Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages

Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages

Also by Brendan Smith COLONISATION AND CONQUEST IN MEDIEVAL IRELAND: The English in Louth, 1170–1330 BRITAIN AND IRELAND 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (ed.) HANDBOOK AND SELECT CALENDAR OF SOURCES FOR MEDIEVAL IRELAND IN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (Edited with Paul Dryburgh)

Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages Essays in Honour of Robin Frame Edited by

Brendan Smith Reader in History, University of Bristol

Editorial matter, selection, Introduction and Chapter 1 © Brendan Smith 2009 All remaining chapters © their respective authors 2009 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–0–230–54289–1 hardback ISBN-10: 0–230–54289–1 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Contents

Abbreviations

vii

List of Contributors

ix

Robin Frame: An Appreciation Michael Prestwich

x

Introduction Brendan Smith

1

1 The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages: Shaping the Regions Brendan Smith

7

2 Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule: Over Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales J. R. S. Phillips

20

3 A Versatile Legal Administrator and More: The Career of John of Fressingfield in England, Ireland and Beyond Paul Brand

44

4 Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders Ruth M. Blakely

55

5 Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History Andrea C. Ruddick

68

6 Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320 Paul Dryburgh

89

7 The Case against Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop and Peculator James F. Lydon

103

8 A People Divided? Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict in the Work of Andrew of Wyntoun Steve Boardman

112

v

vi

Contents

9 Policies, Priorities and Principles: The King, the Anglo-Irish and English Justiciars in the Fourteenth Century Beth Hartland 10 The Ulster Revolt of 1404 – an Anti-Lancastrian Dimension? Katharine Simms 11 Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade Elizabeth Matthew

130

141 161

12 ‘Reducing their Barbarous Wildness . . . unto Civility’: England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625 Steven G. Ellis

176

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

193

Works Cited

201

Index

228

Abbreviations

AC

AClon AFM

AU BL The Bruce Cal. CCR CDI CDS CFR

Chron. Bower (Watt) Chron. Wyntoun

CJR Clyn

Annála Connacht: The Annals of Connacht, ed. A. M. Freeman. Institute for Advanced Studies (Dublin, 1944) The Annals of Clonmacnoise, ed. D. Murphy (repr.: Lampeter, 1993) Annála Ríoghachta Éireann: Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters from the Earliest Period to the Year 1616, ed. and trans. J. O’Donovan, 7 vols. (Dublin, 1851; repr.: New York, 1966; reprint with introduction by K. Nicholls, Blackrock, 1998) Annála Uladh, The Annals of Ulster, ed. B. MacCarthy, 4 vols. (repr.: Blackrock, 1998) British Library, London John Barbour, The Bruce, ed. A. A. M. Duncan (Edinburgh, 1997) Calendar of [the] Calendar of the Close Rolls (London, 1900– ) Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, ed. H. S. Sweetman, 5 vols. (London, 1875–1886) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, ed. J. Bain et al., 5 vols. (Edinburgh, 1881–1986) Calendar of the Fine Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1272–1509, 22 vols. (London, 1911–1962) Walter Bower, Scotichronicon, gen. ed. D. E. R. Watt (Aberdeen, 1993–1998) The Original Chronicle of Andrew of Wyntoun, ed. F. J. Amours, 6 vols. Scottish Texts Society (Edinburgh, 1903–1914) Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls . . . of Ireland, ed. J. Mills et al., 3 vols. (Dublin, 1905–1956) The Annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn, ed. B. Williams (Dublin, 2007) vii

viii

Abbreviations

CPR

CSM

EHR IHS IMC LI NAI Nat. MSS. Scot. NLI ODNB

PROME

RC Rot. Pat. Hib.

RRS RS SHR STS TCD TCWAAS TDGNHAS

TNA TRHS WHR

Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1216–1509, 54 vols. (London, 1891–1916) Chartularies of St Mary’s Abbey, Dublin . . . and Annals of Ireland, 1162–1370, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 2 vols. RS (London, 1884–1886) English Historical Review Irish Historical Studies Irish Manuscripts Commission Lincoln’s Inn, London National Archives of Ireland, Dublin Facsimiles of the National Manuscripts of Scotland (London, 1867–1871) National Library of Ireland, Dublin Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: From the Earliest Times to the Year 2000, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison, 60 vols. (Oxford, 2004) The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, 1275–1504, gen. ed. C. Given-Wilson, 16 vols. (Woodbridge, 2005) Record Commission Rotulorum Patentium et Clausorum Cancellariae Hibernie Calendarium, ed. E. Tresham (Dublin, 1828) Regesta Regum Scottorum, ed. G. W. S. Barrow et al. (Edinburgh, 1960– ) Rolls Series Scottish Historical Review Scottish Text Society Trinity College Dublin Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 3rd series The National Archives, London (Kew) Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Welsh History Review

List of Contributors Ruth M. Blakely, Independent scholar and Honorary Fellow, Department of History, University of Durham Steve Boardman, Reader in Scottish History, University of Edinburgh Paul Brand, Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford Paul Dryburgh, AHRC Research Fellow, Henry III Fine Rolls Project, King’s College London Steven G. Ellis, Professor and Head of History, NUI Galway Beth Hartland, AHRC Research Fellow, Henry III Fine Rolls Project, King’s College London James F. Lydon, Emeritus Lecky Professor of History, Trinity College Dublin Elizabeth Matthew, Research Fellow, Department of History, University of Reading J. R. S. Phillips, Emeritus Professor of Medieval History, University College Dublin Michael Prestwich, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Durham Andrea C. Ruddick, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, Pembroke College, Cambridge Katharine Simms, Senior Lecturer in Medieval History, Trinity College Dublin Brendan Smith, Reader in History, University of Bristol

ix

Robin Frame: An Appreciation Michael Prestwich

Robin Frame was brought up in Northern Ireland, where his roots remain strong.1 With an outstanding academic record already attained at Trinity College Dublin he came, as yet beardless, to Durham in 1969, to a lectureship in a department dominated by the redoubtable Professor Offler. The group of medievalists was small but distinguished, including as it did Donald Matthew and Gerald Harriss. It was a supportive environment, for although Offler is said to have discouraged his colleagues from publication, he gave Robin his full backing, reading all the typescript of his first book. Most important to Robin, however, has always been his family; the support of his wife Christine has underpinned his achievements. He is hugely proud of their four children, one of whom is to his delight a published historian, and thoroughly enjoys the experience of being a grandfather. Students from his earliest days at Durham remember with admiration the resilience with which he combined academic output with the rigours of bringing up the expanding family in a small house without a car. Despite his publications in impressive journals, Robin’s initial advance up the ladder of academic success was slow by more recent standards. With two books out in two years, however, he achieved the distinction of being promoted in one and the same year, 1983, to both senior lecturer and reader. In 1987–1988 he held the university’s prestigious Sir Derman Christopherson Fellowship, an acknowledgement of the importance of his research work. A part of the duties of this fellowship was to give a public lecture. This was a triumph, despite the problems presented by an overhead projector. In 1992 Robin achieved well overdue professorial status and in the same year came to the rescue of the department when, its chairman-elect having abruptly deserted it to become a pro-vice-chancellor, he stepped in to fill the breach at the unanimous behest of his colleagues. He served for three years as chairman and steadied the department after a period when notions such as ‘non-directive teaching’ had been bandied about. Robin did much to involve the younger generation of the department in developing policies, and displayed consistent kindness to his colleagues. In meetings, he showed great courtesy and patience, using x

Robin Frame: An Appreciation xi

gentle humour, an occasional tease and a twinkle in the eye to deflate difficulties. There is no doubt that he felt a sense of overpowering irritation at many of the demands placed on a head of department, but he kept his temper and his impatience in check, with well-deserved expletives largely confined to private occasions. Any follies of the university administration were met with controlled but forceful and effective protests. One particular cross he had to bear was that of modularisation; in the 1990s university managements were leaping like lemmings over that particular cliff, leaving it to departments to work out how schemes, often inappropriate, could be implemented. Robin’s wise guidance, and ability to win support, ensured that the Durham history department developed a workable and effective syllabus within the new parameters. External assessment of teaching was another issue; the typically skilful prose of Robin’s submission to the Teaching Quality Agency helped to ensure that the department duly received an ‘excellent’ rating. Research was becoming ever more important; Robin’s chairmanship covered the years of the build-up to the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise, and the department’s success both then and subsequently owed a great deal to his vision of the way in which collective excellence should be achieved by every individual contributing in their own way. While due regard was to be had for meeting targets through applications for external funding, this was to be no substitute for individuals producing excellent work and publishing it in the right places. The University greatly valued Robin’s contributions; he was a member of Council, the supreme governing body, from 1994 to 1997. He did not, however, see himself as developing a managerial role, and following his period as departmental chairman, devoted himself primarily to teaching and research, until he became an emeritus professor in 2002. He is always ready to assist his medievalist colleagues, as, for example, by joining with Richard Britnell and Michael Prestwich in editing the series of Thirteenth Century England volumes for a decade. His sense of duty, and desire to help the department, encouraged him to apply, successfully, for a major research grant, and after retirement he has remained an active member of the department, notably managing and bringing this project to fruition. For many years a pipe was part of Robin’s persona; the mantelshelf of his room in the department, full of books and well-worn furniture that matched the character of the eighteenth-century department building, was decorated with an ever-increasing number of empty tins of pungent tobacco. He appeared to ascribe inspirational properties to the lingering haze of smoke that filled his room; writing came more easily when Robin

xii Robin Frame: An Appreciation

had a pipe to hold. Nor did its effects lessen the fierce pace at which he ascended the steep slopes between the peninsula and Neville’s Cross. His teaching was inspiring and he encouraged his students by treating their ideas and suggestions with genuine interest. In tutorials a mischievous sense of humour was combined with total lack of pomposity. He cared for all his students; fears over the possible way in which one might react to a poor degree result led Robin and a colleague on one occasion to a lengthy search for him. His teaching was not limited to his own immediate field. For example, for a great many years he gave a good number of the lectures on a course on early medieval European history. His key role, however, was in developing the British and Irish dimensions of medieval history, notably with courses on Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and on England and Ireland in the fourteenth century. He had the power to convert students with a moderate interest in his subject into enthusiastic medievalists, keen to pursue the subject at postgraduate level. Robin undertook the supervision of research students with immense care. Thesis drafts were annotated with a red pen, with meticulous attention to detail. He expected the same care with language that characterizes his own work, and demanded the highest level of scholarship. His students had an absolute confidence that their work had gone through a most thorough process of evaluation. At the same time as providing expert advice, he could poke fun at his students, who might in time learn to respond in kind. His generosity to his postgraduates naturally extended long after the period of formal supervision was over. Robin is a scholar of remarkably wide reading and intellectual sympathies, with an open and questioning mind. He has never been a man to follow academic fads and fashions, and has had no interest in innovation for its own sake. Modest and self-deprecating, his values are those of real scholarship and research, and have remained steadfast. During his years in the Durham history department he has been an inspiration to generations of students, and a model to his colleagues. Robin is first and foremost an Ulsterman, and the Irish component of his make-up is something of which he is proud. His election in March 2008 as an Honorary Member of the Royal Irish Academy reflected the high esteem in which he is held by the Irish scholarly community.

Note 1. Many of Robin’s colleagues and students have contributed to this note, in particular Ruth Blakely, Chris Brooks, Beth Hartland, Sarah Layfield, Elizabeth Matthew, Ranald Michie, David Rollason, Len Scales and Philip Williamson.

Introduction Brendan Smith

Robin Frame’s achievement has been to approach the medieval history of the British Isles and the Plantagenet dominions from the direction of Ireland in ways that have changed our understanding of all these entities. It is no exaggeration to say that his work has transformed how historians of Ireland in the late Middle Ages view their subject. He has summarised his approach thus: ‘. . . historians have traditionally inclined to start out with negative assumptions; they have, so to speak, asked what was wrong with the Lordship of Ireland. There may be something to be said for concentrating . . . on the less value-laden question of what English Ireland in the later Middle Ages was like.’1 Frame’s English Ireland was like no other representation of the subject to be read by an undergraduate at Trinity College Dublin in the early 1980s. One recently published article in particular demanded of the reader a complete reconsideration of prevailing approaches: in ‘Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland, 1272–1377’, which appeared in Past and Present in 1977, Frame expounded many of the core ideas which he has developed subsequently. Moving away from notions of ‘failure’ or ‘decline’, he wrote of an Ireland that was ‘highly localised’; ‘less a lordship than a patchwork of lordships’; ‘from beginning to end a land of marches’ in which even the king’s representative acted increasingly as ‘a circumscribed marcher lord’ in the region around Dublin. Only a ‘wide dispersal of power’ relying on ‘strong ties of kinship and lordship’ was appropriate in such circumstances, and this in turn explained the appearance of such phenomena as kerne (billeted mercenaries), vendetta, and changes to inheritance customs which favoured male over female succession to land. Adaptation to the frontier, rather than ‘Gaelicisation’ lay at the root of such developments, and

1

2

Introduction

explained why the settlers continued to regard themselves as different from their Irish neighbours centuries after their first arrival, and despite the cultural accommodations with them which they undoubtedly made.2 Issues such as the balance between central and local authority, the nature of magnate power, the character of frontier society, colonial identity, and the problems associated with viewing the late medieval period in general as one of retreat, which Frame raised in this wideranging and fundamental challenge to prevailing understandings of late medieval Irish history, clearly had resonances beyond Irish shores. His outward-looking, comparative approach was inspired by his undergraduate and postgraduate studies at Trinity College Dublin: a special subject offered by Professor Otway-Ruthven on ‘The Great Liberties of England, Ireland and the Marches of Wales’ he has described as ‘a bold and unusual adventure in comparative history’, while the work of his Ph.D. supervisor, James Lydon, which focused on Irish involvement in Edward I’s Scottish wars, displayed a precocious willingness to view medieval Ireland’s frontier character in a broader European perspective.3 Contextualisation of the Irish experience within a wider orbit was fully displayed in Frame’s survey history, Colonial Ireland, 1169–1369 (Dublin, 1981), and the detailed monograph English Lordship in Ireland, 1318–1361 (Oxford, 1982). In 1984 articles by Robin Frame and Rees Davies appeared in the same volume for the first time, with the publication of The English in Medieval Ireland (ed. J. Lydon, Dublin); the fruits of the first joint meeting of the Royal Irish Academy and the British Academy held in 1982.4 In the years that followed the writings of these two scholars would prove mutually complementary and stimulating. One of Frame’s most important essays, ‘Aristocracies and the Political Configuration of the British Isles’ appeared in The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts, Connections (Edinburgh, 1988), edited by Davies, while both contributed articles to Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), edited by Robert Bartlett and Angus Mackay, a volume that sprang from a conference held at Edinburgh in 1987.5 Davies also read drafts in 1987–1988 of Frame’s next book, The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400 (Oxford), first published in 1990, which remains unique as a singleauthored survey of its subject. It is fitting that one of Frame’s most recent publication has been in the memorial volume in honour of his late friend, while the book upon which Davies was working at the time of his death in 2005, makes clear his admiration for Robin Frame’s work.6

Brendan Smith 3

The radical nature of the challenge to traditional orthodoxies presented in ‘Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland, 1272–1377’ made later modification of some of the ideas it contained likely, and in this work of revision Frame himself has taken the lead. Identifying some of his earlier views as ‘partly a reaction against a rather abstract style of institutional history that was influential in Ireland in the middle of the twentieth century’, he has noted that ‘in the 1970s I was more pessimistic about the effectiveness of the Dublin government than I had become by the 1990s’.7 While still prepared to accept that the period after 1350 ‘undoubtedly saw the balance of advantage tip in favour of local as against central authority, and of march custom as against English law’ he has recently asserted that ‘it remains striking that English systems rooted themselves as firmly as they did. There is plenty of evidence that the state in Ireland was more than an empty shell.’8 In short, while he has always seen power in English Ireland as resting to varying degrees on central authority, the great regional lords, and the county communities, Frame has of late tended to emphasise the particular significance of the first of these pillars of English rule. Such a modified perspective remains compatible with – and perhaps reinforces – his long-held views about the sense of identity and political outlook of the descendants of the original colonists: even the most acculturated of settler lords continued to consider themselves as English, and the political trajectory of the late medieval settler community was not in the direction of any constitutional distancing from England or the English crown. In English Lordship in Ireland Frame argued that the attitude of the great lords was representative of the settlers at large and that this attitude ‘was not “separatist” but “loyalist” – with all the ambiguity that epithet implies’.9 In ‘ “Les Engleys Nées en Irlande”: The English Political Identity in Medieval Ireland’, published in 1993, he was prepared to speculate that ‘in their unbuttoned moments’ the English of Ireland might have reflected upon their identity in ways which emphasised their distinctive past and sincere attachment to Ireland, but he stressed that there was no room for any ambiguity in the ‘public’ sphere of their dealings with England: ‘On the public stage one was English or nothing.’ His warning in the same article against imagining that the English of Ireland ‘formed a community with a steady self-awareness and consistent attitudes’ has recently been amplified with reference to the deep and genuine engagement of many of the settlers with native culture: ‘So, of course, there was not a homogenous “English” people in Ireland, with a single sense of its past.’ However, those who cleaved to England and those who in so many ways were indistinguishable

4

Introduction

from their Irish neighbours, ‘shared a lowest common denominator: consciousness that they were not Gaelic Irish and a sense of proprietorship that rested not just on the sword, but on English royal documents sanctioning acquisition.’10 Robin Frame’s work provides the inspiration for this volume of essays, which aspires to engage in particular with his observation in the preface to The Political Development of the British Isles that ‘British history is all the rage. Even so, there still does not seem to be much of it in print.’ Thanks primarily to the efforts of Rees Davies and Frame himself, this is less the case now than it was in 1990, but particularly for the period after c.1320 there has been, to paraphrase Frame, little looking over the partition-walls, let alone thinking about the structure of the building that is the British Isles.11 The essays in this volume address this larger concern either in the round or through concentration on some of the more specific aspects of the whole which Frame’s work has illuminated. The ambitions and actions of central government in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, for instance, were explored by him in articles concerned with individual justiciars or chief governors, among them Stephen Fulborne, Ralph Ufford and Thomas Rokeby.12 The essays in this volume by Paul Dryburgh on Roger Mortimer, James Lydon on Alexander Bicknor and Paul Brand on John of Fressingfield not only add to our knowledge of the careers of particular individuals, and the ways in which Irish experience could boost or destroy such careers, but highlight the key role played by bureaucracy in maintaining bonds between Ireland and England. It is a theme taken up by Beth Hartland in an essay which emphasises the need always to remember that Ireland rarely came high on the agenda of English rulers in the late Middle Ages, and that long-range thinking was not a strength of medieval government. The sophistication with which the settler community sought to keep its needs somewhere near to the forefront of the royal mind in the reign of Henry V is demonstrated by Elizabeth Matthew in her account of the attempt to lure the English king to launch a crusade in Ireland in 1421. Frame’s work on the British Isles has contributed to the willingness of historians to recognise the fluidity and complexity of political loyalties and cultural identities in the region in the late Middle Ages. Undoubtedly the pressures to choose sides and declare allegiances in the British Isles increased after 1300, particularly in frontier regions. Ruth Blakely’s analysis of such issues in the setting of early fourteenthcentury Galloway emphasises the importance of the short-term factors which brought the province irrevocably into line with the Scottish campaign for independence from England and suggests how easily matters

Brendan Smith 5

might have ended differently. Contingency and ambiguity are further explored in the Scottish context by Steve Boardman who exposes the crucial and enduring ‘Englishness’ of Scottish identity in the late Middle Ages, with special reference to the vital issue of language. If even the ‘hard’ border between England and Scotland in the late Middle Ages failed to eradicate such complexities, how much less tractable to centrist assumptions was the region where English Ireland, Gaelic Ulster and western Scotland met. Yet as Katharine Simms demonstrates, political developments here in the early fifteenth century can only be properly understood with reference to the usurpation of Henry Bolingbroke in 1399. England, and the concerns of its rulers and people, remained preeminent in the late medieval British Isles, though some of those concerns, and the very meaning of ‘English’ itself might change with time. Relatively resistant to change, however, was the English self-image of a civilizing force; of a people obliged to rescue the fallen Welsh and Irish in particular from their benighted ways. It is a theme that unites the essays of J. R. S. Phillips and Steven Ellis, which together cover the period from the 1280s to the 1600s. Phillips’ essay in particular reminds us of the need to remember that English kings considered Gascony to be an integral part of their domain. The complications this generated, as the English became more territorially conscious and more suspicious of those not born in England, is explored by Andrea Ruddick in an essay which challenges those with a British Isles perspective to consider their remit. Ways of thinking about the late medieval British Isles and its relations with the English realm are central to Ruddick’s article and at the heart also of those of Ellis and Brendan Smith. ‘By setting familiar things in a less familiar context’, Robin Frame wrote of one of his own works ‘[this] book may prompt fresh questions.’ That is also the ambition of this volume; a volume that hopes to inspire new thinking not only about Ireland, but also about the English world in the late Middle Ages.

Notes 1. Frame, ‘Failure’, 13. Throughout this volume the page numbers given in references to those articles by Robin Frame which are collected in his Ireland and Britain, are to that volume rather than to the pagination in the original place of publication. 2. Frame, ‘Power and Society’, passim. 3. Frame, Political Development, quote in preface. Among relevant publications by Lydon see ‘Bruce Invasion’, ‘Irish Levies’ and ‘Problem of the Frontier’.

6 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Introduction

Frame, ‘War and Peace’; Davies, ‘Lordship or Colony?’ Frame, ‘Military Service’; Davies, ‘Frontier Arrangements’. Frame, ‘Lordship and Liberties’; Davies, Lords and Lordship. Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 145; Frame, Ireland and Britain, x. Frame, ‘Ireland’, 379; Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 145. Frame, English Lordship, 331. Frame, ‘Les Engleys’, quotes at 144; Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, quotes at 157. 11. ‘As well as looking over the partition-walls, we need to do some thinking about the design of the building itself’: Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 169. For the British Isles after c.1320 see in particular Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’; Davies, Lords and Lordship; and the works by Ellis cited in the bibliography of this volume. A particularly important recent contribution is Griffiths (ed.), Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. 12. Frame, ‘The Justiciar’; Frame, ‘Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford’; Frame, ‘English Officials’; Frame, ‘Thomas Rokeby’. See also his contributions to Connolly (ed.), Oxford Companion, and the ODNB.

1 The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages: Shaping the Regions Brendan Smith

Does Robin Frame’s remark, made with reference to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that ‘the wider perspective has the advantage that it refreshes those parts of the past that “national” history does not reach’ hold true for the two centuries that followed? Sandy Grant has written that ‘the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were the least obviously “British” of any in the archipelago’s history’, and it is clear that by the 1340s at the latest some of the most important unifying features of the earlier period – such as the movement of English peasant cultivators into other parts of the archipelago, and the existence of a trans-national, trans-marine, aristocracy of Anglo-French origin and culture – no longer pertained, or were much reduced in significance. With England’s energies from that time directed towards its ambitions in France and, as Rees Davies put it, ‘the national shutters coming down’, there seems little point in continuing to engage with Frame’s exhortation ‘to do some thinking about the design of the building itself’ as well as looking over the increasingly sturdy partition-walls of the British Isles.1 This may come as something of a relief to historians who have never been entirely comfortable with the wider, British Isles perspective. It was presumably with Frame’s assertion that ‘there is value in trying to assemble [the history of the British Isles] in ways that make it more than the sum of “Welsh history”, “Scottish history”, “Irish history”, and “English history”’ in mind that Barbara Harvey asked in her conclusion to the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries volume of the Short Oxford History of the British Isles series whether ‘the British Isles possess a history of their own in this period amounting to more than the sum of the histories of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales’, and answered in the negative. ‘The real life of the islands’, she insisted instead, ‘was not in the whole, but in the parts.’2 The same kind of thinking lay behind the format of 7

8

The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages

the Blackwell Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages, edited by Steve Rigby. It was from ‘a desire to do justice to the history of each of Britain’s component parts’ that the decision was taken to treat England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales in separate chapters, rather than to analyse themes in relation to the British Isles as a whole. It was a decision that met with the approval of Tim Thornton, whose review of the volume lauded it for eschewing ‘the type of “British” approach which attempts to write a unified history of these islands during this period, and which would be an impossible and meaningless task’. The single essay in the book which offered a British Isles perspective, written by Seán Duffy, struck a cautious note, urging that ‘for all the insight that the supranational approach provides, it is essential that British history complement rather than demolish the national model’.3 While it is true that the pioneers of the medieval British approach, Robin Frame and Rees Davies, argued against substituting for national historiographies ‘a more unnatural form of tyranny’ – and both, of course, wrote highly regarded national histories themselves – it is also the case that the British Isles perspective they advocated was intended to challenge, as least as much as to complement, the tradition of national history writing within the archipelago. Davies’ disdain for the exceptionalism and particularism typical of the genre was especially evident, perhaps most strikingly in his remark that the histories of the four countries of the archipelago ‘are no less, and no more, constructs of historiographical imagination than are histories of Europe – or the British Isles’.4 British Isles history in its medieval form grew from the impatience reflected in this remark with the tendency to read present concerns back into the past, a tendency that directed the types of questions historians asked, the sorts of evidence they used and how they used it. ‘Once our historical gaze could be shifted from the state and its institutions and from the seductive appeal of its prolific archives’, Davies wrote, ‘other solidarities and collectivities could come more clearly into focus. Some of them seemed to have as great, if not occasionally greater, depth and historical resilience than did the nation state. At the very least they deserve to be studied alongside it’.5 The state, and perhaps even the nation state, can be argued to have been in existence or in genesis in parts of the British Isles in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but once the archipelago is regarded as a whole it becomes apparent that an approach dedicated to tracing the development of these phenomena cannot comprehend other important aspects of historical change – other solidarities and collectivities – in the region in this period. To quote Davies again, ‘English and even

Brendan Smith 9

Scottish political history succeeds in imposing order on the past because it deals with and gives prominence to unitary, centralized, politics. It is not a formula which works well in the rest of the British Isles.’6 Such a perspective becomes more not less relevant in dealing with the period after the early fourteenth century, when unifying factors which had previously operated within the British Isles had largely gone into abeyance, and when some sort of ‘state-based’ order appeared to have been put in place in the region. In terms of political geography, the half-century between Edward I’s conquest of Wales in 1283 and the final annexation of the Isle of Man to England in 1333 witnessed the establishment of relationships within the archipelago which were to prove long-lasting. Wales had lost its independence for ever; the kingdom of the Scots endured in the face of English claims to overlordship which were not to be retracted; English rule in Ireland and the Isle of Man would never again be contested by the Scots.7 That subsequent change occurred was due in large part to the fact that the politics of the archipelago were not self-contained. England won and lost massive estates in France between the 1340s and the 1450s, and its fluctuating fortunes there allowed the Scots to regain by the 1390s almost all they had lost to Edward III in the 1330s and 1340s. They retook the remnant in the 1460s, the same decade in which, by peaceful means, they acquired Orkney and Shetland from Norway.8 Recognition of the fact that the borders of the kingdoms of England and Scotland continued to be subject to alteration after 1333, however, still provides at best a very inadequate insight into the political realities of the late medieval British Isles. If the king of England’s claim to be king of France could not be made effective in this period, royal claims exceeded practical control within the archipelago too.9 Ireland’s constitutional ties to England in the Middle Ages were never again challenged from without after 1318, for instance, but the effective reach of the crown within the island was much shorter in 1470 than it had been in 1300. The same could be said of the king of Scotland’s position in Highland Scotland and the Western Isles after 1330. The two situations were in fact closely related since the establishment by West Highland Scottish mercenary families of their own lordships in the north of Ireland not only reflected the weakness of the Scottish crown but in turn also reduced English royal authority in Ireland.10 The effectiveness of that authority could also be called into question much closer to ‘home’ on occasion. Damaging French raids on southern coastal regions of England occurred in the 1330s, 1340s, 1370s and 1390s, and there were reports of full-scale invasion plans in 1339, 1344 and 1386. The persistence

10

The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages

of Welsh resentment a century after the Edwardian conquest was also exploited by the French, with the English finding it politic in 1378 to assassinate the last heir of the Gwynedd dynasty, Owain ap Thomas ap Rhodri [Owain Lawgoch], who had made a career fighting for France and who attempted more than one landing in Wales with French support. Such a landing, of course, did occur at Milford Haven in August 1405 in response to the invitation of Owain Glyn Dwr. ˆ 11 If actual events served to demonstrate the vulnerability of the political configuration of the British Isles brought into being in the half-century before 1333, they paled in comparison with the plans – real or rumoured – for alternative arrangements of the archipelago which circulated in the region. A clear echo of Robert Bruce’s proposed Scottish– Irish–Welsh alliance of the early fourteenth century resonates in Glyn Dwr’s letters to the king of Scotland and the Irish chiefs in 1401–1402 ˆ seeking support against the English.12 The so-called Tripartite Indenture, supposedly drawn up in February 1405 between Owain, Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland, and Edmund Mortimer senior, brother of Roger, earl of March (d. 1398), and Owain’s son-in-law, envisaged the threefold division of Britain south of the Scottish border ‘If it appears to the three lords with the passage of time that they are indeed the persons of whom the Prophet speaks, between whom the governance of Greater Britain ought to be divided and partitioned.’ The scheme closely resembles the plot outlined by Orderic Vitalis in his account of the revolt of the English earls against William the Conqueror in 1075, in the course of which Earl Roger of Hereford and his brother-in-law Earl Ralph of East Anglia attempted to lure Earl Waltheof of Northampton into their conspiracy with the words ‘we can promise you a third part of England . . . one of us shall be king and the other two dukes’.13 While it is unlikely that the single chronicler who discusses the Indenture was aware of Orderic’s work it is significant that attempts to denigrate opponents and alarm loyalists in England across this time span should involve the peddling of the same scare-stories about threats to the unity of the kingdom. If England, united for so long by the early fifteenth century, could be imagined to be at risk of the type of disintegration described in the Tripartite Indenture, how much more vulnerable to fracturing was Ireland, so lacking in any such tradition of unity. In February and March 1332 juries at Clonmel (co. Tipperary) and Limerick alleged that a combination of Irish and English settler lords had plotted to make the earl of Desmond the king of Ireland in 1327. The island, according to the Limerick jury, was then to have been divided into its ancient provinces,

Brendan Smith 11

with Desmond ruling Munster and Meath, and Leinster, Connacht and Ulster being parcelled out between three other settler lords. Unlikely as the accusation was, it demonstrated on the part of the jurors an awareness both of the traditional structure of authority in Ireland and of the damage that could be done to an opponent by suggesting that he wished to harness such traditions. The same sensitivity to broader concerns and willingness to exploit them in order to undermine an opponent was on display again at Tralee (co. Kerry) – situated deep in Desmond’s own earldom – in August 1346, when a jury claimed that two years earlier the earl had written to the kings of France and Scotland and had sent messengers to Pope Clement VI at Avignon, urging their support for his bid to seize Ireland and rule it as the pope’s vicar. It is a British Isles perspective that allows us to identify first in Ireland in the 1330s and 1340s, and then in Wales in the 1400s, the continuity of concern in English political society in the late Middle Ages about the twin threats of internal disintegration and external intervention. As the landing of the French at Milford Haven at the behest of Glyn Dwr ˆ in 1405 served to demonstrate, the second of these threats was real enough.14 And what of the first? Were there forces within English political society which worked against the maintenance of the long-established unity of the kingdom? That the answer is no does not mean that the character of that unity was immune to change or that such change as did occur was detrimental to royal authority – indeed, it was often inspired by kings themselves. Stephen’s policy of appointing earls as regional governors in the 1130s and 1140s was not repeated by later English kings, but these rulers were accustomed to countenance divisions of their kingdom for administrative purposes, with the River Trent, for instance, serving as a convenient border between north and south, and were prepared to accept the existence of magnate liberties wherein royal authority was to varying degrees curtailed. Richard II took such traditional arrangements a significant step further in 1385 when he bestowed upon his favourite Robert de Vere the title duke of Ireland and delegated to him full regal powers within the island. In the last years of his reign Richard went further still by adding a regional dimension to English kingship which had no recent historical precedent. His construction of a royal power-block encompassing Cheshire, north Wales, the recently forfeited estates of his enemies in the northern Welsh marches and Lancashire, the Isle of Man and eastern Ireland was quickly reversed by Henry IV following his usurpation of the throne, but had a lasting impact on English political thought. It perhaps inspired the extreme scenario of disintegration outlined in the story of the Tripartite Indenture,

12

The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages

and left a legacy in the fifteenth century (and much later) of distrust of semi-autonomous regions both in England and in parts of the British Isles under English rule.15 Whether real or imagined, whether internal or external in origin, challenges to the political configuration of the British Isles in the late Middle Ages, and more particularly to the dominant role of England therein, were ever-present. That they were recognised by English contemporaries, and filled them with foreboding, is suggested by the defensive tone of The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye of c.1436. Composed in the immediate aftermath of the duke of Burgundy’s defection to the French, the tract is concerned with borders and their preservation and views the threat to English power in the context of the British Isles as a whole. Thus it stresses the need to maintain command of the seas and, drawing on the opinions of James Butler, fourth earl of Ormond, advocates a full conquest of Ireland in order to prevent French attacks on England via Wales.16 The interrelatedness of England’s worsening situation in France and its position within the British Isles was personified in the career of Richard, duke of York, who was appointed lieutenant of France in 1436 – probably the same year as the composition of The Libelle – and lieutenant of Ireland in 1447. His remark to his brother-in-law, the earl of Salisbury, in June 1450 that he would rather die than have it said that ‘Ireland was lost by my negligence’ echoed the exclamation of his predecessor as lieutenant in France, Henry V’s brother, John, duke of Bedford, to the council in 1434 that the loss of Normandy ‘should cause me a perpetual hert’s hevynesse and sorrow’, and reflected the same revulsion at the idea of the loss of any of the England’s territories. That Ireland and Calais served as the respective points of departure for York and the earl of Warwick as they invaded England in pursuit of the former’s claim to the throne in 1460 reminds us that in political terms the British Isles and France were one arena in this era.17 The contest for the English crown between the 1450s and the 1480s had very little impact on territorial boundaries within the British Isles. With the exception of its few remaining Scottish enclaves England lost none of its British possessions, and direct French military intervention in the archipelago was limited to occasional, severe, cross-Channel raids. If the long-held fear of external invasion and conquest was not fulfilled in this era of civil war, neither was that of internal disintegration, with both sides in the conflict fighting for undisputed rule of a single, united, England, and no hint to be found of the kind of thinking outlined in the Tripartite Indenture. It was the long reign of a king ‘for whom the word “incompetence” is a pale reflection of the grisly reality’, rather than any

Brendan Smith 13

inherent tendency of great provincial lords to compete for supremacy, that led to the Wars of the Roses.18 A glance over one of the partitionwalls in the British Isles at this juncture brings home the significance of Henry VI’s inadequacies. Fifteenth-century Scotland was devoid of neither political turmoil nor ambitious provincial magnates, yet prolonged civil war was avoided there not only because the Stewart kings never failed to produce sons to succeed to the throne, thus precluding the appearance of legitimate potential competitors, but also because these were ‘exceedingly tough and effective kings’.19 The pitched battles of the Wars of the Roses – whether of the private feud variety, or those involving royal forces – were a type of military activity with which the late medieval British Isles was largely unfamiliar. Fifteenth-century Ireland, for instance, witnessed only one engagement of this sort, at Piltown in 1462.20 The region as a whole, however, experienced as a shared phenomenon the preparation for and conduct of warfare throughout the late medieval period, and in this context the true novelty and importance of the Wars of the Roses lay in the way in which they brought England into closer conformity with the rest of the archipelago.21 While for the English the arena of warfare since the 1340s had for the most part been France rather than the British Isles, the remilitarisation of the English aristocracy under Edward III and the fact that warfare thereafter became a usual experience for generations of nobles, created a hunger for military adventure which could be hard to satisfy. Conflict within the aristocracy between, to take one example, its older and more recently established elements, which could be contained while the war in France proceeded well, erupted into armed conflict in England itself almost as soon as the French war ended in defeat.22 Elsewhere in the British Isles, on the Anglo-Scottish border and in much of Ireland, frequent, small-scale, warfare was common, prompting the widespread building of a type of defensive structure, the tower house, not seen in other parts of the archipelago. In such militarised regions the economy, legal system, inheritance customs and family organisation all adapted to meet the demands of warfare, and a variety of lordship prevailed which involved the recruitment and billeting of mercenary soldiers.23 It is possible, without downplaying the significant differences that existed between the situation in England and elsewhere in the British Isles, to consider warfare as a phenomenon common to the archipelago as a whole in the late Middle Ages. To do so, however, demands awareness of patterns and relationships that were regional rather than national in character. It was its regionalism that Ranulf Higden, writing

14

The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages

in the disturbed 1320s, emphasised first in his description of England, and he went on to ascribe different combinations of moral traits to people from the south, the midlands and the north of the country.24 Late medieval comment on regional identities throughout the British Isles usually arose in response to some form of discord, and as a result was often framed in negative terms. In Ireland, for instance, Gaelic and English sources, whether administrative or annalistic, rarely deviated from the use of ethnic descriptions of individuals or groups as either English or Irish, Gaill or Gaedhil. As strict as any other contemporary in this regard was John Clyn, the Kilkenny Franciscan chronicler, who probably died in 1349. It is significant, therefore, that he describes those attacked by the citizens of Drogheda in 1317 as ‘Ulstermen’ (Ultonienses). These were almost certainly English refugees who had been driven from their lands in the liberty of Ulster by the Bruces but who had lost the sympathy of their fellow settlers by then pillaging and burning Meath, Leinster and Munster ‘like Scots’ (quam Scoti).25 Clyn uses the word Ultonienses to denote a distinctive and dangerous group of people defined by their place of origin rather than by their political allegiance or ethnic identity. We have seen that regional issues could be used against the earl of Desmond in the 1330s, and the aristocratic factionalism so typical of late medieval Irish politics could also assume a provincial colour, as at the battle of Knocdoe, near Galway, in 1504, when ‘the Gaill and Gaedhil of Leinster’ defeated a mixed force of settlers and natives from Connacht and Munster.26 In similar fashion, Adam Usk, writing in south-east Wales during the Glyn Dwr ˆ revolt, was particularly critical of ‘Snowdonia . . . the source of all evils in Wales’ with its ‘woods and caves’ and wrote of his sojourn in Welshpool between 1409 and 1411 as an experience of exile from his native country.27 Contrasting landscapes were central to John Fordun’s description of c.1370 of the different peoples of Scotland, which famously distinguished between the English-speaking and refined ‘people of the coast’ on the one hand, and the savage and Gaelicspeaking ‘Highlanders and people of the islands’ on the other.28 In England regional polemic was never far below the surface in times of crisis. Vitriol was heaped on the men of Cheshire by Adam Usk and others in the aftermath of the deposition of their patron, Richard II, and it has been said that Henry IV regarded the area ‘almost like a conquered enemy country’ immediately after his usurpation. Fifty years later reference to the ‘malice of the northmen’ supporting Margaret of Anjou was employed by partisans of Richard, duke of York, in order to gain the favour of the inhabitants of southern England during the civil war.29

Brendan Smith 15

We can recognise that regionalism was a powerful political weapon in the late medieval British Isles without accepting either that the negative polemic associated with it had a basis in objective reality, or that those to whom a regional identity was assigned by critical contemporaries had any sense of themselves belonging to the community concerned. Tony Pollard has argued that ‘the north had northernness thrust upon it’ in the late Middle Ages, and to the extent that ‘northerners’ may have found any meaning in such a label, they would have rejected the association made by Higden that they were ‘more cruel and volatile’ than those whose origins lay further south.30 If at times in the late Middle Ages the inhabitants of Galloway, the palatinate of Durham, Cheshire, the diocese of Norwich, Cornwall, individual Welsh Marcher lordships, or the ‘four loyal counties’ of eastern Ireland, believed themselves to be different from their neighbours, they were also aware of belonging to larger communities and witnessed in the period after the Black Death economic and social changes that diluted many of the bonds which held them together.31 In the Welsh March, for instance, closed communities shattered in the late fourteenth century as labourers and tenants migrated eastwards in large numbers, leading to the breakdown of traditional Welsh pattern of tenure based on kindred and hereditary right, while in Ireland there was concern over the migration of those of settler stock to England.32 Wendy Childs has argued that moving around in late medieval England was neither uncommon nor particularly difficult, and migration to England from elsewhere in the archipelago is, like the impact of warfare, a theme which calls for a wider, British Isles perspective. The fact that students at Oxford University were designated as either ‘northerners’ or ‘southerners’, but that the former included Scots, Welsh and Irish, suggests a blurring of categories of identification which such migration surely encouraged, and adds force to the remark of Rees Davies that ‘important as are the frameworks of politics, ethnicity and national loyalties, there are other orbits of power and relationships which operate outside and across these frameworks’.33 The region, Tony Pollard has argued with regard to the north-east of England, ‘is but a cultural construct of the past by the present, driven now by a contemporary political discourse’. The same, of course, may be said of the nation, and it is clear that throughout the late medieval British Isles the acquisition and exercise of political power had a regional aspect. English historians have tended to approach this topic with some caution. Mark Ormrod, for instance, has written disapprovingly of how ‘in recent years there has been a reaction against the history of “high” politics (i.e., as viewed from the centre) and towards the idea that the

16

The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages

true character of medieval political life can only be comprehended by studying the “low” politics of the regions and localities and the “popular” politics of the mob’. Whatever about the lowness or otherwise of regional politics, study of it does involve, to paraphrase Davies, shifting our gaze somewhat from the state and its institutions, and Christine Carpenter and Gerald Harriss, among others, have argued for the existence of regional elites and a regional politics in parts of England at particular points in time. The development and character of these phenomena cannot be satisfactorily understood within the parameters of the venerable ‘County community or Magnate affinity?’ paradigm.34 Regional politics received some, though not all, of its character from the attempts of nobles to consolidate their territorial lordships, whether by purchase, marriage, the currying of royal favour, or intimidation and violence. Most noticeable in times of political uncertainty such as the 1320s and in areas where military concerns persisted, such as the AngloScottish border and Ireland, the process was ongoing throughout the late Middle Ages, and encompassed not only areas where lordship had traditionally been intense, such as the Welsh March, Lennox and the Isles, but also parts of England where such lordship was less likely to be concentrated in the hands of a single noble family, such as the North and West Midlands, Sussex, Somerset and East Anglia.35 Simultaneous and complementary to this process of consolidation was the determination of the greatest lords to avoid concentration of their landed property in only one region. It was usually lords of the second rank such as the Courtenay earls of Devon, or the earls of Desmond in south-west Ireland, whose estates were thus concentrated, and their national political significance was proportionately small. By contrast, the greatest of the ‘northern’ families which would play such a key role in the Wars of the Roses, the Percies and the Nevilles, and the premier lords of fourteenth-century Scotland, the Douglases and Stewarts, held land not only near the Anglo-Scottish border but also in other parts of England and Scotland.36 The new dynasties which ascended the thrones of Scotland and England in 1371 and 1399 had in common the fact that they brought to their kingships large family estates; the ways in which they blended their private and royal inheritances, and sought to extend their influence beyond the family patrimony is one of the most important stories in fifteenth-century British history.37 That for the aristocracy in most parts of the British Isles exerting regional influence was not an end in itself but rather a means to wield power at a higher level was one of the many reasons why regional politics could never be identical to the immediate priorities of a particular

Brendan Smith 17

magnate who might hold sway in the area.38 In the same manner as patterns of warfare and migration, the pattern of regional politics was not constrained by national or ethnic borders, and like these other phenomena argue for the continued validity in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries of a broader, British Isles perspective. Rees Davies contended that ‘If “British Isles history” is to succeed as a category it may need a somewhat different focus and even terminology from that to which so much current national histories have habituated us; it may need to place more emphasis on environment and communications; it will need to attend more closely to the social and economic context of “political” power; it will need to analyse the changing character of bonds of lordship, kinship and community.’39 It will need, in part at least, to be regional.

Notes 1. Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, quotes at 162, 169; Davies, ‘In Praise of British History’, quote at 17; Grant, ‘Scottish Foundations’, quote at 97; Davies, First English Empire, 142–90. Versions of this article were delivered at the University of Bristol, University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin. I am grateful for the helpful comments received from those who attended. I am particularly indebted to John Watts for reading the text and saving me from several errors. Those that remain are no fault of his. 2. Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, quote at 168; Harvey, ‘Conclusion’, quotes at 243. 3. Rigby, ‘Introduction’, quote at xvii; Thornton, ‘Review’, quote at 374; Duffy, ‘British Perspective’, quote at 171. For less cautious criticism of the British Isles approach see the contribution to the Rigby volume by J. Beverley Smith and Llinos Beverley Smith on Wales, esp. 310. 4. Frame, Political Development, quote at 3; Davies, ‘In Praise of British History’, 10; Davies, ‘History of the British Isles?’ quote at 358. 5. Davies, ‘Peoples of Britain and Ireland, I’, quote at 1; Davies, ‘Medieval State’. 6. Reynolds, ‘There were States’; Davies, ‘History of the British Isles?’ quote at 359. 7. Frame, Political Development, 130–68; Davies, Domination and Conquest, 109–29; Davies, First English Empire, 172–90; Prestwich, Plantagenet England, 150–64, 230–65. For the Isle of Man’s relative autonomy in the late Middle Ages, and Scottish interest in reclaiming the island see Thornton, ‘Scotland and the Isle of Man’. 8. Prestwich, Plantagenet England, 304–27; Harriss, Shaping the Nation, 405–32, 540–87; Curry, Hundred Years’ War, 28–104; Nicholson, Edward III and the Scots; Grant, Independence and Nationhood, 32–57; Brown, Wars of Scotland, 232–54; Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp. 9. Ruddick, ‘Ethnic Identities’, 15. 10. Frame, ‘Ireland’; Cosgrove, Late Medieval Ireland, 37–46; Kingston, Ulster and the Isles; Nicholls, ‘Scottish Mercenary Kindreds’; Bannerman, ‘Lordship of the Isles’; Grant, ‘Scotland’s “Celtic Fringe” ’.

18

The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages

11. Serle and Burghart, ‘Defense of England’; Carr, Owen of Wales, 15–55; Carr, Medieval Wales, 103–5, 112–5. 12. Davies, Revolt, 158–9, 188–90. Chronicle of Adam Usk, 148–53. 13. Davies, Revolt, 117, 160, 166–9; Ecclesiastical History, II, 310–5. I am grateful to Professor Daniel Power for drawing this comparison to my attention. 14. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 174–82, 205–18, 267–78; ‘Legal Proceedings’. 15. Warren, Governance, 89–95; Brown, Governance, 120–2, 141–55; Thornton, ‘Cheshire’; Davies, ‘Richard II’; Frame, Political Development, 139–40; Saul, Richard II, 274–5, 287–92; Castor, King, Crown and Duchy of Lancaster, 2–21. 16. Williams, Recovery, 165–98; Frame, ‘Kingdoms and Dominions’, 166–7; Griffiths, ‘Wales and the Marches’, 55, 64–70; Holmes, ‘Libel’; Scattergood, ‘Lybelle’. 17. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 29–77, 194–224; Harriss, Shaping the Nation, 566–649, Bedford quote at 566. Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 51–69, York quote at 55. For analysis of an earlier example of simultaneous Irish and French elements in English royal politics see Green, ‘Lordship and Principality’. 18. Carpenter, Wars of the Roses, 252–6, quote at 252–3. Horrox, ‘England’, 226; Watts, Henry VI, 363–6. The localised nature of the fighting, and the regional element of the conflict are discussed in Goodman, Wars of the Roses, 206–26; Gillingham, Wars of the Roses, 254–7; Pollard, Wars of the Roses, 80–6. For the distribution of the estates of Richard, duke of York, see Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 14–15. 19. Brown, ‘Scotland Tamed?’; Wormald, ‘Scotland’, quote at 527. 20. Crooks, ‘Factions’, 450; Carpenter, Wars of the Roses, 253. 21. Frame, ‘Kingdoms and Dominions’, 165–70. ‘England in the fifteenth century was the most peaceful country in Europe’: Gillingham, Wars of the Roses, 15. ‘In another way Scotland was unique [in the fifteenth century]: it was not a country at war’: Wormald, ‘Scotland’, 528. 22. Ormrod, Political Life, 99; Waugh, ‘England’, 210; Harriss, ‘Dimensions of Politics’, 8; Richmond, ‘Identity and Morality’. ‘Once France was irretrievably lost there was less incentive for the nobility to pull together if other things were pulling them apart’: Carpenter, Wars of the Roses, 254. 23. Goodman, ‘Kingship and Government’, 212 and map at 213; Frame, Political Development, 198–224; Davies, Lords and Lordship; Brown, ‘Development of Scottish Border Lordship’; Neville, Violence, Custom and Law; Neville, ‘Remembering the Past’; Boardman, ‘The Campbells and Charter Lordship’; Smith, ‘Keeping the Peace’. 24. ‘The British Isles were multi-regional and culturally mixed in the later Middle Ages’: R. Griffiths, ‘Introduction’, quote at 17; Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 131–6. 25. Clyn, 167. ‘Throughout [Clyn’s] narrative the national labels are remorselessly affixed’: Frame, ‘Les Engleys Nées en Irlande’, 141. 26. Cosgrove, Late Medieval Ireland, 102–3; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 106–8; Crooks, ‘Factions’. 27. Davies, Lordship and Society, 231–48; Chronicle of Adam Usk, xxiii–xxiv, 172, 240. 28. Grant, ‘Scotland’s “Celtic Fringe” ’, 119–20.

