The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (55 page)

17.
Fryde,
Tyranny and Fall
, p. 143.

18.
This is conjecture, based on two facts. These facts are that it is an enormous coincidence that Roger escaped just three or four days before his intended murder or execution, having spent more than eighteen months in the Tower; and that Isabella had been let go to spend a year away from Edward on pilgrimages, able to go where she wanted, and yet she returned to Edward and Despenser, where she was most unwelcome. That Isabella had probably met Roger in the Tower and received a message from him there makes it very plausible that these two facts are connected, and that Isabella was acting as Roger’s spy.

19.
This is an assumption based on the fact that the chapel he later built at Ludlow was dedicated to St Peter ad Vincula, and it was common at this period for men in extreme situations, such as mariners at sea in a storm, to promise to build chapels in return for their safe delivery. Also the very nature of the saint – St Peter in Chains – may be linked to chroniclers describing St Peter leading Roger out of the Tower.

20.
When he received an official pardon for the escape Richard de Monmouth was pardoned in the same words and at the same time. This probably indicates that Roger was not alone at the time of the escape. There is no chronicle evidence that he was accompanied by anyone other than Gerard d’Alspaye, but this is probably due to de Monmouth’s relative unimportance. See
CPR 1327–1330
, p. 14.

21.
Evans, ‘The Family of Mortimer’, p. 228.

9: The King’s Enemy

1.
CCR 1323–1327
, p. 13.

2.
Watson, ‘Geoffrey de Mortimer and His Descendants’, pp. 1–16.

3.
Chaplais (ed.),
St-Sardos
, p. 2.

4.
Chaplais (ed),
St-Sardos
, p. 5.

5.
Fryde,
Tyranny and Fall
, p. 134.

6.
Haines,
Church and Politics
, pp. 144–5.

7.
Maunde Thompson (ed.),
Galfridi le Baker
, pp. 16–17.

8.
Chaplais (ed.),
St-Sardos
, p. 72.

9.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 103–4; Blackley, ‘Isabella and the Bishop of Exeter’, pp. 225–6.

10.
Despenser had been exiled from France in 1321. In 1323 Charles wrote to Edward saying he would banish from France the English exiles and hoped that Edward would banish from England the French exiles living there, i.e. Despenser, reminding him of the opprobrium in which Despenser was held in France. See Chaplais (ed.),
St-Sardos
, pp. 180–1.

11.
Fryde,
Tyranny and Fall
, p. 143.

12.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 136.

13.
Chaplais (ed.),
St-Sardos
, p. 72.

14.
The authorship of the four options presented to Edward has been considered in detail by Doherty, who concludes that it was Charles’s initiative. Given that there was a strong possibility that the prince would be married off to Hainault, and given that Roger was already in Hainault, it seems very probable that the fourth of these options represents a stage in a joint plan to the mutual advantage of Roger and Charles. The lack of any letters or evidence to corroborate this theory has meant that historians investigating this stage of affairs have been unable to conclude that Roger was involved in any planning at all in conjunction with Charles and, more particularly, Isabella, until the end of 1325. In the case of highly secret proceedings, however, probably conducted by the King of France’s personal messengers, one would not expect to find any written evidence. Whether one accepts that Charles and Roger were acting in accordance over this issue is entirely a matter of whether one believes later events – particularly the marriage of Edward to Philippa – can be taken as evidence of planning by Roger and Charles at the end of 1323. I believe later events in this case are a strong indication, especially as such a marriage had already been discussed before Roger’s rebellion, and thus Roger was aware of its acceptability to the Count of Hainault.

15.
Chaplais (ed.),
St-Sardos
, p. 196. One might regard this as evidence that Edward suspected Isabella had colluded with Roger before his escape.

16.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 135.

17.
Brown, ‘Diplomacy, Adultery, and Domestic Politics’.

18.
Brown, ‘Diplomacy, Adultery, and Domestic Politics’, pp. 66–72.

19.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 119.

