forgiveness for their treachery, the de Lacys had thrown all hope of reconciliation back at Roger by killing Sir Hugh de Croft. Roger sentenced John de Lacy to be starved to death in Trim Castle, which his family had so desperately coveted.
³⁷

On 5 May Roger relinquished his command and prepared to sail for Wales. He must have left with a heavy heart, for he was passing up his opportunity of completing a glorious reconquest of Ireland from the Scots. When Sir John de Bermingham led the royal army north five months later to fight Edward Bruce, he was in effect Roger’s surrogate. In his army were some of Roger’s closest retainers: men like Sir Hugh de Turpington, Richard Tuit and John de Cusack. And his enemies amongst the Scots included men like Walter and Hugh de Lacy. It was Roger’s campaign, a war which in many ways was of his creation, but he was not there to fight it.

SIX

The King’s Kinsman

THE ROGER MORTIMER
who left Ireland in May 1318 was a different man from the Roger Mortimer who had left in December 1315. In 1315 he had been defeated, another losing commander in the sorry tale of Ireland under Edward Bruce. But in 1318 he had proved himself one of the most efficient leaders in the king’s service. He was a more confident man too. In 1318 he left £1,000 of unpaid bills arising from his household’s living expenses, which he expected the Irish Exchequer to pay. The reason for his confidence in this particular instance was that the Deputy Treasurer in charge of the Exchequer was his own man, Nicholas de Balscot.

Roger was not the only one to have changed. Relations between the king and the Earl of Lancaster were at a particularly low point. The rise of Hugh Despenser and three new favourites, namely William de Montagu, Roger Damory and Hugh Audley, had created a great antagonism between the king and Lancaster.
¹
Damory was the king’s latest infatuation, and had received the hand in marriage of one of the three heiresses of the earldom of Gloucester. Audley, a second favourite, had received the hand in marriage of the last unmarried Gloucester heiress, the third heiress being married already to Hugh Despenser. These men were described by some chroniclers as being ‘worse than Gaveston’ in their effect on the king. But they were given the largest portion of the Gloucester inheritance, and constituted a real threat to Lancaster’s influence and power. Accordingly Lancaster had tried to make a political point of their presence at court, accusing Edward of disobeying the Ordinances and demanding that they all be banished. Edward had refused, and relations between the king and his overmighty cousin had broken down completely, to the point where Edward started mustering an army at York in case hostilities should break out during the parliament to be held there in October.

In this madness, Pembroke and Badlesmere had begun to act together, as the two most experienced and sensible elder statesmen. They urged both parties to come to an agreement but, far from being reasonable, Lancaster would not even attend a conference. He feared he would be murdered at court, and anyway he preferred the distinction of being a leader of the king’s enemies to the role of a faithful subject. It was a position which suited
his cantankerous nature. But such a stance was likely to lead to a national disaster, as anyone with a clear mind could see. It was impossible to defend the northern border against the Scots without Lancaster’s help, Parliament could not function properly, Lancaster acted at every opportunity to impede the government, and there was a constant risk of civil war.

Two papal envoys had finally secured Lancaster’s tentative agreement to come to court in September 1317; but then Edward had stupidly let his favourites talk him into attacking Lancaster’s castle at Pontefract in retaliation for the occupation by Lancaster’s agents of two royal castles in the constableship of Roger Damory. Only Pembroke’s intervention had prevented bloodshed and probable war. Once again Lancaster withdrew his agreement to negotiate. Back at the point where they had started, Pembroke and Badlesmere decided on a new approach: they sought to control the king’s favourite and thus to direct the king in the way he preferred to be directed: by his closest companions. Accordingly in late November 1317 they sealed a contract with Roger Damory so that Damory would advise the king only in conjunction with Pembroke and Badlesmere. And by the spring of 1318 the two elder statesmen had achieved what they set out to do: a position of real influence over the king and his courtiers, so that civil war could be averted.