Brendan Smith 19 29. Thornton, ‘Cheshire’, quote at 91; Chronicle of Adam Usk, 48–9; Goodman, Wars of the Roses, 217, 225. 30. Pollard, ‘Characteristics’, 143; Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 132. 31. Regional identities are discussed in excellent chapters by Griffiths, Morgan, Bennett, Frame and Goodman in Griffiths (ed.), Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. The identity of the Haliwerfolc of Durham in the late Middle Ages was the theme of a paper delivered at the 76th Anglo-American Conference of Historians at the IHR in July 2007 by Dr Bill Aird, and of a contribution to the Late Medieval Seminar at the same venue in February 2008 delivered by Dr Christian Liddy. For Galloway see the chapter by Blakely in this volume. For the Welsh March, see Davies, Lordship and Society, 231–3. 32. Davies, Lordship and Society, 433–5; Carr, ‘Wales’, 134; Bolton, ‘Irish Migration’, 19–21. 33. Childs, ‘Moving Around’; Frame, ‘Wider World’, 436; Griffiths, ‘Crossing the Frontiers’. Excellent case studies of the impact of migration on Bristol and Chester are Fleming, ‘Identity and Belonging’, and Morgan, ‘Cheshire and Wales’. Also see Davies, ‘History of the British Isles?’ 360. 34. Pollard, ‘Introduction’, 12; Ormrod, Political Life, 39; Gross, ‘Regionalism and Revision’; Carpenter, ‘Gentry and Community’; Harriss, Shaping the Nation, ch. 6. Peter Coss advocates the primacy of the county in medieval English politics, but concedes that in the midlands ‘it may well be that those major knights and minor barons with strong interests in several counties belonged rather to extra-county or even regional elites’: Coss, Origins of the English Gentry, 214. 35. ‘See how the earls and other great men of the land, who could live fittingly enough on their inheritance, now regard all their time as wasted, unless they double or treble their patrimony’: Childs, Vita Edwardi Secundi, 171, sub anno 1319. For Roger Mortimer’s acquisitions in Ireland see the essay by Dryburgh in this volume. For the attempts of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, to consolidate his estates in the mid-fourteenth-century Brecon see Davies, Lordship and Society, 91–5. For general discussion and case studies in England see Given-Wilson, English Nobility, 104–13, 126–37; Walker, Lancastrian Affinity, 182–5; Rawcliffe, Staffords, 7–27, 104–24; Castor, King, Crown and Duchy of Lancaster, 53–74, 193–224. A recent study of Scottish border lordship is MacDonald, ‘Kings of the Wild Frontier?’ See also, Brown, ‘Earldom and Kindred’. For the expansion of the Lordship of the Isles into the Highlands see Brown, Wars of Scotland, 332–5. 36. Frame, ‘Kingdoms and Dominions’, 151–2; Pollard, North-Eastern England, 22–3, 91–100; Bean, Estates of the Percy Family, 3–11; Cherry, ‘Courtney Earls of Devon’; Neville, Native Lordship in Medieval Scotland, 37. 37. Castor, King, Crown and Duchy of Lancaster, 22–38, 306–12; Boardman, Early Stewart Kings, 49–107. 38. Hicks, English Political Culture, 164–80. 39. Davies, ‘History of the British Isles?’ quote at 359.

2 Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule: Over Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales J. R. S. Phillips

In his paper, ‘On the Influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth in English History’, Walter Ullmann noted the existence in a fourteenth-century manuscript now in the Cambridge University Library of a short treatise containing declarations of the rights of the English crown to rule over Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales.1 The declarations are recorded in between two treatises by the English Dominican Simon of Boraston, De mutabilitate mundi and De unitate et ordine ecclesiasticae potestatis, while the manuscript begins with another treatise by Boraston, De ordine iudiciario circa crimine corrigenda.2 Ullmann also noted a second copy of the Declaration concerning Ireland, preserved in a fifteenth-century manuscript now in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. This manuscript, which also includes the three treatises by Boraston, was completed in or about 1430 by Cornelius Oesterwik in the Dominican convent at Oxford.3 Ullmann was, however, interested only in the Declaration on Ireland and did not examine either of the other two, on Aquitaine and on Wales. Neither did he succeed in dating the Declaration on Ireland, beyond noting that the last historical event mentioned in it was the Council of Lyon of 1245. This chapter will examine all three declarations and make some tentative suggestions as to date and authorship. The first of the three declarations, entitled Declaratio quomodo ducatus Aquitanus sit ad regem Angliae devolutus,4 is a straightforward account of the events from the death of William X, duke of Aquitaine, in 1137, and the marriage of Henry Plantagenet of Anjou to Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152 to Henry’s succession to the kingdom of England in 1154. The second Declaration, Declaratio quomodo dominium Hibernie est ad regem Anglie devolutum,5 begins with a brief account of the life and career of Pope Adrian IV, followed by a transcript of the bull Laudabiliter, by which 20

J. R. S. Phillips 21

the pope authorised Henry II to come to Ireland ad dilatandos ecclesie terminos ad declarandum indoctis et rudibus christiane fidei veritatem et viciorum plantaria de agro dominico extirpanda. The Declaration then gives an account of how Henry II had finally come to Ireland in 1171 and had subjected it to his authority. The Declaration argued that English rule over Ireland was justified on three legal grounds: first, that ‘it was the hereditary right of the English king stemming from his succession to Arthur’. Here the author of the Declaration was drawing on the fictional history of Geoffrey of Monmouth.6 Second, English rule was justified on the basis of ‘the voluntary gift of Richard Strongbow’; and finally ‘it was the papal permission which, to the author, yielded a perfect titledeed for English sovereignty over Ireland’.7 The Declaration then goes on to describe how, in the author’s view, King John’s promise to pay an annual tribute to the papacy for both England and Ireland was extorted from him in 1213 by a combination of the papal interdict, baronial pressure and a French threat to invade England. It ends with the Council of Lyon in 1245 when an English delegation unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the pope to revoke the agreement.8 The last and the longest of the declarations is the Declaracio iusticie Regis Anglie ad Walliam et eius dominium.9 This begins with the statement that ‘according to ancient chronicles’, the Welsh had lost the dominion of the island which is now called England to the Saxons, except for the mountains and woods of the western part of the island, where they appointed a prince for themselves and lived, ‘oppressed by hunger and misery because of the Saxon yoke’, until the year 1245. In that year Dafydd ap Llywelyn, prince of Gwynedd and nephew by marriage of Henry III, wrote to Pope Innocent IV stating that he was unjustly forced to hold his principality from the king and asking that he might instead hold it in fee from the Church. The pope then wrote to the abbot of Aberconwy asking for further information on the matter.10 In 1264 Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales, allied with Simon de Montfort and cruelly devastated the county of Chester and the March, destroying the castles of Diserth and Gannoc [Degannwy]. Edward, the son of the king, then invaded Wales but did not bring Llywelyn to battle. After the recall of Edward by his father, Simon de Montfort and many of his Welsh allies were killed at the battle of Evesham [1265]. Around Michaelmas 1268 [recte 1267], Edward came to Shrewsbury with a large army and invaded Wales. Prince Llywelyn sent the king £2000 to obtain peace, and at the intervention of the papal legate Ottobuono, who was then in England, the four cantreds which the king had taken by right of war were restored to him.11 After the death of Henry III, Llywelyn was

22

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

summoned to the coronation of Edward I [19 August 1274], but refused to attend for fear of treachery, unless he received hostages to guarantee his safety. Edward I then went to Chester [August 1275] and again summoned Llywelyn to perform homage.12 In the sixth year of his reign Edward I entered Wales from Chester and took the castle of Rhuddlan. He also sent Payn de Chaworth to devastate west Wales, whose people sought peace. Llywelyn also sought and obtained peace.13 The Declaration then gives a brief account of the terms of the resulting treaty [of Aberconwy, 9 November 1277], by which Llywelyn was allowed to retain the title of prince of Wales for his lifetime and recognised that he owed homage to the English crown, while being allowed to retain the homages of five Welsh lords in Snowdonia as a token of his own status as prince.14 There then follows an account of the road to renewed war between England and Wales. In 1281 Llywelyn’s brother Dafydd, who had previously been loyal to Edward I, began to plot against him and on Palm Sunday [1282] captured the castle of Hawarden from its constable, Roger Clifford. Edward I, who was at Salisbury, then hastened to Wales and raised the siege of Rhuddlan. Meanwhile the castle of Llanbadarn Fawr [Aberystwyth] and many other castles in those parts were captured by the Welsh. In the same year the archbishop of Canterbury, John Pecham, entered Snowdonia and tried unsuccessfully to persuade Llywelyn and Dafydd to make peace. Prince Llywelyn devastated the lands of a Welsh supporter of the king in Cardigan and Ystrad Tywi and then proceeded to Builth where he encountered John Giffard and Edmund Mortimer. He was killed on 13 December but not immediately recognised. Llywelyn’s head was then cut off and sent to London to be displayed at the Tower. In the following year [1283] Edward I invaded Anglesey and Snowdonia and reduced all of Wales to his authority before the feast of St John [24 June]. In the same year the prince’s brother Dafydd was captured, taken to Rhuddlan and then to Shrewsbury where he was tried by royal justices during parliament. Dafydd was hanged, drawn and quartered, and his head was fixed on a spike in London. Hearing of this all the great men of Wales promptly surrendered to the king and his ministers, ‘and thus the king justly and peacefully occupies Wales’.15 In his analysis of the Declaration concerning Ireland, Ullmann noted that the document did not go any further than 1245 and suggested that it was composed at some point between then and the second Council of Lyon in 1274, at which Edward I’s envoys presented further argumentation concerning King John’s submission to the pope in 1213 and the payment of tribute. He further suggested that the Declaration was ‘more than a mere Stilübung and less than a semi-official piece’ and

J. R. S. Phillips 23

that the author ‘clearly intended to enlarge it’, and notes that in the fifteenth century John Rous did indeed enlarge upon it.16 However, a reading of all three Declarations, taken together, suggests that they were composed at the same time as a single short treatise and that the author simply went as far as he considered necessary to support his argument.17 Thus in the case of Aquitaine, his outline of the rights of the English crown over the duchy stops with the accession of Henry II to the English throne in 1154. There is no discussion of later events, such as the loss of Normandy and Anjou and much of Aquitaine after 1204, or of the treaty of Paris of 1259, which confirmed English rule over the remainder of Aquitaine.18 Similarly, with regard to Ireland, the author felt no need to go beyond the Council of Lyon in 1245.19 The author’s interest appears to have been particularly engaged by relations between Wales and England. It may be more than a coincidence that, having given a very brief survey of their earlier relations, he begins his more detailed treatment of the subject with the same council of 1245. The account of Anglo-Welsh relations which follows covers the history of the period down to the completion of the English conquest of Wales in 1282–1283. Overall the Declarations give the impression of having been written by someone with an interest in the arguments supporting English rule in Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales, but without any authoritative support or purpose. The information employed seems to have been obtained from readily available chronicle sources20 : with the exception of the bull Laudabiliter there is no obvious documentary content.21 Even the text of Laudabiliter, while adding to the growing number of known versions, contains a number of curious readings and also lacks the last two lines, suggesting that a damaged or defective text was employed.22 The most likely date for the composition of all three Declarations is in or soon after 1283, the year of the last dated event, the execution of Dafydd ap Gruffudd, but before the revolt of Rhys ap Maredudd in 1287.23 The treatise was possibly written even before the Statute of Rhuddlan of March 1284 which laid down the structures of the future government of Wales under English rule, but given the author’s lack of interest in any further information once he had satisfied himself as to England’s right to govern Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales this dating must remain speculative.24 However, the period when Edward I was seeking to prove his claims to the overlordship of Scotland may be a likely terminus ante quem. In 1291 Edward asked the English monasteries to search their chronicles for any information on the historical relationship between England and Scotland and an account

24

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

of about 5000 words in length was produced. In 1300 the process was repeated and a long and closely argued document was composed which was sent to the pope in 1301. Among other information derived from chronicles and from official records, this document made use of the mythical history of Geoffrey of Monmouth in a way similar to the Declaration concerning Ireland.25 Had the author of the three declarations been writing after 1291 or, more particularly perhaps, in or soon after 1300–1301, he might have found it hard to resist adding a fourth Declaration, dealing with English claims over Scotland. As to the authorship of the Declarations on Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales there is no firm information. The presence of all three Declarations in Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5 and of two of the three in Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11 is suggestive since, as already indicated, both manuscripts are associated with the English Dominican, Simon of Boraston. He probably came from Boraston [Burneston] in south Shropshire, and is first heard of in March 1311 when he took part in proceedings against the English Templars at London. He was provincial of the English Dominicans between 1327 and 1336, and was in Oxford in 1337–1338, when he wrote his three treatises, De mutabilitate mundi and De unitate et ordine ecclesiasticae potestatis, dealing with the controversies between the friars and the secular clergy, and De ordine iudiciario circa crimine corrigenda, intended as a guide to dealing with the offences of errant friars.26 It is just possible that he also wrote the three Declarations; perhaps as a youthful exercise, but only if he was active as early as the 1280s or 1290s. It is also interesting that the Declaration concerning Wales contains several references to events in and around Shrewsbury, Simon of Boraston’s home area. Most notably there were the dramatic public events surrounding the Shrewsbury Parliament of October 1283 and the execution for treason of Dafydd ap Gruffudd.27 In the absence of any information on Boraston’s date of birth, when and where he entered the Dominican order, and on his education (it is thought that he was a graduate of either Oxford or Cambridge, but it is not known which), it is pointless to speculate further. However, if he had written the Declarations it is likely that the two Cambridge manuscripts in which they are now preserved would have indicated as much. In the end it seems more likely that the treatise containing the three Declarations was composed by another slightly earlier writer, came to Boraston’s notice and was copied by him or on his behalf in 1337–1338.

J. R. S. Phillips 25

Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, ff. 79–81.28 F.79r:29 Column 2 Line 1. Declaratio quomodo ducatus Aquitanus sit 2. ad regem Angliae devolutus.30 3. Sciendum quod anno domini mcxxxvi W4. illelmus aquitanie et comes pictavie31 5. ad sanctum existens Jacobum peregrinus proficiscens. 6. In die per asceues? obiit sepultusque est 7. in ecclesia sancti Jacobi coram magno alta8. ri.32 Iste dux et comes ullam33 habens prolem 9. masculinam reliquit post se duas filias quarum 10. primogenitam Elienoram34 nomine. Inheredite 11. primogenita integraliter sibi statuit successu12. ram suosque instante morte adiuravit pro13. ceres ut dictam primogenitam filiam suam 14. iuniori regi Francorum Lodowyco cum in15. tregro35 ducatu traderent in uxorem. 16. Coronovat rex Francorum senior filium suum 17. sicut nomine Lodowycum36 in regem ipso ad huc 18. superstite et regnante. Pater quod auditis hiis 19. misit filium suum predictum Burdagalam37 20. ut dictam puellam in uxorem duceret 21. et ducatum acciperet antedictum Francorum 22. rex pater post nupcias has moritur in Francia mense 23. s. anno domini mcxxxvii.38 Regnabant antedicti 24. sicut rex et regina sine omni prole usque ad annum 25. domini mclii quo anno probata inter 26. eos consanguinitate celebratum est divorcium inter 27. ipsos. Ac eodem anno Henricus dux Normannie 28. ac comes Andegavie filius Matildis 29. imperatricis ex viro suo secundo domino Galfrido 30. comite Andegavie scilicet cognominato planta31. genorth39 ipsam Elienoram accepit matrimonialiter 32. in uxorem habere. Haec Matildis filia fuit Hen33. rici primi regis Anglie qui fuit filius Willelmi 34. Conquestoris inprimis que submersis fratribus suis 35. in redeundo de Normannia in portu de 36. Popa sola remansit habens ius in regem

26

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

37. Anglie et suus filius secundum lineam descend38. entem. Iste Henricus mortuo iam patre factus 39. comes Andegavie et comes Manie et ex con40. cessione matris adhuc unum et dux Nor41. mannie ac per uxorem suam antedictam factus 42. dux Aquitanie. Audita morte Stephani 43. regis Anglie qui obit anno domini mc44. liiii viii kalend Novembris40 de consilio 45. suorum iubente matre sua transfretat se de 46. Normannia in Angliam et suscipitur a clero 47. et populo vii idus decembris41 clamante cum 48. gaudio maximo et honore. Dominica igitur F.79v Column 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

ante navitatem domini que fuit xiiii kalendis januarii apud Vestmonasterium coronatus est42 a Theobaldo archiepiscopo Cantuariense et invergitur? in regem presentibus archiepiscopis Anglie et Normannie et episcopis ac proceribus etatis sue annum xxii agens et tam sua scilicet gratia uxoris sue hereditas est ad regem Anglie devoluta. Declaratio quomodo dominium Hibernie est ad regem Anglie devolutum43 Anno domini mcliiii Nicholaus episcopus Albanenses nacione Anglicus de urbe Verolamio que nunc dicitur urbs Sancti Albani electus est in summum pontificem et vocatus est Adrianus. Hic factus est post canonicus regularis in Provincia apud Sanctum Ruphum44 et ob nimiam religionem ab Eugenio papa factus romane ecclesiae cardinal et cito post factus ab eodem legatus in Darmarcia45 pro verbi dei predictione. In qua legacione gentem illam barbaram in lege dei diligenter instruxit Romaque reversus in papem sublevatur. Hic summus pontifex anno domini mclv concessit Henrico secundo regi Anglie conquisitionem Hibernie cuius concessionis potestate cam? et mod? In bulla sua ad regem directa exprimit

J. R. S. Phillips 27

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

in hiis verbis.46 Adrianus47 servus servorum dei karissimo in Christo filio illustri regi Anglie Henrico salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Laudabiliter et satis fructuose de glorioso nomine in terrenis48 et eterne felicitatis49 premiis50 cumulando in celo tua magnificencia cogitat dum ad dilatandos ecclesie terminos ad declarandum indoctis et rudibus christiane fidei veritatem et viciorum plantaria51 de agro dominico extirpanda52 sicut catholicus princeps intendis et ad id conveniencius exequendum consilium apostolice sedis53 et favorem. In quo facto quanto altiori consilio et maiori dicrecione procedis54 tanto feliciorem progressum te prestante domino55 confidimus habiturum eo quod ad bonum exitum semper56 et in finem valeat57 pertingere qui de arbore58 fidei et religionis amore principium acceperunt.59 Sane Hyberniam et omnes insulas quibus iusticie sol60 Christus61 illuxit et documenta fidei Christiane perceperunt62 ad ius beati Petri apostoli et sacro-

Column 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

sancta Romane ecclesie quod tua nobilitas63 recognoscit non est dubium pertinere. Unde tanto64 in eis libentius plantacionem65 et germen Deo gratum inserimus66 quanto id a nobis in nostro67 examine districcius prospicimus exigendum.68 Significasti siquidem nobis fili in Christo karissime te Hibernie insulam ad subdendum illum populum69 legibis et viciorum plantaria inde70 extirpanda71 velle intrare et de singulis domibus annuatim unius denarii beato Petro velle persolvere72 pensionem et iura ecclesiarum illius terre illata73 integra reservare. Nos itaque pium74 et laudabile desiderium favore congruo prosequentes et peticioni tue benigne75 impendentes assensum gratum et acceptum habemus ut pro dilatandis ecclesie terminis

28

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

17. pro viciorum restringenda per te76 pro corrigendis moribus et virtutibus inserendis et pro relig18. ionis augmento insulam illam ingredia19. ris et que ad honorem Dei et salutem terre 20. illius spectaverint77 exequaris et illius 21. terre plus78 honorifice populus te susc22. ipiat79 et sicut dominum venerentur80 iure nimi23. rum ecclesie81 illibato et integro permanente 24. et salvo82 beato Petro apostolo et sacrosancte 25. Romane ecclesie de singulis domibus annu26. atim unius denarii pensione.83 Si ergo quod animo 27. concepisti effectu84 duxeris consequendi85 complendum86 stude87 gentem illam bonis 28. moribus informare et cogites88 tam 29. per te quam per illos89 quos ad hoc fide90 verbo 30. ydoneos et vita esse91 perspexla92 ut per 31. doctores93 ibi ecclesia plantetur et crescat 32. devocio fidei Christiane94 et que ad hon33. orem Dei et salutem pertinent animarum taliter 34. ordinentur ut a Deo sempiterne mercedis 35. cursum merearis in terris gloriosum nomen 36. valeas in seculis optineris.95 (End of the text of Laudabiliter) Rex 37. igitur Henricus circa festum Sancti Michaelis 38. Wyntonie parliamento96 de con?danda ?97 Hibernia cum suis optimatibus pertractat 39. quod quia matri euis imperatrici non placuit 40. ad tempus aliud dilatata est illa 41. expedicio illo anno. Transiturus est igitur xv 42. annis anno domini mclxxi98 rex ipse 43. Henricus apud Argentomagum99 barones F.80r Column 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

suos convocat de profectione sua in Hyberniam tractans. Supervenerunt ad huic tractatum nuncii comitis de Strogoyl marescalli Anglie qui propter eius singularem fortius precipue in brachiis dicebatur a populo Ricardus Strongbow100 huius terras propter quandam offensam rex acceperat in manu

J. R. S. Phillips 29

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

sua et ipse exul in Hybernia morabatur. Hii nuncii obtulerunt regi ex parte ipsius comitis pro pace sua habenda civitatem Dublinie et urbem Waterfordie et omnes alias firmitates suas quas habebat in Hibernia per mortem regis Dublinie cuius duxerat filiam et heredem.101 Quo audito rex eidem comiti restituit terras scilicet planam terram quam acceperat in Hibernia cum uxore sua libere concessit constituens eum totius Hybernie senescallum. Mense igitur Augusto102 rex transivit de Normannia in Angliam adiunato pro tanta expedicione exercitu. In vigilia Luce103 profecturus in Hibernia navibus se commisit et feliciter applicans terram illam suo dominio sine nobili resistencia104 subiugavit. Est autem iuxta historiam Britonum advertendum quod cum Arthurus, rex totius insule anglicane, Hiberniam sibi subiungasset captivato Gilmiro rege105 illius terre et principibus ceteris non valentibus ei resistere sponte Arthuro se dederunt. Rex Anglie non tenetur inviti concessioni summi pontificis nec tributum taxatum per eum ei reddere quia potest iure hereditario terram illam vendicare. Nam et submissio quam fecit Johannes rex Anglie qui regnat in Anglia anno domini m ccxiii106 et submisit regnum suum romane curie pro se et suis successoribus ut singulis annis de qualibet domo tam Anglie quam Hibernie denarium unum daret beato Petro, quia coactus per interdictum et per regem Francie contra eum romanam curiam et provocatum et rogatum ut regnum Anglie invaderet. Barones insuper Anglie confederati sunt cum rege Francie promiserunt sibi quod regnum Anglie filio suo Lodowyco traderent. Hiis periculis et angustiis per hostes tam

30

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

Column 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

domesticos quam extraneos volens ecclesiastica protectione muniri procurante legato Pandulpho107 qui tunc in Anglia presens erat submisit regnum Anglie et Hibernie summo pontifici in forma superius memorata. Post hoc anno domini mccxlv regnante Henrico filio Johannis antedicti ad consilium Lugdunense108 missi sunt nuncii per regem de consilio prelatorum comitum et baronum viri videlicet nobiles Hugo Bygod Johannes filius Galfridi Willelmus de Cantilupo Philippus Baseth dato eis advocato magistro Willelmo de Poywyk109 ut isti submissioni regis Johannis de censu annuo pro Anglia et Hibernia contradicerent et quod de regni assensu non processerat scilicet per archiepiscopum Cantuariensem vice totius regni fuerat reclamatum. Scilicet papa hiis auditis dixit quod hoc negotium indiguit morosiori110 deliberatione. quia tunc propter alia negotia potuit optinere et sic mansit negocium in suspenso. Utrum? iuxta predicta post que rex Anglie regnum Dublinie cum urbe Waterford et omnibus finibus optinuit ex dono Ricardi comitis de Strogoyl heredis regis Dublinie per uxorem et sic habens ingressum in insulam ad terras proprias partem residuam vendicare poterit libere iure belli et sic post specialiter de Hibernia quia iure duplici ad minus et triplici rex Anglie libere occupat terram illam. De Anglia vero est advertendum quod qu?? Romani Inperatores subiuganderunt sibi et extorserunt tributum ab illa insula que nunc Anglia dicitur. Iulio Cesare primo terram intrante ante nativitatem Christi xlvii annis et post eum sex adimplus? inperatores Romani terram illam tributaria tenuerunt et in ea fuerunt. Sic Claudius, Severus, Caritius, Constantinus Constantini filius, Maximus et Maximinianus

J. R. S. Phillips 31

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

et secundum quid dicunt adhuc duo post istos Britones regnaverunt et tributum susceperuntque alius Severus et unus alius Constantius. Ita quod apud istos regnaverunt Romani inperatores quadringentis et novem annis. Scilicet postea Britones inperium Romanorum contempserunt vel c?? dederunt

F.80v Column 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

vel illorum reges susceperunt scilicet libere apud semetipsos vixerunt dando unicuique extraneo quod s?? erat. Hoc extracta est de libro Sancti Germani111 qui de origine Britonum scripsit. Absit quod moderni reges nostri permittant terram illam liberam submitti alicui extrinsece potestati seu servituti. Declaracio iusticie Regis Anglie ad Walliam et eius dominium Circa annum domini secentissimum septuasium? novem secundum patet in antiquis cronicis Britonum perdiderunt s? Wallenses qui et Britones dicuntur se dominium insule que nunc dicitur Anglia Saxonibus prevalentibus in omnibus contra ipsos sic igitur in occidentalibus partibus insule qui remanserunt ex eis in montibus et nemoribus principem sibi constituentes usque ad annum domini mccxl quartum vixeerunt oppressi sunt e fame et miseria propter iugum Saxonum super ipsos. Anno predicto. David112 a’ eorum princeps regis Anglie ex sorore nepos suggessit Innocentio pape principatum Wallie ad ecclesie ratione feodum pertinere seque de rege tenere compulsum et iniuste volens scilicet et papam partem assumens et vicarium dominum Guitard. Super quo negocio scripsit summus pontifex abbati de derconewey113 a quo plenius instructus

32

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

sub dissilacione transivit. Anno domini mcclxiii domino Symone Fortis114 insurgente contra regem Anglie Henricum filium Johannis regis principi Wallie Louenis115 eidem comiti confederatus comitatum Cestrie et marchiam crudeliter devastavit duoque castra scilicet Dissard et Gaymok116 diruit et ad solum complanat. Deinde cum dominus Edwardus filius Regis et comes Cestrie117 cum exercitu propteria quereret ille ad nemorosa loca et palustra fugiens non pugnabat. Edwardus a patre suo in Angliam est revocatus sic ipse princeps Wallie antedictus cum sua potestate inbelendes in capcionibus civitatum regiarum et in omnibus iniuriis factis regi et suis predictum Symonem comitem Laycestr’ manum fortem118 probuit adnitentes?

Column 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

In bello vero de Evysham119 interfecto Symone sepe dicto cum suis maioribus multitudine et Wallencium interfecta invenitur. Anno gracie domini mcclxviii circa festum Sancti Michaelis120 rex cum magno exercitu venit Salopiam121 in Walliam progressurus ut principem Lewlinum122 qui parti communitatis contra regem faverat debellaret ac ipse princeps missit ad regem mancus scilicet duo milia librarum sterlingorum pro pace habenda regi concessit sicque interveniente legato Ottobono123 qui tunc fuit in Anglia restituta erat principi terra quatuor cantredorum quam rex abstulerat iure belli.124 Cum vero mortuus estque rex Henricus et filius eius Edwardus coronaretur London’125 princeps Wallie licet ab eo invitatus noluit interesse propter quod fecit eum vocari

J. R. S. Phillips 33

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

pro homagio sibi debito faciendo qui fugiens et fingens se non ausum intrare Angliam quibusdam maioribus sibi insidiantibus petivit obsides scilicet filium regis126 comitem Glovernie et Robertum regis cancellarium127 quia peticionem rex indigne ferens dissilaverit negocium et ut principi pateret liberior accessus ad regem. Rex usque in Cestriam progreditur que est in confinio Wallie et miss’ ad eum nuncius ad homagium sibi faciendum ipsum vocat quo regulum? adat? per? decrescante exercitum convocat dispones? de negante sibi homagium de suo feodo principem expugnare. Sexti128 vero anno rex de Cetria in Walliam progrediens cepit castrum Rodelam129 misitque in ipsam Walliam occidentalem militem nobilem Paganum de Camurciis130 qui cuncta sede incendiorum vastavit. Post hoc statim Wallenses occidentales ad pacem regis Anglie venientes Pagano militi regis in partibus illis capitaneo castrum de Frendcuwey131 cum adiacenti patria rediderunt princeps et Wallie videns se et regi Anglie cotidie invalescens. Non posse resistere (this is a new heading written on the last line of the column)

F.81r Column 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Pacem petuit et optinuit sub hac forma132 videlicet quod omnes captivi quos actenus ratione regis Anglie detinuit in vinculis summarie? et sine calumpnia liberarentur. Item pro pace regis benevola habenda daret L milia librarum sterlyngorum quorum terminus solutionis in voluntate et gratia Regis

34

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

foret?. Item quod terra quatuor cantredorum sine omni contradiccione regi Anglie et suis heredibus cum omnibus terris conquestis per reges hominesque suos excepta insula Angleseye in perpetuum remaneret. Insula vero Angleseye concessa est principi ita ut solvat pro ea singulis annis regi mille marcas quarum solucio incipienda erat in festo Sancti Mychalis proximo tunc instanti133 pro ingressu vero v milia marcarum daret et si princeps sine heredibus de corpore suo moreretur illa insula in regis Anglie possessionem rediret. Item quod princeps veniret in natale domini in Angliam pro homagium faciendo. Item quod omnia homagia Wallie remanerent regi praeter quaecunque? v baronum qui in confinio Snoudonie morebantur se ut principem quevit vocari non posse nisi sub se aliquos barones haberet. Item quod nomen principis tunc haberet ad vitam suam et post mortem eius v predictorum baronum homagia regi fierent et suis heredibus in perpetuum pro assecuracione istorum tradidit princeps x obsides de melioribus Wallie absque incarceracione et exheredacione et termino liberacionis et de omni cantredo et de Snoudonia et de consilio principis xx iurabant tactis sacrosanctis reliquiis quod conventubus? princeps anime? predictorum a?lorum fregerit nisi admonitus se corigeret ab aliquabunt se ab eo et eidem in omnibus que potuerint hostes forent. Item post hoc princeps fratres suos quos lesit placabat habuit ii videlicet fratres quorum Ouwenum et Rodoricum posuerat in carcere videlicet vero David134 fuga dilapsis multis

J. R. S. Phillips 35

Column 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

annis cum rege Anglie stetit a quo contra ordinem ?tis sue miles factus in guerra obprobitus? et fidelitatem suam plurimam erat regi acceptus unde et eidem castrum de Dynbek135 obtulit in Wallia cum terris ad valorem mille librarum anni reditus. Insuper et uxoris dedit filiam comitis Derbeye. Oweinus qui liberatur a carcere quem paulo dum fugerat Rodoricus fratrem fugiens in Angliam morabatur. Rex vero in occidentali parte Wallie apud Lampader Wau136 insigne castrum construxit ad cohibendum subrepciones Wallicorum. Anno vero domini mcclxxxi David germanus principis137 Wallie immemor beneficiorum regis Anglie qui eum promoverat et eum contra fratrem suum eum persequentem pertexerat ad insurgendum contra regem Walliam concitavit atque ut principem nobilesque Wallensium ad sedicionem facilius inclinaret ipse primus facinus aggreditur Rogerus de Clyfford138 nichil suspicante prodiciose in castro suo de Hauwardyn139 dominica in ramis palmarum140 cepit quosdam milites eius resistere volentes inermes occidit. Deynde reversus ad principem collecto exercitu una cum uno exercitu Rodolanum141 venit obsidionemque posuit contra castrum quod rex qui in partibus Sarum142 fuit cum omni celeritate ad partes Wallie festinavit cuius audito adventu princeps obsidione soluta se longius subtraxit. Interim captum est castrum de Lampader Waur143 per Resum filium Maylonis et Gryffinum filium Meredoci144 capta et sunt in illis partibus per alios Wallensium nobiles castra plura. Eodem anno archiepiscopus Johannes Peccham145 intravit Snoudoniamque146 ut principem et fratrem suum David ad pacem reducereque regis set fru-

36

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

tratus in toto? in eos sentenciam excommunicationis fulminavit. Anno sequenti rex cum valido exercitu per insulam Anglesey ?it per nautas portum acceperat usque Snoudoniamque progrediens ut viam pararet exercitui ultra maris brachium quod insulam dividit a continuente terra iuxta Bangoriam147 constituit pontem fieri ex navibus invicem colligatis comes Glovernie interim in Wallenses magnus strages fecit.

F.81v Column 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Princeps vero vastatis terris Resi filii Meruduci148 qui cum rege fideliter tenuit se de Kardigan et Stredewy149 inde progressus est versus terram de Buelt150 cum quibusdam paucis cui cum sua milicia supervenientes nobiles viri Johannes Gyffard Edmundus de Mortuo Mari151 nihil suspicientes de principe ipsum cum sociis pugnant aggredientes occiderunt. Facta sunt ante?152 festum beate Lucie153 principis a? post mortem a quodam qui intererat agniti capud abscisum regi defert quod London’ transmissum positum est per tempus ad super Turrim154 . Anno sequente155 parata potestate de quo predictum est rex de Angleseia cum suo exercitu Snoudoniamque156 intravit castra omnia principis sine omni nobili resistencia157 capta et cito post tota Wallia subacta est regie potestati ante festum Sancti Johannis.158 Illo anno captus est David frater principis159 et Rodolanum160 adductus quem rex licet instanter hoc petereque ad summum conspectum? accedere non permisit in Salopiam161 missus est carceri mancipandus. Quo anno rex ibidem tenens parliamentum162 per deputatos justiciarios morti adiudicatus est primo que suspensus est tandem combustis intestinis est

J. R. S. Phillips 37

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

corpus truncatum in quatuor partes divisum missum quatuor civitatibus maioribus Anglie163 et capud super palum fixum est London’ ad terrorem consilium proditorum. Haec audientes alii maiores de Wallia se et sua prompte regi et ministris eius cotidie rediderunt et sic rex Anglie iuste et pacifice Walliam occupat. Explicit declaracio iusticie regalis ad dominium Wallie et cetera. Incipit tractatus de unitate ecclesiastice potestatis.164

Notes 1. In Bauer et al. (eds.), Speculum Historiale, 257–76, reprinted as item XIII in Ullmann, Church and the Law. The Declarations are in Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, ff. 75–7 (now renumbered ff. 79–81). 2. See Catalogue of the Manuscripts . . . University of Cambridge, III, 440–2. 3. Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, ff. 55r and 55v. See Western Manuscripts . . . Trinity College, Cambridge, I, 473–5. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 269, n. 78, was however incorrect in stating that the Trinity College manuscript contains only the Declaration on Ireland, since the text is preceded, as in the Cambridge University library manuscript, by the Declaration on Aquitaine. As in Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, the two declarations are preceded and followed by treatises by Boraston. 4. Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, ff. 79r and 79v; Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, f. 55r. The heading appears only in Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5. 5. Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, ff. 79v–80v; Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, ff. 55r, 55v. The heading appears only in Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5. 6. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 271–3. 7. Ibid., 272. 8. Ibid., 271. 9. Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, ff. 80v–81v. This Declaration does not appear in Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11. 10. See Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 192–3. 11. This is a garbled account of the negotiations leading to the treaty of Montgomery of 29 September 1267. See Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, 176–86. 12. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 326. 13. This is a brief account of Edward I’s 1277 campaign in Wales, which had effectively ended before the start, on 20 November, of the sixth year of Edward I’s reign.

38

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

14. See Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, 438–45. 15. For an account of the events of 1282–1283, see Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 348–54; Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, 506–81. 16. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 273–5. 17. The appearance, for example, in the Declaration on Ireland and the Declaration on Wales of very similar phrases sine nobili resistencia and sine omni nobili resistencia to describe how the respective countries finally came under English rule strongly suggests the hand of one author. 18. The treaty of Paris however required the king of England, in his capacity as duke of Aquitaine, to perform homage to the king of France. This change in the legal status of the duchy may not have suited the author’s argument and so have been omitted. 19. Despite, one might add, leaving the argument hanging inconclusively because of Pope Innocent IV’s unwillingness to give a clear reply on the question of King John’s submission to Innocent III. 20. In the case of the Declaration on Ireland, Ullmann noted the use of material drawn from the chronicles of Robert of Torigni and Matthew Paris, and from Geoffrey of Monmouth: Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 269–71. 21. The accounts given, for example, of the treaties of Montgomery (1267) and Aberconwy (1277) do not read as if they are taken from copies of the original documents. 22. See the edition of Laudabiliter from Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, f. 79v. which accompanies this paper. This text is identical with that in Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, ff. 55r. and 55v. It has also been compared with the two early fourteenth-century texts in TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, transcribed and edited by Haren in ‘Laudabiliter: Text and Context’, esp. 160–3. For further comment on these two versions of Laudabiliter, see Phillips, ‘Remonstrance Revisited’, esp. 16–17, 23–4. Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, f. 79v, has also been compared with the fifteenth-century version of Laudabiliter in Chron. Bower (Watt), VI, 402–4, 481–3. 23. See Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 380–1. 24. Ibid., 363–5. 25. See Phillips, ‘Irish Remonstrance of 1317’, esp. 120, 122–3. 26. On Simon of Boraston, see Forte, ‘Simon of Boraston’, and Simon Tugwell’s article on him in ODNB. 27. See Phillips, ‘Simon de Montfort (1265)’, esp. 87–8. 28. In Catalogue of the Manuscripts . . . University of Cambridge, III, 440–2, the folio numbers are given as 75–7. However, the folios are now numbered 79–81 in Arabic numerals at the top right hand corner. These numbers are followed in the present edition. Each folio is written in two columns, each of 48 lines. The manuscript is written in a heavily abbreviated and cramped fourteenth-century hand, which is sometimes very difficult to read. See above, n. 3. 29. The text in column 1 ends with the following: Explicit libellus editus de mutabilitate mundi a Symone de Boraston ordinis predicatorum. The text which follows is written in the same hand. 30. Underlined in the text. The text of the Declaration concerning English rule in Aquitaine appears in Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, f. 55r., but without the heading.

J. R. S. Phillips 39 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 61. 62.

63. 64. 65.

William X, duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou. Died 9 April 1137. Sic: altare. Sic: nullam. Eleanor of Aquitaine. Sic: integro. Louis VII, king of France (1137–1180). Bordeaux. 1 August 1137. The author seems unsure of the month. Geoffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou. 25 October 1154. 7 December 1154. 19 December 1154. Underlined in the text. The Declaration concerning English rule in Ireland also appears in Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, ff. 55r. and 55v, but without the heading. St Ruf near Avignon. He was sent to Scandinavia as papal legate. See above n. 22. Omits Episcopus. TNA SC 8/177/8818; TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read terris. Bower also reads felicitatis. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, read salutis. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read premio. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads plantas. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads extirpandas. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read consilium apostolicum exigis. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads apostolice sedis exigis. in eo omitted after tanto. These two words are omitted in Chron. Bower (Watt). semper is not in TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read soleant. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read ardore. In Chron. Bower (Watt) this sentence from eo quod reads: eo quod ad finem bonum et exitum semper solent attingere que ex ardore fidei et religionis amore principium acceperunt. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read sol iusticie. Chron. Bower (Watt) omits Christus. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read que documenta fidei perceperunt. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads et que documentum fidei acceperunt. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read voluntas. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads et tanto. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, omit tanto. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read plantacionem fidei. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads fidei plantacionem.

40

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

66. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read germen gratum Deo inserimus. 67. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read interno; Chron. Bower (Watt) reads extremo. 68. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads quanto a nobis in extremo examine districcius prospicimus exigendum. 69. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read populum illum. 70. inde is not in Chron. Bower (Watt); in TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, inde appears before viciorum plantaria. 71. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads extirpandum. 72. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read solvi; Chron. Bower (Watt) reads solvere. 73. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read illibita. 74. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads Nos autem tam pium. 75. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads benignum. 76. In place of per te TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read decursu and Chron. Bower (Watt) reads discursum. 77. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads fuerint. 78. plus is not in TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, or in Chron. Bower (Watt). The scribe has misread his text and in effect written populus, which appears later in the sentence, twice. 79. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read recipiat. 80. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read veneretur; Chron. Bower (Watt) reads revereatur. 81. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read ecclesiarum. 82. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read salva. 83. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read unius denarii annua pensione. The words annua/annuatim unius denarii do not appear in Chron. Bower (Watt). 84. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read affectu. 85. TNA SC 8/177/881, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read prosequente. 86. In Chron. Bower (Watt) the beginning of this sentence reads Si ergo quod incepisti animo effectuque duxeris prosequente complendum. 87. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read studeas. 88. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read agas. 89. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads alios. 90. Chron. Bower (Watt) omits fide. 91. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read verbo et vita idoneos esse. 92. The text has become garbled here but this is how it reads. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read prospexeris, and Chron. Bower (Watt) reads perspexeris.

J. R. S. Phillips 41 93. Again the text is garbled. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read ut decoretur. 94. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read fidei Christiane religio. 95. In TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) the words after sempiterne read mercedis cumulum consequi merearis in celis et gloriosum nomen valeas in terris obtinere/optinere. Datum etc. The end of the text copied by the scribe of Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5 may have been defective or damaged. This may account for some of the strange variant readings. 96. C. 29 September 1155. The meeting at Winchester was not a parliament in the thirteenth-century sense of the term. 97. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 269, n. 81, has conquirendo but this is not confirmed by the text. 98. 1171. 99. Argentan. 100. Richard fitz Gilbert (de Clare), earl of Pembroke, sometimes known as earl of Striguil in south-east Wales. 101. Diarmait Mac Murchada, king of Leinster. Although he controlled Dublin for a time, he was not king of Dublin. 102. August 1171. 103. 17 October 1171. 104. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 270, n. 85, reads this as ‘without notable resistance’, which seems a reasonable translation. For the use of a very similar form of words in relations to Edward I’s conquest of Wales in 1282–1283, see f. 81v, column 1, line 17, and n. 130 below. 105. Guillamurius king of Ireland: Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 271, and n. 87, citing Geoffrey of Monmouth. 106. 1213. 107. Pandulph, papal legate in England (1215–1221) and bishop of Norwich (1222–1226). 108. Council of Lyon, 1245. 109. Hugh Bigod (recte Roger: p. 271, n. 89), John fitz Geoffrey, William de Cantilupe, Philip Basset (baronial proctors), William of Powick (a royal clerk). 110. This is how the text reads. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 271, n. 89, has ‘meliori’, which makes better sense and is derived from an account of the episode in Matthew Paris. Maybe this is a transcription error by the scribe of the manuscript, which might suggest that an existing text was being used by or on behalf of Simon of Boraston. 111. i.e., Nennius: Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 272, n. 92. 112. Dafydd ap Llywelyn, prince of Gwynedd. 113. Clearly meant to be Aberconwy. This suggests that this text is a copy of an existing document, which the transcriber does not fully understand. The poor transcription of Laudabiliter suggests the same. 114. Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. 115. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales. 116. The castles of Diserth and Gannoc/Degannwy. 117. The Lord Edward, elder son of Henry III, and the future Edward I. Edward was also earl of Chester.

42

Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule

118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123.

Sic. Battle of Evesham, 4 August 1265. C. 29 September 1268 (recte 1267). Shrewsbury. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales. Cardinal Ottobuono Fieschi, papal legate in England, 1265–1268. He later became pope as Adrian V (1276). This is a garbled account of the negotiations leading to the treaty of Montgomery of 29 September 1267. See Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, 176–86. 19 August 1274. In 1274 Edward I’s only living sons were Henry (born 1267; died 14 October 1274) and Alfonso (born November 1273). Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester; Robert Burnell, chancellor 21 September 1274–1292. Sic: sexto? This is an account of Edward I’s 1277 campaign in Wales, which had effectively ended before that start on 20 November of the sixth year of Edward I’s reign. Rhuddlan. Payn de Chaworth, lord of Cydweli in west Wales. The identity of this castle is unclear. Treaty of Aberconwy, 9 November 1277. See Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, 438–45. 29 September 1278. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’s brothers, Owain, Rhodri and Dafydd. Denbigh. Llanbadarn Fawr (Aberystwyth). Dafydd ap Gruffudd. Roger Clifford. Hawarden near Chester. Palm Sunday, i.e., 22 March 1282. Rhuddlan. Salisbury. Llanbadarn Fawr (Aberystwyth). Rhys ap Maelgwn and Maredudd ap Gruffudd. John Pecham, archbishop of Canterbury. Snowdonia. Bangor. Rhys ap Meredudd. Cardigan and Ystrad Tywi. Builth. John Giffard and Edmund Mortimer. There is damage to the ms. in this place. 13 December 1282. Tower of London. 1283. Snowdonia. A similar phrase (sine nobili resistencia) is used above to describe Henry II’s taking control of Ireland in 1171–1172: see f. 80r, column 1, line 24 and

124.

125. 126. 127. 128.

129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157.

J. R. S. Phillips 43

158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164.

note 77 above. The very similar form of words may suggest that the same author was responsible for all three Declarations edited here and that all three were composed not long after the completion of the English conquest of Wales in 1283. 24 June 1283. Dafydd ap Gruffudd, brother of Llywelyn, the former prince of Wales. Rhuddlan. Shrewsbury. The Shrewsbury parliament began on 30 September 1283. Dafydd ap Gruffudd was executed on 3 October. Written in the same hand.