20.
The most perplexing subject in the story of Roger and Isabella’s affair is when their personal relationship started. Some scholars insist on the validity of a document-based approach. Doherty states that there is no evidence for Roger and Isabella being in a relationship of any sort before December 1325 (p. 126) and then states that the liaison between Roger and Isabella ‘was formed after the queen’s refusal to return home, and that Mortimer was not the cause of this refusal’ (p. 168). This is too empirical: both Roger and Isabella were quite capable of leading Edward and Despenser astray. There is no proof that Roger and Isabella had
not
formed an attachment before September 1325. One would hardly expect to find written evidence of it before the prince was in France, nor while Isabella sought to obtain favours and money from England under the cover of continued loyalty.

21.
Chaplais (ed.),
St-Sardos
, p. 103.

22.
The reasons for supposing these two men might have been waiting to act against Despenser are firstly their immediate support for Roger and Isabella when they landed in September 1326; secondly, Henry’s actions in trying to persuade the king to leave England in August 1325. It was to Thomas, Earl of Norfolk’s lands that the invaders went in 1326. That Despenser had intelligence as early as September 1324 that Roger was expected to land in Thomas’s lands in Norfolk and Suffolk (Chaplais (ed.),
St-Sardos
, p. 72), suggests that some contact on the subject of rebellion had been made between Roger and Thomas two years before the invasion actually occurred.

23.
Although there is no record of Isabella directly being asked to return to England before October, the cessation of funds and her moving to the King of France’s palace in mid-July suggests that with his reply ratifying the treaty, Edward sought his wife’s return. On her failure, he cut off her money, the last payment being made four days after the ratification of the treaty by Edward. On 18 October, when he wrote to the Pope on the matter, he stated that he had asked her to return before his son was sent to France. Hence it seems that the initial demand for her return was made in late June, and had been repeated from July onwards. See Doherty, ‘Isabella’, pp. 122–3.

24.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 142.

25.
See Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 143, written within the year, for the source that the declaration was delivered in the presence of Charles and Isabella together.

26.
Denholm-Young (ed.),
Vita
, p. 142.

27.
Aungier (ed.),
French Chronicle of London
, p. 49.

28.
CCR 1323–1327
, p. 580.

29.
It is possible that on the occasion they communicated in the Tower they had not actually met, in which case they had not seen one another since August 1321. They would have parted on very poor terms on that occasion, as it was before the attack
on Leeds Castle. However, it is much more likely that they met and confided in one another in the Tower in February 1323, as stated in the previous chapter.

30.
CCR 1323–1327
, p. 533.

31.
CCR 1323–1327
, p. 578.

32.
The marriage of the Earl of Kent and Margaret Wake was given papal permission on 6 October and probably took place in December, thus possibly being the reason for Roger’s coming to the French court at that time. The marriage would have been negotiated some time earlier, suggesting that the earl was in consultation with Roger’s camp for some time beforehand. Margaret was the daughter of Roger’s mother’s sister, Joan de Fiennes. See
Complete Peerage
, vii, p. 146, and xiv, p. 623.

33.
There are two sources for this detail. The briefer one is Despenser, who mentioned the fact to a papal legate, according to the
Historia Roffensis
quoted in Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 135. The other, which mentions the knife, is Prince Edward himself, at Roger’s trial. See
Rotuli parliamentorum
, ii, p. 53.

34.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 135.

35.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 140.

36.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 150.

37.
Froissart claims three hundred men only.

38.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 150.

10: Invader

1.
The date and exact location are confused in the various chronicles. The clearest and most explicit is the ‘Annales Paulini’ in Stubbs (ed.),
Chronicles
, pp. 313–14. Saul states at the beginning of his ‘The Despensers and the Downfall of Edward II’ that the army landed on 26 September at Walton-on-the-Naze. With regard to the date he is following Murimuth, among others, who places the invasion at Orwell (with the exception of one copyist, noted as ‘C’ in the Rolls series publication, who has corrected the entry to ‘Wednesday before Michaelmas’ (24 September)). The matter is dealt with in more detail by Round, ‘The Landing of Queen Isabella’, pp. 104–5. The exact location agreed on by most modern scholars is the Colvasse peninsula.