While Pembroke and Badlesmere had been working together to restore sanity at court, the English bishops and the Archbishop of Dublin had been working on the Earl of Lancaster. At their suggestion Lancaster met with them at Leicester in April, where negotiations began on a patched-up truce between the earl and the king. Enough progress was made for Pembroke and Badlesmere to join the earl and the prelates. On 12 April an outline agreement was reached on statements of intent, and enough concessions were offered for there now to be hope of a settlement. It was at this point that Roger Mortimer was summoned back from Ireland, to help negotiate on behalf of the king.

Roger did not rush. It seems that he was delayed from sailing until the end of the month, possibly due to adverse weather conditions.
²
He did not reach the English court until July, by which time preliminary meetings between the king and the Earl of Lancaster had taken place. He was not part of the embassy which was sent from Northampton to Lancaster on 4 July. This team, which included the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishops of Ely and Norwich, the Earl of Pembroke and two barons (Hugh Despenser and Bartholomew de Badlesmere) secured agreement on a number of points: that gifts made contrary to the Ordinances should be revoked and that Damory, Montagu and Audley should be banished from the court, except to answer military and parliamentary summons.
³
They
conceded that a permanent royal council, consisting of eight bishops, four earls and four barons, would monitor the king’s government over the course of each year, two bishops, one earl and one baron being with him at all times. For his part Lancaster promised he would attend the king and fight against the Scots when ordered to do so. However, having returned to court, Hugh Despenser tried to persuade the king not to confirm the terms agreed on his behalf. With Audley, Damory and Montagu also stamping their feet at the thought of being expelled from court, the king’s will gave way, and only the determination of the Earl of Pembroke saved the agreement. A second deputation, with more reliable members, was organised. Hugh Despenser was dropped, and Roger, who was back at court by 18 July,
⁴
was invited to join, probably at the joint instigation of Badlesmere and Pembroke. On 20 July the new delegation set out from Northampton for Lancaster. They returned on 29 July, having made good progress. A third delegation set out on 1 August, consisting of Roger and the same delegates as the second delegation with the additions of the Bishop of Norwich, Sir John de Somery, Sir Ralph Bassett and Sir John Botetourt. Six days later, between Loughborough and Leicester, Roger witnessed the kiss of peace exchanged between the king and his rebellious cousin. At Leake, on 9 August, the final treaty was drawn up and witnessed.

The treaty secured peace for the time being, and was a significant diplomatic achievement. For Roger it marked a personal milestone in several ways. He was chosen to be one of the four barons on the permanent royal council, and thereby acquired a position of importance in the government. Equally significantly, he had proved himself as a negotiator, a military general and a provincial governor. He was also appointed to the committee to reform the royal household. Roger may well have reflected how far he had come since he had been a mere ward in the household, fourteen years before.

Political authority carried with it financial rewards. Roger’s fee for delivering Ireland from the Scots was 6,000 marks (£4,000). Some idea of how large a sum this was, and how much it reflected the king’s high regard for him, is revealed by the fact that usually the Justiciar of Ireland received a salary of £500. In addition there were grants towards Roger’s expenses, and although payment was not as prompt as it should have been,
⁵
Roger had every reason to be satisfied with the financial rewards for his period in Ireland. Together with the not inconsiderable sum of £2,000 which he had received from de Badlesmere, he was now a rich man indeed.

As for Ireland itself, Roger could be satisfied that his estates there were now safe from incursions by native Irish and Scots invaders. On 14 October 1318 Sir John de Bermingham, whom Roger had knighted the previous
year, met Edward Bruce in battle at Faughart, just north of Dundalk. The English charged through the Scottish ranks and destroyed them, killing many. Philip de Mowbray was so badly wounded that he later died. Several Irish chiefs who had sided with Edward Bruce were also killed, including the King of the Hebrides and the King of Argyle. Hugh and Walter de Lacy escaped but Edward Bruce did not: after the battle John de Maupas’s corpse was discovered still lying on top of him; with his last breath he had ended the reign of the first and only Scottish King of Ireland. Sir John de Bermingham came to court with Edward Bruce’s head. It was the only successful overseas campaign of Edward II’s reign.