3 A Versatile Legal Administrator and More: The Career of John of Fressingfield in England, Ireland and Beyond Paul Brand

John of Fressingfield had a long and a varied career.1 That career began in England some time before 1290; took him to Ireland in 1295, where he lived for 12 years; brought him back to live in England in 1307, but then took him off on official journeys to the Channel Islands in the summer of 1309 as well as to Avignon and to Gascony in 1309 and 1310. It seems to have ended shortly after his capture in south Wales as one of the supporters of Hugh Despenser the younger and subsequent ransom in 1321. It encompassed clerical service as a clerk of the Common Bench at Westminster between 1289 and 1291, as a senior clerk of the ‘northern’ eyre circuit led by Hugh of Cressingham between 1292 and 1294, as keeper of the rolls and writs of the Dublin Bench between 1296 and 1298 and as chief clerk of the justiciar, John Wogan, in 1299. Closely connected with this was his judicial career: initially in Ireland as a temporary replacement justice in the justiciar’s court in 1302–1303 and 1305–1306 as well as in the Tipperary eyre of 1305–1307; then as chief justice of the Channel Islands eyre held in the summer of 1309; finally as a judicial commissioner appointed to various special and general commissions in England between 1311 and 1317. He also had a brief military career: in charge of the castles of Roscommon, Rindown and Athlone in 1299– 1300, leader of an Irish contingent to Scotland in the service of Edward I in 1301–1302, and presumably with Hugh Despenser the younger at the end of his life. For a four- or five-year period his career also took in service on diplomatic missions (in 1309–1310) and as a member of the king’s council in England in 1312–1313. In this chapter, I will attempt to reconstruct the main features of the career of this versatile individual 44

Paul Brand

45

in England and Ireland and beyond, so far I have been able to trace it through the surviving documentation, in order to try to understand the career trajectory of this individual whose working life involved both clerical, judicial, military and diplomatic service. Fressingfield is a parish in the north-east of the county of Suffolk in East Anglia, located a little under ten miles west of the market town of Halesworth. There is nothing other than his name to connect John with Fressingfield, and he seems never to have held property there. His property acquisitions in England do, however, link him specifically with the county of Suffolk and, moreover, with parts of that county which are close to Fressingfield,2 and there can be little doubt that his family had once lived and held property there. We also know from his property dealings the name at least of his father, Walter, son of Seman of Fressingfield, as well as the name of Walter’s wife, Levota, who was perhaps John’s stepmother rather than his mother.3 We know nothing about John’s father other than his name and the fact that his origins were probably humble. He does not seem to have been a major property owner and his own father’s name seems to be a peasant one. We know nothing of John’s education, other than that it clearly equipped him with the ability to read and write fluently. It is possible, but by no means certain, that during the 1280s John had been in the service of Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford. In 1290 we find John in possession of a life interest in the earl’s Suffolk manor of Mendham (five miles to the north of Fressingfield), acknowledging that he owed an annual rent of £16 and was obliged to acquit the earl of the castle-guard owed by the manor at Norwich, a financial, not a military, obligation.4 Life leases of this kind were sometimes used as a way of rewarding service to a magnate, though they also served other purposes as well. John had probably begun service as a clerk in the Common Bench at Westminster before the end of 1289, for in Michaelmas term of that year an agreement was enrolled on the Common Bench plea roll between John and Robert of Retford, both simply described as clerks, under which Robert (who was by then himself a senior Common Bench clerk) leased to John on behalf of his brother Thomas, the rector of Beyton by Bury St Edmunds, all the offerings of his church for three years as from Michaelmas, with the rent payable in London.5 This looks like a transaction between two men who knew each other as Common Bench clerks. In Easter term 1291 John acknowledged (as John of Fressingfield clerk) a debt of £10 in the Common Bench and had it enrolled on the court’s plea rolls: again something often done by the court’s clerks.6 Fressingfield is quite specifically described as having formerly been a

46

A Versatile Legal Administrator and More

clerk of John of Mettingham, the chief justice of the Common Bench, in an action of deceit brought in King’s Bench in Hilary term 1294.7 In Michaelmas term 1291 Fressingfield spoke in the Common Bench in litigation on behalf of a Common Bench clerk, John of Chertsey, and answered a question from one of the serjeants acting for John’s opponent on the basis of John’s claim to an annuity.8 Such interventions were normally the province of serjeants, and this intervention has therefore been taken as proving that Fressingfield had been acting as a serjeant in England before he went to Ireland. There is, however, no other evidence to support such a conclusion, but some other evidence to show senior clerks of the court speaking on behalf of litigants in the court during this period. From the Common Bench Fressingfield seems to have moved in the summer of 1292, on the resumption of the eyre circuits, which had been suspended in 1289 on Edward I’s return from France, to becoming a senior clerk on the ‘northern’ eyre circuit led by Hugh of Cressingham. In Hilary term 1293 he was pardoned the money he offered to pay for permission to make a final concord because he was in Cressingham’s service,9 and damages were assigned by a successful litigant to John of Fressingfield clerk and his colleagues (other clerks of the same eyre) in the Yorkshire eyre of 1293–1294.10 Unpublished law reports show him providing information to the court about a tenant coming out of gaol to request a view and then being remanded and the prisoner’s attorney being given the view in a case heard in the 1292 Lancashire eyre;11 of him acting as a mainpernor in the 1292–1293 Cumberland eyre and also speaking there about previous practice allowing a loss in novel disseisin to be followed by a recovery in mort d’ancestor and then a further loss by the writ of right;12 and of him contributing to the discussion of a case in the 1293–1294 Yorkshire eyre his reminiscence of two assizes brought (presumably in Suffolk and perhaps some considerable time earlier) by the recently deceased Suffolk Common Bench justice, William of Gisleham.13 It was while he was still acting as a senior clerk in the Common Bench that Fressingfield made his first major property acquisition, of the Suffolk manor of ‘Rughhaghe’ in Cookley, close to Halesworth, acquired from Alan Hovel in 1292. The manor was to be held jointly with his father Walter and Walter’s wife Levota, but to pass to John’s own heirs after the deaths of all three of them. Only a nominal purchase price is recorded for this acquisition.14 While he was acting as a senior eyre clerk in 1293, Fressingfield made his second major property acquisition, the Suffolk manor of Cookley itself. This was purchased for £100 from the

Paul Brand

47

disgraced former justice of the Jews, Robert of Ludham. The manor was to be held jointly with his father and stepmother in the same way, and it was also subject to liability for the continuing payment of instalments of Robert’s fine with the king for misconduct while in office.15 The eyre circuits were suspended in the summer of 1294 on the outbreak of war with France and abandoned later the same year. The next evidence of Fressingfield is in late November 1295 when he was going to Ireland with John Wogan by the king’s order and appointed an attorney to represent his interests in England for two years.16 Fressingfield must have met Wogan while serving as an eyre clerk, for Wogan had served as a junior justice in all the eyres of the same ‘northern’ circuit. Wogan had been appointed as justiciar of Ireland in mid-October 1295 and Fressingfield must have impressed him sufficiently on the eyre circuit for Wogan to have wanted to take him with him to Ireland. His first known appointment in Ireland was as keeper of writs and rolls in the Dublin Bench, a post for which his previous experience in the English court system was clearly an excellent preparation. He was appointed by a writ attested by Wogan in Dublin on 4 May 1296 and was paid till Hilary term 1298.17 He then appeared briefly as senior clerk in the justiciar’s court in 1299 and as an assign of damages by successful litigants in that court.18 Up to this point John of Fressingfield’s recorded career is that of a legal administrator, a senior clerk employed in the courts to write plea rolls and writs and to assist the justices with the dispatch of the court’s business. Such clerks were sometimes also clerks in a second sense, that is to say clerics in major orders holding benefices with cure of souls. Fressingfield had probably taken at least minor orders at an early stage in his career, but he seems not to have gone further and there is no evidence to show that he ever held an ecclesiastical benefice, whether in England or in Ireland. By Easter term 1296 at the latest, and probably at least a decade earlier, he had excluded himself from any hope of future ecclesiastical office-holding by taking a wife named Alice.19 This ‘secularisation’, if such it was, renders less surprising the next turn in Fressingfield’s career, which finds him being paid in 1299–1301 as custodian of the castles of Roscommon, Rindown and Athlone in Connacht and western Meath;20 and then leading a group of Anglo-Irish and purely Irish followers on the king’s service to Scotland in 1301–1302.21 It was perhaps at this time, though possibly not till later, that Fressingfield was knighted. He had certainly become a knight by October 1307.22 It was perhaps his military service to the king that ensured Fressingfield received a favourable response to various requests made in a 1302

48

A Versatile Legal Administrator and More

petition. He asked to be allowed to pay off a debt at the English exchequer in easy instalments. This was for goods seized from French merchants in Ireland. He also asked for grants of free warren and the right to hold a market in his lands in England and Ireland.23 His military activities were, it seems, no more than a short interlude in a mainly non-military career. On his return to Ireland, Fressingfield became for the first time a royal justice, though no more than a temporary substitute for other, more permanent, justices whose services were needed elsewhere. He stood in for Walter Lenfant as a justice of the justiciar’s court between mid-September 1302 and mid-March 1303 (during Michaelmas and Hilary terms and a little more), because Lenfant was needed as an eyre justice in Meath;24 for Walter de la Haye as a justice of Tipperary eyre between mid-October 1305 and mid-January 1306 and again from Christmas 1306 to Easter 1307;25 and once more as a temporary substitute for Lenfant in the justiciar’s court while Lenfant was at the Tipperary eyre between Christmas 1305 and Easter 1306.26 There are some indications that Fressingfield may have intended to settle permanently in Ireland. He had not disposed of his two Suffolk manors nor of his life interest in a third, but he had begun soon after his arrival to make substantial property acquisitions in Ireland. His first (in 1296) was a 20-year lease, later converted into a life interest, in ‘Batesgrange’ in Forth in County Carlow, granted to him by the abbot of Duiske (Graiguenamanagh).27 He also made two other major and more permanent property acquisitions that same year. One was of the manor of Fennor in Inchirourke in the north-east of Tipperary and close to Urlingford, acquired jointly with his wife Alice from Thomas, son of David.28 The second was of the manor of Lynn in Westmeath, close to Mullingar, with various appurtenances, also acquired jointly with his wife Alice from Ralph of Pitchford for 200 marks.29 Later, in 1297 and 1299, came the acquisition of property at ‘le Boly’ in Old Ross in Wexford,30 and in 1301 the acquisition of the manor of ‘Bilrath’, apparently close to Dysart in Westmeath, and thus not far from his earlier acquisition of Lynn.31 His first wife Alice, first mentioned in 1296 and last mentioned in 1301, was probably English.32 The birth-place of his second wife Joan, first mentioned in 1302, is not known but she was probably Irish and we know that she brought him substantial dower property in Ireland in Tipperary, Kildare and Connacht including the castle of Knockgraffon in Tipperary, which gave him further good reasons for staying in Ireland. Joan was the widow of Meiler – the son and heir apparent of Peter, son of Meiler of Bermingham – who had endowed his wife with his father’s assent, but they had to sue Joan’s late father in

Paul Brand

49

law, Peter, to secure her dower.33 One other piece of evidence suggesting that Fressingfield may have been intending to put down permanent roots in Ireland is the petition, perhaps dating from 1302, in which he sought to gain permission from the king to establish a chantry in the church of Lynn, endowed with some, though probably only part, of his property there.34 The king seems to have authorised an inquisition ad quod damnum by the escheator of Ireland, but any inquisition he may have held does not survive and there is no trace of a mortmain licence being granted. Fressingfield’s service in the Tipperary eyre down to Easter 1307 is the last evidence of him being employed on the king’s service in Ireland. By May 1308 he had returned to England and appointed an attorney, John of Fressingfield, clerk (probably his own son), to represent him for the next two years in Ireland.35 There is no obvious explanation for his return to England at this time. John Wogan, in whose company he had gone to Ireland in 1295 and with whom he was still said to be ‘continuously on the king’s service’ in Hilary term 1306,36 did not himself return to England until September 1308 and then returned to Ireland for a second period as justiciar between May 1309 and August 1312. Fressingfield’s second wife Joan, with her extensive dower properties in Ireland, accompanied him to England, or perhaps joined him there a little later, for in September 1309 they both appointed another attorney to act in Ireland on their behalf for two years.37 The explanation may have been the prospect of advancement in England. In the summer of 1309 Fressingfield received his first proper judicial position, as the most senior of the three justices appointed to hold a judicial eyre for the king in the Channel Islands.38 Later that same year (in November 1309) he was commissioned to go on a mission to Pope Clement V in Avignon with the English lawyer, John of Mutford, on matters relating to the winding up of the Templar order;39 and in April 1310 he was one of 14 men ordered to appear in the exchequer to receive instructions before setting out for Gascony, perhaps in connexion with the Anglo-French negotiations preceding the process of Perigueux.40 In 1312 he was appointed to a commission to deal with the claims of Flemish merchants against their English counterparts,41 and in 1315 to commissions relating to the claims of foreign merchants at Great Yarmouth and in London.42 In 1310 or perhaps later he became a member of the king’s council and he was summoned with other lawyers and administrative officials to the parliaments summoned for August 1312, March and September 1313.43 For a six-year period beginning in 1311 he received a variety of judicial

50

A Versatile Legal Administrator and More

commissions. Some related to London or the south-east of England.44 More related to Norfolk and Suffolk, and these included both special and general commissions.45 There are a few relating to other English counties.46 Fressingfield was clearly on an upward trajectory in his career and in his steady acquisition of properties until the second decade of the fourteenth century. Then things began, it seems, to go wrong. The limited number of judicial commissions issued to him coupled with his apparent failure to secure any more permanent position within the English judicial system, whether as an assize justice or in some other grander judicial post might simply be a reflection of his relatively advanced age when he returned to England and the lack of the contacts needed to secure such positions. What is more surprising is what happened during this decade to his Irish and English property interests. In 1313 he sold off his manor of Inchirourke for cash,47 and in 1314 his property in Old Ross, also for cash.48 He must, however, have retained some Irish interests for in October 1316 he appointed two attorneys to represent him in Ireland for the next two years.49 In 1310 he borrowed £80 from Richard of Loughborough in London by a statute merchant secured on his Suffolk properties,50 and in or before 1313, £149 from Robert Burdeyn in London by a statute merchant secured on the same properties.51 Robert Burdeyn subsequently gave or sold his interest in these lands to Fressingfield’s lord, Walter of Norwich, the chief baron of the exchequer, who in March 1321 in Fressingfield’s last recorded deed secured a release to these manors from Fressingfield.52 It may just have been a matter of Fressingfield living beyond his means and the debts finally catching up with him. Litigation in the London mayor’s court in 1307 seems to show him already borrowing money and victuals (to the value of £40) when setting out for Ireland in 1295 by statute merchant bond and the money being paid off by execution on his Suffolk lands, but him then trying to recoup some of his losses when he returned to England.53 The last chapter in the story is the strangest. From a petition of 1322 submitted by Hugh Despenser the younger, we know that in May 1321 Fressingfield was captured in Hugh’s company during the fighting in south Wales that preceded the exile of the Despensers and had to be ransomed.54 His connexion with Despenser may have been a last desperate attempt to repair his damaged fortunes. If so, it evidently did not succeed. Fressingfield disappears from the record and perhaps died soon afterwards. He may, however, have left issue. A second (and just possibly a third) John of Fressingfield appears in the records of the period. As we

Paul Brand

51

have seen, John of Fressingfield, clerk, was appointed in May 1308 as the representative of John of Fressingfield senior in Ireland for two years.55 A John of Fressingfield junior, perhaps the same man, received a similar appointment from John of Fressingfield senior in February 1311.56 However, only a few months later (in June 1311) John of Fressingfield junior received a joint appointment as the attorney of the Anglo-Irish lawyer and justice, William of Bardfield, and his wife Katherine for two years, but to act as their agent in England, not Ireland.57 In 1317 a John of Fressingfield (evidently a clerk) was presented in the king’s name to the church of Dysart in the diocese of Meath, close to where our John of Fressingfield may still have held land at ‘Bilrath’.58 A John of Fressingfield, presumably the same man, also appears as the attorney in Ireland, appointed for two years in March and again in May 1329, of Roger Mortimer earl of March and his wife Joan.59 We cannot be sure that this or these John of Fressingfields was or were our John’s sons. They may have been more distant kin. But if there was a single John who was a beneficed clerk and he was John senior’s only child, John of Fressingfield’s legitimate descendants must have ended with him. John of Fressingfield’s career, so far as it can now be reconstructed, is a clear example of how a man of humble origins could rise in the years round 1300 not only through service to the English crown and to the crown’s agents mainly in clerical and judicial administration but also through some military and diplomatic service and through marriage to a doweress to become a significant, though hardly a major, landowner in the two countries under the rule of the English crown, but could also then lose most of his acquisitions prior to his death and fail to create a lasting Fressingfield inheritance for his family in either England or Ireland. Men like John of Fressingfield are important because they helped through their careers to reinforce the personal links between royal administration in England and Ireland and beyond and perhaps even began to create something like a single royal administrative service in England and Ireland in the years around 1300, providing some break on the natural centripetal forces tending to force the two countries, even though they shared the same ruler, apart. There is much we still do not know, and may never know, about John of Fressingfield: about the early years of his career, his rise from humble beginnings and his education; what it was that brought him back to England in 1307–1308; why his career stalled in the second decade of the fourteenth century; how he came to throw in his lot with the younger Despenser; when exactly he died. What we do know, though, is enough to make him an interesting figure for

52

A Versatile Legal Administrator and More

historians investigating the links between England and Ireland in the late Middle Ages.

Notes 1. For earlier, outline, accounts of that career, see Ball, Judges in Ireland, I, 59; Hand, English Law in Ireland, 45–7. 2. Below, 46–47. 3. For the acquisition of a manor by Walter and his wife Levota and John the son of Walter in 1293, see TNA CP 25/1/216/42, no. 6; and for a deed of obligation made by John son of Walter son of Seman of Fressingfield in 1290, see TNA CP 40/83, m. 151d. 4. TNA CP 40/83, m. 151d. John was evidently still in possession of an interest here in 1308 when he was suing an assize of nuisance against the prior of Mendham and others: TNA JUST 1/848, m. 2. 5. TNA CP 40/80, m. 179d. 6. TNA CP 40/89, m. 98. 7. Select Cases, III, 9–11. 8. Year Books 21 and 22 Edward I, 541: wrongly identified by Horwood as belonging to the Middlesex eyre of 1294, but identifiable as a case heard this term in the Common Bench: TNA CP 40/91, m. 41. 9. TNA CP 40/98, m. 117. 10. TNA JUST 1/1085, m. 55d. 11. LI MS. Hale 188, f. 53d (report of case enrolled at TNA JUST 1/408, m. 22). 12. TNA JUST 1/134, m. 42; LI MS. Miscellaneous 87, f. 69v (report of case enrolled at TNA JUST 1/134, m. 8). 13. BL Additional MS. 31826, f. 249r (report of case enrolled at TNA JUST 1/1084, m. 65d). 14. TNA CP 25/1/216/41, no. 37. A distraint made on him in 1293 was challenged in a 1294 case: TNA CP 40/106, m. 30. 15. TNA CP 40/98, m. 117; TNA CP 25/1/216/42, no. 6; TNA E 401/126, 128. For Robert’s disgrace see Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews, VI, 35–8. 16. CPR 1292–1301, 167. 17. NAI RC 7/4, 150; Irish Exchequer Payments, 130, 134, 137, 141. His successor, Henry of Compton, was appointed in England on 20 February 1298. 18. CJR 1295–1303, 245, 266. 19. NAI RC 7/4, 123. If the John of Fressingfield clerk who was appointed as his attorney in Ireland in 1308 (for which see above, 49, 51) was his son, he is likely to have been born no later than 1287 and so Alice may well have become his wife, or at least his partner at least a decade before her first appearance in the records. 20. Irish Exchequer Payments, 155, 156, 158, 589. 21. Cal. Chancery Warrants, 148; CJR 1295–1303, 428. 22. CCR 1307–13, 43. 23. TNA SC 8/80, no. 3978; CCR 1302–7, 516; Cal. Charter Rolls 1300–26, 24. 24. Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 166; Irish Exchequer Payments, 168, 588.

Paul Brand

53

25. Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 144; Irish Exchequer Payments, 191. It was during this period that George de Roche got himself in trouble for misbehaviour in court at Cashel after overindulging in the best white wine in Fressingfield’s lodgings: CJR 1305–7, 46. 26. Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 167; Irish Exchequer Payments, 183. 27. CJR 1305–7, 12, 21; NAI RC 7/11, 412. 28. NAI RC 7/4, p. 123. For subsequent evidence of his interest here, see CJR 1295–1303, 219–20, 257; Cal. Charter Rolls 1300–26, 24 (grant of a weekly market at Fennor and free warren); NAI RC 7/10, 49, 264. The best indication of its extent and of where the appurtenant lands lay comes from the 1313–1314 deeds relating to its sale for 200 marks to Edmund Butler: Cal. Ormond Deeds, I, nos. 479, 481, 484, 485. 29. NAI RC 7/4, 201–2, 202–3. For a subsequent acquisition here in 1297 from William son of John, see NAI RC 7/4, 48. John was also granted free warren and a market here in 1302: Cal. Charter Rolls 1300–26, 24. 30. CJR 1295–1303, 158; NAI RC 7/6, 50–2. In 1314 John sold the property here and other property in Dungarvan and ‘Tylaghtyryn’ to David of Pembroke and his wife for £100: TNA KB 27/216, m. 28. 31. NAI RC 7/8, 179; TNA SC 8/80. no. 3978; CDI 1302–7, no. 167; CJR 1305–7, 353. 32. NAI RC 7/4, 123; NAI RC 7/8, 179. See n. 19 for reasons to suppose they have been partners by the mid-1280s. 33. NAI RC 7/9, 296; NAI RC 7/10, 53–4, 274–5, 280, 460–1. See also NAI RC 7/9, 299 and NAI RC 7/10, 496. 34. TNA SC 8/47, no. 2349. 35. CPR 1307–13, 72. 36. NAI RC 7/11, 412. 37. CPR 1307–13, 188. 38. Crook, Records of the General Eyre, 192. 39. Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, 159. 40. Parliamentary Writs, I, 42, no. 13. 41. CPR 1307–13, 473 and see TNA SC 9/20, m. 6. 42. CPR 1313–17, 261–2, 318–19, 321, 326, 406–7, 409. 43. Parliamentary Writs, II, div. II, 76, no. 10; 81, no. 26 and 102, no. 24. See also TNA SC 8/327, no. E843. 44. For commissions relating to the city of London, see CPR 1307–13, 373, 544; CPR 1313–17, 231–2, 237, 323–4; relating to the Tower of London or a prisoner held there see CPR 1313–17, 327, 502; relating to Surrey see CPR 1307–13, 421, 422; relating to Kent see CPR 1307–13, 477, 548. 45. For Norfolk special commissions, see CPR 1307–13, 317–18, 364; CPR 1313–17, 238–9, 251 (bis), 318, 411, 412, 418, 419, 431, 495, 496, 682, 683; CPR 1317–21, 85, 89. For Suffolk special commissions, see CPR 1307–13, 540; CPR 1313–17, 428, 503, 678; CPR 1317–21, 83. For general commissions for both counties, see CPR 1313–17, 243–4 (official misconduct), 262 (and 314) (related to conspiracy), 686 (prises), 688 (false measures). 46. CPR 1307–13, 316; CPR 1313–17, 497–8 (official misconduct in Oxon. and Berks. and Beds. and Bucks.), 502, 700.

54

A Versatile Legal Administrator and More

47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Cal. Ormond Deeds, I, nos. 479, 481, 484, 485. TNA KB 27/216, m. 28. CPR 1313–17, 553. TNA C 241/96, no. 40. See the litigation of 1317 where Fressingfield unsuccessfully challenged the seizure of part of these lands as not included in the original extent: TNA JUST 1/851, mm. 1-1d and TNA JUST 1/1374, m. 5. CCR 1318–23, 362. Cal. Early Mayor’s Court Rolls, 250–60. CCR 1318–23, 541–6. CPR 1307–13, 72. CPR 1307–13, 324. CPR 1307–13, 354. Rot. Pat. Hib., 24, no. 135. CPR 1327–30, 367, 395.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

4 Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders Ruth M. Blakely

The region of Galloway has been described as a microcosm of Scotland both topographically, by encompassing within its borders examples of all those physical features which have come to typify Scotland, and politically, by providing a major focus in the struggle for independence of the early fourteenth century which reflected the situation in the country as a whole.1 While the reasons for this latter focus are readily apparent in the conjunction in the area of the interests of the three major families involved in the struggle, those of Balliol, Bruce and Comyn, and in its proximity to England, there is a measure of irony in the fact that a region which had for so long repudiated the full overlordship of the kings of Scots and had, on occasions, courted English support against them should be seen as representative of the nation as a whole in its battle for the defence of Scottish sovereignty against its absorption into an English realm.2 Although Galloway had been increasingly drawn under the domination of the kings of Scots since the time of Fergus, it was only after 1234, following the death of Alan of Galloway, the suppression of his bastard son Thomas’s claim to the lordship by Alexander II and the division of the region between Alan’s three daughters and their predominantly English husbands, that its autonomy was effectively ended and it was brought fully under Scottish jurisdiction.3 This was scarcely two years before the treaty of York by which Alexander II formally agreed to relinquish Scottish claims to the three northern counties of England, in return for lands worth £200 annually, and the long-established customary line linking the Solway Firth to the Tweed was thereby confirmed as marking the definitive border between the two kingdoms.4 Initially this fixing of the Anglo-Scottish frontier made little material difference to Galloway, or to Scotland as a whole. For day-to-day life the 55

56

Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders

Border remained porous and the lordship’s long-standing links with its neighbour across the Solway continued as before. The firth was no barrier to communications either by boat or, further up the coast, by the fords which were traversable at low tide. Trade flourished; Galloway’s Cistercian abbeys looked to a mother-house in England; monks from Cumberland grazed their flocks on its pastures; even justice on occasions transcended the Border.5 It was still the heyday of cross-border landholdings: Desnes Ioan, the eastern area of Galloway between the Rivers Urr and Nith, for instance, had long been settled by Anglo-Scottish lords, while the English husbands of the co-heiresses of Galloway reinforced the region’s associations with England. More than half a century would pass before circumstances brought an end to the amicable relations between the realms.6 The treaty of York does, however, highlight the arbitrary nature and, indeed, the dangers of such politically established borders, lines of convenience defined by those in power in such a way as to satisfy their own ambitions or to meet the needs of a particular contingency, dividing ancient loyalties and taking no account of the diversity of affiliations or origins of those peoples encompassed by them. Although the Border does not, of itself, define the coastal boundary of Galloway which separates it from England (the line as marked on Ordnance Survey maps ends near Annan) its fixing did serve to emphasise the finality of the region’s annexation by Scotland; the southern shore of the firth, together with the major trading centre at Carlisle, was now unequivocally in another country, a situation which would bring increasing hostility as the Border hardened into a frontier during the Wars of Independence. With the ‘pacification’ of Galloway the way was opened to Alexander’s westward advance and Norway’s cession of the Western Isles in 1266, so that by the last decade of the thirteenth century the realm of Scotland had almost reached the limit of its expansion, with its encompassing borders defined and established along lines still recognisable today. Only the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland remained to be gathered in while Man, following intermittent subjection to Scottish rule for some 50 years, was lost to England in 1333. Yet at the start of the fourteenth century that newly shaped kingdom came perilously close to annihilation. It was in the course of the decade 1296–1306, following the deposition of King John Balliol, that Edward I’s perception of the status of Scotland displayed an ominous shift from that of a sovereign, if inferior, kingdom with which he had been prepared to treat, through that of a satellite kingdom towards the prospect of a single united kingdom and parliament. Finally, in the Ordinances for the governing of Scotland

Ruth M. Blakely 57

as presented for ratification at the Michaelmas parliament of 1305, Scotland had been demoted from a ‘kingdom’ to a ‘land’.7 However much John Comyn of Badenoch, Guardian of Scotland, and his fellow negotiators deluded themselves that a change of circumstances, perhaps of reign, might bring renewed hopes of further negotiations and a resumed independence, there is no doubt that Scotland was fast moving towards absorption into its stronger southern neighbour. Then, in February 1306, came the first of the two deaths which threw the whole process into reverse. The killing of John Comyn by the hand of Robert Bruce in the Greyfriars church at Dumfries precipitated Bruce into an action he had long been contemplating, his bid for the Scottish throne. All attempts at diplomacy were thrown to the winds in Edward’s fury at his vassal’s sacrilegious act and Scotland was plunged back into turmoil. The second, not unexpected, death in July of the following year was that of Edward himself, on the southern shore of the Solway, within sight of the region where his hunted adversary lurked and beside the fords which provided access to it. With Edward’s death the impetus which fuelled English ambitions to dominate Scotland was effectively reduced; but Bruce was set on a course which he could not change. It was no coincidence that both these deaths occurred on the very borders of Galloway; rather it was symptomatic of the situation in that region where the powerhouses of the major rivals for the kingship were concentrated, where feelings ran high and ancient loyalties, feuds and aspirations meant more than an amorphous concept of national solidarity. Galloway itself was still a self-contained region with distinct boundaries, its own code of laws, and a population with a long-standing consciousness of its own cohesion and sense of common purpose.8 Furthermore Galloway’s ‘discrete lordship’, far from being a ‘preserved fiction’ remained a tangible reality. Despite its initial threefold division between the daughters of Alan, and subsequent subdivisions, it possessed a very real sense of continuity, with the native lords still maintaining a loyal adherence to the recognised descendants of their last lord, a loyalty which now focused on the Balliol presence as holders of the largest remaining single share.9 The Bruce/Balliol rivalry is so well documented that it needs no further explanation here except to point up the proximity of the rivals’ respective lordships. The landward borders of Galloway which, like the Anglo-Scottish border, followed the natural lines of rivers and mountains were closely flanked by Bruce-held territory, creating a psychological as well as a physical barrier. To the east, across the River Nith, lay Annandale, granted to the first Robert de Brus in a joint

58

Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders

Anglo-Scottish project by David I and Henry I specifically to contain the marauding Galwegians. Nor would the present Robert Bruce, son of the Competitor, with his pro-English but anti-Balliol stance have been a comfortable neighbour. Beyond the mountains to the north lay the earldom of Carrick, now held by Bruce the younger, from where the Bruce raids on Galloway castles had originated within a year of Alexander III’s death.10 This mountain border also marked the legacy of that earlier violent quarrel between the lords of Galloway, the heirs of Fergus, now resurgent in their Bruce and Balliol descendants.11 It was this wild terrain, where the specific boundary was surely indistinct, that Bruce turned to his advantage, biding his time in and around Glentrool while Edward lay dying, consolidating his supporters, narrowly escaping capture while attempting to ambush the English treasurer in his desperate need for funds, and later using it as a base to launch devastating attacks on the people of Galloway who were hostile to his kingship.12 This state of affairs must have engendered a siege mentality for the Galwegians, not unlike that which they had experienced a century or more earlier when King William established royal castles worryingly close to those same borders at Dumfries and Ayr. It was the thin end of a wedge which Alexander II pushed into Galloway itself with royal castles at Kirkcudbright and Wigtown and the sheriffdoms of Dumfries and Wigtown. It has been suggested that it was Roger de Quincy’s perceived association, as constable of Scotland, with this increasing royal oppression, rather than his English connections, which caused the Galwegians to rise against him in 1247 and he was forced to fight his way out of Cruggleton castle.13 There is no doubt that Edward I was acutely aware of the situation in Galloway and its implications from the very outset of the war. In the first week of March 1296, while on his way towards the Border, he ordered the release of Thomas, son of Alan, from a lifetime of captivity in the Balliol stronghold of Barnard Castle. Supplied with a charter of liberties for the people of Galloway granted, it was said, by Edward in response to Thomas’s pleas, the 88-year-old man was escorted as far as Carlisle castle, which he must have reached shortly before the Comyn-led raid of the Scottish earls on the city gave Edward his excuse to cross the Tweed and sack Berwick.14 Events thus pre-empted Edward’s cynical use of the old man to deflect the Galwegians’ loyalty away from Balliol by suggesting that Thomas, rather than the descendants of Alan’s daughters, was their rightful lord and as such had accepted on their behalf Edward’s own overlordship and magnanimity towards them.15 Perhaps Edward also intended to play upon their separatism by reminding them

Ruth M. Blakely 59

that it was at the hands of a Scottish army, and the agency of the Comyn earl of Menteith, that Thomas’s bid for the lordship had been brutally defeated more than half a century before and a settlement alien to their laws of inheritance imposed upon them by a king of Scots. Whatever his intentions the ploy failed. The native lords of Galloway either knew nothing of the charter or were unimpressed. Thomas was forgotten, superseded by loyalty to his half-sister and her son.16 The loyalty of one extended family of impeccable Celtic origin who were tenants of Balliol in the Glenkens is well illustrated in the words of their submission to the king of England, forced from them after the Scots defeat at Dunbar, in which they abjectly repent of aiding John Balliol in ‘his war and “fole enprise” ’, though only through fear of a threatened army being sent among them.17 It could have been another attempt to conciliate the Galwegians, through diplomacy rather than fear, which influenced Edward’s choice for the post of warden of Galloway and Ayr. While it was inevitable, after 200 years of baronial integration between the two kingdoms, that many of those English administrators drafted in by Edward would have Scottish connections through inter-marriage, Henry Percy had an interest in Galloway itself. Not only was he an influential lord in the north of England, a kinsman of Edward, a grandson of John de Warenne earl of Surrey, the king’s lieutenant in Scotland and nephew by marriage of John Balliol, but he also had a claim, through his grandmother, to the Galloway lands of Ingram de Balliol, Scottish kinsman of John, which he was subsequently granted.18 Percy’s appointment, like that of Warenne, was not wholly successful; despite subduing a short-lived rising in the south-west in 1297, in which the earl of Carrick was involved, and taking hostages of some families of Galloway, he never achieved full control over the region.19 His authority was further undermined by the return from house arrest in England of John Comyn earl of Buchan, entrusted by Edward with helping to keep the peace, principally in the north but evidently free to resume his authority in Galloway also.20 It was a mistaken trust, as Edward was to find. In the summer of 1300, taking matters into his own hands, he made his first and, as it transpired, his only personal expedition to the region. Having rapidly besieged and taken Caerlaverock castle, the king and his army crossed the Nith. Although the river had now been bridged at Dumfries by Dervorguilla de Balliol, symbolically joining Galloway to Scotland, it is likely that the army crossed lower down the estuary where an ebbing tide and firm sands could, like the Solway fords, provide time for large numbers to make a safe passage.21 The Nith was only the first

60

Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders

of the several rivers Edward would encounter which, by running north to south, subdivide Galloway itself into regions and could in times of flood create formidable barriers.22 Two of them besides the Nith had also served as boundaries, witnesses to the expansionist policies of the earlier lords of Galloway who, in their smaller way, had conformed to the behaviour expected of a ruler until halted and finally overwhelmed by the stronger force of the expansionist kings of Scots.23 One of these, the Urr which had at one time formed the eastern border, still provided a boundary, an ecclesiastical one, that of the diocese of Whithorn which alone of all dioceses north of the Border remained a dependant of the archdiocese of York.24 The Universal Church took no account of changing political boundaries. Whithorn’s continued adherence to York after Galloway’s absorption into Scotland became a matter of considerable embarrassment to the Scottish Church which had spent so much energy in repudiating any subservience to the English archbishopric.25 Out to the west the River Cree, which marked the internal division between the sheriffdoms of Dumfries and Wigtown and, earlier, between the lands of the sons of Fergus, proclaimed its role by its name, derived from the Gaelic crích ‘boundary’, and is likely to have been the original westward extent of Fergus’s territories beyond which lay the Manx-dominated area of the Rhinns and Machars.26 While the necessity of traversing half a dozen rivers with his army must have slowed Edward’s progress across the region it was not only as physical barriers that they impeded him but, in their traditional role of meeting points, as political barriers too, serving to remind him that his overlordship of Galloway was not universally welcome. His first check came at the Dee bridge, where he was met by the bishop of Whithorn,27 not to welcome him to the diocese but sent by the Comyns to negotiate a settlement. Having rebuffed the bishop and returned to the coast at Kirkcudbright to meet up with his delayed supply ships, Edward was confronted by the Comyns themselves, who also left emptyhanded. Thereafter Edward kept to the safety and convenience of the coast and estuary crossings until his forces encountered physical opposition from the Comyn army, first near his encampment by the Fleet then finally and more forcibly at the Cree. Although the English army temporarily crossed the estuary and the Comyn troops dispersed, desertions and uncertainty of supplies compelled Edward to retreat. He had failed to penetrate and assert his authority in the secular and ecclesiastical heartland of Galloway.28 His son fared better the following year. After successfully, if only temporarily, taking the castles of Ayr and Turnberry, Prince Edward reached Whithorn where he set his seal, as

Ruth M. Blakely 61

it were, on the region by visiting the shrine of Galloway’s own saint, Ninian.29 This western region of Galloway, with its long and convoluted coastline reaching far beyond the shelter of the firth into the open sea, provides the clue to the earlier orientations of the lordship and its links with the ‘Irish Sea World’, especially with Man and Ulster. Galloway’s closeness to this world contrasts strongly with its apparent remoteness from the centres of Scottish government and is graphically illustrated in any map of the area where Man is seen as the hub of a large wheel, its rim being the shores of several countries. We see Galloway as an obvious part of the mainland mass of northern Britain which for us, indoctrinated as we are by historical/political but artificial divisions, means Scotland. Not so in earlier ages. The sea then was less a barrier than a highway, a link between nations, a means of migration, of trade, of cultural exchange. It was a world which took less account of emerging national boundaries than of a shared past.30 Much has been written about Bruce’s appeals to the common culture Scotland shared with Ireland and Wales to raise support for his cause, and the suggested reasons behind his and his brother’s subsequent attempt to subject Ireland to Scottish rather than English rule.31 This ease of sea-born communication had its dangers too, making Galloway, and indeed Carrick, vulnerable to invasion from Ireland and interference from England. It was from Ireland as well as the ports of Cumberland that supplies and troops came to assist the English cause. Yet it was from an English king that a lord of Galloway and an earl of Carrick obtained their temporary footholds in Ulster; a fact which Bruce evidently ignored when seeking to revive his ancestor’s claims, even as he placed greater emphasis on his Celtic descent and Carrick inheritance through his mother than on his father’s Anglo-Norman heritage and Annandale lordship.32 The sea-coast was also the gateway by which successive waves of settlers brought that ethnic and cultural mix, not only to Galloway but elsewhere in Scotland, which was eventually melded with other influences to shape the nation’s identity. This mix is yet another way in which Galloway can be regarded as a microcosm of Scotland, by reflecting the conflict of loyalties which affected so many Scots lords to an extent that has brought upon them ill-considered accusations of ‘lukewarmness’ and ‘disaffection’, or worse, towards their country’s struggle.33 Galwegians, like the lords of the Isles, had more reason than most for their ambivalence, being so recently annexed into Scotland. They were among the first, along with Bruce of Carrick, to return to Edward’s peace in 1302–1303 after his foray into Galloway and

62

Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders

subsequent truce at Dumfries; while some, such as Donald McCan, seem never to have left it after 1296.34 Any residual doubts the families of Galloway might have held over their choice of allegiance were dispelled by Bruce’s killing of John Comyn and seizure of the throne, a betrayal of their own lord and king in exile. From now on Galloway looked to England, even if any hope of a Balliol return had faded. Better an English overlord than a Bruce king. Their strength of feeling is typified by the response of Dungal McDowell, head of the most influential Galloway family who, when two of Bruce’s brothers landed at Loch Ryan in February 1307 accompanied by an Irish contingent, led the force which defeated them and handed the brothers over to Edward for summary execution. Bruce responded with predictable violence to crush the region which not only failed to accept him but continued to harbour and support the occupying English, subjecting it to devastating raids then handing over the command to his brother Edward whom he subsequently created lord of Galloway, scarcely a conciliatory move. There were those who fled the destruction, seeking refuge across the Solway to graze their cattle in Inglewood forest, an area which, in the year of Bannockburn when the men of Cumberland failed to pay Bruce’s protection money, would prove to be little safer than Galloway.35 It is no surprise that Bannockburn has been described as a defeat for Galloway.36 Its continuing support for the English occupation had placed it on the losing side. Only the previous year had Dungal McDowell finally been dislodged by Bruce from Dumfries castle, to reappear shortly in Man where he suffered another eviction, from Rushen castle which he was holding for the English.37 With the Border now hardened into a frontier and its porosity compromised, all living within its bounds must conform, at least nominally, and surrender any lands and allegiance elsewhere. Those who did not were expelled. The prediction of the unknown writer of the letter from Forfar in 1307 was being fulfilled.38 It affected Galloway hugely. In a state of continuing war this forfeiture understandably implicated all whose primary allegiance lay south of the Border; as a result only a small share of the former lordship was still in the keeping of one of Alan’s descendants, a niece of John Comyn earl of Buchan, who had married John of Ross. Her sister and co-heiress, as wife of Henry Beaumont, was treated as English. Bruce had almost the entire region at his disposal and made the most of it, installing his own kinsmen and partisans in the lands that had been held by Balliol, Comyn, Ferrers and Zouche, as heirs of Alan. Galloway was deprived of its heritage as well as its borders. Once again a king of Scots had imposed his will. With this difference, that when

Ruth M. Blakely 63

Alexander II established a settlement for Galloway, it had at least been demised to the descendants of the last lord, even if the division of the lordship had been against the wishes of the people. That link had now been severed. Nor was it only the ‘greater’ lords, or even those such as McDowell, McCulloch and the bishop of Whithorn who had consistently opposed Bruce, who were forced to seek refuge in England. There are examples of smaller landholders who chose to leave or to retain their holdings in Cumberland rather than Galloway which resulted in their expulsion.39 Yet there were clearly some who, despite reservations, managed to remain in or return to Scotland, as witnessed by the subscribers to the Declaration of Arbroath. Whether, as has been suggested, this was due to Bruce’s leniency or their own diplomacy is open to question. The Soules conspiracy, which followed so soon after the Declaration and involved some of the subscribers, demonstrates how fragile still was Bruce’s hold on the region.40 Furthermore, after the treaty of Edinburgh in 1328 when Bruce reluctantly agreed to reinstate the confiscated lands of some of the ‘Disinherited’ in Galloway, such as Beaumont, Percy and Zouche, only Percy’s agreement seems to have taken effect.41 Bruce’s policy created a situation ripe for the rebellion which erupted so soon after his death when much of Galloway, even those families who had submitted to him, supported the return of the ‘Disinherited’ in the wake of Edward Balliol.42 Scotland’s civil war was not yet over and Galloway was again at the forefront of the action. Again its identity was reallocated at the whim of power-seekers when most of the region was ceded to England as part of Edward Balliol’s dubious transaction with Edward III. Only the far west remained in Scotland. The Cree now delineated a major national boundary.43 However, borders which are arbitrarily moved to suit a change of circumstance, to reflect the waxing or waning of powers, do not immediately change the identity of the people affected. Although the borders of a region or nation can define its geographical area and the extent of influence at a given moment, they can only reinforce an identity which has grown within them as part of a shared experience over time; they cannot themselves create it. While the Galwegians suffered anew from Edward III’s punitive measures and the resumed hostilities between the Bruce and the Balliol factions, it was still their own region and identity for which they were fighting. The struggle continued for more than 20 years. By the end even the majority of Galwegians who opposed the Bruce dynasty became half-hearted in their support for Edward Balliol. The young king of England had less will than his grandfather to maintain the annexation of his northern neighbour in the face of more concerted Scottish opposition, the Franco-Scottish

64

Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders

alliance and his own continental commitments.44 Once the king’s support for his protégé had withered and Edward Balliol had thrust the crown back at him, Scotland was left to pick up the pieces yet again and re-establish itself as a nation within the geographical boundaries as they were at the death of Alexander III, which Bruce had reaffirmed in 1328. Even Galloway reluctantly accepted what had become a fait accompli. Native lords who left the country with Edward Balliol after his resignation found their way back to their homeland after his death.45 Following such unhappy experiences of both Scottish and English interference the region might well have preferred to return to its own autonomy, but events had moved too far. For good or ill Galloway was now undoubtedly one with Scotland. It was spared the lingering English occupation which persisted in Annandale and, more damagingly, in the eastern counties. In the continuing cross-border, and internal, conflicts its identification with the Scottish cause became axiomatic.46 Scotland’s bitter struggle for independence, although far from over, had averted the total annihilation with which it was threatened, had consolidated its geographic unity and brought new impetus to a political unity within its borders. Drawn into a closer coherence by common vicissitudes, its edges were more firmly defined, its people forced to confront their priorities and make what must have been for some, including many Galwegians, unpalatable choices. Although the borders remained as they were in 1286, the national consciousness within them had been subtly reshaped. Nor was it only Scotland that was reshaped by the conflict but England too. Its involvement in its neighbour’s affairs across the Border influenced its own development, realigning its internal balance and weighting it more heavily towards the south. It was the northern counties that bore the brunt of the change. As well as suffering long-term decline from destructive cross-border raids and loss of trade, in addition to the uncertain economic conditions of the fourteenth century, they were also effectively abandoned by the government. With the loss of their ambitions in Scotland the rulers of England lost interest in the north of their kingdom.47 Any opportunity which the northern counties might have had to become the hub of a prosperous coalition of two nations was taken from them. The kingdoms diverged, treated each other with suspicion, looked to other alliances and developed along lines very different from those they might have shared.48 Where does this leave Galloway? During several centuries of oblivion, with its lordship extinct, its traditional code of laws ultimately lost, its diocesan links with York severed and its identity camouflaged

Ruth M. Blakely 65

as the shires of Wigtown and Kirkcudbright, the memory of its separateness was kept alive in the common saying: ‘Out of Scotland and into Galloway’. Now, following modern reorganisation of district boundaries, its ancient name has been revived and its individuality restored as a recognisable region within Scotland.49

Notes 1. Morrison, ‘Galloway’, 1; Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 29. As will be evident throughout this chapter, I am deeply indebted to the work of many scholars for the formulation of my ideas and, in particular, to Robin Frame for expanding my horizons beyond the borders of England to the wider context of ‘Britain and Ireland’ during my years of study under his guidance. I am also most grateful to Keith Stringer, who kindly read an interim draft of this paper, for his helpful comments. 2. For a detailed study of Galloway’s development as an independent lordship and its relations with its neighbours, see Oram, Lordship of Galloway, chapters 2–3 and Stringer, ‘Periphery and Core’. 3. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 81, 102–3, 106–7, 141–8, 152–3. Only Roger de Quincy, earl of Winchester, husband of Alan’s eldest daughter Helen, had any Scottish interests. Helen’s half-sisters, Christina and Dervorguilla, were married, respectively, to William de Forz earl of Aumale and John Balliol of Barnard Castle. 4. Only since the seventeenth century has ‘Solway’, derived from ‘Sulwath’ one of the several fords, been applied to the whole of the firth, but for ease of reference the modern usage will apply throughout this paper; Neilson, Annals of the Solway, 15–16, 23–5. 5. Stringer, Reformed Church, 4, 7, 9–11, 22–3; Neville, Violence, Custom and Law, 2–9; Summerson, ‘Crime and Society’, 113–14. 6. Stringer, ‘Scottish Foundations’, 87–9; Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 152. 7. Prestwich, ‘Colonial Scotland’, 6–7; Richardson and Sayles, ‘Scottish Parliaments of Edward I’, 310, 311–13. The change in terminology is clearly demonstrated by comparing nos. 19 and 33 in Anglo-Scottish Relations, although the English version of no. 33 is inconsistent in its translation of terre. 8. The laws were still recognised as valid in 1384 but seem to have disappeared from use by the mid-fifteenth century; MacQueen, ‘Laws of Galloway’, 131, 139. 9. Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 32–3; Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 147–8, 207–8. John Balliol had held his share only since 1290 on the death of his mother, Dervorguilla, the last surviving daughter of Alan. The shares of Dervorguilla’s co-heiresses were either incorporated into hers or diffused by a further generation of divisions. Two shares were now in the hands of absentee English lords, Ferrers and la Zouche; the third was held by the Comyn earl of Buchan whose family became the biggest champion for the Balliol cause. 10. Blakely, Brus Family, 20, 23–4, 86–7.

66

Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 102–4. Duncan, ‘War of the Scots’, 138–41; McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, 39–41. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 106, 152, 153. CDS, II, nos. 728, 729; Watson, Under the Hammer, 21. Even before his deposition of King John, Edward envisaged Galloway as being peculiarly his own, anticipating that the Balliol share of the lordship would fall to him by escheat to join John’s previously confiscated estates in England. The last record of Thomas dates from 30 August 1296, when he was granted restoration of the lands his father had given him more than 60 years before. CDS, V, no. 162; Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 145. CDS, II, no. 990, p. 253. This particular submission by 14 men of ‘the lineage of Clenafren’ has only survived because of its later use by Edward in 1298 to convince the king of France that Balliol was not eligible to be negotiated with as king of Scots because his own subjects had repudiated him. In 1299, following the death of Ingram de Balliol, Percy was confirmed by Edward I in the possession of his lands, including Urr in Galloway, because the other claimant, Ingram de Umfraville, was supporting the Scottish side. CDS, II, no. 1060. CDS, II, nos. 908, 909, 910, 1179. Of the 22 hostages held in Carlisle castle, ten died. John Comyn the elder of Badenoch returned from England at the same time. The younger John Comyn, the future Guardian and Bruce’s victim who had been taken prisoner after Dunbar, was serving with Edward in Flanders but later deserted. CDS, II, nos 742, 839, 940, 961. Young, Robert the Bruce’s Rivals, 166–7. This was a timber bridge. The present stone bridge which bears Dervorguilla’s name dates from the fifteenth century. Bridges built in later centuries were repeatedly washed away by torrents pouring from the hills; McCulloch, Galloway, 446–7. ‘. . . the authority and security of a ruler [were] measured by his impact beyond his territory’; Frame, Political Development, 26. The bishops of Man and the Isles had also been under the authority of York until 1153 when they were transferred to Nidaros (Trondheim) in Norway; McDonald, Kingdom of the Isles, 207. Stringer, Reformed Church, 18–21. Watt, ‘Provincial Council’, 140–1. The situation was exacerbated at the time of the Great Schism when Scotland and England were supporting rival popes, but the attachment had effectively ceased by the early fifteenth century; Brooke, Wild Men and Holy Places, 171–2. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 56–7. Thomas of Dalton (or Kirkcudbright), bishop of Whithorn 1294–1319, was a Bruce appointee and pro-English. He subsequently sought refuge in Carlisle then permanent exile in England; McCulloch, Galloway, 155, 167. Willelmi Rishanger, 440–6; Stafford (ed.), Itinerary of Edward I, part ii, 158–61; Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 36. Although it is not clear from which direction Prince Edward reached Whithorn, there is evidence to suggest that he had been at Ayr and Turnberry first; Prestwich, Edward I, 493–4. The visit was not without its problems,

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

26. 27.

28. 29.

Ruth M. Blakely 67

30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39. 40.

41. 42.

43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

the image of St Ninian having been spirited away by the Scots to Sweetheart abbey but ‘miraculously’ returned the following day; CDS, II, no. 1225. Duffy, ‘Bruce Brothers’, 58–9; Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 150; Frame, Political Development, 6, 7, 12. See, for example, papers by Duffy and Lydon reprinted in Duffy (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars; Duncan, ‘Scots’ Invasion of Ireland’, 100–17; Frame, ‘Bruces in Ireland’. Greeves, ‘Galloway Lands in Ulster’, 115–22. Barrow, Robert Bruce, 79–80, 270; Grant, ‘Scottish Foundations’, 98–9. CDS, II, nos. 894, 1049 (which should probably be dated 1303, not 1298); Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 37. CDS, III, no. 14; McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, 57. Brooke, Wild Men and Holy Places, 155. McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, 58. CDS, II, no. 1926. The writer laments that, because of Bruce’s success in attracting followers, it was being said that if the king (Edward) should die, ‘all must be on one [i.e., Bruce’s] side, or they must die or leave the country . . .’ Barrow, Robert Bruce, 279–85; McCulloch, Galloway, 167, 174–6; Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 41–2. Barrow, Robert Bruce, 308–10. William de Soules, the figurehead of the conspiracy, had Galloway connections, having obtained Cruggleton through his mother, a daughter of Alexander Comyn earl of Buchan. For a detailed study of the affair, see Penman, ‘A Fell Coniuracioun’. RRS, V, no. 457; Nicholson, Edward III and the Scots, 57–8; McCulloch, Galloway, 181 n. 37. Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 42–3. For the effects of Edward Balliol’s campaign on Galloway, see ibid., 43–7; Reid, ‘Edward de Balliol’, 38–63. Nicholson, Edward III and the Scots, 160–1. During the early Scottish campaign Edward III transferred his government offices and parliament to York, but they had returned to Westminster by 1338. Ormrod, Reign of Edward III, 18, 54, 193; Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III, 170. CDS, IV, no. 92; Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 46–7. Many earlier refugees, however, chose to remain in exile. For the continuing situation in the Border region, see, for example, MacDonald, Border Bloodshed. Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III, 78–9; MacDonald, Border Bloodshed, 7, 196–241. McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, 248–51; Frame, Political Development, 200–3; Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’, 83. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, xxi, xxii.

5 Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History Andrea C. Ruddick

Since the publication of Robin Frame’s account of The Political Development of the British Isles, the ‘British history’ project to move away from a compartmentalised, often anglocentric, ‘four nations’ approach towards a more integrated study of the interactions between the constituent parts of Britain and Ireland has become an established feature of the historiographical landscape.1 Yet it has never been an entirely unproblematic concept. Proponents of British history emphasise the importance of not simply replacing one rigid paradigm (that of Whiggish national historiography) with another, equally rigid one, and present the British approach as complementary to the continued validity of studies of individual nations.2 Nonetheless, the British Isles have increasingly come to be uncritically accepted as the most appropriate social, political and geographical context for historians of its respective parts, without which their individual histories cannot be properly understood. It is salutary, then, to remind ourselves that ‘Britain’, and even the ‘British Isles’, are just as artificial and historically contingent a political construction as the four nations from which they are formed, despite their undoubted convenience in forming a neat geographical unit. Moreover, we need to bear in mind Conrad Russell’s warning that the ‘British history’ approach can be applied more convincingly to some periods of history than to others.3 The Middle Ages, however, are often pinpointed as an ideal period for such an approach, particularly the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, during which Anglo-Norman political and economic expansion spilled over national boundaries and brought a degree of cultural and political uniformity to the British Isles, under a ruling elite who, it is argued, shared a ‘common world’ and were driven by a ‘single political dynamic’.4 From the later thirteenth century, as continental ties were severed or 68

Andrea C. Ruddick

69

faded away, kings of England consolidated their control over the British Isles from Westminster, and the chronicler Peter Langtoft dreamed of a quasi-Arthurian single monarchy under Edward I that would unite the whole of Britain.5 The four centuries after 1066 have been convincingly characterised as a process of the expanding, often forcible, anglicisation of the rest of the British Isles, and then its gradual retreat and failure in the face of local resistance (and the ‘distraction’ of war against France) which, in turn, sharpened a sense of national identity in the non-English parts.6 Yet this is just one part of the story. As Frame has pointed out, there are reasons to question the appropriateness of taking the British Isles as our default ‘mental arena’.7 The experience of Scotland, for instance, which remained an independent kingdom in the Middle Ages for all but a brief episode, is too often neglected by the tendency to view the medieval British Isles as a single, anglicised, political unit.8 Even more problematic for the current grand narrative of an English royal project to dominate Britain and Ireland, however, is the fact that the kings of England were also continental rulers.9 This stake in continental politics included a number of areas over the years: the Channel Islands, the county of Ponthieu (from 1279), Calais (from 1347) and English Normandy in the early fifteenth century. However, the most enduring continental role in the period was the position of the king of England as duke of Aquitaine. Acquired by the English crown in 1154 through Henry II’s marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine two years earlier, the connection lasted until the close of the Hundred Years War in 1453.10 Consequently, it was the duchy of Aquitaine and the overlapping territory of Gascony which represented the most constant reminder of the king of England’s commitments and ambitions beyond the British Isles in the later Middle Ages.11 It is the aim of this chapter, therefore, to consider the extent to which Gascony should be incorporated into our narrative of the medieval history of the British Isles and, in addition, the extent to which this prompts a reconsideration of the notion of ‘British history’ in the period. Did this territory and its people form part of the ‘common world’ which, to a greater or lesser extent, united England and the rest of the British Isles? Or should it, as might be inferred from the minimal references to Gascony in much recent historiography, be viewed as somewhere entirely separate, and having little to do with the proper royal business of domination and conquest within the British Isles? A good starting point is the constitutional status of Aquitaine in relation to the king’s other lands. As noted above, the duchy was acquired through a marriage alliance in 1152, along with the county of Poitou.