2.
One possible explanation for this is that de Sturmy was a supporter of Roger’s. The name de Sturmy was not a common one, and sixteen years earlier one William de Sturmy had been pardoned for murder – and thus his life had been saved – at Roger’s request. Even if this pardon did not affect John de Sturmy’s allegiance, it is noticeable that he supported the invaders very soon after their landing. This might explain how Roger managed to pass messages to English lords despite the king’s orders for all ports to search all cargoes coming into the country. For the pardon of William de Sturmy in 1308 see
CPR 1307–1313
, p. 52. For grants to John de Sturmy see the numerous references in
CPR 1327–1330
.

3.
CPR 1323–1327
, p. 327.

4.
CCR 1323–1327
, pp. 650–1.

5.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 159.

6.
Buck,
Politics, Finance
, p. 220.

7.
Saul, ‘The Despensers and the Downfall of Edward II’, pp. 14–15.

8.
Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 164; Fryde,
Tyranny and Fall
, p. 191.

9.
Doherty’s thesis is a prime example. But he admits that it is very strange that Edward II was destroyed by his queen, whom he describes as being of relatively minor political importance before her invasion. Only a biographer of Isabella would resist the obvious conclusion: that it was not Isabella but Roger who was the mastermind in the toppling of the regime, although Isabella was the crucial figurehead. Doherty merely states it is ironic that the invasion showed the previously hidden aspect of Isabella’s personality, which was a genius for organising and plotting completely contrary to her character in earlier years. May McKisack more accurately points to Roger as the real influence on the government of the realm at this time in her classic work,
The Fourteenth Century
, p. 97.

10.
Thompson (ed.),
Murimuth
, p. 50.

11.
CPR 1323–1327
, p. 655.

12.
In establishing the relative roles of Isabella and Roger one should also consider later evidence, particularly Roger’s role in the deposition of the king in January 1327 and the Berkeley Castle plot the following September. Since he was in charge of both of these latter two processes, there is every likelihood he was the principal protagonist in the declaration of 26 October.

13.
Harding, ‘Isabella and Mortimer’, p. 17; Stubbs (ed.),
Chronicles
, pp. 317–18.

14.
The phrase is slightly paraphrased. The original states that the Earl of Arundel, John Daniel and Thomas de Micheldever were beheaded ‘per procurationem domini R[ogeri] de Mortuo Mari, qui perfecto odio oderat illos et cujus consilium regina per omnia sequebatur’. Thompson (ed.),
Murimuth
, p. 50.

15.
Holmes, ‘Judgement on the Younger Despenser, 1326’, pp. 261–7; Taylor, ‘The Judgement on Hugh Despenser the Younger’, pp. 70–7; Doherty, ‘Isabella’, p. 166.

16.
Brie (ed.),
The Brut
, ii, p. 239. He was not taken to London since he may have been able successfully to starve himself to death before then.

17.
It is interesting that this figure exactly matches the amount of damage supposed to have been done by Roger and the Earl of Hereford in their war against the Despensers in 1321.

18.
After Boroughbridge de Harclay had been made Earl of Carlisle, but had been executed as a traitor a year later for negotiating a peace settlement with the Scots and discussing recognising the independence of Scotland without the king’s permission.

19.
Holmes, ‘Judgement on the Younger Despenser, 1326’, pp. 261–7.

20.
The cutting off of his penis and testicles is on the authority of Froissart, who states his private parts were removed. In view of the unofficial but known practice of severing the genitals of traitors – for example de Montfort’s testicles (see p. 8) – it is likely that Froissart reflects the actual punishment more closely than the official sentence.