*

In December 1318 Roger journeyed back to the Welsh Marches. He was probably at Wigmore Castle for Christmas. Three days later he and his uncle, Lord Mortimer of Chirk, went to Wigmore Abbey to witness the resignation of the abbot, Philip le Galeys, in the abbot’s chamber.
⁶
This was usual practice: frequently when the abbot of an important monastic house became too old to act, he was pensioned off and another monk elected or presented in his place. Thus Philip (who had been one of the executors of Roger’s father’s will) received a pension, servants and a room near the infirmary. In his place John de Clayhanger was appointed, a man presented to the monks and the lords by the new Bishop of Hereford, Adam of Orleton.

Contemporaries and later generations considered Adam of Orleton a cunning, calculating man, a ruthless cleric with more thought for his own authority than for his flock. Orleton was highly intelligent, cynical perhaps, but with an intolerance of foolish government and a loyalty to the Pope bordering on fanaticism. Therein lies the key to understanding his political career. Orleton had spent a considerable time at the papal court, having been despatched at a very early point in Edward’s reign to Pope Clement V. Later he was closely associated with Pope John XXII, whom he counted a personal friend. Edward’s poor government exasperated and embarrassed him on an international front. He preferred the dynamic new government espoused by his noble friends, the Mortimers, to whom he felt he owed a loyalty second only to the Pope.

The nature of Orleton’s relationship with the Mortimer family is not entirely clear. His name came from one of Roger’s manors, and he himself may have done likewise, although it seems more probable that he was born in Hereford.
⁷
There is no doubt that he was acquainted with Roger from an early point in their respective careers. His appointment by Edward II as an envoy to Pope Clement in 1307 may have had something to do with Roger’s influence. Whatever his origins, he proved to be a very political
bishop. Now, at the start of 1319, he and Roger had ample opportunity to discuss matters of state, as Orleton spent six days at Wigmore.
⁸
It was the start of a working relationship which would have the most profound consequences for both men.

It was probably also at this time, or shortly afterwards, that the wedding took place between Roger’s daughter, Maud, and John, the heir of John de Charlton, lord of Powys.
⁹
This brings a curious political alignment to the fore, for John de Charlton’s younger brother Thomas had been the king’s unsuccessful candidate for the see of Hereford, which had been given to Orleton. Both Orleton and Thomas de Charlton had been clerks close to the royal household, and the two men went together to Avignon to petition the Pope on behalf of the king to appoint Henry de Burghersh to the see of Lincoln. Henry de Burghersh, who was not yet twenty-five, was another of Roger’s relatives, being the nephew of Bartholomew de Badlesmere. In fact Badlesmere paid the Pope no less than £15,000 of the king’s money for the appointment, which, overriding the previous election by the canons of Lincoln, some considered illegal.
¹⁰
Thus it is possible to see Roger, with the help of his son’s father-in-law, Lord Badlesmere, promoting the interests of several of the most intelligent and highly educated men known at court: men who, although they were in holy orders, could wield very great power through the wealth and influence associated with an English mitre. In this respect it must be remembered that Roger’s father was himself an Oxford-educated man, who had stayed at university even after it became likely that he would succeed to the family titles and estates. In these friendships with ecclesiastics – Orleton, Charlton, Burghersh, as well as Alexander Bicknor (Archbishop of Dublin) and John de Hothum already mentioned – Roger was building an educated and diplomatic power base as well as a military one. He was in effect collecting a series of political forces, and in many respects grooming himself to take over the position of the ageing Earl of Pembroke: the king’s most astute, militarily able and independent adviser, and a foil to the antagonistic Earl of Lancaster.