70

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

At the time, the king of England was also duke of Normandy and held Anjou, Maine and Touraine in north-west France, so the acquisition of Aquitaine added a new focus in the south-west. After the loss of Normandy in 1204 and the surrender of most other French territories in the treaty of Paris in 1259, however, Gascony formed the main substance of the king of England’s continental possessions.12 This treaty had significant implications for the status of Aquitaine vis-à-vis the English crown. The duchy now stood in an anomalous position among the king of England’s lands, in that it was held by him as the vassal of another sovereign ruler, the king of France, at a time when definitions of feudal obligation were being sharpened across western Europe. Before this, the parts of Gascony that did not fall under the comté of Poitou had been considered an allod, autonomous from Capetian rule. By the terms of 1259, however, the whole duchy was held of the French king by liege homage, so that its duke owed him homage and fealty. English lawyers and diplomats attempted to circumvent the demeaning associations of this relationship with tactics such as delays in performance of homage and the use of proxies. In addition, a more radical argument based on Gascony’s former allodial status was developed to argue that it was not, in fact, part of the kingdom of France, but this continued to be a matter for debate. The tensions generated by this unequal relationship of equals, most notably when they spilled over into armed conflict, are well-known, and there is no need to repeat them here.13 What this meant on a day-to-day basis, however, was that the inhabitants of Gascony could always appeal to a higher source of authority, a situation which the Capetian monarchy was happy to exploit. As a result, a considerable portion of crown officials’ workload in Gascony was taken up by dealing with appeals to the Paris parlement.14 This was in sharp contrast to the position claimed by the king of England as the supreme overlord of all his territories within the British Isles, and it set Gascony apart by more than mere geography. From an English point of view, on the other hand, Aquitaine was consistently listed along with the king’s other lands, in both chronicles and official documents, as parliaments were summoned and proclamations were made concerning the business of the kingdom of England and ‘our lands of Gascony, Wales, Ireland and Scotland’.15 This was also reflected in the royal style, which from 1259 proclaimed the king to be  ‘king of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine , a list to which overlordship of Scotland was sometimes added after 1291, although Wales, annexed to the English crown in 1284, was omitted.16 The perceived unity of Gascony with other royal domains is also evident in its

Andrea C. Ruddick

71

parcelling out to members of the royal family. In 1254, the duchy was included along with Chester, Wales and Ireland as part of the appanage granted to the Lord Edward; on his accession to the throne in 1272, it was therefore restored to the king of England and was subsequently regarded as inalienably attached to the English crown.17 In the 1360s, Aquitaine was again viewed together with the king’s British lands as part of a collection of resources for distribution among his sons. The Black Prince received the duchy as a principality in 1362, alongside his roles as prince of Wales and earl of Chester, at the same time as his younger brother Lionel was appointed king’s lieutenant in Ireland, and John of Gaunt became duke of Lancaster.18 Aquitaine reverted to the king’s hands in 1372, but was again granted out in 1390, this time to John of Gaunt, although Richard II’s attempts to make him duke foundered on resistance from the Bordeaux Estates, where it was argued that this would represent separation from the crown.19 Throughout its attachment to the English crown, therefore, the duchy of Aquitaine was officially regarded as part of a coherent package of royal lands. At the level of official rhetoric, this was reflected in the similarity between the vocabulary used to address the inhabitants of Gascony and the language used elsewhere in the king’s other domains. Although Gascons were considered, in legal terms, aliens in the kingdom of England, in common with inhabitants of Wales and Ireland they were also described as subjects of the king of England until the fifteenth century.20 Consequently, they were frequently grouped together in diplomatic documents, as inhabitants of distinct lands but the same political world: ‘all . . . our fideles and subjects in our lands of Gascony and the duchy of Aquitaine, England, Ireland [and] Wales’, as one letter from Edward I to officials in Aquitaine put it in 1296.21 This should be qualified by noting that in Aquitaine, at least before Edward III claimed the throne of France in 1337, the duchy’s inhabitants were not subject to the English king as a king, but in his capacity as their duke. It seems that the king played on this ambiguity, however, describing himself as rex et dux in most official letters, even before 1337.22 In this way, Gascony and its people were implicitly drawn under the broader political authority of the king of England, along with his subjects in Britain and Ireland. To note the inclusion of Gascony alongside the king’s other lands in official rhetoric is one thing; to discover whether this went beyond rhetoric is another. To do so, it is necessary to look more closely at the actual administration of Gascony under Plantagenet rule, not only to compare it with arrangements elsewhere in the king’s domains, but also

72

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

to examine how integrated were Gascon government and personnel into this wider network of lands and governance. To ask this question is also to engage with the broader question of the extent to which the king’s domains as a whole functioned as an integrated political unit. For, if Gascony was viewed by the English crown as part of this collection of lands, it makes sense to include the duchy of Aquitaine in our analysis of how the king’s lands functioned as a whole, a question that has, to date, been largely the agenda of ‘British history’.23 The government of Gascony certainly had structural similarities to other territories under the king of England’s rule. One feature of this was the appointment of a vice-regal figure who could act on the king’s behalf in his absence as, from the mid-thirteenth century, the king’s presence in England became more or less permanent.24 In Ireland and in conquered parts of Wales, this took the form of a justiciar, and in the Channel Islands the warden; in the duchy of Aquitaine, the equivalent figure was the seneschal, whose extensive but vaguely delineated military, financial, judicial and political responsibilities gradually evolved over the thirteenth century.25 The situation was clarified considerably during Edward I’s prolonged stay in the duchy from 1286 to 1289, which culminated in a comprehensive overhaul of the Gascon administration and a set of ordinances which laid out the responsibilities of all officials. The role of the seneschal was now more clearly defined as mainly diplomatic, administrative and judicial, his overarching task remaining the defence of the king-duke’s interests.26 As elsewhere in the king’s lands, the post was almost always filled by an Englishman, usually a man of knightly rank who was experienced in crown service, rather than by a native. Consequently, the seneschal personified a royal authority which could, by this point, be properly described as English.27 In times of particular political sensitivity, again as elsewhere, the seneschal’s authority could be superseded by the appointment of a king’s lieutenant, often of royal or noble rank, to whom more extensive temporary military, judicial and diplomatic powers were given.28 In normal circumstances, however, the day-to-day authority for running the duchy lay with the seneschal, an example of the delegated governance that characterised rule in the king’s non-English lands. The area in which medievalists have gone furthest in addressing the questions of the comparison and integration of the king’s domains, and in which the Gascon administration had the most in common with arrangements elsewhere, is that of finance.29 The Bordeaux exchequer, created in 1255 under the Lord Edward, was the most anglicised institution found in Aquitaine in the period. From 1289, the main financial

Andrea C. Ruddick

73

responsibility was placed in the hands of the constable of Bordeaux, whose tasks included the collection of rents and customs (most notably from the lucrative Bordeaux wine trade), payment of wages and compiling accounts. Like the seneschal, the constable was rarely a native – most were English, with a proven record in the financial or diplomatic service of the English crown.30 Again, this has parallels with equivalent chief financial officers elsewhere – the chamberlain in Wales, the treasurer in Ireland and the receiver in the Channel Islands similarly all headed their own local exchequers.31 The constable was aided in his task by various subordinates: the controller, exchequer clerks and an array of provincial receivers and tax collectors. Despite this well-organised structure, however, the form of the accounts changed with each new constable and receipts varied greatly from year to year, often leaving the constable short of funds. This was not helped by the complexity of the task, as information flowed in from the provinces, each with their own types of rent and dues, and their accounts often late and incomplete.32 From 1293, Gascon accounts were required to be presented for an annual audit at the English exchequer in Westminster, along with those from Ireland. This brought Gascony and Ireland in line with Wales and the Channel Islands; Calais would follow in 1360. In Gascony, this practice continued (apart from a brief hiatus under the Black Prince) until the 1450s.33 This increased supervision reflects an overall trend across the king’s lands in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries towards greater financial centralisation at the English exchequer, which perhaps represented the high point of financial integration within the king’s domains. Even with this centralisation, however, the Gascon accounts did not achieve any great level of uniformity, and constables continued to struggle with mounting arrears with little assistance from the English government.34 The problems became particularly intense in wartime; the parliament rolls from 1330, for example, contain a string of petitions from Adam of Lymbergh, who had been constable during the war of Saint-Sardos in 1323–1324, and still had not been reimbursed for the considerable expenses incurred during that time. In 1341–1342, meanwhile, the seneschal Sir Oliver Ingham was unable to pay his troops on top of the high cost of maintaining local defences and buying off barons whose loyalties were not secure.35 In addition to showing the particular expenses faced by the Gascon administration, this latter situation also illustrates the impact of Gascony’s relationship with the king’s wider domains on its finances, for the problems in 1341 were largely due to the financial crisis in Edward III’s home government at the time.36 This knock-on effect was not a new experience; Edward I and Edward II had

74

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

both been forced to rely on Gascon revenues to service their debts to Italian bankers and other creditors (including, at one point, the Gascon Pope Clement V) to the extent that Gascon revenues granted for campaigns in Scotland were pledged in advance to creditors even before collection.37 Consequently, there was little money to spare in the duchy to repay old debts or to pay Gascon troops and officials, whose wages fell further and further into arrears. The financial integration of royal domains revolved around the immediate needs of the English crown, and was not equally advantageous to all concerned. From the later fourteenth century, however, rather than contributing to the royal coffers, Gascony was becoming a costly drain on English revenues; between 1348 and 1361, more than half of the expenditure by the Gascon administration came from the English exchequer.38 By the fifteenth century, as the costs of war and decline in wine exports took their toll, the Gascon administration was forced into expedients such as loans, increased judicial fines and debasement of the coinage, while it became clear that subsidies from England would not be forthcoming. As the attention of the Lancastrian government shifted to northern France, Gascony was the poor relation when it came to getting a share of the crown’s resources. Indeed, the lack of English taxation in 1451–1453 contributed directly to the fall of Bordeaux, the nail in the coffin of the English presence in Gascony.39 This, too, had parallels with situations elsewhere, notably in Ireland, which similarly became a financial liability for the English crown from the late fourteenth century.40 In both cases, part of the problem was the unwillingness and inability of the king’s English subjects to accept the extension of their obligation to provide for the defence of the realm to the king’s lands overseas, particularly as an ongoing concern in peacetime. This was not a new problem; in the political and financial crisis of 1294–1297, the reluctance of Edward I’s leading nobles to serve overseas in Gascony was one of the key issues at stake.41 However, the extent to which England was responsible for the defence of the king’s other domains continued to be a topic for debate in English parliaments throughout the fourteenth century and beyond. Indeed, by the early fifteenth century, royal policy itself had shifted away from the centralisation of the earlier period towards the view that the crown’s wider domains should be self-financing.42 Gascony was not always unprofitable, however; for many years it was a valuable and well-integrated part of the transfer of resources that went on between different parts of the king’s domains. Financial aids and fouage hearth taxes were granted on a one-off basis from Gascon

Andrea C. Ruddick

75

towns and nobles at various points under Edward I. The duchy had contributed funds, troops and victuals to his successful Welsh campaign in 1282, and also supplies for the Scottish wars in 1306, and Gascon nobles served in Scotland under Edward II in return for wages and rewards.43 There was, however, no regular English tax on Gascony, nor any traditional obligation to serve the king-duke in Scotland, and no centralised representative institutions for negotiations existed. Consequently, when the English government sought Gascon aid for the crisis on the Anglo-Scottish borders in 1315, the embassy of English and Gascon nobles sent by Edward II to the duchy were acting without precedent. As Elizabeth Brown’s detailed study of this fundraising operation has shown, their campaign of letters of non-prejudice, planned regional assemblies and meetings with individual towns and nobles met with limited success. By 1316, the envoys had garnered a reasonable (although far from generous) collection of pledges, but collection was slow. Even so, it was successful enough to encourage further fundraising drives for war in Scotland from 1321 to 1323, which had the same limited but nonetheless helpful results.44 This had parallels with taxation elsewhere in the king’s lands. The same pattern of the king raising local taxes in his capacity as lord of a particular place, rather than as king of England, by means of negotiations with local representative assemblies, also appeared not just in Ireland, Wales and the Channel Islands, but also within the English regnum, in liberties such as Durham and Chester.45 There were correspondences on a theoretical level, too. Historians have noted how Henry III and Edward I’s insistence on the inseparability of dominions such as Ireland and Gascony from the crown strengthened the idea that the various lands under the king’s rule should contribute to the defence of the king’s dominions in general, rather than just within their own borders. This gave a theoretical backing to the extension of extraordinary taxation beyond the English regnum to all the king’s lands in times of urgent necessity, as traditional feudal levies proved inadequate to meet the rising costs of war.46 The evident reluctance with which the Gascon population supported the causes of their king-duke suggests that there was little sense of obligation to a wider political unit, despite the development of sophisticated official justifications for taxation.47 Yet even the reluctance with which the inhabitants of Gascony participated in this transfer of resources gave them something in common with the mentalité of their fellow subjects, who were equally reluctant to view Gascony as worthy of either their attention or their purse-strings. By the early fourteenth century, therefore, the duchy of Aquitaine could certainly be described as integrated,

76

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

albeit grudgingly and inefficiently, into the financial systems of the king’s domains as a whole. The role played by representative assemblies, too, bears comparison with situations elsewhere. In contrast to the frequently summoned Irish parliament, with its judicial, legislative and tax-granting functions, regional assemblies within the duchy of Aquitaine in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries were infrequent and embryonic, with ill-defined powers.48 Some regions, such as the Agenais, had a stronger tradition of local estates, which had grown out of seigneurial courts, but these were on the wane by the late thirteenth century.49 It is only from the later fourteenth century that the demands and deliberations of regional assemblies in Gascony begin to appear more regularly and to resemble the kind of king–subject dialogue that was taking place in England and Ireland. In 1368, for example, an assembly met at Angoulême to grant the Black Prince a fouage in return for redress of grievances drawn up by the nobles.50 In 1395, by which time a more coherent ‘Three Estates of Guyenne’ had emerged, comprising nobles, prelates and towns, representatives were sufficiently self-conscious and self-confident about their role to declare that any tax raised without the free consent of the whole country would not be considered binding. In the same year the Three Estates was involved in negotiating a settlement to the revolt against John of Gaunt in the previous year, in the run-up to which the assembly had played a key role in articulating reservations about Gaunt’s rule. Even in the fifteenth century, however, the assembly does not appear to have met regularly or to have had clearly recognised powers.51 Nor was it at the beck and call of the English monarch; in 1390, the count of Armagnac had summoned the Three Estates from various regions on his own initiative, to organise a delegation to Charles VI of France.52 This did not mean that Gascon subjects had no means of communication with their king-duke prior to the late fourteenth century. From the reign of Edward I, Gascon petitions were heard along with those from the king’s other lands in the English parliament. This system became more institutionalised over time, with panels of receivers and auditors specially appointed at each parliament. The Gascon panels included not only key figures from the duchy from time to time, such as the constable of Bordeaux and leading nobles, but also English bishops, magnates and judges, who were not necessarily expert in Gascon affairs.53 Consequently, as Gascon affairs were drawn into the business of the English parliament and council, the king of England was able to underline the essential unity of his authority in Gascony with his authority elsewhere, not only to

Andrea C. Ruddick

77

his subjects at home and abroad, but also to the rival court of appeal in Paris. Yet, despite these administrative and financial parallels, Gascony was in many ways distinct from the king’s British lands in its governmental culture. Unlike Wales and Ireland, there was little English settlement, a difference which has prompted some to dispute Labarge’s description of Gascony as a ‘colony’.54 The duchy also retained its own law and customs, in contrast to the extension of English common law to Wales and Ireland that followed their respective conquests and, in Wales, the anglicising reform of native law codes. Moreover, in both of these lands, these legal developments led ultimately to the institutionalisation of discrimination between native and settler populations, a situation that never occurred in Gascony.55 When it came to local government, Aquitaine retained a much more native flavour than Ireland and Wales, where English rule was mediated through the reproduction of English institutions, offices and terminology. In respect of territorial divisions, Gascony was organised under sub-seneschals who ruled over long-established regions, some of which dated back to its time as a province of Roman Gaul, in contrast to the newly created English-style shires, counties and boroughs of Wales and Ireland.56 Similarly, in place of English offices, such as the sheriff and coroner, that were transplanted into Welsh and Irish society, Gascon local offices were based on traditional positions, such as subseneschals, castellans, prévots and baillis, and nearly all were filled by Gascons.57 The contrast with the king’s other lands here should not be exaggerated; there was also a degree of accommodation with existing local structures in Wales, which had a relatively well-developed political infrastructure at its conquest, and in the Channel Islands, which had previously formed part of the duchy of Normandy. Welsh shires, for example, were superimposed over the traditional territorial and administrative division of the commote (although this was transformed into the English hundred), and certain minor Welsh offices were retained alongside the new, English ones, and could be held by Welshmen. Welshmen never held the more significant offices, such as sheriff or constable of a castle, however, in contrast to the accessibility of all but the highest-ranking posts to Gascon notables.58 In fourteenth-century Ireland, the traditional native dynasties were even less integrated into English political structures, with office-holding, legal status and parliamentary representation all reserved for the Anglo-Irish elite. In contrast to the Irish justiciar’s council of Anglo-Irish magnates and senior ministers, meanwhile, the seneschal’s council consisted

78

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

of native Gascon clergy, burgesses, legal clerks and barons, whose advice provided the necessary continuity and local expertise for the normal functioning of government, in the face of a (sometimes rapid) succession of seneschals.59 These disparities reflect more fundamental differences between Aquitaine and the king’s territories in the British Isles. The absence of English settlers in any great number in Gascony obviously made the crown reliant on the native nobility to fill official positions, as there was no equivalent to the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. Behind this, however, lay a more significant factor: the fact, noted already, that Aquitaine was a hereditary fief held by liege homage of the king of France. Consequently, it stood in a wholly different constitutional position from the conquered lands of Wales and Ireland (and, at times, Scotland).60 Gascony was not viewed as a blank canvas on which English-style governance and reforms needed to be imposed, but as a long-established, semiautonomous duchy with its own administration and political culture. Moreover, while the king’s British lands were regarded as subjugated enemy territories inhabited by Celtic barbarians, the governing classes of Aquitaine shared with their English counterparts the ‘civilised’ social, moral and cultural values of francophone elite culture current across Europe at the time.61 Plantagenet rule in Gascony, therefore, stood on an entirely different ideological and practical footing from the patterns of domination and conquest that characterised royal government in the British Isles. What, then, was the attitude of some of these Gascon nobles to their place in the king’s wider lands? Studies have been made of the crossborder landholding and careers of several aristocratic families based in Britain and Ireland during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.62 There has, however, been little consideration of the extent to which the Gascon elite fitted into this ‘British’ political world. Basic biographies have been constructed for most seneschals and constables, but, as already noted, these posts were usually held by Englishmen.63 One exception was Amaury de Craon, who served as seneschal from 1313 until 1316, and again from 1320–1322. Amaury came from a prominent noble family and had a history of service to both the English and the French crowns. Indeed, one of his first tasks as seneschal was to mediate between the two kings in negotiations over disputed clauses of earlier peace treaties. His local influence was also valuable, as seen in his role on the tax commission of 1315, an appointment which made use of not only his official position, but also his prestige as a local lord. Yet his interests were not restricted to the duchy. In 1320, he was granted

Andrea C. Ruddick

79

custody of the lands in England and Ireland of his daughter-in-law Marguerite during her minority, along with their issues, as a reward for his services to the crown. This stake in British lands was not without its inconveniences; in 1324, his Irish lands were seized, along with those of other aliens, because Amaury was ‘of the power of the king of France’, although these were soon restored in recognition of his loyalty. None of this meant that Amaury was present in England or Ireland very often, however. His involvement in the fundraising campaign of 1315–1316 meant that he was unable to attend the parliament to which he was summoned in 1316, and the patent rolls contain numerous letters confirming his appointment of attorneys to sort out his English and Irish affairs while he was in Gascony.64 This pattern was continued by his son, Peter, who sent clerks and attorneys to deal with his affairs in England and Ireland throughout the 1330s, during which time he was simultaneously an absentee prebendary of Stillington of St Peter’s, York, and Yatesbury of St Mary’s, Salisbury. Such measures were evidently necessary to protect his British interests; in October 1337, like his father before him, Peter’s English lands were confiscated because he was ‘by birth of the power of the king of France’, but restored on account of his good service.65 Holding land and office in the British Isles, however, clearly did not necessarily create strong British connections for Gascon families in terms of marriages, mobility and involvement in local politics in the same way that it did for British-based nobles. Another prominent Gascon noble who was involved in crown affairs at around the same time was Amanieu d’Albret, who served along with de Craon on the 1315 tax embassy. As lord of the Albret family’s extensive lands since 1298, Amanieu was an influential figure in Gascon politics, to the extent that, in 1305, one enemy complained that ‘there is no other king in Gascony except him’.66 Amanieu’s allegiance was far from constant; he did not take sides in the Anglo-French conflict immediately, but played the two kings off against one another, while he pursued local private wars. This included a long-running dispute with the one-time seneschal, John Ferrars, which resulted in Amanieu making an appeal to the Paris parlement in 1312.67 He defected to the French in 1324 during the war of Saint-Sardos although, at the time of his death in 1326, reconciliation with Edward II was in progress.68 Despite this chequered history, he served Edward I and Edward II in various capacities, which included fighting in Gascony and Scotland, acting as an ambassador to the French court and the papal curia and, on one occasion, serving as a hostage on diplomatic business in Aragon. His wealth also meant that he was able to provide Edward II with several loans, with

80

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

little hope of speedy repayment.69 His services were rewarded in other ways, however, including lands in England; in 1299, he was granted the castle and manor of Tickhill until such time as his lands in Gascony were restored, having been seized by the king of France for his adherence to Edward. He also held lands in Cheshire, where an order in 1300 from the justice of Chester to provide timber for repairs to his manor of Frodsham perhaps indicates a slightly neglectful attitude to his English possessions.70 In addition, like Peter de Craon, he was also granted various English ecclesiastical posts, all held in absence, a cheaper measure than raising his salary in the duchy. He also used his position on at least one occasion to obtain a post for an equally absent relative.71 That he did make trips to England is suggested by the letters of safe conduct that were issued to him and his agents on various occasions, but the main focus of his activity was the duchy itself. Indeed, in a career which took him all over Europe in the king of England’s service, and which was rewarded with various lands and offices in England, his Gascon interests continued to dominate his horizons.72 Amanieu’s son Bernard Ezii continued in the family footsteps, oscillating between the French and the English kings before opting for Edward III in 1339. As a result, his French lands were confiscated by the French king, but in compensation he received several land grants from Edward III, and privileges including the right to set tolls within his lands, and the profits of the mints at Bordeaux and Dax.73 His considerable prestige led to him being given not only local responsibilities, but also more internationally significant diplomatic duties, including powers in 1344 to admit former adherents of Philip of Valois in the duchy into Edward’s obedience, and a role as an envoy in 1342 in marriage negotiations between Edward’s daughter and the king of Castile’s son.74 Financially, Bernard was another useful source of loans, although repayments predictably quickly went into arrears and had to be made up with advances from the wool grant being collected in England. In fact, arrangements were still being made to calculate and repay the outstanding debts in the 1350s.75 He also contributed men to the war effort, and in 1340 he was appointed as a captain and lieutenant of the king in the duchy, along with another Gascon nobleman. In 1351, consequently, he received a generous grant out of London customs, in expectation of lands and rents to the equivalent value in England or Aquitaine, and a marriage was even mooted between his son and the king’s daughter Isabel, although in the event this came to nothing.76 Moreover, while his father was still lord of Albret, Bernard held posts as archdeacon of Canterbury and parson of Walpole, a pluralist absentee

Andrea C. Ruddick

81

like his father.77 Nonetheless, he clearly did travel between England and France on royal service; in August 1351, letters were issued permitting him to exchange money in London without hindrance, because he was returning to Aquitaine on the king’s business, and by 1352 he was back in England, serving as an auditor of Gascon petitions at the English parliament.78 The Plantagenet alliance died with Bernard in 1359, however, as his son Arnaud-Amanieu opted for an advantageous marriage into the French royal family in 1368, after a decade of wavering.79 The Albret connection with the English crown, therefore, was in the end a relatively shallow one, based on continued mutual benefit. The lords of Albret were always, first and foremost, powerful local lords in Gascony, who had little desire or incentive to become enmeshed in the social and political world of the British Isles. If anything, lesser men from the duchy enjoyed greater mobility within the king’s domains. This is demonstrated by one final example, the Gascon knight Peter Libaud.80 In contrast to the nobles, the more lowly Peter spent a considerable portion of his career in the British Isles. The first official mention of him appears in 1311, as some lands granted to him in Scotland by Edward II were resumed under the Ordinances. This suggests that Peter already had a history of royal service in Scotland, and by 1312 he was constable of Edinburgh castle and of the peels of Linlithgow and Livingston.81 His success did not last for long, however. Chroniclers varied in their accounts of the fall of Edinburgh castle to the Scots in 1314, but several placed the blame on Peter’s shoulders. Both the Historia Aurea and the Vita Edwardi Secundi recorded that the castle fell through Peter’s treachery, while in the Scalacronica, Sir Thomas Gray blamed his neglect of the castle defences.82 Barbour’s Bruce, meanwhile, claimed that the English garrison suspected Peter of treason while the siege was still underway and imprisoned him, appointing a man ‘of their own nation’ as constable instead. Gray and Barbour also noted that Peter changed sides when the castle fell, something that is substantiated by official documents from Scotland, which record his later execution by Robert Bruce, who was apparently unconvinced by his change of allegiance.83 What is notable about all these accounts is that they suggest considerable distrust of their Gascon constable by the English garrison, despite his previous history of service in Scotland. This may not have been without justification, as his subsequent defection indicates. However, as with chronicle references to Gaveston, writers always note Libaut’s Gascon identity as a salient fact.84 This suggests, at the very least, that Gascons continued to be regarded as identifiably foreign, if not necessarily always

82

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

suspect, when their service to the king took them beyond the borders of Aquitaine. It appears, then, that in respect of personnel, as with administration and finance, Gascony was at once an integrated part of the political and governmental culture of the English king’s dominions and yet, at the same time, stood apart from it. The differences between Aquitaine and the king’s British lands were, constitutionally speaking, profound and this had an important influence on the ways in which the devolved government common to all of the king’s lands developed differently in Gascony. The duchy’s status as an inherited fief rather than a conquered land, along with its geographical separation from the British Isles and minimal English settlement, produced a region that retained much of its own political culture under Plantagenet rule. Aquitaine kept its own laws and customs and local administrative structures, and offices were held by Gascon natives to a much higher level than elsewhere in the king’s domains. The well-established native nobility were rewarded with lands elsewhere, but chose to focus largely on their careers within Gascony, rather than branching out across the British Isles in the way that characterised many British noble families in the period. Moreover, unlike their British fellow subjects, they had a choice of allegiance, either to the English or to the French crown, which gave Gascon nobles the opportunity to play off Plantagenet and Capetian rulers against one another to their own advantage. The Gascon elite, therefore, while they shared much of the political culture of English royal governance, cannot be as straightforwardly categorised as belonging to the ‘common world’ of the British aristocracy as their English, Scottish and Anglo-Irish counterparts. Indeed, the anomalous constitutional position of Aquitaine gave Plantagenet rule in Gascony a completely different ideological basis from government in the king of England’s other lands. Yet, at the same time, it is arguable that Gascony fits better into the mould of a ‘British history’ framework than does Scotland, certainly in terms of the overarching themes of English domination and governance. Throughout the period, Aquitaine was regarded as an integral part of the king of England’s lands. Gascony was frequently involved in the transfer of money, manpower and provisions between different parts of the king’s domains, albeit not in a very systematic or enthusiastic manner. Parallels between government in Gascony and the king’s other lands, particularly Ireland, can be seen in the details of its administration and its relationship to Westminster: the role of the seneschal and other officials, the receipt of Gascon petitions at the English parliament and the creation of a subordinate local exchequer, for example. Similarities also

Andrea C. Ruddick

83

appear in the structural problems that emerged in Gascony and elsewhere – again, most notably in Ireland – as the costs of governance and defence rose while their revenues declined. Consequently, both Gascony and Ireland, once viewed as valued resources, came to be seen as expensive burdens by the late fourteenth century. Moreover, the situation in both of these lands demonstrates how closely connected were the fortunes of the different parts of the king’s domains with the political events and resultant needs and priorities that emerged in England, even while developments in these outlying regions in turn influenced policy and problems in England. To this extent, then, the affairs of Aquitaine impinged upon and were inextricably involved in the politics of England and, more broadly, the whole British Isles, in a way that makes them difficult to ignore when writing a history of medieval Britain. Indeed, almost in spite of their attempts to stay within a ‘British’ framework, Gascony keeps on creeping into historians’ accounts of medieval British history.85 The anomalous and yet strangely familiar shape of English government in Gascony certainly suggests that caution is required before we restrict ourselves to a British paradigm. Yet what Gascony may demonstrate is not so much the limits of ‘British history’, but rather its extent – even beyond the British Isles themselves. The extent of the power and reach of the English crown in the later Middle Ages represented something that was both less than (with regard to Scotland and much of Ireland) and also more than British Isles monarchy. Frame has suggested that, in writing British history, ‘as well as looking over the partition walls, we need to do some thinking about the design of the building itself’.86 It is the suggestion of this chapter that the building plans might from now on include an annexe for the king of England’s French possessions.

Notes 1. Frame, Political Development. For further medieval examples, Davies (ed.), British Isles; Davies, Domination and Conquest; Davies, First English Empire; Grant and Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom?; Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland. This article was written during a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship. 2. For example, Pocock, ‘British History’, 613; Davies, ‘In Praise of British History’, 9–10; Frame, Political Development, 3; Cannadine, ‘British History’, 25–7. 3. Russell, ‘John Bull’s Other Nations’. Russell’s own view is that ‘there is no logical case for a medieval British history’, quote at 3. Frame, Political Development, 3; ‘Overlordship and Reaction’.

84

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

4. Davies, ‘In Praise of British History’, 14; Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 164. See also Frame, Political Development, 50–71; Davies, Domination and Conquest, 121–3. 5. Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, II, 264–7; Frame, Political Development, 129–68; Davies, First English Empire, 142–71. 6. For example, Davies, First English Empire; Domination and Conquest; Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’, 67–75; Grant and Stringer, ‘Introduction’, 7–8; Kearney, British Isles, 60–104. 7. Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’, 171. 8. Stringer, ‘Scottish Foundations’, 92–3; Grant, ‘Scottish Foundations’; Frame, Political Development, 89–108; Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’, 171, 181. 9. Also pointed out by Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’, 171, 181–4. 10. Labarge, Gascony, 3–4; Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 17–18. 11. The terms ‘Aquitaine’ and ‘Gascony’ were used fairly interchangeably in official documents and chronicles of the time, a practice that will be adopted here. However, their precise legal and territorial definitions had important historical differences, a fact which increasingly mattered in diplomatic negotiations during the Hundred Years War, see Labarge, Gascony, 1–5; Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 6, 60–2; Curry, Hundred Years War, 32–3. 12. Frame, Political Development, 20–2, 29–32; Prestwich, Plantagenet England, 293, 296–7; Labarge, Gascony, 1–5, 15; Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 9–15. 13. Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 48–63, 175–269; Curry, Hundred Years War, 28–76. 14. Curry, Hundred Years War, 35, 62–3; Labarge, Gascony, 34–5, 112–14; Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 67–70, 162–4, 257; Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 148–9; Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 305. 15. For example, Parliamentary Writs, I, 5, 180, 302; II, 171, 317; Rôles Gascons, III, 331–2; Gascon Rolls, 1307–17, 166; CCR 1333–7, 354; CCR 1337–9, 523; CCR 1360–4, 475; CCR 1369–74, 563. See also chronicles, e.g. Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, II, 188; Denholm-Young (ed.), Vita Edwardi Secundi, 20; Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, 230, 348–9, 364, 371, 375, 384. 16. Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy, I, 248–50. For references to Scotland, for example, Rotuli Scotiae, I, 1, 2, 11, 12, 15–16, 17 (1291–3). 17. Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 301–2. 18. Ormrod, ‘Edward III and his Family’, 408–16. 19. Vale, English Gascony, 27–35; Jones, ‘Relations with France’, 257–8; Palmer, England, France and Christendom, 152–63. 20. For example, Rôles Gascons, II, 305, 322, 329, 391 (1289); III, 61–2, 94 (1293); TNA C 61/50, m. 16 (1338). See also Ruddick, ‘Ethnic Identity’, 22–5; Griffiths, ‘English Realm’. 21. Rôles Gascons, III, 331–2. See also Treaty Rolls, 119 (1296), 127–8 (1297), 133–4, 142–3, 143–5 (all 1298); TNA C 61/66, m. 13 (1354). 22. For example, Rôles Gascons, II, 293–5, 312–18, 319–21 (1289); III, 292 (1295), 90–1 (1310), 443–4 (1316); TNA C 61/41 m. 2 (1329); TNA C 61/53 m. 34 (1340); TNA C 61/56 m. 5 (1344); TNA C 61/68 m. 6 (1356).

Andrea C. Ruddick

85

23. Davies, First English Empire; ‘English State’; Frame, Political Development; Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 289–308; Ormrod, ‘English State and Plantagenet Empire’. 24. Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 296–8. 25. Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 138–9; J. P. Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 141–62; Labarge, Gascony, 11–14; cf. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 340, 364; Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 29–30, 37–41, 71–2; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Chief Governors’; Lydon, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages, 28–30; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 8–14; Johnstone, ‘County of Ponthieu’, 441–3. 26. Labarge, Gascony, 47–62; Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 149–50; Vale, English Gascony, 6–7. 27. Rôles Gascons, III, lxxxii–iii; cf. Frame, Political Development, 210; Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 366; Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 30; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Chief Governors’, 23–5. Although cf. comments by Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 6 and Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 308, who question the concept of ‘English’ Gascony. 28. Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 137–8; Vale, English Gascony, 7; TrabutCussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 218–23 cf. the appointment of Lionel of Antwerp, earl of Ulster, in 1360 as the king’s lieutenant in Ireland, for example, Duffy, Ireland in the Middle Ages, 152–4; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Chief Governors’, 228–30. 29. For example, Ormrod, ‘English State and Plantagenet Empire’; Thornton, ‘Taxing the King’s Dominions’; Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’. 30. Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 287–98; Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 57–8, 140–1; ‘Constables of Bordeaux’; Rôles Gascons, III, lxxxviii-cii; Johnstone and Stuart, ‘Richard of Elsfield’, 24–5. 31. Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 86–7; Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 364; Frame, Political Development, 157; Lydon, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages, 38–40; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 21–2, 24–7, 42–64. 32. Lodge, ‘Constables of Bordeaux’, 227–8, 237; Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 298–308. 33. Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 303; Frame, Political Development, 151; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 47, 57–64; Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 86; Ormrod, ‘English State and Plantagenet Empire’, 206–10, 213. See Labarge, Gascony, 154–6 on the Black Prince’s administration. 34. Ormrod, ‘English State and Plantagenet Empire’, 204–9; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 186–228; Lodge, ‘Constables of Bordeaux’, 226–8; Johnstone and Stuart, ‘Richard of Elsfield’, 26–7, 29. 35. TNA E 175/2/16 m. 3, in PROME, IV, 99–115; Labarge, Gascony, 122–4; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 336–9. 36. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 253–312. For the impact of the same crisis in Ireland, see Frame, ‘English Policies’. 37. Tout, Place of the Reign of Edward II, 194–99; Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 107, 114–122; Ormrod, ‘English State and Plantagenet Empire’, 209; Johnstone and Stuart, ‘Richard of Elsfield’, 26–7, 29–32.

86

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

38. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 329–32, 344–5, 476; Shaping the Nation, 61–2; Frame, Political Development, 137. 39. Vale, English Gascony, 8–9, 11–14, 152–3, 216–19; Vale, ‘Last years of English Gascony’, 122–5, 135–6; Labarge, Gascony, p. 166. 40. Frame, Political Development, 137; Duffy, Ireland in the Middle Ages, 127–32, 151–3, 157–8, 167–7; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 477–8; Lydon, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages, 62–70, 86–8, 97–101, 125–30; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 152–4. 41. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 49–63, 470; Prestwich, Plantagenet England, 167. 42. Harriss, Shaping the Nation, 498; King, Parliament and Public Finance, 470, 476–8; Ormrod, ‘English State and Plantagenet Empire’, 211–14. 43. Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 11–12, 29, 325–6, 329; Labarge, Gascony, 46–7; Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 48, 52–3. 44. Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 63–142. 45. Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 40–1; Thornton, ‘Taxing the King’s Dominions’, 97–109; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 111–18, 158–9. 46. Ormrod, ‘English State and Plantagenet Empire’, 200–3; Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 41–8; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 33–48. 47. Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 54, 140–5. 48. Frame, Political Development, 150–1, 179–81, 184–6; Richardson and Sayles, Irish Parliament, 57–100, 111–18, 145–61, 174–268; Lydon, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages, 31–8. 49. Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 54, 90–5; Bisson, Medieval France, 3–30. 50. Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 146; Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 244. 51. Palmer, England, France and Christendom, 152–63; Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 147, Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 132. 52. Palmer, England, France and Christendom, 152–3. 53. Frame, Political Development, 142, 151; Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 111–12; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 61–2, 246–52; Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 334–6, Richardson and Sayles, ‘King’s Ministers in Parliament’, 381–6; Green, ‘Lordship and Principality’, 20–1. 54. Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’, 184; Vale, Origins of the Hundred Year War, 6; cf. Green, ‘Lordship and Principality’, where the author argues that rule in Aquitaine may have had more of a ‘colonial’ character under the Black Prince’s regime from 1362. On settlement in Wales, see Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 87–99, 371–3; Lordship and Society, 303–6; on Ireland, see Duffy, Ireland, 7, 111–13. 55. For example, Rôles Gascons, II, 3 (1274), 286 (1286), 531 (1289); III, 44 (1292); Gascon Rolls, 1307–17, 43 (1307), 93–4 (1310), 330 (1314); TNA C 61/43 m. 20 (1331); TNA C 61/56 m. 9 (1344); cf. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 340–6, 356, 368–9; Frame, Political Development, 85–7, 156, 159; Hand, English Law in Ireland; ‘English Law in Ireland, 1172–1351’; Lydon, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages, 43–6; Davies, Domination and Conquest, 115–19. 56. For example, Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 333–40, 364–73; Frame, Political Development, 85–8, 157–9, 207–10; Duffy, Ireland, 94– 8; Labarge, Gascony, 1–2; Vale, English Gascony, 7; cf. Davies, Conquest,

Andrea C. Ruddick

57.

58.

59.

60. 61.

62. 63. 64.

65. 66. 67.

68. 69.

70.

71.

87

Coexistence and Change, 364–6, 372–3; Frame, Political Development, 87–8, 157; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Anglo-Irish Shire Government’. Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 142–4; Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 175–91, 194–211; Vale, English Gascony, 6; cf. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 365; Frame, Political Development, 157; Duffy, Ireland, 96–7; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Anglo-Irish Shire Government’. Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 28–9, 36–7; Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 364–6; Frame, Political Development, 157, 207–10. Frame, Political Development, 212–17; Labarge, Gascony, 104–5; Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 144–6; Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 191–4; Tout, Place of the Reign of Edward II, 193–4; cf. Richardson and Sayles, Irish Parliament, 10–38, 162–73; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Chief Governors’, 235–6. Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 306. Davies, First English Empire, 113–41; Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century, 3–18, 27–31, 101–5, 148; Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, 158–79; Duffy, ‘Problem of Degeneracy’; Davies, Domination and Conquest, 113–14; Lydon, ‘Middle Nation’. On European aristocratic culture, see Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 21–47; Vale, Princely Court, 282–300. For example, Stringer, ‘Nobility and Identity’; Frame, ‘Aristocracies’. For example, Rôles Gascons, III, xix–lxxxiii, lxxxviii–cii; Gascon Rolls, 1307–17, xviii–xxxi; Lodge, ‘Constables of Bordeaux’, 230–7. Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 33–4; Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 64, 71–2; CCR 1313–18, 33; CPR 1317–21, 498, 500; CCR 1318–23, 31; CCR 1323–7, 256; CCR 1313–8, 328. For use of attorneys, see e.g., CPR 1292–1301, 443; CPR 1301–07, 234; CPR 1317–21, 498, 499; CPR 1324–7, 88; TNA SC 8/39/15447 (1324 × 33). CPR 1330–4, 104, 401; CPR 1334–8, 12, 27, 534; CPR 1338–40, 49; CCR 1337–9, 191. Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 377–81; Vale, English Gascony, 159–60. Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 64–6; Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 381–2. This was not unusual behaviour for the Gascon nobility, see Vale, English Gascony, 170–9. Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 381–2. Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 67–71. For trips to Rome, see CPR 1292–1301, 543, 556; CPR 1301–07, 387; CCR 1302–07, 351, 430–1, 436, 449–50; for diplomatic negotiations with the king of France, see CPR 1301–07, 30, 56, 67; CCR 1302–07, 530–1 and with Italian bankers in CPR 1301–07, 516, 536; CCR 1302–07, 175; CCR 1307–13, 6, 213–14. For some of these grants, see CPR 1307–13, 12. CPR 1292–1301, 433. See also CCR 1302–07, 58. Tickhill had previously been held by another Gascon family, having been taken into the king’s hands during the recent war from Constance, who was the recently deceased daughter of Gaston de Béarn, and widow of one of Edward I’s cousins, Henry of Almaine, see Weir, Britain’s Royal Family, 344. Amanieu was, at various points, treasurer of Wells, archdeacon of Huntingdon, a canon of Lincoln and parson of Horncastle, see CPR 1307–13, 47, 140, 141. One of his nephews was a prebendary of Nassyngton in Lincoln, see CPR 1313–7, 352. See also CCR 1296–1302, 314–15.

88

Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History

72. CPR 1307–13, 526. See Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 382: ‘Il n’a jamais perdu de vue sa région gasconne, ses intérêts dominiaux.’ 73. TNA C 61/52 m. 6 (1341); TNA C 61/56 m. 6 (1344); TNA C 61/65 m. 7 (1353); CPR 1327–30, 319; Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 382. Bernard Ezii, lord of Albret, should not be confused with his less influential younger brother, Berard le Bret, who is described as ‘the king’s yeoman’ (CPR 1324–7, 254) and who also provided money and manpower for Edward II’s expeditions (e.g., CPR 1324–7, 295, 314, 319; CPR 1340–3, 250, 261) but who died in 1347 (CPR 1345–8, 288–9, 331, 427) – a confusion not helped by the fact that the editors of CPR frequently treat the two as one person in index entries. See Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 389–93 for more on the cadet branch of the family. 74. TNA C 61/53 m. 4; CCR 1341–3, 554. For a local role, for example, TNA C 61/68 m. 6 (the arbitration of a dispute between two towns in 1356). 75. CPR 1338–40, 382; CPR 1340–43, 249, 255, 261, 263, 268, 269, 330, 350, 501; CPR 1343–5, 481; CCR 1341–3, 193, 238, 313; CCR 1343–6, 48; CPR 1350–54, 127–8; CPR 1354–8, 94. 76. CPR 1338–40, 408; TNA C 61/56 m. 6 (1344); CPR 1350–54, 113, 114; CCR 1349–54, 431, 526–7. On the marriage, see Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 383. 77. CPR 1307–13, 34, 140, 141; CCR 1302–07, 434. 78. CCR 1349–54, 378; TNA C 65/16 m. 6, in PROME, V, 33–63. 79. Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 383. 80. Various alternative spellings include Libaut, Lubaud and Lyband. 81. CPR 1307–13, 409; CCR 1313–18, 9; Rotuli Scotiae, I, 111. 82. ‘Extracts from Historia Aurea’, 210; Denholm-Young (ed.), Vita Edwardi Secundi, 48; Scalacronica, 72–3. 83. Scalacronica, 72–3; The Bruce, 376–9, 398–9. For the Scottish documents, see The Bruce, 398, n. 766. 84. On Piers Gaveston, for example, Denholm-Young (ed.), Vita Edwardi Secundi, 1; Chronicon Galfridi le Baker, 4; ‘Bridlington Chronicle’, 32–3, 40; ‘Annals of Worcester’, 560. In fact, the writer of the Vita claims that Peter was a cousin of Piers Gaveston, see Denholm-Young (ed.), Vita Edwardi Secundi, 48. 85. For example, Davies, Domination and Conquest, 57, 105–6, 127; Frame, Political Development, 130–9, 142, 144, 159. 86. Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 169.

6 Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320 Paul Dryburgh

On Thursday in Easter week 1317 an army numbering perhaps 1000 English war veterans landed at Youghal (co. Cork). Captained by Roger Mortimer, lieutenant of Edward II, this force came as a belated injection of military manpower into Ireland at a moment of acute crisis. Shortly before Mortimer’s landing, Robert Bruce had penetrated deep into Munster, hoping to provoke a rising amongst the native Irish to give effect to the inauguration two years previously of his brother, Edward, as ‘king of Ireland’. However, having misread the extent to which he could expect unity within the native community, Bruce was unable to liaise with Donnchad Ó Briain, the sympathetic leader of the Irish of Thomond, and was instead faced by Muirchertach, Donnchad’s brother and rival. Meanwhile, local levies marshalled by the justiciar, Edmund Butler, Mortimer’s deputy, harried the Scots to their rear. Campaigning far from home, frustrated by native reticence or outright hostility, and locked in a stalemate with the justiciar, the prospect of tackling Mortimer held little appeal. His ranks depleted by exhaustion and famine, King Robert retired to Scotland via Ulster, leaving Edward to fight for his kingship alone.1 To Robin Frame, in his seminal study of the Bruce invasion, this retreat effectively ended the threat to most of Ireland and signalled the brothers’ failure to destroy England’s hegemony within the British Isles. The Scots’ slow, painful trek from the bogs of Eliogarty to their Ulster fastness, moreover, contrasts strikingly with the historiographical canter to Edward Bruce’s defeat and death at Fochart on 14 October 1318. For although these events lay eighteen months apart, they are often telescoped in modern accounts of the invasion, almost as if one were the inevitable consequence of the other.2 89

90

Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320

In fact, the path from Edward’s flight from Munster to his defeat – and, as importantly, to the re-assertion of English authority in Ireland following his demise – was tortuous. It was a path followed for the most part by Roger Mortimer, king’s lieutenant in Ireland from April 1317 to May 1318 and justiciar from June 1319 to September 1320, but Mortimer’s footsteps have left little historiographical trace, with only Otway-Ruthven pursuing them in any detail.3 This is puzzling since, while historians know nothing of Edward Bruce’s activities in his Ulster refuge for lack of sources, of the governors of medieval Ireland, Mortimer is one of the best served in terms of surviving documentary evidence. Despite the destruction of Dublin’s Four Courts in 1922, a memoranda roll and a collection of plea rolls survive for his administrations together with nineteenth-century transcripts of original material, including a justiciary roll.4 The intention in this chapter is to bring these and other sources to bear in an analysis of Mortimer’s aims and strategies in Ireland and to assess their success in meeting both long-term and more immediate needs. The short-term goal was the defeat and expulsion of the Scots. On 4 January 1317, six weeks after being made Edward II’s lieutenant on 23 November 1316, Mortimer was named commander of an expeditionary force of 150 mounted-soldiers and 500 foot-soldiers.5 His fee of 6000 marks would come from the king’s wardrobe rather than being drawn from the Dublin exchequer which traditionally supplied the £500 annuity granted to the chief governor.6 In an unprecedented move, prominent non-resident lords were summoned either to go in person to Ireland or send forces sufficient to defend their lands. Only a handful of the sixteen men summoned, of whom the most notable was the former justiciar, John Wogan, can confidently be identified as having sailed and perhaps fewer than 1000 men disembarked at Youghal.7 Preparations for the mission were protracted, as shipping ordered in December 1316 for a muster at Haverford on 2 February 1317 could not sail until early April. An examination of those given protection to travel suggests difficulty in constructing a broad-based force and reveals that many, like Hugh Turpilton who originated from a hamlet in the shadow of Wigmore castle, came from Mortimer’s own milieu.8 It was fortunate that the Scots’ march south, which coincided with this hiatus, did not achieve its aim and that Butler’s pursuit contained them until Mortimer’s arrival. Nevertheless, the appearance of an English army must have been highly symbolic. It reversed the trend in which Ireland had long been an important source of men, money and victuals to the English war effort and temporarily allowed the penurious Dublin exchequer to keep troops in

Paul Dryburgh 91

the field. Furthermore, at a time when the earldom of Kildare and the lordship of western Meath lay vacant, the implantation of men into vulnerable parts of Ireland could prove critical to their defence.9 It is only with hindsight that we can say that the Scots had effectively been overcome shortly after Mortimer’s arrival. Throughout his invasion, Edward Bruce had frequently campaigned outside Ulster, defeating forces sent against him by the justiciar and English magnates in Ireland. There would be no reason for the beleaguered communities of English Ireland to believe that he and his brother, who had repeatedly intervened in Ireland and still controlled the Irish Sea, would abandon their aim ‘to conquer and bring into subjugation this kingdom and banish all Englishmen here hence’.10 Reports in 1316 and 1317 also suggested that their campaigns had provoked sympathy among some native kingroups, with the Uí Mhorda [O’Mores], Uí Bhroin [O’Byrnes] and the Uí Thuathail [O’Tooles] apparently rising in Leinster, the former burning Laois and the latter two Bray, Arklow and Wicklow. Even though his retreat from Munster highlighted the futility of the hopes of crystallising native resentment to English rule under his crown, as long as he remained in Ulster Edward Bruce might still foment native dissent.11 In setting himself up as king, moreover, Bruce had gambled that Edward II would baulk at his challenge to English lordship in Ireland. No English king had set foot there since John and it proved impractical in the straitened circumstances after Bannockburn for Edward to do so. In August 1316 correspondence passed between Bruce and Gruffydd Llwyd, a leader of the Welsh of north Wales, in which Bruce offered assistance to cast off the English yoke in return for acceptance of Scottish lordship over Wales. By making shadowy appeals to pan-Celtic sentiment, promising to end Welsh servitude so that ‘the Scots and the Welsh peoples would be one forever’, Bruce further tapped into English fears and threatened to establish Scottish cadet kingdoms on England’s western seaboard. It is in these contexts that the appointment of Roger Mortimer must be viewed.12 In 1301 Mortimer married Joan, grand-daughter of the former justiciar, Geoffrey de Joinville, adding the liberty of Trim in Meath to his patrimonial lordship of Dunamase in Laois.13 Trim was affluent and settled, prompting Mortimer, unlike most English aristocrats with lands in Ireland, to strive to establish his personal lordship there. In so doing, he accumulated the ‘stock of knowledge’ vital to the success of any chief governor there.14 His blooding in Irish warfare had come in 1309 – the first year he spent any time in Ireland – when he assisted the lieutenant, Piers Gaveston, in subduing the Uí Bhroin and Uí Dhiomsaigh

92

Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320

[O’Dempseys] in Leinster. He had been given a rude introduction to the competitive nature of magnate society in the Irish midlands in the same year, being forced to secure a pardon for his men of Trim for killing men of John fitz Thomas, lord of Offaly, at Carbury (co. Kildare), who had invaded his lordship, committing murder and other offences. Nonetheless, he was quickly able to move comfortably within an alien political environment, and in 1312, in negotiating a peaceful conclusion to riotous rebellion in county Louth, he identified himself as a figure of compromise.15 Finally, he had experience of battling the Scots, albeit one to forget, having been routed at Kells on 6 December 1315 while trying to prevent their southward march.16 By appointing Mortimer Edward II exploited cross-channel connections of his own making. On the day of his appointment to the lieutenancy Mortimer’s uncle, Roger Mortimer of Chirk, regained the justiceship of Wales, which he had surrendered weeks before the Scots had first invaded Ireland.17 Uncle and nephew shared a close working relationship that must have improved the co-ordination of the English response on either side of the Irish Sea. Furthermore, both men belonged to an increasingly dominant grouping at court, several of whose members – Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke and lord of Wexford, and Roger Amory and Hugh Audley, co-parceners of the Clare inheritance in Kilkenny – had significant Irish interests and who probably advocated a more active policy in the lordship.18 Mortimer’s mission, indeed, dovetailed with a re-injection of manpower onto the Scottish march and an embassy to the papacy which succeeded in securing a papal interdict on Scotland. On one level, therefore, his expedition was only part of a re-assertion of English militarism on the fringes of its hegemony.19 The naming of Mortimer as ‘lieutenant’ not ‘justiciar’ was also significant. This was a title only Piers Gaveston had previously borne. While Piers enjoyed some success in Leinster, his title had been designed to mitigate the dishonour of his exile from England as the king’s despised favourite. Richardson and Sayles, moreover, argue that the title was honorific; in effect the duties differed little from the military and judicial functions of the justiciar.20 However, in the circumstances of the Bruce invasion, where the king of England could not come among his people and another rival ‘king’ asserted his authority over Ireland, more than military and judicial measures were required. Primarily, loyalty to the king had to be fostered and strengthened. This implied the dispensation of patronage and justice in the king’s name, the punishment and pardon of rebels and criminals, and negotiation with native community leaders on an equal footing. Mortimer came

Paul Dryburgh 93

to Ireland, with its magnate feuds and lawlessness, prepared to confront and compromise in order to ‘expedite royal business against the Scots’.21 Attention was first given to courting the Anglo-Irish community. His arrival coincided with the delivery of numerous letters to leading magnates, thanking them for their services against the Scots and exhorting them to remain loyal. This reinforced the impression that the king was finally taking a closer interest in Irish affairs. Friar Clyn reports that soon after disembarking, Mortimer knighted many young men; six months later he removed from less wealthy freeholders – those with land worth under £20 a year – the requirement to travel to England to perform homage for their lands, with fines instead being taken to support the impecunious Dublin exchequer.22 Reconciliation at the top of settler society meant securing the release of Ireland’s most powerful magnate and rooting out the constituency which had favoured Edward Bruce, and it was with these issues in mind that the Irish council convened at Kilmainham on 23 April 1317.23 Mortimer impressed upon the councillors the necessity of liberating Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster, who had languished in a Dublin gaol since 15 February, having been arrested by the mayor of Dublin following a failed ambush on the Scots at Slane, after which the invaders had menaced the city.24 Whatever might be said about the earl’s conduct during the Bruce invasion, he had embroiled himself in land disputes with prominent figures in southern Ireland, including Arnold le Poer, seneschal of Kilkenny, and it is evidence of the enmity he had aroused that following his release on 8 May he was granted the king’s protection on 24 July on Mortimer’s testimony and given safe conduct to go to court.25 Elsewhere, the elements in Anglo-Irish society which had supported Bruce could not escape Mortimer’s gaze. Accused of inviting the Scots to conquer Ireland and of deserting the royal army at Kells to guide them through Meath, Kildare and Offaly, a jury had initially acquitted the Lacys of Meath, the most notorious Anglo-Irish associates of the Scots, and the king had even thanked them for their services against the Scots on 28 April.26 Having secured de Burgh’s release, Mortimer headed for Trim from where he summoned the leaders of the Lacy family, Hugh and Walter, lord of Rathwire, to return to the king’s peace. They responded by murdering Hugh de Croft, his messenger. Gathering a posse of prominent local men, including John de Bermingham and Nicholas de Verdon, beneath the royal standard, Mortimer defeated Walter Lacy on 3 June. Two days later, he repelled their counter-attack and put them to flight, ultimately outlawing and exiling them as traitors on 18 July.27 Throughout, the lieutenant had carefully clothed this

94

Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320

campaign in legal niceties, but his desire for revenge and restoration cannot be ignored. Defeat at Kells had cost him the lordship of Trim. As part of his conditions for service as lieutenant, he negotiated a grant of the forfeited lands of his tenants who had adhered to the Scots, and his campaign ensured he would realise this grant.28 More subtly, Mortimer restructured local landholding in his favour, importing his English clients to occupy estates forfeited by the Lacys and their allies. Hugh Turpilton, for example, received lands at Tubber, while Richard Ideshale from Shropshire obtained Foukeston in county Dublin.29 This created an environment in which Mortimer could exercise his powers of lordship more comfortably. It also ensured that the Lacys, whose hereditary claim to Trim Mortimer’s marriage had negated, could not regain a foothold in the lordship. It was also critical in the wider conflict, for men like Turpilton were to participate in defeating Edward Bruce at Fochart. After humbling the Lacys, Mortimer seized the military offensive. On 8 July, he received £422 for ‘strengthening the peace and putting down the rebellion and insolence of the English and Irish’.30 Chronicles record his campaign against Seán Ó Fearghail [O’Farrell] in Longford, after which he returned to Leinster. On 6 September battle was joined at ‘Glynsely’ with the Irish of Uí Máil (co. Wicklow), in which both sides suffered casualties in a royalist victory.31 Perhaps the most important outcome of this campaign was the submission of Ó Broin, who was imprisoned in Dublin Castle, removing a major obstacle to the more peaceful settlement of Leinster. Meanwhile, at sea, the first fruits of the integrated strategy to tackle the Scots had been harvested. Around 2 July, Thomas Dun, the Scottish captain who had attained mastery of the Irish Sea, was captured and executed by John of Athy in an engagement off the Welsh coast.32 Athy had clearly caught the king’s attention having been made a knight of his household on 29 March, a few days before he captained the fleet bearing Mortimer to Ireland. His position in the inner circle of Mortimer’s mission, with instructions to remain at sea for the defence of Ireland, was rewarded with the keepership of the Isle of Man, a crucial strategic outpost in the North Channel. Henceforth, he became an important cog in the English military machine, maintaining a strong presence on the Irish Sea for many months.33 On 17 October 1317, the king’s chamber disbursed £10 to Baldwin Darcy for ‘bringing the king certain good rumours’ about Ireland.34 He must have conveyed Roger Mortimer’s satisfaction with his progress: not only had the immediate possibility of Scottish conquest been negated, a measure of stability had also been restored. How fragile the situation remained, however, was shown during the autumn of 1317 when 200

Paul Dryburgh 95

men under the justiciar’s command were killed in battle by Donnchad Ó Cearbhaill [O’Carroll].35 What Mortimer had provided, though, was breathing space, which the administration needed to begin addressing criminality and social dislocation. As the king’s lieutenant, Mortimer had been empowered to pardon felons so that they might fight the Scots. Shortly after his arrival in Ireland, however, the king forbade further pardons for murder without the assent of the Irish council, possibly in response to petitions which railed against the liberal use of fines, as opposed to harsher measures, to punish murderers, or their pardon at the behest of senior magnates.36 However, with magnate consent Mortimer repeatedly flouted this prohibition in order to try to broker accord. During the winter of 1317–1318 he and the justiciar, Edmund Butler went on a judicial circuit of southwestern Ireland, an area suffering acutely from familial strife.37 Many prominent members of the leading Anglo-Irish families of Cork and Waterford received some sort of pardon. Around Martinmas, for example, John son of John le Poer, several of his kinsmen, and members of the Argentan, Walsh and Roche families were pardoned for all trespasses and felonies committed by them until 21 January thereafter, on the pledge of David, son of Alexander Roche and Roger, Richard and John, sons of Benedict le Poer.38 Most notably in Cork, on 19 December 1317, Mortimer oversaw the drafting of a concord to end the bitter, long-running disputes between the leading ‘progenies’ there. The heads of the Barry, Carew, Caunton, Cogan, Courcy and Roche families swore to remit the enmities between them and faithfully observe the king’s peace. Fines would be imposed for contempt and, if found guilty, each would be bound in 2000 marks. Maurice de Caunton agreed that if he or any of his parentela rebelled against the king, they would be pursued by the posse and forfeit their goods.39 Within 18 months the Barrys had again rebelled but Mortimer, in using a brief window of opportunity backed by intimidating military force, had succeeded, if only temporarily, in allowing warring factions to air and resolve grievances and to reconnect with their king by receiving his greatest favour and drawing a line under past indiscretions.40 Crucially, too, clauses in the Cork agreement defined the parties’ relationship with the native Irish. They swore not to retain bands of Irishmen and that all Englishmen in the marches under the avowry of Diarmuid and Domnall ‘Carbragh’ Mac Carthaig [MacCarthy] would be made to answer for their crimes. While this primarily mirrors the disturbed picture in Cork, it also touches on Anglo-Irish relations more widely.

96

Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320

Sometime in 1317, Domnall Ó Néill [O’Neill], king of Tyrone, despatched the famous tract known as the ‘Remonstrance’ to the pope. Among the grievances it listed against the English crown and its subjects in Ireland, the legal disability of the native Irish at English law loomed large, and there appears to have been willingness in government to respond positively to this criticism. Geoffrey Hand has dated a request from John de Bermingham and the earl of Kildare that the justiciar be commanded to receive to English law all Irishmen ‘who desire to be at the king’s peace and of his faith’, to the early months of 1318. Attempts had been made periodically over the previous half-century to effect a general grant of English law to free Irishmen, but Hand observed that a marked increase in individual grants coincided with Mortimer’s administration.41 This is interesting because usually only the king had the power to make such grants. Though few grants attested by Mortimer have survived it is worth speculating that this petition, emanating from his adherents in Ireland, had his approval and represented an attempt to extend the practice and trump Bruce’s appeal. On 8 March 1318, moreover, Mortimer concluded an agreement with Richard de Bermingham, lord of Athenry, that the king should grant Sil Muiredaig, the Feths and Ui Maine to Cathal Ó Conchobhair [O’Connor], prince of the Connacht Irish, in order to preserve the peace of that land.42 By making such concessions, Mortimer might hope to conciliate some of the most influential and potentially dangerous men in Irish society and so prevent them rallying to Bruce’s banner. These were Mortimer’s last acts as lieutenant before his recall to England in early May 1318. Although the fragility of his achievements had been exposed shortly before his departure when, on 10 May 1318, Richard de Clare, lord of Thomond, was slain in an ambush at Dysart O’Dea, by the summer of 1318 the perception was that, by aggression and concession, service and reward, Mortimer had engineered a change in fortunes for English authority in Ireland.43 Edward II commended him for having acted ‘for the safety of the land and to repel rebels, and many have testified to his good service there’. Edward Bruce appeared to be in abeyance and a Dublin chronicler gleefully reported bread being baked following the first good harvest in four years.44 The fair wind which thus followed him from Ireland propelled him immediately into a prominent role in the disturbed politics of England: on 9 August, the king and his cousin and foe, Thomas of Lancaster, sealed the peace of Leake. Mortimer and other magnates with estates beyond the borders of England played a crucial role in brokering this peace and in the subsequent restructuring of royal government Mortimer sat as one of

Paul Dryburgh 97

sixteen councillors without whom royal business should not be undertaken. By the end of the year, he had been elected as one of four councillors to remain with the king at all times, a position from which he secured his return to Ireland as justiciar on 15 March 1319.45 The spirit of renewal at court drew further strength from Edward Bruce’s defeat and death at Fochart on 14 October. By 2 December John of Athy had regained control of Carrickfergus castle, being officially awarded custody, while maintaining a garrison of 20 men-at-arms and ten crossbowmen, on 2 March 1319. Large-scale preparations were made for victualling the castle, including the commissioning of five shiploads of corn from Devon. Athy employed this base, and Rathlin as diplomatic and military outreach posts from which to extend English influence into the Western Isles and the Hebridean coastline of Scotland.46 These arrangements were put in place at a time when the preparations for a campaign to recover Berwick, which had been captured by the Scots on 2 April 1318, were made and surely formed part of an integrated scheme. On 20 March 1319, five days after Mortimer’s appointment as justiciar, summonses were issued, while of even more significance, given the context of the recent conflict, a writ was sent to Mortimer on 8 June, ordering him to collect victuals in Ireland for the Berwick campaign.47 Ireland, for the first time in four years, could play its part in tackling the Scots across the British Isles. Despite having been away from Ireland for over five months before the defeat of the Scots in October 1318, Roger Mortimer’s part in their final downfall should not be overlooked. As Seán Duffy has pointed out, each Scottish sally from Ulster after 1315 came when Mortimer, whose midland estates barred progress towards Dublin and the rich lands further south, was outside Ireland.48 By the time battle was joined at Fochart, Roger’s restructuring of land-holding in Meath and Louth, which involved granting lands to not only his English clients but also local men and outsiders, meant that John de Bermingham, who commanded the English contingents in the battle, and his ilk had more at stake than had been the case in the past.49 Mortimer, too, must have been the prime mover behind Bermingham’s elevation to the earldom of Louth on 12 May 1319 as reward for his triumph at Fochart.50 Intriguingly, in 1318 Mortimer had also appointed Laoighseach Ó Mordha [O’More] as guardian of his patrimonial estates at Dunamase. After the Scots defeated Mortimer at Kells, Laoighseach had accompanied them in assaulting his lordship in Laois. Mortimer chose to forgive this, recognising and trying to harness Ó Mordha’s local authority to cement a bond between them and strengthen his lordship should the Scots return.51

98

Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320

Roger Mortimer returned to Ireland in late May 1319 and departed again in September 1320. As justiciar he continued what he had started as lieutenant. On 7 June, he, Bermingham and Thomas fitz John, earl of Kildare, were empowered to receive all Irishmen into English law who wished to come in. Again, the evidence for the application of this policy is slight, with only one grant being witnessed by Mortimer to a retainer of the earl of Ulster surviving, but it displays a continued commitment to meeting the aspirations of some sections of the native community.52 The most telling legacy of his justiciarship was the Dublin parliament of May 1320, where a serious attempt was made to establish greater consistency in applying the law in Ireland. Parliament recognised that bands of evildoers, retained by men of birth, roamed the kingdom, lodging with loyal men and robbing them in the process. To deal with this, hue and cry was to be raised and malefactors pursued and arrested. Each county was to have a justice and two shire knights assigned to hold assizes and inquire into sheriffs’ activities. No lord was to exact victuals from their tenants against their will. Most importantly, heads of lineages were made statutorily responsible for disciplining their kinsmen. More generally, the Statutes of Westminster, Marlborough, Merton, Gloucester and Winchester were given force. Mortimer undertook that any future English legislation would be examined and, if expedient, applied to Ireland, and yearly parliaments were ordained.53 The test for these policies would come over the longer term, but immediate priorities suggested that the government was whistling in the wind. Within weeks of the parliament Mortimer found himself once again at the head of an army, tackling the Barrys in Munster before moving on to Slievemargy ‘in order to expel the Irish rebels’.54 These were his last campaigns in Ireland. It is possible to paint too rose-tinted a picture of Mortimer governance. The statutes of the Dublin parliament of 1320 revealed a people ‘greatly distressed and well-nigh destroyed’ and their lot had not been improved by 1324 when the responsibility of heads of lineages for the felonious behaviour of their family had to be reinforced.55 Mortimer’s lieutenancy temporarily filled a vacuum of royal lordship, but in the longer term the Dublin government remained weak and powerful magnates continued to feud with each other, devastating parts of Ireland and spilling over into English politics.56 Edward II, desperately seeking allies to save his kingship, reached out to some of these very magnates and perhaps contemplated taking refuge among them when toppled from power in October 1326. Roger Mortimer, conversely, used his ascendancy in England from 1327 to 1330 to engineer Irish politics to respond

Paul Dryburgh 99

both to the deteriorating situation and to his ends.57 His experience as chief governor heightened his awareness of the problems and problematic personalities of Ireland. On the one hand, he remained committed to strengthening the margins of the English king’s authority, even conceding Scottish independence in return, in part, for an agreement not to interfere in Ireland.58 On the other, he exploited his connections with some leading magnates. In personally conferring the earldoms of Ormond and Desmond upon James, son of his former justiciar, Edmund Butler, and Maurice fitz Thomas, he hoped to impose a more rigid power structure on the volatile south-west of Ireland, responsive to royal authority, which at the time was largely vested in him.59 This was at a moment when, having had himself belted as earl of March, he was extending his power and influence elsewhere in Ireland, most notably in counties Meath and Louth over which he obtained franchisal jurisdiction following the murder of John de Bermingham, earl of Louth by his own tenants in June 1329.60 Ultimately, his own pursuit of gain loosed violent tensions that dominated the next half-century of Irish history, forces which during his periods in office he had aimed to contain. In a petition of 7 October 1320, Mortimer was praised by the citizens of Dublin ‘for having taken great pains to save and keep the peace’. He had certainly taken ‘great pains’ to protect them from the consequences of their actions when, in February 1317, in an attempt to dissuade the marauding Scots from attacking, they had dismantled and burnt the western suburbs of the city, causing damage estimated at £10,000. Mortimer relieved them of 100 marks of the penalty they incurred as a result and ensured that further actions initiated against them for this act were prohibited.61 The petitioners may, however, have had different motives in praising Roger, reflecting the coldblooded reality of the times. They reported rumours to the king of his Irish enemies massing on their marches and of the Scots preparing to descend again on Ireland. No landing was attempted, but it is possible Robert Bruce had indeed contemplated exploiting Mortimer’s absence from Ireland to pressurise Edward on several fronts. It might even be that the Dubliners, who requested that a strong governor be sent, concocted the rumours with Mortimer’s reinstatement in mind. Whatever the truth of this, the Dubliners’ attitude appears to have reflected a pervasive view among the settlers of Mortimer as a strong governor. This contrasts with the opinions of Irish chroniclers about Edward Bruce, whose death had brought ‘great joy and comfort to the kingdom in general . . . for there reigned scarcity of victuals,

100

Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320

breach of promises, ill performances of covenants, and the loss of men and women throughout the whole realm’.62 Mortimer had clearly won respect throughout Ireland for combating the Scots and their allies and for attempting to restore order. By combining military force with more subtle arts he reinvigorated the loyalty and utility of the lordship of Ireland to the English crown, but also sowed the seeds of future discord.

Notes 1. Frame, ‘Campaign against the Scots’; CSM, II, 355. He arrived back in Scotland on 22 May; The Bruce, 594. 2. Frame, ‘Bruces in Ireland’, 87–8, 97; Sayles, ‘Battle of Faughart’. The latest and most comprehensive analysis is Duffy, ‘Bruce Invasion’. 3. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 233–7. See also Mortimer, Greatest Traitor, 72–89. 4. NAI EX 1; NAI KB 1/2; NAI KB 2/8-12; NAI RC 7/12; NAI RC 8/10-12. 5. CPR 1313–17, 563–4; Parliamentary Writs, II, div. I, 484. 6. TNA E 208/2/2, no. 421. 7. CCR 1313–18, 450–1; CPR 1313–17, 646. 8. CPR 1313–17, 574–5, 611–20. 9. Lydon, ‘Irish Levies’; ‘Impact of the Bruce Invasion’, 119–20. From a highpoint of £6159 per annum in 1301–1302, Dublin exchequer revenues plummeted to £1906 in 1319–1320: TNA E 101/233/16; 237/7. 10. From September 1315 to February 1316, he defeated royal armies at Connor, Kells and Skerries: The Bruce, 520–54; AU, II, 429. 11. CSM, II, 347; Historic and Municipal Documents of Ireland, 457. 12. Smith, ‘Gruffydd Llwyd’, 471. 13. CCR 1307–13, 15. 14. Potterton, Medieval Trim; Dryburgh, ‘Career of Roger Mortimer’, 26–39; Frame, ‘English Officials and Irish Chiefs’, 261. 15. CCR 1307–13, 188; Smith, Colonisation and Conquest, 97–105. 16. CSM, II, 348. 17. CFR 1307–19, 232. 18. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, 100–40. 19. In November 1316 the earl of Arundel contracted to captain 100 menat-arms on the Scottish march and Anthony Lucy agreed to keep Carlisle castle with 65 men-at-arms and 100 hobelars: TNA PRO 28/136 (Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 120), 88; (MS 121), 41. 20. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, 55–7. On 15 June 1308, Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster, had been made lieutenant but his appointment was quashed in favour of Piers on the following day: CPR 1307–13, 83; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 12. 21. CPR 1313–17, 563–4. 22. CCR 1313–18, 464–5 (28 April 1317); Clyn, 166; NAI RC 7/12, m. 10 (13 October 1317). 23. Jacobi Grace, 85.

Paul Dryburgh 101 24. Jacobi Grace, 79. Despite commands to Edmund Butler, Thomas fitz John, earl of Kildare, Richard de Clare, Arnold le Poer and Maurice fitz Thomas in March, at the height of the crisis, his release had not been procured. Jacobi Grace, 81. 25. Duffy, ‘Bruce Invasion’, 33–5; NAI RC 8/11, 311–12, 519; NAI RC 7/12, 399–400. Intriguingly, it appears the earl took refuge in Wales: TNA PRO 28/136 (Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 121, f. 9r). Was he enjoying Mortimer’s hospitality? 26. The trial proceedings are printed at CSM, II, 407–16; Jacobi Grace, 79 (2 February 1317); CCR 1313–18, 464–5. 27. He was at Trim by 22 May 1317: Duffy, ‘Bruce Invasion’, 39; CSM, II, 355. 28. CPR 1313–17, 563. 29. Rot. Pat. Hib., 24, no. 150 (Turpilton); 23, no. 97 (Ideshale). 30. Irish Exchequer Payments, 242. 31. Jacobi Grace, 91; CSM, II, 356. Mortimer received £43 1s. 1d. for campaigning in Leinster: Irish Exchequer Payments, 248–9. 32. Jacobi Grace, 89. In the chamber account for 11 Edward II, however, Geoffrey de Coigners, squire, to whom Thomas Dun seemingly surrendered himself, is paid £10 for his capture: TNA PRO 28/136 (Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 121), 57 (8 October 1317). 33. TNA PRO 28/136 (Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 120), 104, 117; CFR 1307–19, 332. 34. TNA PRO 28/136 (Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 120), 57. 35. Clyn, 168. 36. CPR 1313–17, 563–4; Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, no. 111, pp. 85–6 (22 April 1317), nos. 136–7, pp. 99–101. These petitions are undated and might equally be a response to Mortimer’s governance. 37. Connolly, ‘Pleas Held before the Chief Governor of Ireland’, 105–7. 38. NAI KB 2/12, m. 2d. 39. NAI RC 7/12, 148–51. 40. NAI RC 8/12, 463–4. He received £316 14s. 6d. at this time for going to Cork and Desmond to curb rebellion: Irish Exchequer Payments, 248. 41. Chron. Bower (Watt), VI, 384–403; Hand, English Law in Ireland, 207–9; Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, nos. 136–7, pp. 99–101. Otway-Ruthven, ‘Native Irish and English Law’. Unfree Irishmen (‘betaghs’) were, of course, not considered. 42. Rot. Pat. Hib., 21, nos. 25–6 (1 January 1318); CPR 1317–21, 155 (22 May 1318). Bermingham had been knighted by him after the Lacy campaign: Clyn, 168; Rot. Pat. Hib., 23, no. 103. 43. It is not clear when Mortimer left Ireland. He witnessed a writ on 28 May, but he was in Wales sometime in June: NAI RC 8/12, 12–13; TNA PRO 28/136 (Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 121), 60; Clyn, 170. 44. TNA E 159/92, rot. 177; CSM, II, 359. 45. Among the major figures in constructing the peace treaty were Alexander Bicknor, archbishop of Dublin, Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke and lord of Wexford, Bartholomew Badlesmere, whose wife was heir to the Clare estates in Thomond, and Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster: Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 188–95; Tout, Political History, 270; CCR 1318–23, 61, 129; CPR 1317–21, 317.

102

Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland, 1317–1320

46. CPR 1317–21, 311, 313 (26 February). Rathlin was granted to him on 4 February 1319: CPR 1317–21, 271. For Edward II’s dealings with a Mag Uighlín [MacQuillin] chief of Kintyre, one of Bruce’s most inveterate foes: CCR 1318–23, 127. 47. The Bruce, 622–6; CCR 1318–23, 132; CCR 1318–23, 87. 48. Duffy, ‘Bruce Invasion’, 39. 49. See above. 50. CPR 1317–21, 334–5. For discussion of the local impact, see Smith, Colonisation and Conquest, 113. 51. Jacobi Grace, 69; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 58–102, Smith, ‘Lordship in the British Isles’, 153–6. 52. CPR 1317–21, 339, 342; Rot. Pat. Hib., 28, no. 93 (14 June 1320). 53. Hand, English Law in Ireland, 211–12; Statutes and Ordinances, 280–90. 54. Irish Exchequer Payments, 267. 55. Statutes and Ordinances, 280–90, 307; Lydon, ‘Impact of the Bruce Invasion’, 146. 56. Frame, English Lordship, 160–96. 57. Dryburgh, ‘Last Refuge of a Scoundrel?’; Mortimer, Greatest Traitor, 164–241. 58. In 1328 devastated marchlands and royal demesne were demised at farm so they might be settled; in 1329 the justiciar, John Darcy, was permitted to make a general grant of English law: CPR 1327–30, 315; CFR 1327–37, 102; CCR 1327–30, 312. 59. Dryburgh, ‘Career of Roger Mortimer’, 141–2. For Maurice see Waters, ‘Earls of Desmond’. 60. Dryburgh, ‘Career of Roger Mortimer’, 142–3; For Mortimer’s role in Louth’s murder, Smith, Colonisation and Conquest, 117–18. 61. TNA SC 8/82/4090: ‘le Mortumer se ad moult penee de sauver et garder la pees’; NAI RC 8/12, 20–6, pp. 25. A narrative of these events can be found at: Jacobi Grace, 78; CSM, II, 352; NAI RC 7/12, 175 (10 December 1317). 62. AClon, 282.

7 The Case against Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop and Peculator James F. Lydon

On 15 October 1325, in the royal exchequer at Westminster, the routine examination of the accounts of the king’s treasurer of Ireland was interrupted because of grave problems which had arisen. Walter Islip the treasurer, who was accompanied by Robert Cotgrave one of the barons of the Dublin exchequer, was summoned before the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. A further indication of the seriousness of the situation was the arrival of the chancellor, the chief justice, and John de Hothum, bishop of Ely.1 Clearly something well beyond the ordinary was amiss when such important people were involved in what should have been a routine examination. It soon emerged what the problem was. There was evidence that the accounts of Islip’s predecessor as treasurer of Ireland, Alexander Bicknor, now archbishop of Dublin, contained forgeries and evidence of fraud. The result was a thorough inquiry into the enrolled account of Bicknor.2 The archbishop was summoned to the court of inquiry and ordered to attend daily. More serious transgressions were discovered and the court became increasingly alarmed. The record of the proceedings state that because transgressions on this scale had never been witnessed ‘in modern times, it seemed expedient to the court that they should be shown to the lord king at this present time in his palace at Westminster’.3 King Edward ordered that the chancellor and the justices of both Benches ‘and others of the council’ should decide what must be done. If they decided that the archbishop ought to be committed to prison, it was the king’s wish ‘because of devotion to the holy church and reverence for the episcopal dignity’ that Bicknor should not suffer this punishment. Alexander Bicknor came to Ireland in 1302 when he was appointed attorney for Walter Russel and his wife.4 He seems to have come from a respectable background in England and to have been well connected.5 103

104

Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop and Peculator

An Oxford graduate when he came to Ireland, he quickly made his way up the administrative ladder. He played a prominent role in the organisation of shipping for the Irish army which joined Edward I in his 1303 campaign in Scotland and later acted as clerk of the wages for the army, playing an important diplomatic role when the Irish were left stranded without wages or food.6 By 1305 he was acting as a justice itinerant; then in 1307 he was promoted to the office of escheator and became a member of the council; in 1308 he became treasurer and in 1309 deputy chancellor; and by 1318 he had achieved the highest position of all in the Irish administration, the office of justiciar.7 In 1317 he achieved the second highest office in the Irish church when he was provided to the archbishopric of Dublin by the pope.8 Bicknor had a distinguished diplomatic career outside Ireland as well, acting as a negotiator with Thomas of Lancaster when civil war threatened in England.9 He was also a negotiator with King James of Aragon, concerning a marriage between his daughter and Prince Edward of England; and he played a primary role in the inquiry into the crisis occasioned by the decision of Charles IV of France to build a bastide at Saint-Sardos.10 This involvement in royal affairs stood him in good stead and helped to gain him the archbishopric of Dublin, but it also drew him into politics. In the end this proved a disaster after he had deserted the king and supported Isabella in opposition in 1325. It was this which helped to focus attention on his time as treasurer of Ireland so that he could be faced at least with mishandling royal revenues there and ideally with criminal charges. This is exactly what happened. When Walter Islip and Robert Cotgrave were summoned before the English exchequer to answer questions concerning Bicknor’s account, Islip was asked about a view taken by Hothum when he was in Ireland in 1315 and lodged, as was normal, in the Dublin exchequer. In August 1325 this view had been delivered, on royal instructions, to the king at Havering and subsequently was forwarded to the Westminster exchequer where it could be examined in detail. Islip admitted that this view had been made in Dublin while he was treasurer. Asked it Bicknor had fully charged himself with all receipts, he instanced the goods of the Templars and of John de Bonevill, which had been taken into the king’s hands and for which Bicknor had not fully accounted. Asked if the account was ‘false before it was sealed under the seal of the king’s exchequer to be sent here to England’, he said that it was. He also said that he had specifically asked the archbishop if the account was ‘good’ before sealing it for England, and Bicknor had answered that it was and that Islip could proceed with the sealing, which he did through fear of the

James F. Lydon

105

archbishop. Then Islip said that after the sealing he learnt more about the falsity of the account – he instanced a writ ordering Bicknor to pay the earl of Ulster £2500. 15s. of his wages for serving in the war in Scotland and that Bicknor had retained 500 marks of that for himself, while charging the king in his account for the full sum.11 Bicknor used false writs of liberate, and he instanced supposed payments to the Templars ‘when he paid them little or nothing’. Then Cotgrave was ‘diligently examined’ and said that ‘the same account was false and forged’, which he admitted he knew and that he had actually compiled it. The archbishop had given him an annual pension of 40s. until he could provide him with a benefice; he had also given him a total of £4. 10s. in cash for his ‘expenses’ in compiling the account. The archbishop had asked him if it were possible to remove the rolls called ‘journals’ (jornales) from the treasury, so that the records they preserved of receipts and payments might not be accessible. The journals were compiled on a daily basis as money was received and payments were made. They were the most reliable record and thus a check on the receipt and issue rolls.12 But Cotgrave told Bicknor that they were the rolls of Robert de Whatton, a former chamberlain who had died, and so were not available. The issue rolls were compiled from chancery writs of liberate ordering payments and from receipts or acquittances which proved that that the sums in question had been paid; the receipt rolls from the indentures of receipt issued to those paying in the money, copies of which were kept in the exchequer. It was only by forging false writs of liberate and acquittance that deception could be concealed. These would then have to be enrolled on the relevant chancery rolls and because these rolls were then in the treasury in the care of Cotgrave himself, there was no problem. The actual forgeries were fabricated by a clerk, John of Manchester, commissioned by the archbishop. He then listed some of the false writs and acquittances. The first three were for the payment of his fee as chancellor to Walter Thornbury; the next four were for the payment of fees to two justices, one constable of Castlekevin, and a keeper of writs and rolls in the bench.13 He next instanced six false acquittances for monies paid to the Templars for their sustenance, under the seal of Henry Danet, master of the Temple. At that time Danet was also seneschal of the hospice of the archbishop and knew that ‘little or nothing’ of the sums listed had in fact been paid to the Templars.14 Another three acquittances were equally false, since no money had in fact been paid out – that of Richard Copyn OFM and two sealed by the attorney of Richard de Burgh, keeper of the royal castles of Roscommon, Rindown and Athlone.15 More interesting was the claim that John

106

Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop and Peculator

of Manchester concocted a letter patent dated 26 August 1313 in the name of John, son of Peter de Bermingham, acknowledging a receipt of 350 marks in part payment which the king had granted him16 ; and another of 20 March from the prior of the Dominicans in Dublin for 35 marks of alms received.17 In fact the genuine acquittances showed that Bermingham received only 50 marks and the prior only 5 marks. The forged letters patent were then enrolled by Manchester, with the support of Bicknor, in the relevant chancery rolls that were in the custody of Cotgrave. When the court examined John of Manchester he confessed to all and swore that he acted under the command of Cotgrave and with the knowledge of the archbishop. When Bicknor appeared on 20 October to seek allowances for some items in his account, he was summoned before the treasurer and barons, sitting with Hothum and the chancellor in an inner chamber.18 He admitted that he had not fully charged himself with receipts from the moveable goods of the Templars and John de Boneville, but only small sums amounting in all to not much more than £50. As regards the forgeries the archbishop said that he did not wish to ‘deny’ that he knew about and consented to them. The court decided that the sum involved on foot of the forgeries, £1168. 6s., should be annulled and that Bicknor be brought to judgement for forgery. By now, of course, suspicion was attached to all the writs and acquittances which Bicknor had presented when his account was being audited. They were all ‘diligently inspected’ and the ‘sinister suspicion’ arose that some were in the hand of John of Manchester. As a result seven writs of liberate and acquittances in the hand of Manchester amounting to £48. 6s. 4 1/2d. were found. It was at this stage that the whole matter was referred to the king and, as we have already seen, he ordered that it should be inquired into by a greatly augmented court, including members of the council. There it was unanimously agreed that because of the ‘enormity of the transgressions committed’ Islip and Bicknor should be committed to the Fleet prison and all their lands and property should be taken into the king’s hands.19 Manchester, too, was to be imprisoned. On 5 December 1325 Islip was removed from office and barred from royal service in future. Together with Manchester he was sent to the Fleet. But in accordance with the king’s wishes the archbishop of Dublin was allowed to go free. On the same day the Dublin government was ordered to seize all their lands and property, as were the sheriffs of Gloucester, Shropshire and Staffordshire (for Bicknor), and of London, Middlesex, Oxford and Berkshire (for Islip). Because of the questions raised about receipts from the confiscated properties of the Templars in

James F. Lydon

107

Ireland the Dublin government was ordered to forward to Westminster a full account of what Bicknor actually received as well as what came in from the properties of John de Boneville.20 On the same day, 5 December 1325, the Dublin exchequer was ordered to investigate the accounts of Islip as treasurer and to forward ‘whatever they might find’. On 12 December transcripts of the forged writs and acquittances were sent to Dublin to be checked against the chancery rolls and the exchequer jornales. On 15 March 1326 the king ordered the release of Islip from the Fleet on a fine of 500 marks and he was pardoned all his transgressions in connection with the Bicknor account. His lands and property were also restored.21 Later, on 28 February 1327 the king pardoned Bicknor of all transgressions ‘because of the good service’ he had rendered and the costs and expenses he had incurred in performing that service. The king also ordered the restoration of all lands and properties which had been confiscated.22 In November 1328 Cotegrave also made fine with the king, was released from the Fleet, and Dublin was ordered to return all lands and properties which had been seized into the king’s hands. In July 1328 the Dublin exchequer certified that the confiscated goods and chattels of the Templars had been worth £944. 14 1/2d.; their debts £93. 11s. 2d.; the lands tenements, tenements and rents £274. 7s. 3d. annually; and extents of churches had amounted to £136. 10s. 8d.23 So it was agreed that Bicknor should return to the exchequer to explain the concealments in the account he had rendered. On 16 April 1331 the Irish justiciar was ordered to distrain Bicknor by his lands and property to come to London, but he did not arrive until 24 November 1333.24 He insisted that he had accounted for all related receipts and that it was the king’s wish that he should be burdened no further, in support of which he produced a royal letter dated 2 November 1333. It was agreed that a comparison of his account with the Dublin certificate showed that he had charged himself with all receipts relating to the Templars and John de Boneville. He was therefore declared quit. But he was also asked to supply the names of all keepers, bailiffs, farmers and anyone else associated with the lands of the Templars. He came back on 10 April 1334. As a result of a further inquisition the Irish justiciar was ordered to hold a complete and thorough inquiry and to return the result to the English exchequer by 12 November, when the archbishop would return to the exchequer court. The Dublin government failed to return the record in time and despite repeated orders it was not until 26 April that a return was made. That was so defective that further proceedings

108

Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop and Peculator

were ordered. But then on 2 September 1338 the king reminded the treasurer and barons of the English exchequer that he had already freed Bicknor from further inquiries and ordered them to cease. It seems obvious that Bicknor was being pursed by political enemies despite having the support of the king. But suddenly another royal letter dated 15 July 1342 showed a complete change of mind by the king. He now ordered a full and complete inquiry into the charges which had been made against Bicknor. As a result, five days later the Dublin government was ordered to have Bicknor in London by 8 October 1343 to account yet again for the lands and property of the Templars. The archbishop sent John Brit, his attorney general, and claimed exemption under the royal dispensations he had received in the past. Because ‘the prelates and magnates of the kingdom and others of the king’s council’ had already been summoned to Westminster for 16 April 1344, Bicknor was ordered to attend on 26 April and was told that ‘interim sequatur periculo quod incumbit’. The archbishop came on the day and told the exchequer court that ‘ipse prosecutus est judicium quantum potuit erga consilium etc. et nondum est expeditus’. So he was given another day, in July, when his attorney presented the court with yet another letter from the king, dated 14 June 1344, confirming that he and the council had examined all the earlier relevant letters and ordering that the archbishop should be exonerated and acquitted according to the tenor of those letters. ‘Therefore it is agreed that the archbishop should recede acquitted of each and every article in the said record, according to the tenor of the mandate of the king.’ It had been a long and hard road for the archbishop, stretching from 1315, when he was first subjected to a view of his accounts in Dublin, to July 1344 when he was finally acquitted. Bicknor was subject to constant harassment during that long period. The number of summonses to the exchequer in England was not only an irritant to a busy man; they could put him in danger. Crossing the Irish Sea was notoriously dangerous – the very man who opposed Bicknor in seeking nomination to the archbishopric of Dublin, by rushing to Rome to gain the assent of the pope, was drowned on his way to England. When he vigorously pursued the creation of the first university in Dublin, Bicknor himself gave as one reason the danger to students if they had to cross the Irish Sea to get to university in England.25 Even Edward II excused the failure of two archbishops to get to Rome in 1318 by telling the pope that ‘the Irish Sea is so very perilous and stormy in winter’.26 One of the worst harassments of all was when the exchequer court refused to allow him to claim credit for payments made on the instructions of Piers Gaveston

James F. Lydon

109

when he was acting as chief governor of Ireland in 1308 – they gave him the impossible alternative of suing Gaveston who died in 1312. But Bicknor was resilient and continued to work with determination and authority as archbishop. This still occasionally brought him into conflict with the king, though never again with the same acrimony and even danger. He showed his vigour in his famous visitation of the diocese of Ossory. The chronicler Clyn reports that in 1336 ‘on Monday the feast of blessed Vincent, lord Alexander Bicknor, archbishop of Dublin, began a visitation of the diocese of Ossory, that no metropolitan, in his capacity as ordinary, had visited for 40 years previously’.27 His success in founding the first university in Dublin, even though it did not last long, is another sign of his determination to get jobs done.28 Another good example of his capacity for laying down the law as he perceived it is the famous sermon he preached against beggars in Dublin, denouncing idleness, which the city used to try to get them off the streets. As an archbishop he was constantly active, but mostly in the secular rather than the spiritual business of the diocese. He paid constant attention to the manors and lands, visiting frequently and supervising the conduct of work and was aggressive towards the mountain Irish who threatened those same lands.29 There can be no doubt that Bicknor’s involvement in English politics was what brought him trouble in the first place and led to the lengthy inquiry which found him guilty of the worst kind of malpractice as treasurer of Ireland. He accepted his guilt and so far as the existing evidence goes, he never tried to clear his name. There is no apparent reason for his actions. It can be said with some certainty that he did not need the money for personal use. He certainly did not live a life of extravagance and did not acquire wealth by the time of his death. Finally, as treasurer he was effective and succeeded in increasing royal revenues, a fact that may have prevented his misbehaviour leading to more dire personal consequences.

Notes 1. Hothum had acted as treasurer of Ireland in 1309–1310 and as baron and later chancellor of the Dublin exchequer; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 100, 106, 115. For his career in Ireland and connections with Bicknor, see Phillips, ‘Mission of John de Hothum’. 2. For this account, see ‘Enrolled Account of Alexander Bicknor’. 3. The record of the process is enrolled on TNA E 159/102 rot. 89ff. Unless otherwise indicated this comprehensive record is the source for all relevant

110

4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop and Peculator information. There is no record on the equivalent Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll (E 368/98). For the wider context, see Buck, Politics, Finance and the Church, ch. 9, esp. 182–5; Buck, ‘Reform of the Exchequer’. CDI 1302–07, no. 26. For his career in general, see Gallagher, ‘Alexander Bicknor’. He is usually associated with Bicknor in Gloucestershire; but it is possible that he came from Bicknor in Kent where John Bicknor, the chief falconer of Edward I lived and kept royal birds in his mews – Prestwich, Edward I, 115. This may be the same John Bicknor who acted as attorney for the earl of Ulster in 1284 in an action against the abbot of Leicester in England – CDI 1252–84, no. 2311. Lydon, ‘Edward I’, 47–50. He was left short of money and it was not until 1307 that he was paid £339, the ‘remainder of £400 which the king owes him by his account rendered in the wardrobe’ for wages he had paid to the earl of Ulster and others in Scotland: Irish Exchequer Payments, 195. Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 145, 126 n.1, 100, 94, 84. Moody et al. (eds.), New History of Ireland, IX, 310. He owed his appointment to the strong influence exercised on his behalf by Edward II: Watt, ‘Negotiations’, 2–3. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 160. The War of St Sardos. They did not do well. The king had given them ‘full powers’ which he regretted when they returned ‘without honour’ (Flores Historiarum, III, 222, 226). Payments from 2 April 1324 to 12 January 1325 may be found on TNA E 101/309/28, giving full details of the journey of 286 days before returning to the king. In fact the counter-roll of the chamberlain of the Dublin exchequer (TNA E 101/235/20) records payment of £2140 15s. to the earl – Irish Exchequer Payments, 207. Irish Exchequer Payments, x. Where issue rolls have survived they contain evidence of the payments quoted as false to the individuals concerned: Irish Exchequer Payments, 214, 217, 218, 220, 221. The surviving rolls in fact contain payments which in each case are greater than what is given in the acquittances – Irish Exchequer Payments, 204, 209, 217, 223. Of the payments recorded for 1308–1309 that roll adds that ‘no more is paid to them this year because the justiciar and the king’s council in Ireland delivered to Brother Henry and his fellow brothers the manors of Kilcolgan, Crok and Kilbarry, for the maintenance of all of them until Michaelmas 1311, when the brothers returned the manors to the justiciar and council’ (209). For the relevant payments see Irish Exchequer Payments, 221, 222, 230. The issue rolls list payments of more than £430: Irish Exchequer Payments, 221, 222, 227. On Bicknor’s enrolled account only a total of £100 is listed: Irish Exchequer Payments, 598. For payment, see Irish Exchequer Payments, 221. For the use of such a chamber in the exchequer ‘where hard or doubtful cases’ could be discussed in private, see Powicke, King Henry III, I, 93.

James F. Lydon

111

19. Even members of the king’s own household could be committed to the Fleet for deficiencies in their accounts – Buck, Politics, Finance and the Church, 182. 20. Before 23 June 1326 Dublin certified that the lands and properties of Bicknor and Islip had been taken into the king’s hands and they forwarded particulars to London. They also returned a copy of the details of the lands and properties of the Templars and John de Boneville. Details of the Templars’ estates can be found at ‘Documents Relating to the Suppression of the Templars’ from the original in TNA E 101/239/11. 21. In 1328 Islip in a petition to the king claimed that the Dublin exchequer had sold most of his goods for four or five times the amount of this fine. He had managed to pay 300 marks of the fine and he asked for an inquiry into the sale and for a writ of supersedeas in respect of the remaining 200 marks. His petition was granted: ‘Irish Materials’, 143. Money was also given to Islip’s attorney, to be sent to him in England so that he could pay the remainder of the fine: Irish Exchequer Payments, 321. 22. In 1328 Bicknor appealed to the king for help in dealing with ‘debts owed to the pope and cardinals from the time of his predecessors’ and the king sent letters to the pope and cardinals in his support: ‘Irish Materials’, 145–6. 23. In accounting for the delay in making returns the Dublin exchequer reported that the records for some Templar manors could not be found in exchequer records and that ‘because of the distance of the places and the war between certain magnates of Ireland moved in the aforesaid places, we dare not go to those places’: ‘Documents Relating to the Suppression of the Templars’, 185. 24. For a petition from Bicknor to the king and the king’s reply, see Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, no. 181. 25. See Clyn, 55. 26. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 118. 27. Clyn, 218. He even used ‘a considerable military force’ during that visitation: Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 3. 28. Clyn, 136: ‘a university as far as name, but if only it had been so in fact and reality’. The university in fact was more successful than Clyn intimated. A bull was obtained from Pope Clement V in 1311 for the establishment of a university, although Bicknor did not issue the relevant statutes until 1320: Cal. Archbishop Allen’s Register, 164, 168. 29. As James Mills pointed out in 1890 in his edition of the Account Roll of the Priory of the Holy Trinity (165), ‘the two occasions in these accounts when the Prior had to send to Kildare on Holy Thursday to procure the episcopally consecrated Holy Oil imply that his episcopal functions lay lightly on the Archbishop’.

8 A People Divided? Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict in the Work of Andrew of Wyntoun Steve Boardman

In 1914 the historian Evan Barron produced a highly charged interpretation of the way in which the various language groups and regional communities of late thirteenth-century Scotland had responded to the opening of the Wars of Independence. Barron’s contention was that the English-speaking inhabitants of the south and east of the realm had been, on the whole, more inclined to acquiesce to the political designs of Edward I and his successors because of their cultural, historical and linguistic affinity with the English nation. The burden of the ‘patriotic’ wars, therefore, fell largely on the shoulders of the Gael of the north and west whose determined and unyielding opposition to the English kings was fired, or at least partly explained, by clear-cut racial and linguistic animosity.1 Aspects of this argument remained attractive for a number of later historians, such as Ranald Nicholson, before being emphatically dismissed by G. W. S. Barrow, writing in 1976. Barrow’s withering critique of Barron’s thesis pointed out the inadequacy of an approach that sought to explain political attitudes and activity simply as the products of cultural and linguistic affiliation. Most obviously, as Barrow observed, any close examination of the extant historical evidence revealed the active involvement and sacrifice of many Lothian families, whose lives and property were clearly most vulnerable to the military power of English kings, in support of those who were defending the rights and status of Scottish kingship and the Scottish realm.2 Although this was not its chief aim, Barrow’s article also raised a number of intriguing wider questions about the thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury kingdom with which Scottish historians have been rather slow to engage. Most notably, perhaps, why was it that the ties of a shared language and culture failed to create widespread and consistent support 112

Steve Boardman 113

amongst the inhabitants of southern Scotland for the ambitions of the English crown after 1296 as Barron had anticipated? An answer to this particular puzzle may be provided, at least in part, by recent studies of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Scotland, the results of which can only be reviewed briefly here. The latest work by Scottish historians on the period from the mideleventh century to c.1300 has been informed by a critical engagement with the ‘new British’ history pioneered by scholars such as Robin Frame and Rees Davies.3 From a ‘pan-British’ perspective one of the most striking and significant aspects of the century and a half after the Norman invasion of England was the appearance of English settlers and their culture, economic and social organisation, legal customs and language in areas outwith the traditional boundaries of the English realm.4 In Wales and Ireland the advance generally came in the wake of the piecemeal conquest of territory by men drawn from the new Francophone aristocratic elite established in England after 1066. The tide of English colonisation established farming, trading and clerical communities within Wales and Ireland that were, or at least presented themselves as, obedient and loyal to the institutions of English government, and which naturally looked to English kings for political leadership and defence.5 The spread of English settlement and the legal, social, economic and cultural traditions that were increasingly associated with ‘Englishness’ was just as marked, and arguably more enduring, in many of the territories and lordships that were, or came to be, within the political orbit of Scottish kings.6 The accepted place of the English as one of the distinctive constituent groups within the broader network of those considered to be subjects of the Scottish king is made obvious by their inclusion in the ethnic address occasionally employed in the opening clauses of Scottish royal charters to the end of the twelfth century.7 In this northern British context in the eleventh and twelfth centuries there was, clearly, no straightforward or exclusive correlation between Englishness and political attachment to English kingship. Gradually, however, the evidence suggests that as the thirteenth century progressed those of English speech, descent and lifestyle living within territories controlled by the Scottish monarchy became less inclined to identify themselves first and foremost as English. Dauvit Broun, for example, has outlined a significant two-stage shift, over the course of the thirteenth century, in the meaning of geographical, racial and ethnic descriptors employed in the chronicle compiled by the monastic community at Melrose. At the start of the century the monks seem to have viewed themselves essentially as Englishmen living within

114

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

an area that was controlled by Scottish kings, but one that lay outwith the Scottish kingdom proper (the southern limit of which was thought to be the Forth). Inevitably, then, at this stage the chronicle continued to use the term ‘Scots’ solely as a description of Gaelic speakers residing north of the Forth. Increasingly, however, Lothian and other areas of the south came to be regarded and described geographically as part of Scotland. Eventually the Melrose community, composed of men perhaps born and raised, and certainly resident, within this expanded kingdom of Scotland, came to think of itself individually and collectively as ‘Scots’.8 Crucially, this new identification with Scotland was based on geography and political attachment, rather than language and culture. The new southern Scots remained English in speech and culture and continued to regard themselves as distinct from (and usually superior to) the Gaelic speakers who inhabited other areas of the kingdom.9 The incorporation of this group within the Scottish nation reflected, Broun suggests, a process of enlargement and unification that underlay the foundation and growth of other medieval polities and which depended on the notion that ‘nations were communities of submission, not people bound together equally by a common culture’.10 The consolidation of the new ‘nation’ of the Scots in the thirteenth century was reflected in, and advanced by, a scholarly reworking of the history of Scottish kingship and the Scottish race by Richard Vairement, probably produced in the 1260s, that emphasised the independent origins of the Scots and the long tradition of sovereign liberty enjoyed by king and people.11 The revamped account of the ancient origins of the Scots and their kingdom implicitly rejected older narratives that presented the history of the Scots and Scotland simply as a branch of Irish history, but seems to have been designed to complement an existing dynastic history that dealt with the descendants of Malcolm III and Margaret.12 Broun’s argument that a coherent history of the Scottish nation, on which many later accounts were based, first emerged in the thirteenth century creates a number of problems for established interpretations of the motivations and aims informing historical writing in late medieval Scotland, because so much emphasis has been laid on the propaganda struggle that accompanied the political and military conflict of the early decades of the fourteenth century as the key stimulus to Scottish chronicle production.13 This is not to say that prolonged AngloScottish warfare and diplomatic tension had no affect on later works. Profound Anglophobia was evident in the writings of Walter Bower, the abbot of Inchcolm, who peppered his great fifteenth-century Latin chronicle, the Scotichronicon, with a number of hostile observations on

Steve Boardman 115

the political duplicity of the English as a race. Abbot Bower, moreover, appears a model of restraint and civility when compared to the bitter and unrestrained hatred of the ‘southron’ on display in Blind Harry’s vernacular Wallace.14 Bower and Harry, however, were not the only chroniclers of Scotland’s past at work in the late medieval period. One rather neglected writer is Andrew of Wyntoun, prior of St Serfs in Fife, whose so-called Original Chronicle, compiled in the early decades of the fifteenth century, was the earliest full-scale history of Scotland produced in the vernacular.15 As we shall see, Wyntoun offered his readers a vision of the kingdom and its history and, thereby, what he held to be the constituent elements of Scottish identity in his own time that may shed further light (from a much later perspective) on the thirteenth-century processes, outlined by Broun, by which English speakers in the south of the kingdom came to be regarded, and to regard themselves, as Scots. The present study will concentrate on the manner in which Wyntoun, and others, treated two of the supposedly critical markers of ‘national’ distinctiveness in medieval Europe, language and shared history. By the time Wyntoun came to write his Original Chronicle, most of the inhabitants of the south and east of the kingdom, and perhaps the bulk of those in urban settlements throughout the realm, regarded English as their first language.16 The tendency of modern historians and literary scholars to describe the English dialect spoken in Scotland in the fourteenth and fifteenth century as ‘Scots’ runs counter to all available contemporary evidence. Until the last decade of the fifteenth century late medieval lowland Scots unequivocally and universally described the language they spoke as ‘Inglis’ rather than ‘Scots’.17 Numerous asides in Wyntoun’s chronicle make clear that he, and by implication his audience, understood the term ‘Scottis’ to refer exclusively to Gaelic. In recounting the supposedly eleventh-century tale of MacDuff rewarding the ferrymen who had carried him to safety over the River Earn with a gift of bread, for example, Wyntoun reported, That passage wes callit efter than In Scottis Portu Abyrdan, That in Inglis is to say The havin of breid to this day18 For Wyntoun, the language he and his intended audience shared (‘oure langage’, ‘oure leid’, ‘our tonge’) was consistently ‘Inglis’.19 Nor was the chronicler alone in displaying a sense of proprietorial pride in

116

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

English as the natural and historic language of lowland Scots. In the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century we find a number of off-hand references to ‘our language’ or ‘our mother tongue’ in a Scottish context, all undoubtedly referring to ‘Inglis’. On 30 March 1400, for example, a Latin instrument drawn up before George, earl of Angus, the abbot of Holyrood and Thomas de Strathmiglo, officials of the bishop of St Andrews in the archdeaconry of Lothian described the entail in vernacular English it incorporated as being in ‘lingua nostra materna’. The same phrase, ‘lingua materna’, was used by Bower to describe the language (English) used by John Barbour in compiling The Bruce.20 At first sight, the readiness with which Wyntoun identified English as a native vernacular in Scotland would seem, potentially, to have raised some significant intellectual and organisational problems for his chronicle. As Broun suggests, a medieval nation might be ‘constructed’ through traditions of shared political obedience rather than widespread uniformity in language and culture.21 However, there remained a pervasive medieval view that lingua and gens were, or should be, essentially coterminous.22 If distinct peoples and, by extension, late-medieval polities were thought to arise naturally from differences in language, how was the multi-lingual late medieval kingdom of the Scots to be satisfactorily explained and justified in contemporary and historical terms? Moreover, how could the hostile relationship between Scotland and England in the late medieval period be rationalised against the backdrop of a substantially shared linguistic heritage? The existence of a common cross-border language and, to some extent, a mutual literary and historical culture ensured that sustained Anglo-Scottish political and military conflict after 1296 was difficult to conceptualise and justify in terms of an underlying or exacerbating linguistic or ethnic hostility.23 Certainly Wyntoun did not view the wars of the fourteenth century as the inevitable result of a deep-seated animus between rival gentes. Instead, in an echo of early twelfth-century chronicles, he laid great stress on the way in which the Scottish royal house descended from the marriage of Malcolm III and Margaret also embodied and protected ‘English’ interests in the island. Thereafter, Wyntoun emphasised the largely cordial relationship between the two interrelated royal families through the thirteenth century.24 War, when it came, was seen to arise not from differences in language and ethnicity, but from the tyrannous behaviour of Edward I who unjustly sought to destroy the liberties and freedoms of the inhabitants of the Scottish realm, including those of English speech and descent.25 Even the chronicler’s account of the warfare that continued through the fourteenth

Steve Boardman 117

century maintained a rather relaxed view of the relationship between Scottish and English identity.26 Individual noblemen and communities such as that of Teviotdale whose allegiance was uncertain or disputed could ‘become’ Scots by the swearing of oaths of fidelity to the Scottish king or his representatives. Equally these individuals or groups could also ‘become’ Englishmen by transferring their allegiance to the English crown. In 1334, for example, David of Strathbogie, who had been serving with English forces until that point, became ‘a Scottis man’ by swearing a great oath. Thereafter he behaved well, according to the chronicler ‘while he Scottis was’. The following year however, because of a political falling out with the earl of Douglas, His hart fra Scottis haill turnyt was, And Inglis man becomne agane.27 The barriers between Englishness and Scottishness were, in this case (and others), rather permeable, unrelated to issues of language and cultural difference, and determined largely by political allegiance.28 If there was no sense in Wyntoun’s work of a struggle arising from cultural or linguistic tension, this is not to say that language played no part in establishing or sustaining mutually hostile attitudes, or that the outbreak of open warfare had no effect on the relative status of the various languages in use in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Scotland. The most notable, and maybe rather surprising, development in linguistic terms within Scotland in the century after 1296 was what seems to have been a rise in the status of English and its use in a variety of new contexts, and a relative decline (perhaps from an already rather weak position) of French as a widely utilised high-status vernacular.29 For the late fourteenth-century continental chronicler Jean Froissart, one of the chief characteristics of the Scots of his own time was their unfamiliarity with, or open hostility to, the French language. Commenting on the aftermath of a joint Franco-Scottish military campaign in northern England in 1384–1385 the chronicler asserted that the commander of the French forces involved, Jean de Vienne, returned to his homeland disappointed with the attitude of his Scottish hosts and allies. A particular problem would seem to have been the indifference or animosity of the Scots to those of French speech. The Scots, Froissart reported, claimed that ‘We neither understand their language nor they ours, and we cannot converse together.’30 Moreover, according to Froissart, de Vienne felt on the basis of his experience that ‘the Scots would naturally incline to the English, for they were jealous of foreigners’.31 That

118

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

lowland Scots and Englishmen were so similar in language and appearance as to be virtually indistinguishable was a point made by a number of continental observers. The similarity meant that Scots were regularly employed to mount covert operations against English forces on the continent because they were easy to pass off as Englishmen, while there were a number of well-attested examples of battlefield confusion arising from the difficulty in distinguishing Scots and English forces.32 Froissart may not have been entirely wide of the mark in suggesting that Scottish aristocrats in the fourteenth century were less francophone than might have seemed appropriate in an age where the language retained a glamorous association with high courtly culture and the cult of chivalry. In medieval England, ‘spoken French derived its prestige from its international usage as the language of chivalry and of the court, where it was widely used into the fifteenth century at least’.33 French also remained, in fourteenth-century England at least, a language of law and administrative record. In contrast, evidence for the regular use of written or spoken French within the Scottish realm (as opposed to deployment of the language in diplomatic correspondence) in the second half of the fourteenth century is relatively rare.34 It seems a distinct possibility that Scottish noblemen were less likely to be in situations that demanded they should be able to write, speak, read or listen to French than equivalent lords in England. Although there were occasional and infrequent indications of the use of French in aristocratic correspondence and agreements, these have to be balanced against signs that, even at the highest political and social levels, expertise, proficiency or interest in French was by no means assured. This is not to say that the practical need for, or benefits from, competence in French disappeared. The language obviously remained predominant as the medium for international diplomacy. The flow of Scots to the universities of Paris and Orleans and personal interaction with the aristocracies of England and France would also have maintained an interest in the language. However, these concerns and activities were not universal and would not have been relevant to all members of the Scottish aristocracy to the same extent. The most obvious and well-known example of aristocratic unease with French is provided by the letter in ‘englis’ sent by George Dunbar, earl of March, to the English king Henry IV in 1400. The earl felt sufficiently embarrassed in using that language rather than Latin or French (both obviously considered more appropriate for correspondence with the English king) that he had to justify his decision on the basis that English ‘ys mare clere to myne understanding than Latyne ore Franche’.35 March’s lack of easy familiarity with French was unlikely to

Steve Boardman 119

have been unique amongst the Scottish nobility of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century. Andrew of Wyntoun clearly did not expect the audience for his Original Chronicle, which probably included the knightly elite of Fife, to have any competence in the language. When confronted with a list of French bishops, lawyers and clerks who had supposedly deliberated on the relative virtues of the Bruce and Balliol claims to the throne in the 1290s, Wyntoun decided against including details from the document because, he claimed, Thare names can I nocht all declare For thai ar strange to yow to heire, To tell as I thaim writtin fand; Thai ar nocht eith till understand, Na for till haif of thaim knawlege Expremyt in till oure langage; Bot, wit ye, thai were all gret men36 Elsewhere in his chronicle Wyntoun did include direct quotes in French, but on each occasion felt obliged to provide an English translation.37 The Scottish government also, at times, recognised the need to provide translations from French into English. In 1390, for example, it had been thought expedient to have the terms of the treaty of Leulinghem translated from French into ‘our language’ (linguam nostram), presumably to ensure that the agreement could be fully understood, and complied with, by the king’s subjects.38 To characterise the linguistic shift of the fourteenth century entirely in terms of a declining capacity or inclination to deal with spoken or written French, however, may be unduly negative. An equally important part of the process would seem to have been a growing engagement with, and exploration of, the possibilities of English as both an administrative and a literary language. A notable feature of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century was the appearance of a number of English vernacular works of Scottish provenance in genres where the language had not, as far as can be told, been used in Scotland before. The most significant and well known of these was probably John Barbour’s chivalric verse epic, the Bruce, dating from 1375. In the 1390s a now lost ‘Anonymous’ chronicle, covering the period from c.1330 to c.1390 (and a significant source for both Andrew of Wyntoun and Walter Bower), was compiled in English while around the same time the Legends of the Saints, a selection of vernacular saints’ lives based on the Latin Legenda Aurea, was completed.39

120

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

The apparently increased interest of Scottish patrons and audiences in works in the English vernacular may perhaps be best understood against a background of wider change in the status of the English language across the British Isles in the fourteenth century. It has been argued that this period witnessed the growth of a type of ‘linguistic patriotism’ within England, in which the English language came to be expressly identified with the interests of the English people and kingdom.40 The work of Robert Manning of Bourne, in particular, presented the English nation and its language as under threat from a variety of external foes, principally the French and the Scots. Manning, however, also seems to have subscribed to a vision of the past that saw the English as the historical victims of social oppression within their own realm at the hands of the Norman aristocratic elite established as the upper rank of the ‘English’ aristocracy by the events of 1066.41 Manning’s work thus melded a pride in the history and virtues of the English people and their language with a sense of struggle against ‘the manifest inequalities of English society – serfdom, personal degradation, feudal oppression’, all of which were seen to originate in the advent and entrenchment of a francophone ruling elite within the English kingdom.42 Manning was not alone in presenting the history of the English in terms of a long war to defend or recover the ancient freedoms and liberties subverted by the establishment of a new royal dynasty and aristocracy in the eleventh century. In the second half of the thirteenth century Robert of Gloucester, again writing in the English vernacular, treated the baronial rebellions against Henry III as a continuation of this historic campaign. Thus, and perhaps rather illogically, the thoroughly francophone baronial leader Simon de Montfort was portrayed as an ‘English’ hero fighting for the restoration of the more equitable society lost in 1066.43 How did the English-speaking communities of Scotland react to the emergence in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century of this refashioned English history imbued, as it was, with a deep sense of ‘linguistic nationalism’?44 It is possible that some would have been alienated by the intense hostility towards the Scots obvious in Manning’s work in particular.45 However, the chronicler’s fierce defence of the English race and tongue, and his vision of a people engaged in a long struggle against social and political subjugation by a Frankish aristocracy, may have appealed to many lowland Scots, particular in the context of the dynastic and Anglo-Scottish wars that convulsed northern Britain after 1296. It may be significant, for example, that a number of late medieval Scottish histories found ways to stress the fact that

Steve Boardman 121

Anglo-French was the tongue of the English royal court and dynasty. In the mid-fourteenth-century Latin Gesta Annalia (Yearly Deeds) associated with John of Fordun’s Chronica Gentis Scotorum, the man most often represented as speaking French, via assigned or reported quotation, was Edward I, and precisely the same was true in Wyntoun’s Original Chronicle. Moreover, in both works Edward was typically portrayed as using French in a context where his arrogance or deceit in dealing with prominent Scots or the Scottish realm was manifest.46 The authors obviously did not include the quotations in the expectation that their respective audiences would instantly understand them, for both chroniclers also felt the need to provide translations of Edward’s French asides into their own language of composition (Latin or English).47 One may wonder whether the simple fact that Edward was reported as using French conveyed as much to these Scottish audiences about the distant, haughty and tyrannical lordship he supposedly embodied as the actual substance and sentiment of his remarks. There were other reasons why English-speaking Scots might have thought that the historical scheme and issues laid out by men such as Manning and Robert of Gloucester were directly relevant to them and their kingdom. The ‘Englishness’ of lowland Scotland in linguistic terms was bound up with, and partly rationalised by, an historical understanding that the Scottish royal dynasty was in some senses the true heir to Anglo-Saxon kingship. The crucial figure here was clearly Queen, later Saint, Margaret, the wife of Malcolm III and the granddaughter of the Anglo-Saxon lord Edmund Ironside. That Malcolm and Margaret’s descendants were thought by English and Scottish chroniclers from the eleventh century onwards to embody the bloodline of the old English royal house was a notion convenient to the kings of both realms. The marriage of Malcolm and Margaret’s daughter Matilda to Henry I of England was certainly presented in the southern kingdom as a means by which Anglo-Norman kingship inherited the political, cultural and spiritual legacy of Saxon monarchs such as Edward the Confessor.48 A similar fascination with the legacy of Malcolm and Margaret took hold in the historical writings of late medieval Scotland. Moreover, despite the extensive thirteenth-century reworking of the history of the ancient Scottish kingdom illuminated by Broun, it would appear that a number of late medieval Scottish chroniclers, including Wyntoun, were either unaware of or rather disinterested in this longer and deeper historical context.49 Instead, Malcolm III and Margaret were treated as the starting point of a ‘new’ and expressly sanctified royal dynasty.50 Ancient origin myths and king lists provided the necessary ideological underpinning

122

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

for the existence of the Scottish kingdom and gens, but Wyntoun’s sources allowed him to provide no more than the names of these earlier kings set against a chronology derived from papal and Roman histories. Wyntoun’s detailed historical account of events and personalities in the Scottish or British context really only got underway with his sympathetic portrayal of the fate of the eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon dynasty, concentrating on Margaret’s grandfather Edmund Ironside and his family.51 Moreover, he made it clear that he considered there to have been a radical transformation of the established Gaelic kingship at the point of Margaret’s marriage to Malcolm III. The chronicler went far beyond simply noting the prominence of Malcolm and Margaret’s descendants as Scotland’s royal family, to suggest that the marriage fundamentally altered the nature of the Scottish monarchy. On at least three occasions he emphasised the fact that the royal line descended from Malcolm and Margaret combined ‘Scottis’ and Saxon blood. The Saxonys and the Scottys blude In natyownys twa before than yhud [flowed]. Bot the barnetyme off that get, That Malcolme had off Saynt Margret, Togyddyr drw full unyowne To pas syne [thereafter] in successyowne.52 Wyntoun’s portrayal of the late medieval Scottish dynasty and realm as a ‘union’ of ‘Scots’ and Saxon blood paralleled the late medieval English depiction of Matilda’s marriage to Henry I as an event that allowed the legacy of Anglo-Saxon kingship to pass to the Anglo-French dynasty established in 1066. Indeed, Wyntoun’s account of the demise of the Anglo-Saxon dynasty in the eleventh century bears more than a passing similarity, both in detail and sentiment, to that provided by chroniclers such as Robert of Gloucester.53 Genealogies and potted histories of the Anglo-Saxon royal house to which Margaret was supposedly heir had clearly been of interest to the Scottish dynasty and at least some of their subjects since the eleventh century. Increasingly, Malcolm and Margaret were treated as dynastic founders, displacing earlier Gaelic monarchs, such as Cinéad Mac Aílpin, who had previously been accorded that status.54 The sense that the reign of Malcolm III represented a new start was evident in the way that the queen’s consort was occasionally described as Malcolm ‘the first’, despite being the third king of Scots to bear the name.55 As important as the status of the royal line was the fact that many prominent Scottish families claimed that

Steve Boardman 123

their ancestors had first arrived in Scotland in the reign of Malcolm and Margaret as refugees from the wreck of Anglo-Saxon England.56 The determination of individual noble lineages to fix their origins in Scotland in the late eleventh century was occasionally replicated in the historical claims of corporate bodies such as burghs. In 1439, for example, the burgesses of Tain in Easter Ross asserted that the burgh’s trading privileges rested on a gift made by Malcolm III.57 It would seem, then, that the historical injustices claimed to arise from the dispossession of the eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon elite were potentially as likely to animate thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Scots as they were the English of England. Moreover, the idea of the ‘English’ language and people emerging from a long period of unjust suppression may have been at least as important in mobilising opposition to the ‘tyranny’ of Plantagenet rule in Scotland, as it was in challenging the internal order of the fourteenth-century English kingdom. The impact of Edward I’s acquisitive ‘colonial’ administration on the south of Scotland in the period 1296–1297 (and perhaps beyond) sparked a rebellion that seems to have been provoked by precisely the issues of arbitrary lordship and economic and social degradation that exercised Manning and Robert of Gloucester. It is also tempting to speculate that Gloucester’s view of the French tongue as an instrument of lordly repression would have been resonant for many of the southern Scots who came into contact with Edward’s Scottish government.58 One of Robert of Gloucester’s ‘English’ heroes, Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, certainly excited some contemporary and retrospective interest in Scotland. Earl Simon was the leader of baronial opposition to Henry III until killed by royalist forces led by Henry’s son, the future Edward I, at the battle of Evesham in August 1265. De Montfort’s supporters regarded the dead earl as a man martyred for the baronial cause, and a miracleworking cult with a strong anti-monarchical flavour flourished, loosely based around Simon’s tomb at Evesham abbey, despite royal efforts to suppress it.59 Monfortian propaganda also made its way into Scotland, for at some point in the late 1280s a quasi-hagiographic work outlining de Montfort’s virtues, the Opusculum de Simone, was copied into the monastic chronicle that was maintained at Melrose.60 The fact that Montfort had died fighting against the ‘tyranny’ of the young Edward I and his father may well have encouraged a connection in the minds of some Scots between Earl Simon’s cause and their own struggle with the mature king Edward in the 1290s. A strange episode first attested in Bower’s Scotichronicon, but perhaps of earlier date, linked de Montfort quite explicitly with the military endeavours of the Scots in the early

124

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

fourteenth century. Bower recorded a tale which set out how, on the eve of the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, two ghostly men-at-arms had appeared to the monks of Glastonbury abbey. Eventually the two spirits had asserted that they were on their way to Bannockburn to fight for Robert Bruce’s army so that they could have ‘revenge for the unjust deaths of Sir Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, and his followers . . . at the battle of Evesham’.61 A similarly imaginative conflation of English baronial interests and Scottish military action was made by Robert I’s envoys at Anglo-Scottish peace negotiations held at Bamburgh in 1321. Here the Scots explained away Scottish invasions of the north of England in the thirteenth century by asserting that they were in defence of the Scottish crown’s rights in England or at the invitation of English barons facing the tyranny of the English crown.62 These attempts to link the Scottish monarchy with the English baronial cause were clearly opportunistic, if not mischievous, and can hardly be guaranteed to represent genuine Scottish attitudes or aspirations in the period. It is, however, worth noting in passing that documents produced by Robert I’s notably slippery propaganda department which expressed a level of common interest with the Welsh or Irish in their struggle with the English crown have generally been treated with some seriousness.63 It is likewise striking that English baronial resistance to the regime of Edward II was far from being a dead issue in the years around 1321. Certainly, Thomas, earl of Lancaster’s ill-fated rebellion against the king, seems to have involved the earl in prolonged negotiations with the Scots in the year 1321–1322.64 The sense of the English of Scotland as a distinct and self-conscious language and ethnic group within the Scottish polity had, it would seem, largely disappeared by the close of the thirteenth century. However, if the evidence of the chronicle of Melrose is a reliable guide, acceptance of the idea of being Scots living in Scotland was still a relatively recent development in at least some areas of the south. It might have been expected that the strength of this identification amongst the English-speaking communities of the region would have been severely tested by the opening of full-scale and sustained warfare between England and Scotland. The understanding of the Scottish past outlined in Wyntoun’s chronicle may indicate why many Scots of English speech and descent felt able or compelled to defend their Scots-Saxon king and land. For Wyntoun, the long-running AngloScottish conflict of the fourteenth century was not a war founded on the inevitable clash of rival tongues and races, but a struggle over the same issues that fired the social critiques of Manning and Robert of

Steve Boardman 125

Gloucester, namely tyranny and thraldom. It was surely more likely to be these concerns and affiliations, rather than any identification with the kingdom’s deep and mysterious Gaelic or Pictish past, which brought the men of Ettrick Forest to the battlefield of Falkirk, or encouraged the defenders of Berwick in 1296, unwisely as it turned out, to bait Edward I with English rhymes.65 What these men fought to protect was the legacy, traditions and rights of their ancestors, the English of Scotland.

Notes 1. Barron, Scottish War of Independence, 485–90. 2. Barrow, ‘Lothian in the First War of Independence’. 3. See, for example, Frame, Political Development; Davies, Domination and Conquest; Davies (ed.), British Isles. 4. The fullest and most coherent argument for the force and long-term significance of this widespread ‘anglicisation’ is provided in Davies, First English Empire. 5. Davies, First English Empire, 19. See also Frame, ‘Conquest and Settlement’. 6. Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era; Barrow, Kingship and Unity; Duncan, Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom. 7. For the inclusion of the ‘English’ in the address clauses of Scottish royal charters, especially those dealing with lands south of Forth, and the eventual disappearance of the style, see RRS, II, 76–7 and nos. 27, 39, 46, 48, 61, 74, 75, 78, 80, 81–3, 96, 106, 116, 140, 144, 179, 218. 8. Broun, ‘Becoming Scottish’; Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, 1–12. 9. Broun, Scottish Independence, 262–3; Broun, ‘Declaration of Arbroath’, 7; Broun, ‘Attitudes of Gall to Gaedhel’. 10. Broun, Scottish Independence, 263. 11. Ibid., 256–60. 12. Broun, Irish Identity; Broun, Scottish Independence, 259 (and chapters 8–10 generally). 13. See, for example, Drexler, ‘Fluid Prejudice’; Goldstein, Matter of Scotland; Ferguson, Identity of Scottish Nation, 12–16 and chapter 3; Mason, ‘Scotching the Brut’. 14. Chron. Bower (Watt), IX, 352–3; Vita Nobilissimi Defensoris Scotie Wilelmi Wallace Militis. 15. Chron. Wyntoun. 16. Murison, ‘Linguistic Relationships’. The means by which English displaced Gaelic as a vernacular language across much of this area, and the speed and comprehensiveness of this process, remain largely obscure. See, for example, Barrow, ‘The Lost Gàidhealtachd’, esp. 124–6. 17. Bawcutt and Hadley Williams (eds.), Companion to Medieval Scottish Poetry, Introduction, 4. 18. Chron. Wyntoun, IV, 282–3 and 158–9. Describing the death of one of the early Scottish kings Wyntoun asserted that he ‘Wes callit Heid Fyn in Scottis lay/And in Inglis Heid Quhit that is to say’.

126

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

19. Chron. Wyntoun, III, 198–9. Translating the church name ‘Ara Celi’, Wyntoun commented that ‘Bot in oure leid it is to say/The altare of hevin or God verray’; Ibid., III, 354–5; Ibid., IV, 58–9, where one MS (Cottonian) describes the language as ‘Inglis’ and the equivalent passage in the other MS used in the edition (Wemyss) uses the phrase ‘oure tonge’; Ibid., IV, 176. On a couple of occasions, Wyntoun also seems to have used ‘Scottis’ in the older sense as a description of Gaelic-speakers. Ibid., IV, 370–1. Alexander I, attacked at Invergowrie by ‘A company come of the Ylis men’ (Wemys), A multitude of Scottis men (Cottonian).The chronicler’s account of a great raid by highland Scots on lowland Angus in 1392, meanwhile, introduced the raiders as ‘wild Scots’, but then reverted simply to calling them ‘Scottis’ men. Ibid., VI, 371–2, 377. 20. Fraser, Douglas Book, III, 42–3 (no. 49); Chron. Bower (Watt), VI, 352–3. 21. Broun, Scottish Independence, 263. 22. Bartlett, Making of Europe, 197–242, esp. 198–204; Guenée, States and Rulers, 53. ‘A nation in the Middle Ages was primarily a language’. See Grant, ‘Aspects of National Consciousness’, at 77 for discussion of the fact that ‘fourteenth-century Scotland did not fit contemporary theories which equated language, race and nation. In Scotland there were two races, speaking different languages, but both part of the same nation’. 23. Davies, ‘Peoples of Britain and Ireland, IV’, 7–9. 24. Chron. Wyntoun, V, 34–5. William I and Henry II ‘Als speciall as brother to brother’; 38–9, 82–3 Kings of peace; 92–3 at the celebration of a marriage treaty ‘blithnes wes that tyde/Baith Scottis and Inglis on ilk syde’; 98–9 ‘For thai twa kingis bundin wes/Togidder in gret tendernes’. 25. For Edward as a tyrant Chron. Wyntoun, V, 96–7 The birth of Edward I ‘In all his tyme a fell tyrand’; 132–5 Edward’s ‘prinsheid changeit in tyrandry’. Here, it may be worth noting that the first manifestation of Edward’s tyranny was his treatment of English lords whose relatives and men had been killed on campaign in Wales. Ibid., V, 218–19, 286–7 ‘Nocht king, bot a cursit tyrand’. 26. Although it should be noted that for the period 1330–1390 Wyntoun’s narrative seems to have been drawn from a now-lost ‘Anonymous’ chronicle. Boardman, ‘Chronicle Propaganda’. 27. Chron. Wyntoun, VI, 48–9, 56–7, 58–9. 28. For work on these themes, see Ruddick, ‘Ethnic Identity’; Brown, ‘Scoti Anglicati’. For further examples from Wyntoun (all probably derived from the ‘Anonymous Chronicle’) of noblemen, towns and rural communities shifting between Scots or English identities by oath making or breaking, see Chron. Wyntoun, VI, 28–9, 98–9, 26–7 (William Bullock), 128–9 (David de Berclay), 136–7 (Teviotdale). 138–9 (Bullock), 144–5, 186, 194–7 (The Forest and Teviotdale), 222–3 (Galloway), 224–5 (Annandale), 298–9 and 402–5 (Teviotdale). 29. This argument has been rehearsed, and the evidence supporting it reviewed, in Boardman, ‘Thar nobill eldrys gret bounte’. 30. Oeuvres de Froissart, X, 335; translation from Sir John Froissart’s Chronicles, II, 35–6. 31. Oeuvres de Froissart, X, 404; Sir John Froissart’s Chronicles, II, 57.

Steve Boardman 127 32. Westminster Chronicle, 348 (Confusion of languages at Otterburn); Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, 271–2 (Wark-on-Tweed). 33. Catto, ‘Written English’, 30–1. 34. For England, see Rothwell, ‘Role of French’. For Scotland, Barrow, ‘French after the style of Petithachengon’, 187–93; Boardman, ‘Thar nobill eldrys gret bounte’. The late thirteenth-century Berne MS included a French version of the Leges inter Bretos et Scoti (alongside Latin and English versions) suggesting that the language retained some significance in a legal context at that point. However, by the end of the fourteenth century, French had effectively disappeared as a legal language in Scotland. MacQueen, ‘Laws and Languages’. The coronation oaths of Alexander III in 1249 were apparently laid out by the then bishop of St Andrews in Latin and French. Chron. Bower (Watt), V, 292–3 and notes at 438. There is no evidence to say whether the use of French in this public ceremony continued in the fourteenth century. For isolated examples of the use of French for legal purposes, see Laing Charters, no. 32 and RRS, V, no. 148 (both documents, perhaps significantly, issued in Berwick); Ibid., no. 72 (an indenture between Robert I and Duncan, earl of Fife, a young man who had been raised in England); In 1372 William, earl of Douglas, and James Douglas of Dalkeith, drew up a military retaining agreement in French, perhaps using an Anglo-French exemplar. Registrum Honoris de Morton, II, 100–1. 35. BL Cotton Vespasian F. vii., f. 22; Nat. MSS. Scot., II, no. liii. 36. Chron. Wyntoun, IV, 200–1. There must be a suspicion that the claimed pro-Bruce deliberations of the French jurists were a fabrication either, if Wyntoun genuinely had a written source for the episode, produced sometime in the fourteenth century or simply a product of Wyntoun’s imagination. 37. See note 47. 38. Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, III, 376. 39. McDiarmid and Stevenson (eds.), Barbour’s Bruce; W. M. Metcalfe (ed.) Legends of the Saints. See Boardman, ‘Thar nobill eldrys gret bounte’, for discussion. 40. Turville-Petre, ‘Politics and Poetry’; Turville-Petre, ‘The “Nation” in English Writings’; Turville-Petre, England the Nation. 41. Turville-Petre, England the Nation, ‘The English Kingdom and the Norman Yoke’, 91–8; Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 181–2. In Manning’s treatment of the Anglo-French war of 1295 the chronicler asserted that ‘thraldom’ had first been introduced into England by the Normans, and that the French now provided a similar threat for if their war was successful the English nation in the 1290s would experience an even more profound descent into slavery and oppression. 42. Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 181. 43. Ibid., 181–2. 44. Quote from Davies, ‘Peoples of Britain and Ireland, IV’, 3. See also TurvillePetre, England the Nation, 11–22. 45. Manning’s hostile attitude towards the Scots may have been partly explained by his connection to Henry Beaumont, one of the principal figures amongst the ‘Disinherited’, lords whose claims to Scottish lordships had been wrecked by the Bruce ascendancy. Turville-Petre, ‘Politics and Poetry’, 8–13.

128

Language, History and Anglo-Scottish Conflict

46. John of Fordun, Chronica, I, 314, 322, 326; Chron. Wyntoun, V, 218–19, 272–3, 290–3. 47. Indeed, some Wyntoun manuscripts dispensed with the French quotes and retained only the English paraphrase. 48. Turville-Petre, England the Nation, 18–19, 93–4; Boardman, ‘Late Medieval Scotland’, 61–2. 49. Although Wyntoun certainly regarded the fragmentary material he included on early Scottish kings as relevant to the status of the kingdom in his own time. For example, a passing reference to the rule of a Pictish king was explained as deriving from a source (probably a king list) that the chronicler described as one of ‘oure Scottis storyis’, Chron. Wyntoun, III, 340–1. 50. Chron. Wyntoun, II, 12–13, where the author explained that the seventh book of the chronicle was to be concerned with ‘pe nobill generatioun/And of the blessit gud lynnage/That come of pe marriage/Off Malcolme king of Scotland/And Mergret aire till Yngland’. 51. Chron. Wyntoun, IV, 262–72. 52. Ibid., 354–5, 366–7. For the expression of a similar sentiment, see the ‘Liber Extravagans’ edited by D. Broun and W. Scott in Chron. Bower (Watt), IX, 62–103, at 72–3. 53. Turville-Petre, England the Nation, 19, 93; Chron. Wyntoun, IV, 250–5, 310–17, 358–67. A more detailed investigation of Wyntoun’s text is required to establish whether the sources for his narrative actually included earlier vernacular English histories. 54. For this point, see Broun, Irish Identity, 195–7. 55. Chron. Wyntoun, II, 12–13 (Wemyss MS only), where the author outlined that the sixth book of the chronicle would cover the period ‘quhill Malcolme oure first king/Scotland tuke in gouernyng’; Registrum de Dunfermelyn, no. 434 [pp. 320–4]. In the same charter, Malcolm IV was described as Malcolm ‘the second’, a designation also found in Extracta e Variis Cronicis Scocie, 245. 56. For the oppression of English lords by William I and the flight of many into Scotland, see Chron. Wyntoun, IV, 334–5, 337, flight of ‘Bischopis, erllis and barownys’, 343; Boardman, ‘Late Medieval Scotland’, 68–72. 57. Acts of the Lords of the Isles, 43–5 (no. 28). The authenticity of the fifteenthcentury original may be in doubt. 58. See Murison, ‘Linguistic relationships’, 77, for the point that after Alexander III’s death there was a proliferation of documents in French dealing with Scottish affairs, presumably partly because of the involvement of Edward I and his administrators in these negotiations. After 1296, of course, most of the humbling processes imposed on the Scots, such as the compilation of the Ragman Roll, would also have been conducted, or at least recorded, in French. 59. Valente, ‘Simon de Montfort’; Finucane, Miracles and Pilgrims, 131–5, 169–70. 60. Chronicle of Melrose Abbey, 8, 9, 168. 61. Chron. Bower (Watt), VI, 354–7. It is interesting to note that Bower linked the defeat of de Montfort with the emergence of Robin Hood and Little John, figures emblematic of the struggle against social oppression, whom he claimed to have been supporters of Simon driven into outlawry after 1265. Ibid., V, 354–5, and notes at 470. Bower’s aside reveals that songs and ballads relating to Hood were well-known in fifteenth-century Scotland. Wyntoun,

Steve Boardman 129

62. 63.

64. 65.

on the other hand, seemed to locate the activities of Robin and Little John at a slightly later date, in the 1280s. Chron. Wyntoun, V, 136–7. Linehan, ‘Fourteenth-Century History of Anglo-Scottish Relations’. The ‘Irish Remonstrance’ of 1317 and other documents proclaiming a Scottish affinity with the native Irish or the Welsh as fellow victims of English oppression have been subject to some penetrating scholarly investigation and placed in a wider context of genuine political, cultural and social interaction. See especially Duffy, ‘Bruce Brothers’. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 296–7, 301–3, 306–7, 312. Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, II, 234–7. Significantly perhaps, Wyntoun presented Edward I as giving the belated order for quarter to be extended to the inhabitants of Berwick in French. Chron. Wyntoun, V, 284–5.

9 Policies, Priorities and Principles: The King, the Anglo-Irish and English Justiciars in the Fourteenth Century Beth Hartland

According to Sir John Davies, writing in 1612, there was no doubt that the kings of England from Henry II onwards had clear intentions regarding Ireland, for ‘ever since our nation had any footing in this Land, the State of England did earnestly desire, and did accordingly endeavour from time to time, to perfect the conquest of this kingdom’. All previous kings had failed where King James was to succeed, however, because ‘in every age there were found such impediments and defects in both Realmes, as caused almost an impossibility, that thinges should have bin otherwise then they were’. In other words, all monarchs prior to the ‘happy raigne’ of James I had been legitimately distracted from what they would otherwise have been sure to set about. Davies was not simply engaged in composing a panegyric in honour of James, his book was also intended as a defence of the intentions of the monarchy against a ‘vulgar Opinion’ abroad at the time that in previous reigns it had been purposefully intended to ‘continue that Realme in Barbarisme’.1 Davies did not describe these intentions of the kings of England as a policy, but had that word been in usage in its modern sense in the early seventeenth century it seems fair to suggest that he would have done so.2 Davies had a stall to set out, and in so doing he established the parameters of discussion for all writers of Irish history who subsequently sought to explain or excuse the failure of the ‘first conquest’, or to unearth evidence of those royal intentions to ‘perfect’ or complete it.3 Indeed, it is only recently that historians have committed to print the notion that the perfection of the conquest was in fact never on the royal agenda in the medieval period, and that a completion of the territorial conquest was, rather, advocated at various times by different members of 130

Beth Hartland 131

the Anglo-Irish community.4 Davies’ view that the extension of English law throughout the island was a precondition for a perfect conquest which could only occur when all people were subjects of the king has also influenced subsequent writings, with blame being apportioned for the failure to see the importance of extending English law to the Irish and evidence of intentions to extend the English law being sought.5 We cannot trace back to Davies so directly the tendency for historians of the Irish lordship to extol or denigrate by turns the ‘Irish policies’ of English kings. James I was the hero of Davies’ piece but his successes were due to the ‘concurrence of many great Felicities’ in his reign, rather than a far-sightedness lacking in his forbears. If any were villains in Davies’ work it was the Anglo-Irish who ‘broght forth diuers mischiefs, that did not only disable the English to finish the Conquest of all Ireland, but did endaunger the losse of what was already gained’.6 It was long ago noted by Orpen that ‘it has been the fashion, especially with writers who have seldom a good word for English policy in Ireland, to bestow a considerable measure of praise upon the action of King John in that country’, and in the same vein Edward II and Richard II would undoubtedly have been most gratified by the prestige they enjoy in the historiography of the fourteenth-century lordship.7 In what follows it is my intention to review the ‘Irish policies’ of the fourteenth-century kings of England with recourse neither to concepts of success and failure nor to images of heroism and villainy.8 It is a conceit of historians of medieval Ireland that the kings of England had a consistent policy towards the lordship – not even the much lauded Richard II was capable of this. This is not to charge the English kings with disinterest in Ireland, but to challenge the capacity of any medieval king to pursue a consistent policy in the modern usage of that term. We do not have to stray beyond the bounds of medieval Irish historiography to find challenges to this capacity of medieval rulers; and even McFarlane hesitated from nominating what he perceived as Edward I’s sustained attacks on the English earldoms a policy.9 As Professor Lydon has observed, ‘medieval policy was usually a matter of expediency, and certainly so far as Anglo-Irish relations are concerned it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the king and his council in England made decisions on a purely ad hoc basis, with little regard for the future’.10 No English king could countenance the loss of his rights and possessions in Ireland: the country was part of the royal patrimony, and all medieval kings intended that it should so remain (with the exception perhaps of Richard II who may have intended to grant the lordship outright to de Vere as duke of Ireland).11

132

The King, the Anglo-Irish and English Justiciars

Following the grant of Ireland to Edward in 1254, ‘there could be no doubt . . . about its place in the Plantagenet scheme of things’, and there was no question of a medieval king carrying out an analysis to determine whether England could afford to retain its outlying lands.12 Principles were at stake, and the overriding principle which governed all relations between the king and his Irish lordship – that the king of England was lord of Ireland – gave the Anglo-Irish the right to demand good lordship from the king, as much as it allowed the king to exercise patronage and the more demanding of his feudal prerogatives there.13 The repeated pleading of the Anglo-Irish with Edward III allowed the king in 1357 to blame the (apparent) misinformation he had received regarding the state of the lordship from his ministers there for his previous lack of action and culminated in the expedition of Lionel of Ulster to Ireland.14 If we cannot expect medieval kings to have had consistent policies towards Ireland, we may be on safer ground in deducing a royal policy towards the lordship when the royal attitude to Ireland formed part of a more general approach to the wider dominions of the English king. It has, for example, been argued that Edward I, working in tandem with his justiciar of Ireland, John Wogan, sought to expand the area of the lordship under ‘direct royal government . . . by what seems to have been a deliberate royal policy, showing itself in other of Edward’s dominions’.15 Under discussion here are the king’s acquisition of the lands of Ralph Pipard and Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, among others; as well as the incorporation of the former de Verdon franchise in Meath into county Dublin, and the shiring of the former de Vescy liberty of Kildare. But it can be shown that the impetus behind the royal acquisition of these lands lay with the landholders in question, and that ‘there was no systematic policy of destroying liberties’ in Ireland.16 There is, however, more consensus regarding Edward III’s intentions in betrothing his second eldest son to the heiress of the earldom of Ulster in 1342. Mark Ormrod has argued that following the crisis of 1341–1342 the king pursued ‘a conscious dynastic strategy’ that formed ‘the very core of [his] . . . political program’ for the next 30 years.17 That the decision to finally send Lionel to Ireland was part of a grander strategy is supported by the fact that it was announced in parliament in England at the same time as the king’s decision to send his eldest son, Edward, to Gascony: both sons were to provide for ‘le bon governance’ of their respective territories.18 Nevertheless, the fact that Lionel, following the death of his wife, was to shake the dust of Ireland off his feet in preference for the lure of Milan suggests that Edward III’s policy may have been more about providing for his sons than for the governance of specific regions.

Beth Hartland 133

Ireland, in other words, was not at the heart, nor even an essential part, of this wider policy. This brings us back to principles. Knocking the scheme involving Lionel on the head was not the same as abandoning Ireland to its fate, but priorities (as perceived by the king) dictated what percentage of the finite royal resources could be spared in the maintenance of the royal rights in Ireland, as indeed elsewhere. Robin Frame has argued that the expedition of Lionel of Ulster to Ireland ushered in a new era in which the English crown was prepared to support the English administration in Ireland, if only because the Anglo-Irish now regarded such financial support as their entitlement. In this argument expenditure on Ireland, in spite of financial difficulties, becomes something of a principle: ‘the English government, like all organizations, was most comfortable doing what it had done before, even if it was expensive’.19 But had this precedent really crystallized so soon into a principle? Connolly has argued that ‘the attitude of the English council towards Irish financial involvement hardened’ between 1368 and 1375, ‘as its own difficulties and commitments elsewhere grew’ and as the profits of the lordship failed (again) to achieve sufficient levels for it to live of its own.20 After all, according to Sheila Harbison, the English council had only initially been prepared to fund William of Windsor’s expedition because of fear that southern Ireland would prove a back door into England in this renewed phase of the war with France.21 Richard II’s expedition of 1394–1395 seems to have sat in the tradition established by Lionel’s expedition of 1361, and he was followed by a succession of English lieutenants who were at least theoretically supported in their office from England. In the later fourteenth century the mentality that one more ‘troop surge’ would solve the problem of the lordship was clearly the driving factor behind the English investment in Ireland. The extent to which Richard’s successors on the English throne, and the English commons in parliament, were prepared to finance ‘the war in Ireland’ was to be variable.22 Whether in receipt of sufficient financial support from England or not, English justiciars had to work with the Anglo-Irish population in order to achieve their aims, and increasingly so as the fourteenth century progressed and the revenues of the Irish exchequer declined. As early as the justiciarship of John Wogan (1295–1308, 1309–1312), an attitude of Realpolitik served him effectively in keeping smooth the feathers of John fitz Thomas, later the first earl of Kildare, by repeatedly ignoring the king’s commands that he cause fitz Thomas to give compensation to the king’s cousin, Agnes de Valence.23 Fitz Thomas was crucial to Wogan

134

The King, the Anglo-Irish and English Justiciars

in keeping the peace in Leinster, certainly more so than an ‘absentee landlady’, and he had already been cut down to size by Edward I in 1295 over his dispute with Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster.24 The king’s representatives still commanded respect during the reign of Edward II; John de Hothum, the king’s envoy to Ireland, was able to demand evidence of the loyalty of the Anglo-Irish magnates during the Bruce invasion, and in c.1355 Thomas de Rokeby (1349–1355, 1356–1357) earned the high accolade of being requested to serve for a second term by the mayor and commonalty of the city of Cork.25 Unwise choices to act as justiciar were not confined to the later part of the fourteenth century when the ‘politicised’ Anglo-Irish community left the king in no doubt of their opinions. The mud-slinging debacle that William de Vescy’s justiciarship (1290–1294) degenerated into must have given Edward I plenty of grounds for regret. Ralph Ufford (1344–1346) was similarly zealous (although his actions were more clearly in support of what he supposed to be the king’s interests), and he displayed a conspicuous lack of understanding of Anglo-Irish politics and society in the process.26 In the later fourteenth century, the Anglo-Irish would have complained about a justiciar such as John Wogan or Ralph Ufford on the grounds of insufficient status: Philip de Courtenay, for example, was not a popular choice in the lordship; and it is clear that Richard II could not employ the policy of his great-great-grandfather and hope his choice would pass without comment.27 The extent to which English justiciars could hope to shape the lordship of Ireland in accordance with the king’s wishes – that it be profitable, well-governed and peaceful – was constrained by the attitude of the Anglo-Irish community; the gap between the lordship in reality and the understanding of the situation in the minds of English councilors; and the pressures exerted on the lordship by the Gaelic Irish, especially after c.1350. Having been disappointed in the reports he had received from royal officers, Edward III stipulated in 1357 that the great men of the lordship, together with the more discreet and worthy men of the neighbourhoods in which councils and parliaments were held, should discuss important and difficult matters. The king wanted the input of the Anglo-Irish community for, as Robin Frame has demonstrated, he preferred to work with the grain of colonial society.28 It has also been shown that the Anglo-Irish had their finger on the pulse of English government at a critical point in Edward’s reign: their petitions to the king in 1360, at a time when the treaty of Brétigny was in the offing, were consummate in both their timing and vocabulary.29 But, of course, the Anglo-Irish did not always get what they asked for, and we must not make the mistake of seeing the English king as the pawn of over-mighty subjects.

Beth Hartland 135

Edward III, or perhaps more correctly his council, did not accede to the Anglo-Irish request in 1373 that William of Windsor should not be reappointed as justiciar – although this may have been, as the English council contended, because no one else could be prevailed upon to assume the responsibility and expense – and when Edward did acquiesce in the wishes of the Anglo-Irish it was because they accorded with his own inclinations.30 Richard II, in contrast, was not so interested in working with the grain of colonial society – indeed it has recently been argued that his actions during the expedition of 1394–1395 worked distinctly against the established order among the settler population in the lordship – and, as far as appointing lieutenants according to the person specifications favoured by the Anglo-Irish went, Richard was rather maverick to say the least in his appointment of the seven-year-old earl of March in 1382, whether that be with his uncle as his deputy or no.31 Nevertheless the message sent by the Anglo-Irish to the king in 1385 must have planted a seed in Richard’s mind. The Anglo-Irish could see no remedy against the imminent conquest of the lordship by the Gaelic Irish ‘except the coming of the King, our lord, in his own person’.32 Opinions vary on the accuracy of this particular assessment of the situation. James Lydon has argued that Richard’s expedition of 1394–1395 was a military necessity; Robin Frame, on the other hand, has pointed out that ‘the condition of the lordship was not as critical as the king’s subjects there claimed (and perhaps believed)’.33 It is this second viewpoint that I wish to briefly examine here. It can certainly be shown that the Anglo-Irish community did not display consistency between what they requested in the person of a justiciar or lieutenant of Ireland and their opinion of this official when their requests were satisfied.34 Ralph Ufford was a case in point; and the general praise received by the modestly endowed Thomas de Rokeby, for example, does not square with the 1360 request for ‘a good and sufficient captain, stuffed and enforced by men and treasure’.35 From 1360 onwards, each request for aid from England upped the ante: in 1341 the Anglo-Irish complained that ‘the third part and more of your land of Ireland which was conquered in the time of your progenitors is now come into the hand of your Irish enemies and your English lieges are so impoverished that they can hardly live’. By 1360 Ireland ‘sount en point d’estre perdu [si] par vous socour et remedie ne les soient le plus en hast envoiétz’ and they made their famous request for ‘d’un bone chiefteyn suffisant, estoffés et efforcéz de gentz et tresore, dount ils sount vyver, hors d’Engleterre’. In 1373, in addition to requesting that Latimer or another great lord be sent as justiciar, if a royal prince were not available, they requested that the earl of March also be sent with a great army to defend his lands in Ulster; and

136

The King, the Anglo-Irish and English Justiciars

in 1385 the Anglo-Irish claimed that the state of the lordship required the presence of the king, or at least ‘le plus graunt et plus foiable seigneur dengleterre’. Finally, in 1399, they asserted that ‘la terre est en peril de final destruction’.36 Undoubtedly the pressure being exerted on the colony by the Gaelic Irish was increasing; Richard II’s reign began with the ominous news that it had been necessary to buy off Ó Briain [O’Brien] of Munster who ‘meditates on making war on the lieges of the lord the king in the parts of Leinster’.37 But one can also imagine a scenario in which the Irish council did not wish to appear less needy than in previous requests for aid, for fear of reducing the level of support granted to them. Let us turn from speculation concerning the Anglo-Irish to speculation concerning Richard II. One of the questions that has naturally concerned scholars (and chroniclers) has been why Richard went on an expedition to Ireland, and not only once, but twice.38 Historians are now generally agreed that Richard did not depart from England in 1394 with a fully-fledged plan to reinvent the official structures of the lordship, but are far from unanimous where his primary motivation is concerned.39 What the theories put forward by historians generally do have in common is the belief that Ireland was at the centre of Richard’s policy. To argue thus is to support the view that Richard’s reign saw a radical departure from recent precedent not only in form (an expedition headed by the king), but also from two centuries of royal attitudes towards the lordship. The theory put forward by Michael Bennett, however, does not require such a royal volte-face, and should be considered a possibility for that very reason. Bennett suggests that Richard’s focus on Ireland has to be seen in a wider context; and that this context was not just as part of Richard’s perception of his ‘wider realm’ of Britain, but his self-image as a ruler on the European stage – although whether Richard really sought to live out The Verses of Gildas (which foretold ‘an outstanding career of success for ‘our King now ruling’ which would begin with a successful expedition to Ireland undertaken after a grave crisis’) is another matter.40 Nigel Saul has argued that Richard’s experiences in Ireland may have contributed to the development of his exalted views of his position as king. One can take this argument a step further: in taking the submissions of the Gaelic Irish Richard would have been well aware that he was dealing with men who had their own pretensions to royalty (even if of the ‘petty-kingship’ kind): he speaks of ‘those who call themselves Kings and Captains of Munster and Connacht’ in one of his letters back to England; and he was aware of the royal titles used by Ó Néill [O’Neill] (‘prince of the Irish of Ulster’), Ó Briain (‘prince of

Beth Hartland 137

Thomond’) and Mac Murchadha [MacMurrough] (‘rex Lagenie’). Receiving submissions from men who retained such aspirations to kingship may have influenced Richard’s development of his own more exalted notions of regality.41 The similarities between Richard II’s ‘Irish policies’ and those of his fourteenth-century forbears should not be underestimated. Despite Sir John Davies’ assertions, these similarities were not concerned with the perfection of the conquest, but rather with some form of ‘restoration’ of the lordship once such a need had become apparent. It would be anachronistic to expect any greater overlap in policy between these kings, in the modern usage of the term. That efforts to achieve this ‘restoration’ were at times inconsistent should not be surprising. From the start of the lordship, kings of England had been forced to make decisions relating to Ireland based on the conflicting and biased advice of the Anglo-Irish and the Dublin government. Richard II did not circumvent such biased influences by actually coming to Ireland. His knowledge of his lordship was first-hand, but in consequence he was even more an audience for shrewd men, both Gaelic and Anglo-Irish, putting on an act for the king, than any of his fourteenth-century predecessors receiving petitions and reports at Westminster had been.

Notes 1. Davies, Discouerie, 3–4, 259. I would like to thank Dr Keith Waters for fielding various questions on the topic of fourteenth-century Irish history, as well as reading and commenting upon a draft of this paper. According to Davies (92–3), the reasons that Edward I, Edward II, Edward III and Richard II were ‘hindered from finishing this Conquest’ were (in order) ‘the warres in Wales and Scotland’, ‘the Barons warres’, ‘the warres of France’ and ‘Domestick Contention for the Crowne’. 2. Davies uses ‘policy’ in the sense of ‘government’, namely ‘some statesmen then in policy’ (Discouerie, 3). 3. See, for example, MacNeill, Phases of Irish History, 328–31; Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 168, and chapter 13, 253ff.; Duffy, Ireland, 99; and for recent general comment, Bhreathnach, ‘Medieval Irish History’, 261. 4. Frame, ‘English Political Culture’, 1; Phillips, ‘Edward II and Ireland’, 3 and passim. Gerald of Wales was clearly of the opinion that the conquest ought to be completed; Expugnatio Hibernica, 244–9. In the thirteenth century the conquest was carried forward by the settler population (see Duffy, Ireland, 112–13). See Libelle of Englyshe Polycye, 39 for comments by the earl of Ormond on how quickly the conquest could be completed. 5. Davies, Discouerie, 6; Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 159 argued that Edward I’s policy should have aimed ‘to end the race-war by giving the Gaelic chiefs legal status under the Crown, and confirming to the Irish “inter

138

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15.

The King, the Anglo-Irish and English Justiciars anglicos” the benefits of royal law’. For attempts to extend English law to the Irish, see Otway-Ruthven, ‘Select Documents’; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Native Irish and English Law’; Murphy, ‘Status of the Native Irish’; Frame, ‘Immediate Effect’. It may be asked whether all the Gaelic Irish would have accepted English law in the fourteenth century had there been no impediments to its assumption. Equally, despite its recent adoption into the mainstream of studies on Richard II (e.g., see Saul, Richard II, 282), it is far from clear that the settlement with Gaelic Ireland envisaged by that king involved the extension of English law throughout the island. Davies, Discouerie, 150. See Crooks, ‘Factionalism’ 14–15 for a discussion of Davies’ lasting influence on the topic of factionalism in Ireland. I am most grateful to Dr Crooks for allowing me access to a copy of his thesis in advance of its appearance on the TCD library catalogue. Orpen quoted in Duffy, ‘Historical Revisit’, 257. Frame, ‘England and Ireland’, 17, noted how ‘elaborate royal policies towards the Lordship’ have been deduced from John’s journey to Ireland of 1185. Edward II is praised for holding regular parliaments in Ireland: Clarke, ‘Irish Parliaments’; see also Watt, ‘Negotiations’; Mortimer, ‘Lordship and Patronage’. For comments on the historiographical treatment of Richard II, see Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 338. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 503, for contrasting comments on Richard II and Henry IV. In the period under discussion here, Edward I is traditionally cast in the role of ‘villain’, namely ‘for an Irish historian . . . Edward I is the king who killed the silver goose’: Dolley, ‘Anglo-Irish Monetary Policies’, 51. Empey, ‘Settlement of the Kingdom of Limerick’, 17; Hays and Jones, ‘Policy on the Run’. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 274. McFarlane, ‘Had Edward I a “Policy” ’, 147–9. Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, 44–5. Harbison, ‘William of Windsor’, 139–40, describes royal policy on absenteeism as inconsistent and weak. Neither was Richard II consistent in his approach to the issue. For an example of an exemption granted by him, see TNA SC 8/252/12573. See Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English Crown’, 286. Duffy, Ireland, quote at 125. Phillips’ suggestion (‘Edward II and Ireland’, 10) that had the Anglo-Irish lost the battle of Ardscull in 1316 ‘the English crown would then have been forced either to divert to Ireland substantial resources which it could not afford, or, perhaps more likely, to give up the struggle altogether’ does not accord with the energetic royal response to the challenge of the Bruce invasion: infra, Dryburgh, ‘Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland’. In 1308 Edward II had sent the Statute of Winchester for observation in Ireland, taking ‘instant pains’ to achieve peace in the lordship ‘because we are hereto bound by the bond of an oath’: Statutes and Ordinances, 245. For practical examples, see Hartland, ‘Household Knights’. Statutes and Ordinances, 408. Frame, English Lordship, 296 argues that Edward ‘had the lordship on his conscience’ as a result of Anglo-Irish representations. Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 265 made a similar argument concerning Richard II. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 212. Frame, ‘Dublin Government’, 124 argued that ‘by a curious paradox, the shiring of Kildare meant

Beth Hartland 139

16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31.

32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

less rather than more direct intervention in it by the government’ due to Wogan having ‘practically farmed out the war there’ to prominent magnates. For the acquisition of these lands by the crown, see Hartland, ‘Reasons for Leaving’; for royal ‘policy’ towards the liberties of Ireland see Prestwich, Edward I, 539–40 (quote at 540) and Hartland, ‘Liberties of Ireland’. Ormrod, ‘Edward III and his Family’, 138. PROME, V, 192 for Lionel’s career in Ireland, see Connolly, ‘Lionel of Clarence and Ireland’. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 296, 333–8, quote at 333. Connolly, ‘Financing of English Expeditions’, 118. Harbison, ‘William of Windsor’, vi–vii, 31–9. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 333–4; Cosgrove, ‘England and Ireland’, 526. Fitz Thomas had seized her lands in Co. Kildare. For the dispute, see Ó Cléirigh, ‘Absentee Landlady’. See, for example, CDI 1293–1301, no. 246. ‘Documents on the Early Stages of the Bruce Invasion’, 253–5; OtwayRuthven, ‘Ireland in the 1350s’, 53. Frame, ‘English Political Culture’, 8; Frame, ‘Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford’. Tuck, ‘Anglo-Irish Relations’, 20–4. Statutes and Ordinances, 408; Parliaments and Councils, xii. Frame, ‘Thomas Rokeby’, 280. Connolly, ‘Lionel of Clarence and Ireland’, 10–18; Watt, ‘Anglo-Irish Colony’, 367. Cf. Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 206; Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, 146–7. Harbison, ‘William of Windsor’, 75–6, 116. For example, consider the 1341–1342 crisis in Frame, ‘English Policies’. Crooks, ‘Factionalism’, 61. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 142 emphasizes how Richard ‘formed a policy that was distinctively royal rather than Anglo-Irish in approach’ through his communications with his council in England. As Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 316, says, this appointment must have been met ‘with stupefied incredulity’ in Ireland. Statutes and Ordinances, 485. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 32 argues that Richard began to take a more personal role in the governance of the lordship following the rejection of de Vere as duke of Ireland by the English government. Lydon, ‘Richard II’s Expeditions to Ireland’. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 339. See also Frame, ‘Ireland’, 379 and Frame, ‘Thomas Rokeby’, 295. Duffy, Ireland, 149–50 has commented on this phenomenon. Frame, ‘Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford’, 37. The translation is that provided by Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English Crown’, 284. Watt, ‘Anglo-Irish Colony’, 367; Parliaments and Councils, 19, 21; Harbison, ‘William of Windsor’, 75–6; Statutes and Ordinances, 484. Statutes and Ordinances, 473 (quote); Parliaments and Councils, no. 57. See Chronicle of Adam Usk, 19; Tuck, ‘Anglo-Irish Relations’, 18; Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 1 for some explanations of Richard’s first expedition. See Johnston, ‘The Interim Years’ for a rejection of the traditional view that Richard’s second expedition was motivated by a desire to avenge the death of Mortimer.

140

The King, the Anglo-Irish and English Justiciars

39. See, for example, Frame, Political Development, 215. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, passim traces the development of Richard’s plans. 40. Bennett, ‘Richard II and the Wider Realm’, quote at 202. It is generally accepted that Richard was interested in extending his dominion within, and consolidating his position throughout, Britain and Ireland (Saul, Richard II, 270, 292). 41. Saul, ‘Richard II and the Vocabulary of Kingship’, 865–7; Curtis, ‘Unpublished Letters’, 294; Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 211, 216.

10 The Ulster Revolt of 1404 – an Anti-Lancastrian Dimension? Katharine Simms

In 1403–1404 the Irish chiefs of eastern Ulster rose out in war against the colony there in association with the Scots of the Western Isles and were eventually suppressed by the third earl of Ormond, justicar from March to October 1404. It is an incident that has not hitherto attracted much attention. Otway-Ruthven has discussed it in connection with a later letter sent from the Ulster colony to the fourth earl of Ormond, dated 4 June 1420, when the inhabitants again found themselves in difficulty and exhorted the fourth earl to follow his father’s example and deliver them from their present danger.1 A significant feature of this letter is its emphatic allocation of blame for the colonists’ previous and current difficulties to Aodh, son of Art Mág Aonghusa, [Magennis], king of Iveagh (Uí Eachach Uladh), south county Down, ‘son of perdition and enemy of Jesus Christ’, to quote some of its milder language, whereas Henry Marleburrough’s chronicle stresses instead the wickedness of Adam Mac Giolla Muire [MacGilmore] of north Down, and his son Aodh, who was eventually to be killed in 1408 in revenge for his misdeeds by the Savages, a leading family among the Ulster settlers. Paradoxically the Savages on this occasion fought as allies of Mág Aonghusa.2 The issue in 1420 may have been a relatively clear-cut confrontation between native Irish and English colonists. In 1425 the fourth earl of Ormond was to allude to the existence of a sworn confederation among the Ulster chieftains, directed against the English king and the absentee earl of Ulster.3 However, in October 1401 and again in August 1402 the Irish chancery rolls had referred to a less polarised grouping – ‘all the king’s rebels and enemies, Scots, Irish and English in Ulster’4 – and in view of the widespread opposition to the Lancastrian dynasty occurring elsewhere in the British Isles at this date, it seems worthwhile to look at the episode in greater detail. 141

142

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

One question to ask is, against whom might English rebels in Ulster have been rebelling – against the king and the earl of Ulster, or against the king only? This is particularly relevant when, as was the case at that time, the earl himself was a minor, and the earldom had been taken into the king’s hands. The obvious parallel, discussed long ago by Orpen, happened in the late thirteenth century. Sir Henry de Mandeville had been custos of the forfeited territory of Tweskard in north Antrim even before King Henry III re-instated the earldom of Ulster in 1263 and granted it to Walter de Burgh, lord of Connacht.5 De Burgh subsequently appointed Sir Henry as his seneschal of the liberty of Ulster, and later when Earl Walter died in 1271, leaving an underage heir, Sir Henry seems to have been allowed initially to continue in his office of seneschal of Ulster under the then justiciar of Ireland, Sir James Audley, as we find him rendering his account for the first year of the heir’s minority.6 The Irish chieftains, Aodh Buidhe Ó Néill [O’Neill] and Cúmhuighe Ó Catháin [O’Cahan/O’Kane], who would have been accustomed to render their tributes and military service under de Mandeville’s supervision, were brought to submit to James Audley, and were sent home with the usual ceremonial presents.7 In an unprecedented move, d’Audley decided to allot the homages of the Irish chiefs of Ulster, along with custody of some key border castles, as part of the widow’s dower to the countess Emmeline de Burgh, thus keeping them out of the hands of royal civil servants during the heir’s minority.8 However, d’Audley was unexpectedly killed by a fall from a horse, and the next justiciar, Maurice fitz Gerald, was an old enemy of the de Burgh family. The strange assignment of chiefs’ homages and defensible castles to the earl’s widow was made the subject of a royal enquiry, and a new seneschal of Ulster was appointed, Sir William FitzWarin, who immediately questioned Sir Henry’s continuing administration of the territory of Tweskard. The ex-seneschal, Sir Henry de Mandeville, brought his former charges, the chiefs Aodh Buidhe Ó Néill and Cúmhuighe Ó Catháin, to accompany him on raids against the lands of FitzWarin and his supporters. FitzWarin had to leave Ulster in fear of his life, although Sir Henry de Mandeville himself was killed in the course of the war. The interesting point of the whole episode is that when the young Earl Richard de Burgh came of age, he took the side of the de Mandeville family, appointed successively Sir Thomas de Mandeville and William de Mandeville as his seneschals of the liberty of Ulster, and pressed for compensation to be paid for Sir Henry’s death.9 A great magnate like Earl Richard, who spent much of his time in England and had closer connections with Connacht than Ulster, needed to retain the loyalty of

Katharine Simms 143

a powerful local family if he was to control not only the colonised part of Ulster, but the obedience and military service of the Irish chiefs there. Indeed it was the failure of Earl Richard’s grandson, Earl William de Burgh, to cultivate the loyalty of the de Mandevilles that led to his assassination in 1333 followed by a five-year rebellion of the de Mandevilles, Logans, Uí Néill and Uí Chatháin.10 After such blatant defiance, the de Mandevilles were naturally ineligible in future to hold office in the liberty of Ulster, particularly as the later earls were no longer hibernicised de Burghs, but initially Lionel of Antwerp, later duke of Clarence, in right of his marriage to Elizabeth de Burgh, and subsequently Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in right of his marriage to Lionel’s daughter and heiress, Philippa. Another prominent local family had to be found among the Ulster colonists to act as agents of the absentee earls, and the choice fell on the Savage family of county Down. Sir Robert Savage held various offices in the liberty of Ulster between 1333 and his death in 1360, and won a high reputation as an effective military defender of the colony against the rising power of Ó Néill of Tyrone (Tír Eoghain).11 His descendants do not, however, seem to have enjoyed the same unquestioning confidence from their lords as Earl Richard de Burgh had placed in the de Mandevilles. When Lionel of Antwerp came to govern Ireland as the king’s lieutenant, he appointed Thomas de Dale as seneschal of Ulster (active 1362) and later John de Burgh of Camlin (May 1363–September 1366).12 Sir Henry Savage (d. 1383), who seems to have been head of his family in the generation following Sir Robert’s death and was regularly summoned to parliament by individual writ does not appear in the records as an office-holder in the liberty.13 There is, it must be admitted, a problem with the survival of evidence – administrative records of the Ulster earldom disappear periodically from view as each heir came of age and the escheator lost control of its administration. However, there might be some grounds for questioning, if not Henry Savage’s loyalty to the Ulster colony, at least his judgement. The Dublin annalist holds Henry responsible for the destruction of the Ulster colony by the Irish after Sir Robert’s death because he is said to have advised his father not to spend money on building castles, but to rely on soldiers for his defence, citing the adage ‘better a castle of bones than a castle of stones’.14 Even more strangely we are told that in the year of Sir Robert Savage’s death, his sons assisted the son of Muircheartach Riaganach Mág Aonghusa to kill Art, the son of Giolla Riabhach Mág Aonghusa, in treachery.15 The leading son of Muircheartach Riaganach Mág Aonghusa at this time was Art na Madhmann (‘A. of the battle-routs’) Mág Aonghusa, who

144

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

ruled Iveagh thereafter. Art na Madhmann promptly allied himself with the Great Ó Néill of Tyrone and ended by attacking the Ulster settlements. In 1373 the Justiciar Robert de Assheton came north with a large army to pacify the marches. A treaty was drawn up between Niall Mór, the Great Ó Néill, with his brother Toirdhealbhach, Mág Aonghusa, Mac Mathghamhna [MacMahon] and the Scottish galloglass commander Mac Domhnaill [MacDonald] (of Clann Alexander) on one side, and the magnates of Meath and Louth on the other, with a separate section appended dealing with disputes between Mág Aonghusa and the Ulster colonists.16 Yet the war continued. In 1374 Mág Aonghusa killed Jenkin Savage (incidentally praised in the Irish annals as a patron of éigse, or bardic poetry).17 Sir James de la Hyde, a knight of Meath and escheator of Ireland, was despatched that year to Ulster as representative of Edmund Mortimer’s interests there, but was killed in a great battle at Downpatrick by ‘McGynouse and other Irish of Ulster, the king’s enemies’ according to the Anglo-Irish sources, while the Irish annals principally credit the Great Ó Néill with the victory. De Burgh of Camlin, the former seneschal, was among those killed.18 In 1380 Art na Madhmann Mág Aonghusa defeated an alliance of the colonists and Ó hAnluain [O’Hanlon], chief of south Armagh.19 It is too often assumed that the later medieval absentee earls of Ulster took little interest in their liberty there, because they drew little profit from it. However, there are signs that the Edmund Mortimer who died in 1381, his son Roger, and his grandson Edmund were all seriously interested in their claims to the enormous territorial jurisdiction once wielded across half of Ireland by Earl Richard de Burgh, and were anxious to recover that power by force of arms, and that it was only the historical accident of their successive early deaths that prevented them from fulfilling this ambition. In 1379–1380, Edmund Mortimer, when about to come to Ireland as lieutenant of the king, caused a long descriptive catalogue of his ancestral charters to his lands in England and Ireland to be drawn up, which included the old agreements of various de Burgh earls with their Irish vassal kings.20 This might simply testify to the thoroughness of his archivist, but when in May 1380 Mortimer arrived in Ireland, accompanied by a large armed retinue, he made his headquarters at Downpatrick for at least two months. Many Irish chiefs from the districts where he had a hereditary claim to authority came in to submit: Ó Fearghail [O’Farrell], Ó Raghallaigh [O’Reilly], Mac Eochagáin [MacGeoghegan] and ‘the Fox’ (Ó Catharnaigh) [O’Kearney] came from the perimeters of the Mortimer lordship of Trim in Meath, and from mid-Ulster came Niall Mór Ó Néill, ‘the heir to the king[ship]

Katharine Simms 145

of Ireland’ as the Annals of Ulster term him, together with Ó hAnluain of Armagh and Art na Madhmann Mág Aonghusa. All were completely taken aback, according to the Irish annals, when Mág Aonghusa was seized ‘by treachery in the house of the Mortimer’, and imprisoned in Mortimer’s castle of Trim, where he died of the plague three years later.21 According to the order of events given in the Annals of Clonmacnoise, it was after this confrontational move that Mortimer brought his army on a raid far into western Tyrone, destroying church settlements at Clogher, Errigal-keeroge, Urney and Donaghmore, just inside the border of the modern county Donegal, a route hard to explain in terms of defence of the earldom’s Anglo-Irish settlers in Antrim and Down, but possibly to be seen as a punishment for the ruler of west Tyrone, the younger son of Ó Néill, the aptly named Henry ‘the Turbulent’ Ó Néill, and his ally Ó Domhnaill [O’Donnell] of Donegal, neither of whom are recorded as having joined in the submissions.22 Edmund Mortimer died suddenly 26 December 1381, leaving his seven-year-old son Roger as heir, and the earldom of Ulster once again faced a long minority, under the care of royal officials. During this period we find Edmund Savage, apparently son of the former seneschal Sir Robert Savage, holding the office of seneschal of the liberty of Ulster under successive regimes, including Robert de Vere’s spell as duke of Ireland. There are a number of allusions in the administrative records of the Anglo-Irish and English governments to Edmund Savage’s power and excessively independent mode of governing the Ulster liberty. In 1385 it was pointed out that when the king appointed Edmund Savage seneschal, he did not intend to empower him to grant charters of peace to the king’s enemies or to present to churches in Ulster by colour of his office. In 1388 the justiciar of Ireland was ordered to draw up separate letters patent appointing Edmund Savage as seneschal of Ulster, and Thomas Mercamston as constable of the royal castle of Carrickfergus, and to order Edmund to deliver the castle into the keeping of Thomas Mercamston.23 In 1392 King Richard recorded his anger that Edmund Savage, the seneschal, had despised his commands concerning the ‘Black Priory’ of St Andrew in the Ards (an ‘alien’ foundation because daughter to a French house and thus forfeit to the king). Yet as late as 1398 the seneschal continued to hold onto St Andrew in the Ards by force of arms against the legitimate claims of John Colton, archbishop of Armagh, in defiance of a royal writ.24 Nevertheless the remote, beleaguered, liberty of Ulster could not dispense with the services of its most powerful resident magnate, and in 1389 we are told that the king, ‘considering the great place Edmond

146

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

Savage, Steward of Ulster, holds in those parts, concedes to him the wardship and marriage of Elizabeth and Marjorie, daughters and heirs of Hugh Bysset’ (the last of his name to be lord of the Glens of Antrim). As guardian of Marjorie Bysset, it was presumably Edmund Savage who arranged her marriage at some time after 1396 and before 1400 to Eoin Mór Mac Domhnaill, younger brother of Domhnall Mac Domhnaill, lord of the Isles. His kinsman Robert Savage had already contracted a marriage with Christiana, sister of Domhnall Mac Domhnaill, lord of the Isles, in 1388.25 This introduces the first question mark over seeing the 1403–1404 revolt purely in terms of an anti-colonist movement, as suggested by the later letter to the fourth earl of Ormond in 1420. The Savage family presumably hoped the Scots would prove powerful allies in the Ulster colony’s struggle against reconquest by their Gaelic-Irish neighbours, so if the 1403–1404 rising was directed against the colony as a whole, the involvement of the Scots on the Irish side is somewhat surprising. A second ally against the attacks of the Irish was gained by the re-recruitment of the Mag Uighilín [MacQuillan] family. In the early fourteenth century under Earl Richard de Burgh and his grandson Earl William, indentures record successive members of that family as hereditary constables of a mercenary troop in the service of the de Burghs.26 ‘Seonacc MacUigilin’, recorded in the Irish annals as captain of a troop of 200 mercenaries in Connacht serving Sir William de Burgh of Mayo in 1310, appears identical with the Welsh-sounding ‘John Howelin’, listed among Sir William’s retinue on an expedition against the Leinster Irish.27 In 1350, some 17 years after the assassination in 1333 of the young Earl William de Burgh by the de Mandevilles and Logans, followed by a mixed Irish and Anglo-Irish rebellion, the last constable to have been employed by Earl William, Stephen or ‘Sleimne’ Mag Uighlín, joined forces with Aodh Reamhar Ó Néill, king of Tyrone, to attack the colonists of Louth, and on his death in 1368 was described as ‘constable of Ulster’, a title which subsequently passed to the chiefs of Clann Alexander Mac Domhnaill, the galloglass commanders who served Niall Mór, the ‘Great O’Neill’, from 1365 onwards. By the late fourteenth century Jenkin or ‘Seinicín Mór’ Mag Uighilín was described as the ‘man’ of the seneschal of Ulster, Edmund Savage, and his attacks were a thorn in the side of both Magnus Ó Catháin, the local chief in Derry and Muircheartach Óg Mág Aonghusa, the Irish chieftain in south Down (a younger brother of the ill-fated Art ‘na Madhmann’ Mág Aonghusa).28 It was probably at this period that the land of Tweskard in north Antrim, formerly held by de Mandeville, became known as ‘MacQuillin’s Route’,

Katharine Simms 147

presumably because it was colonised by the mercenary troop of Mag Uighilín. The Irish genealogies tell us that Seinicín Mór was the first of his surname to rule as a territorial chieftain.29 Meanwhile the custom known as ‘the Bonaght [Ir. buannacht] of Ulster’, the prerogative once exercised by the de Burgh earls of billeting certain numbers of their mercenary troops [Ir. buannaidhe] on each of the Ulster chiefs, had been usurped by Niall Mór Ó Néill ‘prince of the Irish of Ulster’. The documentary evidence for this usurpation came in 1389 when Niall Óg, the eldest son of Niall Mór, was captured by Edmund de Londres, constable of Greencastle, county Down, of Carlingford castle in county Louth, warden of the lordship of the Cooley peninsula, and nominal constable of the earldom’s ‘Bonaght of Ulster’. The Anglo-Irish, and above all the supporters of Roger Mortimer, the underage heir to the earldom of Ulster, considered this capture a most important event for the future safety of the colony, but the new justiciar, Sir John Stanley, released Niall Óg in February 1390, in exchange for a ransom and the handing-over of his eldest son, Brian Óg Ó Néill, and six other hostages. The Mortimer party were outraged by this ‘idiotic release’ (foole deliverance) of the earldom’s chief enemy and destroyer.30 Stanley became the subject of a commission of enquiry in 1391 concerning the way he had conducted himself in office, with specific investigation of ‘the capture of Neel, the elder son of Neel O Neel, the rebel Irish chief of Ulster, by whom, how and for what ransom he was released, and whether to the king’s advantage or loss, and of the capture and release of all other Irish prisoners and rebels since the coming of John Stanley justiciary of Ireland’.31 Justification for the general indignation may be found in the contemporary description of ‘the lordship and county of Ulster being so wasted by attacks from the Irish enemies of the king that very small profit can be had therefrom and the castle [of Carrickfergus] so destitute that its capture and the loss of the adjacent country is much to be feared.’32 In 1392 Niall Óg led the ‘nobles of the Province’ (a phrase apparently inclusive of Mág Aonghusa) to attack and defeat the men of Dundalk, killing Geoffrey White, who as one of the two keepers of the peace for county Louth was leading the defence, and was almost as prominent a leader of the local English as Edmund Savage himself.33 As a consequence of his repeated raids on the English within the earldom, Niall Óg in 1392 held the son of the seneschal Edmund Savage, and other members of the Savage family as hostages, presumably to guarantee payment of ‘black-rent’, or regular instalments of protection-money.

148

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

In the spring of 1393, however, he handed over the Savages along with seven other hostages ‘of little or no value’ (as Mortimer wrote), in exchange for whom the king’s council in Ireland agreed to release his eldest son, Brian Óg O’Neill, ‘in contempt of the king, to the hurt of his said subjects and in peril of their utter ruin’. Roger Mortimer complained indignantly to King Richard II that since his release Niall Óg, chieftain of the Irish of Ulster, had often forfeited his hostages by going on hosting with a great force of Irish and Scots to burn and destroy both the lordship of Ulster and much of county Louth.34 In June 1393 Mortimer, though not yet of full age, was granted control of his Irish lands, and in July Niall Óg’s hostages were delivered into his custody, because, ‘in the time of the earl’s nonage his lands were much wasted by the said [Niall] and [Brian Óg] and by their adherents and the king is aware that he would keep their hostages in the more careful custody because his lands were by them and their adherents wasted, and are like to be in time to come, if the said hostages should be set free’. Interestingly the hostages of Edmund Savage were not to be returned to the seneschal, but to be kept by Mortimer along with the other hostages handed over by Ó Néill, unless express order for their release was sent by the king under the great seal of England.35 As the grandson of Prince Lionel, Roger Mortimer was a close kinsman of the childless Richard II, and may even have been officially recognised as heir to the throne in 1385. Perhaps King Richard hoped Mortimer and his supporters would become a more effective counter-weight to the king’s opponents at court if only the young earl could reactivate the financial and military potential of his Irish lands.36 Mortimer’s ambitions were certainly taken seriously at the English court, and there seems no doubt that like his father before him, Earl Roger yearned for a restoration of the authority that the de Burgh earls had once wielded over half the island of Ireland. Soon after his coming of age, Mortimer’s Welsh bard, Iolo Goch, addressed a eulogy to him which included the advice: Make haste and claim completely the land of Ulster, thou of Elystan’s fame. That is a dominion (?) filling a false boundary, Demand it as thine on the edge of Dundalk. After capturing Great Niall, my lord Ulster dog from a stock of false growth Thou, belfry of fame, wilt kill The people of Ulster with every further blow.37

Katharine Simms 149

Repeatedly during the second half of the fourteenth century the English government had tried to halt the decline of its colony in Ireland by sending, or in some cases only planning to send, heavily subsidised military expeditions led by prominent figures from the inner circles at court, such as Prince Lionel and William of Windsor. The last and greatest efforts of this policy were the two expeditions led by King Richard II himself in 1394–1395 and 1399. On the first of these interventions the king commanded an army that has been estimated at c.8000 or 10,000 troops and was accompanied by Earl Roger Mortimer and other great absentee lords, hoping to restore extensive lands they could claim in Ireland to English control and profitability.38 Richard landed at Waterford on 2 October 1394 and organised a series of expeditions against Art Mac Murchadha Cáomhánach [MacMurrough Kavanagh] and the Irish of Leinster. Meanwhile Mortimer went to his liberty of Trim in Meath, to reduce his Irish vassals there to obedience. Ó Fearghail of Longford submitted at Trim and was well treated, but the Ó Raghallaigh family of Cavan had to be persuaded by force. On 12 December 1394 Seaán Ó Raghallaigh ‘chief of his nation’ submitted to Mortimer at Kells, county Meath, and agreed to a series of conditions in an indenture which is now lost. Another expedition was sent against Philip Mac Mathghamhna, chief of the Monaghan area.39 In the spring of 1395 one after another the Ulster chieftains came in to do homage to King Richard, beginning with ‘the great O’Neill senior’ (‘le grand O Nel le pere’), Niall Mór who came to Richard at Drogheda on 20 January, followed over the next two months by ‘his son the great O’Neill’ (‘le grand O Nel son fitz’), Niall Óg, together with his Scottish constable Seán Mac Domhnaill, two Uí Anluain of Armagh, Philip Rúadh Mac Mathghamhna with his brothers and his Scottish constable Mac Cába [MacCabe], Muircheartach Óg and Cú Uladh Mág Aonghusa of Iveagh in south Down and Adam Mac Giolla Muire also of Down diocese.40 The Uí Néill displayed quite a marked difference in their attitudes to the king on the one hand and the earl of March on the other, unsurprisingly since it had been royal ministers during March’s minority who had successively agreed to release both Niall Óg and his heir Brian Óg on relatively easy terms. Niall Mór asked King Richard to intervene as ‘a shield and helmet of justice’ between the Uí Néill and Mortimer, that the earl might not demand more than his due. There had been an ambiguity inherent in the terms of the indenture agreed with Sir John Stanley in February 1390 as regards the overlordship of other Ulster Irish which led now to open dispute between Niall Mór and Mortimer, a dispute which King Richard offered to arbitrate at some future date.41

150

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

In advance of this arbitration (which never ultimately took place) Niall Óg began to shift his ground. Writing to Primate Colton of Armagh, Niall Óg stated that he held his dominion over the other Irish by a grant of the king’s predecessors to his forefathers, and afterwards made reluctant reference to ‘my lord, if you will have him so, the earl of Ulster and March’ (dominus si volueritis meus Comes Ultonie et Marchie), suggesting that he had been unsuccessfully angling to be accepted as a tenant-inchief of the English king, and a mesne lord between the king and the other Ulster chieftains.42 What is interesting about the other letters the king received from Ulster is that they were not unanimously supportive of Ó Néill. Especially significant are the letters Richard received from Muircheartach Óg Mág Aonghusa, lord of Iveagh in south Down. Like Ó Néill, he was anxious for confirmation of his ancestral authority over the other chieftains in Iveagh: Mac Artáin [MacCartan], Ó hAidíth, Mac Duileacháin and Mac Duibhgheamhna, threatening outright rebellion if this was called into question, but he acknowledged that he owed the ‘Bonaght of Ulster’ and other services to Mortimer as earl of Ulster, and complained bitterly of recent attacks on his territory by Ó Néill and his followers from the Armagh side, followers who included Niall Óg’s brother Cú Uladh Rúadh Ó Néill and Ó hAnluain, chief of Airthir, while from county Down he was being assaulted by the seneschal of Ulster, Edmund Savage, and his employees, the sons of Mag Uighilín. Both sets of attacks had taken place after Niall Mór’s submission in January and the proclamation of the king’s peace, and could well have been related to the dispute as to whether Ulster chiefs were to render immediate subjection to Mortimer, Edmund Savage’s master, or to be recognised as vassals of Ó Néill in the first place, paying their dues and services to the earldom through him as ‘prince of the Irish of Ulster’. So severe was the threat to Mág Aonghusa and his followers from both sides, that he brought all his herds, moveable goods and immediate followers with him to the marches of Dundalk for protection before he dared leave them to do homage to King Richard in person.43 To the dismay of Ó Néill, King Richard when departing in May 1395 appointed the young Mortimer to govern Ireland as king’s lieutenant, having special responsibility for Ulster, Connacht and Meath. Nevertheless, by negotiation and exhortatory letters the English king managed to ensure the continuance of a precarious peace for one further year. Then in 1396 Mortimer at the head of a force which included the earls of Ormond and Kildare invaded Ó Néill territory, burnt the city of Armagh, cathedral and all, and ‘turned and took power over Ulster after that’.44 Although offering military resistance during the actual invasion, Ó Néill

Katharine Simms 151

refrained from any attempt at revenge. In October 1397 Archbishop Colton of Armagh felt conditions in mid-Ulster were peaceful enough to allow him to conduct a metropolitan visitation in the vacant diocese of Derry.45 In 1398 Earl Roger Mortimer was killed by the insurgent Uí Bhroin [O’Byrnes] of Wicklow. King Richard’s second expedition to Ireland in 1399 to avenge his kinsman’s death was aborted by the news that the exiled Henry, duke of Lancaster, had invaded England in his absence and claimed the throne as Henry IV. Richard hastily returned to England and was deposed, dying in prison on 14 February 1400. Ó Néill profited by this opportunity to assemble a great army and threaten the colonists ‘to make war upon and to destroy the whole country unless he have delivered to him his son and his cousins and other hostages that are in the Castle of Dublin’.46 The death of Roger Mortimer meant that from 1398 responsibility for the earldom of Ulster had reverted once more to royal officials during the long minority of his seven-year-old son, Edmund Mortimer. The new Lancastrian dynasty did not have Richard’s apparent interest in promoting the Mortimer fortunes, seeing the family rather as potential rivals for the throne. In December 1402, the young Edmund Mortimer’s uncle and namesake declared his support for the revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr ˆ in Wales with a view to placing his nephew on the English throne if Richard II were truly dead, and in July 1403 the rebellion of the Percies of Northumberland upheld the Mortimer claim to be Richard’s legitimate heirs.47 In Ulster the Savage family of county Down was initially passed over for the office of seneschal by the new regime in favour of Sir Gilbert Halsale (appointed in May 1400) and Sir Walter Bitterley (appointed in November 1402), each of whom was empowered to act with full authority as deputy for the king’s lieutenant of Ireland within the liberty of Ulster. This may have reflected doubt of the previous office-holders’ loyalty to the new dynasty. As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, in October 1401 and again in August 1402 the Irish chancery rolls refer to English rebels, in the phrase ‘all the king’s rebels and enemies, Scots, Irish and English in Ulster’.48 The attacks of Scottish enemies on Ulster at this point fit into a larger picture. The deposition of Richard II was followed by an invasion of Scotland by Henry IV in August 1400, and the year 1400 also saw a naval battle take place in Strangford Lough between the Scots and the constable of Dublin Castle.49 Anglo-Scottish peace negotiations failed in October 1401, and from the winter of 1401–1402 the Scots court sponsored a pretender, Thomas Ward, ‘the Mammet King’ (d. 1419), who was

152

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

alleged to be King Richard II, escaped from his prison at Pontefract. The chronicler Andrew of Wyntoun claimed that Marjorie Bysset, heiress of the Glens, and former ward of Edmund Savage, who had met Richard II on his 1394–1395 visit to Ireland, identified the pretender as genuine when he first appeared at the court of the lord of the Isles.50 Nevertheless on 5 July 1402 her husband Eoin Mór Mac Domhnaill, ‘lord of the Glynnys’, agreed by indenture to be liegeman to Henry IV, rendering service for his lordship of the Glens and other lands in Ulster, as long as the lordship of Ulster should be in the hands of the king or his heirs.51 It is to be presumed that this slightly sinister proviso referred merely to the royal custody of Ulster during the young earl’s minority. By 14 September 1402 war between Scotland and England had erupted once more and the Scots were severely defeated at the battle of Humbleton or Homildon Hill, although the victorious English commander, Henry Percy (Hotspur), son of the earl of Northumberland, was shortly himself to be defeated and slain in rebellion against Henry IV at the battle of Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403.52 Since the Percies’ rebellion supported young Edmund Mortimer’s dynastic claim, the fact that Mortimer’s earldom in eastern Ulster saw serious disturbances in 1403–1404 may not be wholly unconnected. In September 1402 while a parliament was being held in Dublin, Sir James, son of Geoffrey White, with Christopher White, Bartholomew de Verdon and Stephen Gernon had attacked and killed John Dowdall, sheriff of Louth, and either before or after this James White, we are told, adhered to the king’s Irish enemies and rode against his lieges ‘and robbed and burned them in the said county of Louth’.53 This would not be the first time a group of Louth gentry had combined to kill their sheriff, and it could have been the outcome of a local feud, but it is interesting that as soon as Edmund Mortimer came of age, Sir James White was appointed seneschal of Ulster and continued in that position until after Mortimer’s death.54 It is not necessary to suppose that Sir James White was part of a conspiracy to overturn the authority of Henry IV in favour of a Mortimer claimant, but he may have been so closely identified with the Mortimer interest as to find his career taking a downward turn at the time of the Lancastrian succession, and have reacted violently to this frustration. His comrade-in-arms, Stephen Gernon, had been replaced as constable of Greencastle and Carlingford by John More in March 1401, though whether this was a cause or a result of Gernon’s rebellious behaviour is not clear.55

Katharine Simms 153

Henry IV was already beset at home by rebellions in Wales and elsewhere. Fear lest Ireland become a base from which his enemies could attack him led the king to dispatch one of his own sons, Prince Thomas of Lancaster, to govern the island as king’s lieutenant. Although this prince held the title from 1401 to 1413, he was personally present in Ireland only from November 1401 to November 1403 and from August 1408 to March 1409. The prince was a mere 13 years old when he first took office, and his government was chronically under-funded. The actual business of governing fell largely to his deputy lieutenant Stephen Scrope. When Scrope suddenly absented himself in February 1404 leaving no official substitute, the Irish great council elected James Butler, third earl of Ormond, as justiciar with an emphasis on his military responsibilities, primarily in relation to Ulster.56 Irish and Anglo-Irish records combine to tell us that in 1403 the town of Carrickfergus was burned to the ground, that the seneschal of Ulster, Sir Walter Bitterly, ‘a right valiant knight’, was killed in battle, and that in 1404 the Galls [Anglo-Irish] were driven from the whole province [of Ulaidh] and the North was burned, including lay and church property, and the monasteries – Downpatrick, Inis Draighin [?Rams Island], and Coleraine – were despoiled and demolished by Mac Aonghusa [Magennis], Mac Giollamhuire [MacGilmore] and by Scotsmen.57 Anglo-Irish records add the names of Ó hAnluain, chief of south Armagh, Mac Artáin, a vassal of Mág Aonghusa, and ‘McGion’, very possibly the MacEoin Bisset, leader of the cadet kinsmen of the former Bisset lords of the Glens of Antrim. With the help of the third earl of Ormond a remnant of the colonists were reinstated.58 In a reversal of the Lancastrian administration’s previous policies, in July 1403 James White was pardoned all treasons, including the murder of John Dowdall, sheriff of Louth, and he and his associates, Christopher White, Stephen Gernon and Bartholomew de Verdon, had their lands and possessions restored in January 1405.59 Meanwhile Edmund, son of Edmund Savage, was appointed seneschal of Ulster in January 1404, and Robert White became chancellor and treasurer of the liberty about the same date. In 1405 Edmund, son of Edmund Savage, was granted lands formerly held by his father, late seneschal of Ulster, because they were ‘wasted by the Irish and Scotch rebels and the king’s lieges have been removed

154

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

therefrom’.60 The reference to the Scots as ‘rebels’ rather than ‘enemies’ suggests that the followers of the Mac Domhnaill lord of the Glens of Antrim are intended. This return to reliance on local men and local methods seems to have paid off. In December 1406 Primate Fleming of Armagh mentioned that war had recently arisen between Aodh, son of Art Mág Aonghusa, and the sons of Cú Uladh Rúadh Ó Néill.61 The sons of Cú Uladh apparently supported the claims of Aodh’s cousin, a son of the late chief Muircheartach Óg Mág Aonghusa. In 1407 they allied with another of the recent rebels, Adam Mac Giolla Muire and drove Aodh Mág Aonghusa from his territory, forcing him to seek refuge with the Savages of Down. Together Mág Aonghusa and the Savages turned on his pursuers, defeated them roundly and killed Adam Mac Giolla Muire, who with his son Aodh was chiefly blamed by the colonists for the worst excesses of the recent uprising. The following year in 1408 we are told the Savage family killed Aodh, son of Adam Mac Giolla Muire, while he sought sanctuary in one of the churches of Carrickfergus that he had previously desecrated. Thady Dowling’s account, elaborating that of Marleburrough, saw Aodh’s death not only as divine punishment for having burned forty churches during the recent uprising, but as vengeance for his earlier cruel treatment of Patrick Savage, when he had held him prisoner.62 With Aodh Mág Aonghusa re-established in the kingship of Iveagh as an ally of the Savages, eastern Ulster seems to have won a few precious years of peace. In 1410 James, son of Geoffrey White, was licensed to foster his sons and daughters with Muircheartach, son of Cú Uladh Rúadh Ó Néill, or any other Ó Néill, Irish enemies of the king in the marches of Louth, to treat with them and enter relations of gossipred (god-parenthood) to the king’s profit. Then in 1414–1415 he was made seneschal of Ulster in succession to Patrick Savage (the report of whose death in 1404 may have been somewhat exaggerated).63 It would seem that the events of 1403–1404 had as many layers as an onion. Clearly both Gaelic Irish and Anglo-Irish were well aware of the upheavals taking place in England. The contemporary fragment of annals compiled in Irish by Canon Augustine Mac Gráidhin [MacGrane] of Saints’ Island, Lough Ree, although enthusiastic about the even-handed approach shown by King Richard II during his first expedition to Ireland in 1394–1395, sounds more critical in 1397, when he reported that King Richard had ruined his own father’s brother, the Duke of Lancaster, ‘to avenge the murder he had committed at the instigation of the king, when he ruined the archbishop and others’ and

Katharine Simms 155

added that ‘Thomas Mortimer was banished by the king of England to Scotland for the same reason’, suggesting his information came through a Mortimer contact. In 1403 the canon notes ‘a great war among the English, and the king defeated the faction opposed to him’, indicating acceptance of the Lancastrian monarch’s title, and in 1405 he observes neutrally ‘a great war by the Scotsmen and the Welsh against the English’.64 Eastern Ulster may well have felt more involved, given that the intermittent war between the Scots and the English had included a naval battle off the Ulster coast, that the Scots king’s support for the claims of the false Richard II had been partly due to the assertions of Marjorie Bysset, heiress of the Glens of Antrim, and that the Mac Domhnaill lordship of the Glens was gradually bringing an influx of Scots onto the Irish mainland. As vassals of the earls of March and Ulster, the colonists would have known that there was talk of a Mortimer claim to the throne, which if successful might have led to their local problems gaining somewhat higher priority on the agenda of the Anglo-Irish administration. However, there were other more immediate developments to concern them. One was the encroachment of the White family from county Louth to take over the dominant position within the Ulster colony previously enjoyed by the Savages of the Ards. Both these Anglo-Irish families had alliances with the Irish enemies. The Savages’ connection with the Mág Aonghusa chiefs seems to have been particularly long-standing, and it is interesting that Marleburrough’s chronicle, which indicates approval for the third earl of Ormond ‘whose death was much lamented’ and sympathy with the sufferings of the Savage family, says nothing of the role of Mág Aonghusa in the uprising but demonises Mac Giolla Muire ‘that had caused forty churches to be destroyed, who was never baptized, and therefore he was called Corbi’, whereas the letter written to the fourth earl of Ormond in 1420, during Sir James White’s period of dominance, rants hysterically about the cruel perversity of the tyrant Mág Aonghusa as the sole cause of the colony’s troubles. In actual fact in 1420 a much wider federation of Ulster chiefs was beginning to form, in which Mág Aonghusa was only a minor player, and when the fourth earl of Ormond came north to deal with him, far from killing or deposing him, he took his hostages and handed them over to the Great Ó Néill.65 Another theme during this period is the rise of a sub-lordship of the sons of Cú-Uladh Ruadh O’Neill, who amassed lands in south Armagh at the expense of the archbishop, and who tried to increase their political influence by interfering in the dynastic squabbles of the neighbouring

156

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

dynasty of Mág Aonghusa. Sir James White was clearly contemplating alliance with this branch of the Uí Néill in 1410, and this association may have begun earlier, since he joined unnamed ‘Irish enemies’ in attacking the king’s subjects in Louth in 1402.66 If one asks who profited from the great uprising of the Ulster Irish in 1403–1404 the answer would have to be the Savage family. The office of seneschal, vacant by the slaying of Sir Walter Bitterly at the hands of the rebels, was filled successively by Edmund, son of Edmund Savage, and Patrick Savage. At the close of the war the ‘lands, rents and services of which Edmund his father was seized in the earldom, and which pertain to the king’ were granted for life to Edmund, son of Edmund Savage, ‘because they have been wasted by the Irish and Scotch rebels and the king’s lieges have been removed from them’.67 The wording suggests that there may have been an intervening period in which the lands held by Edmund Savage senior had been repossessed by the king. Could this have been the casus belli? There are some grounds for suspicion in the subsequent alliance of Aodh Mág Aonghusa and the Savages in 1407, but there is no smoking gun.

Lewis

CúUlad ‘heir to the lordship of Ui Echach’ sl. 1453.

Cathbarr

Aed

Art Kg, fl. 1427– 1449 (Cal. Swayne, pp. 14, 61; Sub. to Ric. Duke of York 1449)

Hugh,1st Viscount lveagh

Ruaidri Kg 1424–6 sl. by Brian Magennis

son of Muirchertach, supported by sons of Cú Ulad O’Neill in 1407 (AFM)

Muirchertach Óc, Kg. sub. to Ric II in 1395 attacked by Edmund Savage & CúUlad O’Neill separately sl. 1399 by kin (AFM,ALC)

Aed Kg fl. 1407–1424 allied to Savage family

Art na Madmann Kg 1360imprisoned 1380, d. 1383 (AFM)

Muirchertach Rlaganach Magennis sl. by brothers/kin 1349 (AFM) kg of Ulbh Eathach (lveagh, co. Down)

Patrick Savage Sen. Richard Savage sl. by of Ulster before 1413 Adam MacGilmore 1404 (sl. 1404 by Adam (Ann. Marleburrough) MacGilmore ?) Robert Savage fl. 1433–48

Raibilin (Liitle Ralph) Savage sl. by Bissets 1383 (AU)

CúUlad ‘heir to kgshp’ sub. to Ric II sl. by English 1396 (AFM)

Janico Savage Patrick Óg Savage Seneschal, 1452–68 Seneschal of Ulster ‘captain of his nation’ fl. 1470 expelled from office by O’Neill and the Whites

Sir Henry Robert Savage Savage m. fl. 1360–83 Christiana MacDonald 1387 Sir Edmund titz Edmund Savage Sen. of Ulster fl. 1404–5

Jenkin Savage sl. by Magennis 1375 (AU) Sir Edmund Savage, Seneschal of Ulster fl. 1385–98

Sir Robert Savage, Seneschal of Ulster fl. 1334–1352 d. 1360

Edmund White Const. of Greencastle & Carlingford 1469 Echmilid Magennis fl. 1315 (Cal Close Rolls p. 218)

Ruaidri Kg. sl. 1401 by sons of Cú Ulad O’Neill & by bro. Cathbarr (AU)

Art sl 1360 by sons of Savage & son of Muirchertach Riaganach (AFM)

Gilla Riabach

?

Christopher John Patrick Sen. of Ulster 1470

Sir James fitz Geoffrey White fl. 1402–1448 seneschal of Ulster 1414, 1417, 1425, 1426 Constable of Carrickfergus 1427

Sir Geoffrey White of Carlingford fl. 1366 sl. by Niall Óg O’Neill 1392

Genealogical Chart

157

158

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

Notes 1. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 344; see also a brief discussion by Crooks, ‘Factionalism’, 287. TNA SC 1/57/69. I am most grateful to Dr Elizabeth Matthew, who supplied me with a transcript of this text, with added comments. 2. ‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle’, 19–21, 23 (AD 1404, 1407, 1408); AFM, AD 1407, 1408. 3. Reports of Commissioners, 54–6; see Simms, ‘Niall Garbh II’, 11–12. 4. NAI Lodge MS, 215; Rot. Pat. Hib., 160, no. 8; 165, no. 207. 5. Orpen, Ireland, IV, 133–6; Curtis, ‘Sheriffs’ Accounts’, 10–11. 6. Thirty-Sixth Report of the Deputy Keeper, 32–3. 7. CDI 1252–84, 148. 8. CPR 1272–81, 7. 9. CDI 1252–84, nos. 952, 953, 1918. 10. Orpen, Normans, IV, 243–9; Clyn, 207, 211 (AD 1331, 1333); CCR 1330–33, 410; CCR 1333–37, 187, 209. 11. Rot. Pat. Hib., 38, no. 56; 45, no. 56; CPR 1338–40, 403; CCR 1349–54, 442; CSM, II, 391–2. 12. NAI RC 8/28, 172 (I owe this reference to the late Phil Connolly); TNA SC 6/1239/32; NLI, MS no. 761, 219. 13. Rot. Pat. Hib., 90, no. 132; 104, no. 75; 108, no. 66; 118 no. 125. 14. CSM, II, 391–2. 15. AFM, AD 1360. See the genealogical chart accompanying this chapter. 16. Register of Milo Sweteman, 13–15, no. 10. 17. AU, AD 1374. 18. Richardson and Sayles, Irish Parliament, 132; Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 129; CSM, II, 283; Dowdall Deeds, 103; AC, AU, and AFM, 1374, AD 1375. 19. AU, AD 1380. 20. Wood, ‘Muniments of Edmund de Mortimer’; Curtis, ‘Feudal Charters’; BL Additional MS 6041, section on ‘Ultonia’ (an unpublished edition and translation of this section is contained in TCD, Curtis Papers Box II). 21. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 313–14; AU, III, 4–5; AFM, IV, 676–9, 690–1. 22. AClon, 306–7. 23. Rot. Pat. Hib., 124, no. 52; 139, no. 80. The ‘Edmund son of Robert Savage’ named in CCR 1392–6, 157 seems to be the same individual. 24. CCR 1392–6, 20; CPR 1396–9, 419. 25. Rot. Pat. Hib., 137, no. 218; 146, no. 198; Kingston, Ulster and the Isles, 50–1, esp. notes 105–6. 26. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 216. 27. ‘An Account of Military Expenditure’, 1–5; see Simms, ‘Gaelic Warfare’, 108–10. 28. Curtis, Richard II, 89–90, 140–3. 29. Great Book of Irish Genealogies, III, 166–7, para. 832.1; this genealogy was earlier published by Curtis in ‘The MacQuillan or Mandeville Lords’, in which he mistakenly argued that the Mag Uighilín family was a branch of

Katharine Simms 159

30.

31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36.

37.

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47.

48. 49.

the de Mandevilles. MacFirbhisigh’s genealogy groups them with the Welsh families settled in Tirawley, county Mayo. Rot. Pat. Hib., 138, nos. 43–5; 145, no. 140; AU, III, 20–1. On the ‘Bonaght of Ulster’, see Simms, ‘Gaelic Warfare’, 108–10; Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74, 288–9; Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, 261. CPR 1389–92, 404. Stanley was replaced in office that year by the bishop of Meath – Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 322–3. CPR 1389–92, 405. Rot. Pat. Hib., 147, no. 242; AU, III, 26–7; AFM, IV, 722–5. According to the Four Masters and the Leabhar Eoghanach, Niall Óg slew Geoffrey White in single combat – Leabhar Cloinne Aodha Buidhe, 34. On the office of keeper of the peace, see Frame, ‘Judicial Powers’. Roll of Proceedings, 191; Rot. Pat. Hib., 151, no. 19; CCR 1392–6, 157–8; Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, 261. CCR 1392–6, 157–8. Bennett, Richard II, 22–3; See Tuck, Richard II, 171–2 for objections from Arundel, Warwick and Northumberland to Mortimer receiving livery of his inheritance. Rowlands, ‘Iolo Goch’, 125. See Davies, Revolt, 38, 41. The Welsh term ‘Grednel’, line 131 of the poem, is a version of the English phrase ‘the Great O’Neill’. Richard II uses the French equivalent ‘le grand Onel’ (see below). The English version occurs in a letter to the king’s council in England in 1417 – Original Letters, I, 59. The phrase presumably served to distinguish the leaders of the Tyrone Uí Néill from their less powerful relatives, the Clann Aodha Buidhe Uí Néill in south Antrim. Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, 150–77; Lydon, ‘Richard II’s Expeditions’, 142–3. Miscellaneous Irish Annals, 152–3; NAI, Lodge MS, 15. Curtis, Richard II, 58, 60, 68–9, 70, 97, 98, 103, 106; Anglo-Norman Letters, 211. Curtis, Richard II, 131, 145. See above, n. 30. Curtis, Richard II, 135, 143. Ibid., pp. 88–90, 140–1, 176–9, 219–20. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 334–5; Johnston, ‘Interim Years’, 179–81; Miscellaneous Irish Annals, 156–7; AFM, IV, 746–7, note q. Acts of Archbishop Colton; ‘Metropolitan Visitation of the Diocese of Derry’; Watt, ‘John Colton’, 204–11. O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 112; Johnston, ‘Interim Years’, 190; Roll of Proceedings, 262–3; Irish Historical Documents, 68; Rot. Pat. Hib., 158, no. 119, 159, no. 7. The Four Masters, who are one year behind for most of their entries just before and after the year 1400, say under 1398 ‘the English and Irish of the province of Ulster (O’Donnell only excepted) went into the house of O’Neill, and gave him hostages and submission’ (AFM, IV, 756–7). Original Letters, I, 24–6; Kirby, Henry IV, 152, 156; Tuck, Richard II, 223; Bennett, Richard II, 206–7. Henry ‘Hotspur’ Percy, son of the earl of Northumberland, was married to Elizabeth Mortimer, sister of the late Roger (d. 1398). Rot. Pat. Hib., 157, nos. 71–2; 172, nos. 16, 21; NAI, Lodge MS, 215; Rot. Pat. Hib., 160, no. 8; 165, no. 207. Barrell, Medieval Scotland, 148–9; ‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle’, 17.

160

The Ulster Revolt of 1404

50. Chron. Wyntoun, VI, 390; Morgan, ‘Henry IV’, 9–10; Kingston, Ulster and the Isles, 50 n. 100. 51. The text of Eoin Mór’s submission is recorded in London College of Arms MS, William Lynch: Repertory of Irish Memoranda rolls, vol. 4, 33 (for which reference I thank Kenneth Nicholls), and in NAI, J. F. Ferguson’s ‘Repertory to the Memoranda Rolls’ ii (Hen. IV and Hen. V), 54 (for which reference I thank Dorothy Johnston). 52. Nicholson, Scotland: The Later Middle Ages, 218–24. 53. ‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle’, 18; CPR 1401–05, 242, 481. 54. See Smith, ‘Murder of Richard Gernon’; NAI RC 8/34, 3, 11; NAI RC 8/37, 6; Reports of Commissioners, 56; CPR 1422–9, 287, 383. 55. CPR 1399–1401, 449. 56. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 341–4. 57. Rot. Pat. Hib., 170, no. 74; Miscellaneous. Irish Annals, 172–3 (AD 1404); ‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle’, 18 (AD 1403); TNA SC 1/57/69. It is noticeable that neither the Uí Néill of Tyrone nor even those of Clann Aodha Buidhe in south Antrim are mentioned in connection with the disturbances in eastern Ulster. They had their own preoccupations, with the death of Niall Óg Ó Néill in late 1403 being rapidly followed by that of his son and heir, Brian Óg Ó Néill in 1404 bringing a disputed succession and civil war in mid-Ulster. See Simms, ‘Niall Garbh II’, 10–11. 58. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 344; TNA SC 1/57/69; ‘Lord Chancellor Gerrard’s Notes’, 206–8. 59. CPR 1401–05, 242, 481. 60. Rot. Pat. Hib., 177, no. 54; 180, no. 24; CPR 1405–08, 88. 61. Register of Nicholas Fleming, 28–31, nos. 34, 35. 62. AFM, IV, 794–7; ‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle’, 19–21, 23; Annals of Ireland, 26 (separately paginated). 63. CPR 1405–08, 284, 294; Rot. Pat. Hib., 196, no. 82; NAI RC 8/34, 3, 11, 14, 320, 459. 64. Miscellaneous Irish Annals, 161, 171, 175. 65. Simms, ‘Niall Garbh II’, 11–12; AFM, IV, 844–5 (AD 1420). 66. Simms, ‘Archbishops of Armagh’, 50; Register of Nicholas Fleming, nos. 44, 74, 150, 160, 191. 67. CPR 1405–08, 88.

11 Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade Elizabeth Matthew

In the spring of 1421 a parliament of the English lordship of Ireland proposed that King Henry V should ask the pope to authorise a crusade in Ireland against the native, Gaelic Irish. The proposal was abortive – there is no evidence that Ireland saw any resulting crusading action – and although there is no reason to doubt that the proposal was sent to England, no details have come to light of discussion of it, or reaction to it, there.1 It has aroused relatively little interest amongst historians of medieval Ireland, and apparently none amongst crusading specialists, who, of course, have a wealth of more promising, betterdocumented topics to research elsewhere. Yet, abortive as it was, this proposal for an Irish crusade does raise some interesting questions. The context seems unexpected, even improbable. Henry V, although outstandingly impressive as a soldier king, has little reputation as a crusader. He is probably better known for the report of his deathbed regret that he had not led a crusade to Jerusalem, than for the interesting initiative that he launched in May 1421 with Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy to sound out the diplomatic and military prospects for a new crusade to the East through the two-year mission of Ghillebert de Lannoy to Russia, Constantinople, Rhodes, Jerusalem, Cairo, Crete and Venice.2 Ireland was to attract some post-Reformation crusading activity in the late sixteenth century, but none of the obvious crusading targets – infidels, pagans or heretics – were present there in 1421, and although some historians have drawn parallels between the initial assertion of English royal lordship with papal approval in the late twelfth century and crusading activity elsewhere, Ireland had never previously been an arena for warfare of an explicitly crusading nature.3 What then prompted this proposal, and what light does it shed on early fifteenth-century Ireland, and on late medieval notions of crusading? Before considering 161

162

Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade

these questions, the context and terms of the proposal need closer examination. The proposal for an Irish crusade was just one element of a lengthy petition to Henry V from the ‘poor humble lieges’ who assembled in Dublin for an eighteen-day session of parliament opening on 7 April at the summons of his then lieutenant in Ireland, James Butler, fourth earl of Ormond.4 The first article of this petition presented an emphatic restatement of a theme that had featured in several missives to England across the previous seven decades: the king’s loyal subjects and land of Ireland, ravaged by Irish enemies and English rebels, were soon likely to be entirely ruined and destroyed for ever.5 Earlier predictions of imminent collapse had been crucial, initially, in prompting Edward III’s ‘watershed’ decision to send his son Lionel of Antwerp to Ireland in 1361 with significant military and financial backing from England, and, subsequently, in sustaining fluctuating, but continuing, English support thereafter. There can be little doubt that the parliament of 1421 had these precedents firmly in mind. The nub of the statement of distress in the petition’s first article was a plea for Henry V to visit Ireland in person: ‘Your said land has fallen so greatly into decline that [it] will never have relief . . . without your most sovereign and most gracious presence.’6 In this ‘frontier’ area of the royal dominions, where, despite some pragmatic cross-cultural interaction, colonial and native polities had never been fully integrated, English rule certainly remained far less extensive and secure in 1421 than in its mid-thirteenth-century heyday.7 Private war, native and colonial, was endemic. Moreover, recent royal policies had engendered new and persistent factional tensions at the heart of the Dublin government. Ormond’s long-running feud with his predecessor John Talbot, Lord Furnival (lieutenant 1414–1420) and the latter’s brother, Richard, archbishop of Dublin, was to be a salient feature of politics in Ireland until the later 1440s.8 Under Ormond in the years 1420–1422, the Dublin administration was making determined efforts to increase its reach and effectiveness at a time when financial support from England had been significantly reduced; nevertheless, the returns from subsidies granted by three other assemblies he held during this lieutenancy indicate that only eastern and southern Ireland was fully responsive to its financial demands.9 The problems within this area are illustrated by an incident that took place barely a week after the petition was sent to the king from the Dublin parliament of 1421. On 7 May a force serving the lieutenant was routed at Lea on the River Barrow, just 40 miles south-west of Dublin. At the hands of Ó Mordha of Laois, twenty-seven English were reported killed, ten captured, and 200 forced

Elizabeth Matthew 163

to flee for refuge in a nearby monastery.10 The April petition had enumerated a host of other concerns and grievances; 18 further articles had raised issues ranging from the oppressions and extortions of John Talbot and the need for more competent exchequer officials to worries about absentee lords, emigrating artisans and husbandmen, and piracy in the Irish Sea. The proposal for a crusade was made in Article 4. This also specified the grounds on which the petitioners thought a crusade might be justified. The argument referred back to events that had taken place 26 years earlier in 1395, at the time of the first of the two expeditions to Ireland led by Richard II. It may be summarised as follows. At that time, the leading provincial chiefs – Mac Murchadha [of Leinster], Ó Néill [of Tyrone], Ó Briain of Thomond, Ó Conchobhair Donn of Connacht – and various other Gaelic Irish had freely submitted to King Richard, becoming liegemen – lieges homes – of him, and his heirs as kings of England, for themselves, their children, kin and people for ever. They had voluntarily bound themselves to keep their allegiance on pain of monetary forfeits to the pope and his successors. The petitioners thought that the documents recording this could be found in England, in the king’s treasury. Since then, these Irish had become disloyal and rebellious – dislieges et rebeux – attacking and destroying loyal subjects. King Henry was urged to send letters to the pope, certifying and proclaiming all these circumstances, in order to have a crusade – une croysorie – against the said Irish enemies for the relief and eternal peace of Ireland and the king’s loyal subjects there, and the destruction of the said enemies, with the help of God.11 This was a proposal for a crusade against Christians. There was no hint of accusations of doctrinal deviance such as that provided the basis for the crusade launched against Christians in another part of Europe in 1420, that against the Hussites in Bohemia.12 Nor was there any attempt to resort to the schismatic justification that had underpinned Owain Glyn Dwr’s abortive proposal for a Welsh, Clementist crusade ˆ against Henry IV of England in 1406 and the earlier, English, Urbanist, crusading expeditions to Flanders and Castile in the 1380s.13 While a schismatic justification might still have been theoretically possible in 1421, given the personal determination of Benedict XIII not to accept his deposition at the Council of Constance in 1417, this was a less likely scenario in the post-Schism era, particularly in an Irish context. There had been no sign of any division in papal obedience between the English and the Gaelic Irish when the native chiefs had made their submissions to Richard II in the 1395.14 The grounds cited in favour of the proposed

164

Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade

Irish crusade in 1421 were entirely political, characterising the Gaelic Irish as rebels against royal – and papal – authority. Brief published comments on the proposal to date have focused primarily on its significance for assessments of the Irish policy of Richard II: it has been cited as an indication of how little the Irish submissions to him achieved, and of the fragility of his efforts. In discussing the content of the petition of 1421 in the context of early fifteenth-century politics, neither Edmund Curtis nor A. J. Otway-Ruthven mentioned the crusade proposal at all.15 Otherwise it has been identified merely as evidence of a desire ‘to punish’ the Gaelic Irish for ‘broken promises’, or as an ‘impractical’ expression of the ‘animosity’ and ‘exasperation’ of colonists towards natives.16 There are perhaps some parallels here with historians’ former neglect, or dismissal, of ‘political’ crusading elsewhere in medieval Europe. In the light of subsequent work, highlighting the number, importance and contemporary acceptance of crusades elsewhere against Christians who were rebels rather than heretics, some further investigation of this proposal for an Irish crusade is surely due.17 In this context, the construction of a case on broken promises becomes more significant. In the ‘genealogy’ of the ‘ “political” crusade’, attempts by eleventh-century churchmen to use armed force to enforce the observance of peace-oaths, and popular enthusiasm for this, have been identified as crucial precedents.18 The proposal for an Irish crusade was not ‘impractical’ per se. Had it not proved abortive, possibly ‘Ireland’s good fortune’ in being ‘Christian and unfashionable’ by comparison with the lures, spiritual and modish, of late medieval crusading in Prussia and Lithuania, might have perished in mud and blood.19 As a ‘political’ crusading proposal, it is also of interest in the light of work on the adoption and adaptation of the crusading ethos in late medieval Christendom’s frontier societies. Here the context was generally one of religious, rather than political, difference.20 Moreover, its content, its timing and additional documentary evidence all suggest that it was more seriously considered than has previously been assumed. The proposal rather underplayed the number of the original submissions to Richard II: there had been as many as 80. But in other respects it was well informed. The submissions of 1395 had indeed included oaths of liege homage in the terms stated.21 While some had not mentioned monetary penalties to the papal curia for any violation of these oaths, many had, specifying substantial sums from 1000 marks upwards.22 A few, including the leading chiefs named in the petition, had pledged huge forfeits of 20,000 marks each.23 The petitioners were on secure ground too in suggesting that King Henry might find corroborative

Elizabeth Matthew 165

evidence in his ‘treasury’ in England. The original notarial instruments in which the submissions had been recorded had been deposited in the English chancery; copies had been entered on the memoranda roll of the king’s remembrancer in the English exchequer for the regnal year of Richard’s expedition.24 In revisiting events a quarter-century old, hearsay seems to have been checked against memories, probably against records remaining in Ireland too. The proposal did not substantiate its charge that those who had submitted to Richard had since become disloyal and rebellious. If the memories were sharp enough, this might well have been perceived as dangerous ground: in large measure, the rapid resumption of hostilities in Ireland after 1395 had been due to colonial provocation and failure to redress native grievances.25 But further detail may simply have been thought unnecessary. The young Henry himself, knighted in Ireland by Richard in 1399, had witnessed the latter’s attempt to retrieve the situation by military force, curtailed by the news of the invasion of England that had led to his deposition.26 Henry’s brother, Thomas, had narrowly escaped death at native hands as lieutenant in Ireland in 1408, after Lancastrian efforts to secure new Gaelic promises of allegiance had met with only limited, short-lived success.27 With the benefit of hindsight, the proposal for an Irish crusade seems ill-timed. In April 1421 little opportunity remained for Henry, already in the penultimate year of his short reign, to bring any major new initiative in Ireland to effect, and he was likely to have been wary of one that required papal authorisation. Martin V was then increasing his pressure for the annulment of the fourteenth-century statutes limiting papal rights in England. April 1421 saw his new collector, Simon de Teramo, addressing convocation at Canterbury, and the king himself, on the vexed question of papal provisions.28 Moreover, the early part of the month had brought Henry the wholly unexpected news of the death of his brother, Thomas (since 1412 duke of Clarence), in battle against Franco-Scottish forces on 22 March at Baugé, news that ensured the continuing concentration of Henry’s main attention – and remaining efforts – on France.29 But in Ireland, news of Baugé was only reported as ‘stirring’ as, or shortly after, the Dublin parliament dispersed.30 As Henry’s support had been so decisive in 1417 in securing the election of Pope Martin at the Council of Constance, the two men were probably perceived to be close allies.31 Moreover, it seems likely that the timing of the petition, indeed of the assembly too, had been prompted by determination to seize what would have appeared to be a particularly

166

Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade

propitious opportunity for approaching the king. On 1 February, after three and a half years abroad, Henry had returned to England from Paris via Rouen for the coronation of Queen Katherine. In May he was due to preside over a parliament at Westminster.32 His successful war of conquest in France had been supported actively by men from Ireland, including Ormond himself, passively by wider interest amongst colonists and natives.33 The circumstances in 1421 echoed those of two generations earlier, when the lordship of Ireland had petitioned successfully for help from England in 1360 in the wake of Edward III’s ‘great peace’ with the French at Brétigny. This earlier petition had been sent from a great council at Kilkenny held by Ormond’s grandfather, a man still remembered and admired four decades after his death in 1382.34 Additional evidence of what seems to be a further refinement of the crusade proposal after the drafting of the fourth article of the petition has survived in an untitled, original document amongst the Cottonian manuscripts in the British Library. After some previous uncertainty about its date, further investigation, identifying close links with material in the petition, suggested that it was a brief for the bearers of the petition to the king.35 One side, interspersing earlier complaints against an unnamed lieutenant, identifiable as John Talbot, with explanatory annotations, seems likely to have been a copy or draft of an ‘instrument’, which the fifth clause of the petition of 1421 urged the king to hear and inspect for information about alleged impropriety of conduct on the part of the chancellor of Ireland, Lawrence Merbury, at a parliament in January 1417. Shorter notes on the dorse list a series of memoranda. Crucially, in the context of the petition’s proposal for a crusade, the second of these notes exhorts the reader to remember the fealty and allegiance that the Irish made to King Richard II ‘included in your message’.36 It then offers the additional information that ‘all the Irish princes of Ireland became liege subjects . . . of their free will’ to Henry II in 1172. Citing ‘the book of Cambrensis’, the account of the English conquest of Ireland written by Gerald of Wales in the late 1180s, it stresses, accurately and with the obvious intention of drawing a direct parallel with the submissions of 1395, that this source ‘does not say one word of any act of war that the same king [Henry] made in Ireland’.37 Three succeeding notes seem equally pertinent to the crusade proposal outlined in the petition. These state that all Christian isles ‘belong to the right of the holy father and the church of Rome’, that Henry II’s rights in Ireland derived from grants by Popes Adrian [IV] and Alexander [III], and that the papal legate Vivian (in 1177) had

Elizabeth Matthew 167

threatened all those in Ireland contravening their allegiance to the king of England with excommunication.38 The petition had presented the proposal that Henry V should ask the pope to proclaim a crusade separately from its opening plea for the king to come to Ireland in person. But, in contrast to this, the dorsal memoranda on the brief address these desiderata together, weaving elaborated versions of the two strands of argument in the first and fourth articles of the petition, into a single, forceful case for royal action. The first note, preceding the one discussing the submissions to Richard II and Henry II, is a reminder that the earl of Ormond had already stressed in a formal ‘message’, and in other ‘letters . . . to the king’s brothers and his councillors and the earl of March’ how much the king’s presence was wanted in ‘these parts’ of Ireland.39 Following the notes relating to papal authority over Ireland, further memoranda delve into legend to establish earlier precedents for the assertion, and acknowledgement, of ‘British’ and Arthurian authority over Ireland and its inhabitants.40 A final note, citing Gerald and ‘ancient histories of England’, and inserting a qualification about the preservation of the liberties of Ireland’s Church, leaves no doubt of the purpose of this careful research: ‘Therefore, from first to last, the right of our lord the king to Ireland is good.’41 This was an approach well designed to appeal to a king whose initial campaign in France in 1415 had been preceded and justified by new, exhaustive investigation, across several centuries of past history, into the rights and lands he could claim there.42 Unfortunately, the memoranda are unattributed, nor do we know precisely how, or with whom, the novel proposal for an Irish crusade originated. However, it is possible to make a few inferences about the roles of three men closely associated with the genesis of the parliament’s petition to the king: Ormond, the presiding lieutenant; and the two envoys chosen to go to England, Sir Christopher Preston and Archbishop John Swayne of Armagh.43 On taking office as lieutenant in 1420, Ormond had famously commissioned a new English translation of the advice-manual for rulers, the Secreta secretorum, with illustrative detail from Irish history. This presented in more ordered, polished form a justification of ‘oure kynges right to the lordshupe of Irland’, similar in matter and conclusion to that in the brief. There is at least a possibility that the original research for the latter was carried out by the translator, Dublin notary James Young, at Ormond’s behest. But while the brief highlights Ormond’s persistence in lobbying for a royal expedition to Ireland, it makes no

168

Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade

mention of any personal desire on his part for a crusade.44 This evidence seems significant in the light of the petition’s separation of the plea for a royal expedition from the proposal for a crusade, and of the ordering of these desiderata within the petition. But if not the prime originator of the crusade proposal, Ormond is likely to have found its merits persuasive. Born in 1390, he was old enough to have had childhood memories of Henry’s visit to Ireland in Richard II’s company in 1399, perhaps even of the Gaelic submissions to Richard in 1395, some of which his father, the third earl of Ormond, had helped to negotiate.45 With his lands and connections in England, and his extensive service to the crown outside Ireland, the fourth earl will certainly have been aware of Henry’s personal reverence for Richard’s memory, his piety and interest in ecclesiastical affairs, perhaps of his crusading ambitions too.46 Probably in England when Henry and Sigismund sealed the treaty of Canterbury in August 1416, Ormond might well have imagined that the example offered by the emperor’s readiness to crusade within Europe in 1420 would carry weight with his ally.47 And, in the light of the Dublin government’s straitened financial circumstances of 1421, a further, practical consideration of potential attraction to king and lieutenant was that a crusading initiative in Ireland might be expected to secure new sources of funds and manpower.48 Ormond, of course, had native allies as well as enemies, could speak Irish, and was later, if not already, an enthusiastic patron of Gaelic culture.49 But it has been demonstrated that peaceful, pragmatic, political, cultural and trading links in everyday life did not preclude crusading and holy warfare in frontier regions.50 Sir Christopher Preston of Gormanston, Meath, is now best known for his arrest in Ireland in 1418 in possession of a copy of the royal coronation oath and a version of the political tract, the Modus tenendi parliamentum.51 Although from a colonial family relatively sheltered from frontier warfare and noted for its lack of contact with the Gaelic Irish, he had been knighted campaigning against the Uí Bhroin [O’Byrnes] in 1397, the year he gained livery of his lands.52 He will have been well aware of the context and aftermath of the submissions to Richard II of 1395. But he owed his gentry status in large measure to the success of his father and grandfather as lawyers. It would scarcely be surprising if the brief associated with the 1421 petition was prepared for him, particularly in the light of its material relating to accusations against the Talbot regime. He had been conspicuous as a leader of opposition to it. But in this context it is also worth noting that this first part

Elizabeth Matthew 169

of the brief was more extensive than the dorsal memoranda on royal and papal authority over Ireland. It seems likely that the fifth article of the petition was of greater interest to Preston than the notion or justification of the proposed crusade. The crusade proposal may well have been closer to the heart of the other bearer of the petition to England, John Swayne. First known as a clerk of illegitimate birth in the diocese of Kildare in May 1399, he too may have had some memories of Richard II in Ireland. However, although he held various benefices in Ireland, he had pursued a career in papal service abroad at the courts of Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII, Alexander V and John XXIII, then as a legal adviser at the Council of Constance, where he established links with the German as well as the English nation. It was there that he was appointed and consecrated as archbishop of Armagh by the newly elected Martin V early in 1418. He was also a doctor of civil and canon law who claimed to have been rector of the University of Siena.53 Here was a man likely to have had some grasp of the precedents for political crusades against Christians in Italy. He was also one unlikely to have left Constance for his new duties as a metropolitan in Ireland without being informed of Martin V’s anxiety to restore papal rights in the new reforming post-Schism era. Swayne might well have considered that the crusade proposal offered a promising means of advancing this cause and that of the further reform of the Irish church. He will also have been aware of the interest and enthusiasm for crusading ventures shown by Martin at Constance.54 He is also unlikely to have had much difficulty in gathering support within the parliament: we know that the lords and commons in the 1421 parliament were ‘troubled’ by extensive accusations of treasonable conduct from Bishop Geese of Lismore and Waterford against Archbishop Ó hÉidigheáin of Cashel, who, he claimed, ‘made very much of the Irish and . . . loved none of the English nation’.55 Recent work has stressed the sophistication and vibrancy of political culture in late medieval Ireland, particularly in relation to the circumstances attending the arrest of Christopher Preston in 1418.56 The proposal for a crusade in 1421 and the intricacy of the arguments assembled to press the case for royal attention are further evidence of this, testifying to some creative, lateral, historically minded thinking at what may have seemed, even if mistakenly, an opportune moment in English and European politics. It is also evidence of the continuing vigour and variety of notions of crusading in late medieval Europe in the immediate post-Schism era.

170

Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade

Appendix The fourth article of the petition to Henry V from the parliament of Ireland held at Dublin, April 142157 Item monstront a vostre dit tres hautisme roiale mageste vos ditz lieges que come al prymer venue de vostre tres noble predecessour le Roy Richard le seconde al dit terre58 plusours greyndrez Chieftayns dirroises nacions cestassavoir McMorgho Oneel Obreene de Tomond Oconoghour de [Conaght]59 et autres diverses irrois soy humblement submysteront ove lour frank volunte demesne et deviendront lieges hommes a luy et ses heirs Royes dengleterre pour eaux lour enfauntz naciones et gentz pour toutz jours et a celle temps fieront leur homage liege et auxint pour la greindre seurte obligeront de bone voloir par plusours Instrumentz en diversez sommes appairs al nostre tressentisme pier le Pape et a sez successours pour fiermement garder lour dit liegeaunces lez queux Instrumentz demerent en vostre tresurie dengleterre sicome vos ditez lieges supposont. Et depuys celle temps tanqe encea les dices personns ount devenuz dislieges et rebeux et degastont et destruont vos dices lieges encontre la fourme suysdice; perount priont vos ditz lieges si plesir soit a vostre tres noble et tres graciouse seigneurie pour acerteyner et escrier a nostre dit tressentisme pier le Pape par voz tres graciousez lettres toutz les materies et choses suisdites ove lour circumstances queconqes pur une croysorie sur ceo aver sur les ditz irrois enemyes en relement et salvacione de mesme vostre terre et voz ditz lieges en ycelle et en perpetuelle destruccione dez dices enemyes ove layde de dieu.

Notes 1. The text of the petition containing the proposal, with details of the envoys chosen to take it to England, and a record of its authorisation under the Irish great seal on 28 April were entered on the Irish patent roll for 9 Henry V: Statutes and Ordinances, 562–85; Rot. Pat. Hib., 221, no. 111. An earlier version of this essay was contributed to ‘The Many Faces of Crusading’, a session at the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, July 2007. I am indebted to all those who discussed it on that occasion, including fellow contributors Professor Malcolm Barber and Dr Rebecca Rist, also to Professor Anne Curry, Dr Margaret Harvey, Dr Katharine Simms and Dr Peter Crooks for help and advice on various points. 2. Noted in Brut, II, 493; Chronicles of Engerrand de Monstrelet, I, 483; First English Life of Henry V, 182; see also Stubbs, Constitutional History, III, 95; Wylie and Waugh, Reign of Henry the Fifth, III, 418; Allmand, Henry V, 174; ‘Survey of Egypt and Syria’; Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, III, 117–18;

Elizabeth Matthew 171

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

Van Elewyck, ‘Ghillebert de Lannoy’, 107–20; Vaughan, Philip the Good, 269; Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 303. For Henry’s hopes that success in France might be the prelude to a new European crusade to the Holy Land, see also Saul, ‘Henry V and the Dual Monarchy’, 146–7; Dockray, Henry V, 224; Curry, Agincourt, 32. Notably Thomas Stukeley’s crusade of 1577–1578 (originally intended for Ireland but diverted to North Africa), the crusading invasion of Ireland in 1579, and the granting of crusade indulgences to Aodh Ó Néill (second earl of Tyrone) in 1600: Silke, Kinsale, 83–4; Dudley Edwards, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 139–44, 165–6; Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 353, 360–1; Housley, Later Crusades, 260; Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 312–14; Barlow, Feudal Kingdom of England, 252, 279; France, The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom 1000–1714, 144–5. Statutes and Ordinances, 562–85, quotation at 562. The opening date, duration and items of business of the parliament were recorded by a contemporary chronicler: Bodleian, Laud Misc. 614, p. 100; Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, 222. For Ormond, who had been appointed in February 1420, see Matthew, ‘Butler, James’. Statutes and Ordinances, 562–3. For the decision of 1361 and its context, see Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 319–26, 333–9, quotation at 333; also Connolly, ‘Financing of English Expeditions’; Johnston, ‘Chief Governors’; Matthew, ‘Financing of the Lordship of Ireland’. For pre-1421 predictions of imminent collapse, see Parliaments and Councils, 19–22; Statutes and Ordinances, 484–7, and quotation at 562–3; Roll of Proceedings, 263–4; Register of Nicholas Fleming, no. 185, p. 182; Original Letters, I, 54–63. Much has been written on this theme. For a recent, wide-ranging essay, see Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’. For studies of particular relevance to fifteenth-century Ireland, see Empey and Simms, ‘Ordinances of the White Earl’; Cosgrove, Late Medieval Ireland, ch. 5; Lydon, ‘Middle Nation’; Watt, ‘Ecclesia inter Anglicos’; Barry, ‘Last Frontier’; Lydon, ‘Nation and Race’; Maginn, ‘English Marcher Lineages’. For the Talbot–Ormond feud, see Matthew, ‘Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, Part II, esp. (for this early era of the feud and its links with the Talbot–Arundel conflict in England) 115–18, 122–8, 143–6, 159–67, 463; also Griffith, ‘Talbot–Ormond Struggle’; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 116–20. For the wider context of later medieval factional conflicts in Ireland, see Crooks, ‘Factions’. Parliaments and Councils, xxiv–xl, 131–85; discussed in Matthew, ‘Financing of the Lordship of Ireland’, 98–101; Matthew, ‘Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, 126–43. Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, 223. A full text of this article of the petition is printed in the Appendix to this chapter. Riley-Smith, Crusades, 274–5; Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, ch. 2. Welsh Records in Paris, 42–54, esp. 54; for the context, see Davies, Revolt, 169–72; Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 333–40; Goodman, John of

172

14.

15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22.

23.

24.

Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade Gaunt, 115–30; Wilks, ‘Roman Candle or Dammed Squib’; DeVries, ‘Reasons for the Bishop of Norwich’s Attack on Flanders’; Oliver, ‘Battling Bishops’. Cross and Livingstone (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 184–5; for residual support for Benedict XIII in Scotland in the early 1420s, see Watt, ‘Papacy and Scotland’, esp. 117–18; Watt, Church in Medieval Ireland, 149–50; for native Irish support for the Roman pope, Boniface IX, in 1395, see Froissart, Chronicles, 414–15. Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 53; D. Johnston, ‘Richard II and the Submissions of Gaelic Ireland’, 20; Duffy, Ireland, 164; Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 296; Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 360–1. Johnston, ‘Richard II and the Submissions of Gaelic Ireland’, 20; Cosgrove, Late Medieval Ireland, 30; Cosgrove, ‘Emergence of the Pale’, 545. See particularly Housley, Italian Crusades, 3, 252–7; S. Lloyd, ‘ “Political Crusades” in England’. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, 21. Frame, ‘War and Peace’, quotations at 238, 239. N. Housley, ‘Frontier Societies’. Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, v. Most Irish submitting in 1395 swore to ‘become liegeman of the lord Richard . . . sovereign lord of me and of my nation, as also of his heirs, kings of England’; to ‘be faithful to the same and his heirs for ever’; and to ‘be obedient to the laws, commands, and ordinances of the same or any of them according to my power and that of all mine’: Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 150 [Latin text at 58]. Niall Mór Ó Néill swore allegiance ‘for me and my sons, my whole nation and kin and all my subjects’, promising that ‘both I and all the aforesaid, my sons, my whole nation and kin, and all my subjects will be faithful to you and our heirs and will bear true fealty to you and your heirs’: Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 190–1 [Latin text at 105–6]. There are echoes of both these formulae in the statement in the fourth article of the 1421 petition that the Irish ‘became liegemen to him [Richard] and his heirs, kings of England, for themselves, their children, nations and people’: for French text, see Appendix. For further discussion of the oaths of 1395, see Johnston, ‘Richard II and the Submissions of Gaelic Ireland’, 11–14; Saul, Richard II, 283–5. Seán Mac Domhnaill’s oath was typical of many in this respect, but in a few cases it was explicitly recorded that no monetary forfeit was pledged: Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 58–9, 150–1, cf. 91–2, 190. 1000 marks were pledged by Niall Ó Maolmhuaidh [O’Molloy]: Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 112, 196. Frequently the sum specified was £1000: Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 57–118, 149–201 passim. Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 66, 91, 157, 179 (Toirdhealbhach Ó Conchobhair Donn); 69, 159–60 (Niall Óg Ó Néill); 78, 167 (Art Mac Murchadha Cáemánach), 93–4, 181 (Brian Ó Briain); others pledging 20,000 marks included Muircheartach Mág Aonghusa (70, 160), Gerald Ó Broin (77–8, 166–7), Tadhg, Domhnall and Cormac Mac Carthaigh (108, 115, 192, 198), Toirdhealbhach Ó Briain [of Arra] (112, 195–6). TNA C 47/10/25; TNA E 159/171, Trinity term, Recorda, Hibernie; Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 1–2; Johnston, ‘Richard II and the Submissions of Gaelic Ireland’, 1.

Elizabeth Matthew 173 25. Johnston, ‘The Interim Years’, 175–95; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 111–12. 26. ‘French Metrical History’, 28–30, 299; D. Johnston, ‘Richard II’s Departure from Ireland, July 1399’, EHR, 98 (1983), 785–805; Allmand, Henry V, 12; Duffy, Ireland, 162–5. 27. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 340–2, 344–5, 348–9; C. Ó Cléirigh, ‘O’Connor Faly Lordship of Offaly’, 89–90; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 114–16. 28. See Harvey, ‘Martin V and Henry V’, 61–5; Harvey, England, Rome and the Papacy, 130–4; Allmand, Henry V, 258–64. 29. Wylie and Waugh, Reign of Henry the Fifth, III, 271–3; Allmand, Henry V, 158–60; see also Milner, ‘Battle of Baugé’. 30. Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, 222–3. 31. Crowder, ‘Henry V, Sigismund and the Council of Constance’; Harvey, ‘Martin V and Henry V’, 50. 32. Wylie and Waugh, Reign of Henry the Fifth, III, 267–70, 275–6; Allmand, Henry V, 155–8, 161. 33. Ormond and his elder half-brother, Thomas Butler, prior of Kilmainham, took part in the siege of Rouen, 1418–1419, the latter, bringing a contingent of 500 directly from Ireland; Ormond also served at Pontoise in summer 1419; Prior Thomas and Earl Thomas fitz John of Desmond died in France in 1419 and 1420: Brut, II, 387, 389–90; Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, 7, 12; Issues of the Exchequer, 356; Griffith, ‘Talbot – Ormond Struggle’, 394; Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 352–4. The dating clause of a letter (4 June 1420) to Ormond from clergy and commons in Ulster appropriately describes the king as ‘most victorious’ a month after the initial agreement in France (5 May) of the peace terms ratified (21 May) at Troyes: TNA SC 1/57/69; for Troyes, see Allmand, Henry V, 142–3. Evidence of native interest in English victories in France, and Prior Thomas’s participation, appears in AC, s.a. 1418, 1419. 34. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 324–5; Frame, ‘Butler, James’. 35. BL, Cotton Titus B xi, no. 26 (formerly f. 13), published in Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 43–52; a later copy of a similar document (containing one additional passage and omitting a paragraph deleted in the original cited above) appears in Lambeth Palace Library, Carew Ms. 608, ff. 66–8. The dating and content are discussed in Matthew, ‘Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, pp. 148–51; see also Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 174. 36. ‘Item faite a remembrer q[ue] touchant la foialte [e]t legeaunce compris en v[ot]re message q[ue] lez Irrois firent a Roy Richard s[e]c[on]de’: BL, Cotton Titus B xi, no. 26d; Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 51. 37. Also mentioning the Council of Cashel: Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 51; cf. Expugnatio Hibernica, 90–105. For detailed discussion of Henry II’s relations with the Irish, see Flanagan, Irish Society, ch. 6. 38. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 51; cf. Expugnatio Hibernica, 142–9, 180–3. There was no reference to King John’s surrender of Ireland (and England) to the papacy in 1213, but this, of course, post-dated Gerald’s work.

174

Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade

39. The formal message may have been a reference to a petition from a parliament held in 1416 by Archbishop Thomas Cranley of Dublin which had named Ormond as its envoy to England: Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 50–1; College of Arms, London, Betham MSS: Repertory to Records of the Exchequer, H.V–H.VI, 567. 40. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 51–2; cf. Expugnatio Hibernica, 148–9. 41. ‘Ergo de primo ad ultimu[m] bone est le droit n[ot]re s[eignu]r le Roy al t[er]re Dirland p[er]issent qil nemblemysshe les lib[er]tez de seynte esglise dicell[e] et toutz cestez matiers b[ie]n app[ar]gent p[ar] le dit lyv[re] de Cambren[sis] [e]t anxiens stories denglet[er]re’: BL, Cotton Titus B xi, no. 26d; Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 52. 42. Keen, ‘Diplomacy’, 187; Curry, Agincourt, 38–40. 43. Statutes and Ordinances, 562–3; Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, 222. 44. Three Prose Versions, 184–6. For a modern translation, see Secret of Secrets. For Young and his work, see also Kerby-Fulton and Justice, ‘Langlandian Reading Circles’, 81–3; Dolan, ‘Writing in Ireland’, 225; Dolan, ‘Yonge, James’. It has been suggested that the writing of this chapter of Young’s work preceded the composition of the brief, but as Young was writing 1420–1422, this seems uncertain: see Matthew, ‘Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, 119–20, 139–40, 151; cf. Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 154. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 43–52, esp. 50–1, discussed above. 45. For the third earl of Ormond’s assistance with the submissions of 1395, see Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 30, 39–40, 47–8. 46. For relations between Henry and Richard, the latter’s reburial at Westminster on Henry’s accession in 1413, and Henry’s piety, see McFarlane, Lancastrian Kings, 121–2, 128–9; Dockray, Henry V, 80–3, 220–4. For Ormond’s English lands and connections in his early career, see Matthew, ‘Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, 110–15, 592–5. Whether Ormond himself had shown any previous interest in crusading is uncertain, but in 1414 he had renewed his grandfather’s grant of special protection to Holycross abbey, Tipperary, where he himself later commissioned extensive rebuilding work: O’Donovan, ‘Building the Butler Lordship’, 109–31. The feast of the exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 September) was closely linked with crusading: Tyerman, God’s War, 878. 47. Ormond had left Ireland for England between mid-April and early June that year; as a famous account of Sigismund’s arrival at Dover in May derives from Butler family material, Ormond may well have been a witness: College of Arms, London, Betham MSS: Repertory to Records of the Exchequer, H.V– H.VI, 567; NAI RC 8/36, 543–4; First English Life of Henry V, 67; Matthew, ‘Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, 113–15. For Sigismund in England, see Allmand, Henry V, 104–9. 48. Crusading privileges in this respect, formalised in the thirteenth century, had certainly included ‘political’ crusades: see Housley, Italian Crusades, chs 6–7; Riley-Smith, Crusades, 201–5, 264. For political crusading as ‘a fiscal device’, see Tyerman, God’s War, 900.

Elizabeth Matthew 175 49. Simms, ‘Bards and Barons’, 186–8; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 116–20 50. Housley, ‘Frontier Societies’. 51. For the Modus, see, Parliamentary Texts, 115–52; also Otway-Ruthven, ‘Background to the Arrest of Sir Christopher Preston’, citing earlier work at 73, n. 1; Crooks, ‘Background to the Arrest of the Fifth Earl of Kildare’. 52. Watt, ‘Anglo-Irish Colony’, 361–2; Moynes, ‘Prestons of Gormanston’, 30–41, 44–9; Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 152, 157. 53. For Swayne’s career, see Register of John Swayne, ix–x; Gwynn, ‘Ireland and the English Nation’, 185–88, 225–31; Harvey, English in Rome, 89–90; Smith, ‘Swayne, John. 54. Housley, Later Crusades, 252–3; Riley-Smith, Crusades, 274. 55. Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, 222; see also Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 361. 56. See particularly Kerby-Fulton and Justice, ‘Reformist Intellectual Culture’; Kerby-Fulton and Despres, Iconography and the Professional Reader, pp. 92–4; Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 152–3; Crooks, ‘Background to the Arrest of the Fifth Earl of Kildare’. 57. The text is from Statutes and Ordinances, 564, 566. Original abbreviations reproduced there have been expanded; ‘u’ and ‘v’, ‘i’ and ‘j’, have been interchanged where appropriate. Berry’s source, the Irish patent roll for 9 Henry V, perished in the shelling of the Four Courts, Dublin, in 1922. There is a further transcript in NLI, MS 4 (Harris Collectanea, iv), ff. 219–22; a Latin summary appears in Rot. Pat. Hib., 221, no. 111. 58. That is, the land of Ireland. 59. Berry’s reading of a word obliterated on the Irish patent roll.

12 ‘Reducing their Barbarous Wildness . . . unto Civility’: England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625 Steven G. Ellis

What lessons does the British Isles hold for us in regard to concepts of Europe and the dynamics of centres and peripheries there? In a European context, the English monarchy was itself peripheral geographically and, in early Tudor times, also of comparatively modest resources. In the 1520s, for instance, the population of the Tudor territories as a whole numbered around 3 million, as opposed to a French population of 16 million and a Spanish one of seven and a half million. Likewise, Henry VIII’s ordinary revenues barely exceeded £100, 000 a year, compared with the £350, 000 annually available to Francis I and Charles V’s £560, 000 annually in the 1540s. The kingdom of England in particular could not be ignored, but in Henry VIII’s time the main European theatre of war and competition was Italy and the Mediterranean, not north-west Europe.1 Yet, as we shall see, the English monarchy’s position in Europe was constantly changing. This chapter will address three themes which are, it seems, central to an understanding of the dynamics of centres and peripheries in the British Isles and also have obvious applications elsewhere. The first of these is the very obvious question of geography and land capability. Centre and periphery in a British context reflected the ability of an extensive and comparatively well-populated lowland zone of market towns and agricultural villages to dominate the more sparsely populated pastoral uplands to the north and west. Second, the British experience was also fundamentally shaped by the loss of what had been regarded as core territories in continental Europe (i.e., Normandy and Gascony), which in turn altered the dynamics of centre and periphery within the archipelago. Finally, both English concepts of Europe and also English senses of what was core and what was periphery were heavily influenced by the traditional paradigm of civility vs savagery. Nations were 176

Steven G. Ellis 177

classified as civil or savage: those of ‘the Celtic fringe’ were undoubtedly in the latter category and clearly in need of the benefits of English civility, but other European nations whose customs also departed from English norms were nonetheless civil. An obvious question with which to begin, however, is why, given the clear relevance of this kind of approach to the writing of European history, it has not been attempted before in a British context. The basic answer, it appears, is that until very recently, the resolutely insular, nation-based character of history-writing in the British Isles has tended to inhibit discussions about centre/periphery perspectives as major themes in the archipelago’s various historiographical traditions.2 The English are, in general, very conscious of the continuities of their history – a tradition of monarchy, for example, from King Alfred in the ninth century to the present Queen Elizabeth II, or the growth of a democratic, parliamentary tradition. Invasions and occupations, revolutions and dictatorship were the fate of other, less favoured nations, particularly those of continental Europe, from which the English were happily preserved by the geography of their island. Academic histories of England broadly endorsed this emphasis on continuities and English exceptionalism – a benign form of Sonderweg which preserved the English from continental absolutism. Likewise, Irish national history, notwithstanding repeated invasions and eight centuries of English occupation, also stresses an overriding continuity – the heroic struggle of the Irish nation for freedom and self-determination against foreign occupation and oppression. Of course all national histories focus diachronically on ‘the rise of the nation’ and the contrasts and differences from other nations, this being the nature of the genre. Yet there is a particular reason why national histories of the British Isles have largely ignored the kind of centre/periphery perspective which have recently attracted attention in a European context. The present state of which England forms part is, officially, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The present British passport says nothing at all about England and the English: it does mention Ireland, alone of the four nations. Only Northern Ireland now remains part of the British state, but until 1922 the whole of Ireland was included. The kingdom of England, however, ceased to exist as an autonomous entity in 1066, when it was absorbed into a Norman empire. Since then, England has always been part of a wider polity – whether in the later Middle Ages as a cross-channel empire stretching into what is now France, or later on as a British multiple monarchy from which developed the present United Kingdom.

178

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

English nationalist history has marginalized those territories such as Ireland which lay beyond the historic boundaries of England and which have long been associated with England in the one state. Its definition of English identity (the king’s subjects born and living in England) is also a modern one which excludes those English communities outside England – the product of medieval or early modern colonization and settlement – which were not destined to remain English. Essentially, therefore, English national history is like a history of the centre with the peripheries left out, or at least with the more problematic peripheries, like Ireland, excluded. Similarly, Irish nationalist history focuses on the island of Ireland, ignoring Northern Ireland, as if Ireland were one nation and state. In effect, the wider pattern of state formation in the British Isles is divided up into four separate national stories centring on England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.3 In the last decade, some historians have attempted to counteract the obvious shortcomings of this kind of nationalist history by focusing instead on interaction between the four historic nations in the context of state formation, rather than nation-building. In this paradigm, now known as the New British History, the three nations of ‘the Celtic fringe’ generally constitute the peripheries in a process of state formation by which the early modern British multiple monarchy was gradually transformed into the present United Kingdom. This approach has the decided advantage of explaining how the present British state developed. And it does at least highlight the fact that over the last millennium English and British kings have always governed other peoples and territories besides England. Yet it is just as much of a grand narrative as traditional nationalist history. It likewise culminates in the present, save that the present is the state rather than the nation; and many of the main issues are equally prejudged by its substitution, as the context of explanation, of the British Isles for England or Ireland and of British for English or Irish. For instance, the attempt to create a new supranational British sense of identity to bind together the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh was not an issue until after 1603; nor did the English monarchy show any sustained interest in consolidating its influence throughout the archipelago until long after the final collapse of the medieval AngloFrench empire in 1453. The New British perspective is a valuable counter to nationalist histories in that it tends to point up comparisons rather than contrasts between the four nations; but it really offers no explanation as to why the monarchy should wish to locate its administrative capital so inaccessibly in the south-east corner of the emerging British state.4

Steven G. Ellis 179

In order to make more sense of developments in the British Isles before modern times, we need to set aside this kind of present-centred grand narrative and look more carefully at relations between centre and periphery as they appeared at the time. That is, we need to ask what the aims and ambitions of contemporary English kings were and how the king’s subjects in outlying parts responded to the crown’s demands on them. This chapter will focus on the period from the last phase of Anglo-French rivalry known as the Hundred Years War (1337–1453) to the emergence of the early modern British multiple monarchy in 1603. The English monarchy as it existed between c.1200 and the dynastic union with Scotland of 1603 was essentially a conquest monarchy. The kingdom of England itself was the product of successive invasions and occupations by Saxons, Vikings, and Normans; and subsequently the monarchy had expanded in the two centuries from c.1090 to conquer the whole of Wales, most of Ireland and, briefly, southern Scotland. By 1206, the old ancestral fiefs of the English crown in northern France had been lost, but King John had inherited Gascony from his mother, and later English kings poured considerable amounts of money and men – with very mixed results! – into recovering the lost fiefs, particularly Normandy.5 Thus, throughout the later Middle Ages, the patrimony of English kings may be divided, on grounds of geography and strategic importance, into three groups of territories. First, there was the core territory of lowland England, the area of the original Anglo-Saxon monarchy of King Alfred. Second, there were the French possessions: their recovery and defence remained a high priority for English kings into the mid-sixteenth century. Finally, there were the conquest lordships to the north and west of lowland England in the British upland zone – the far north of England and the fluctuating area of English rule in southern Scotland, the English lordship of Ireland with its frontier with Gaelic Ireland, and the principality and marches of Wales conquered by 1283. It was this third group of territories which formed what might be described as the English periphery. Their relationship with the centre was shaped in part by the character and ambitions of the monarchy itself. Late medieval English kings ruled what was in many ways a typical European monarchy of the period – a land-based monarchy, of many marches far from the seat of royal authority. There was an intensely governed core region, lowland England, where the king normally resided and the bulk of the royal demesne was located, surrounded by more remote, loosely controlled territories, often with exposed frontiers administered through devolved power structures and marcher lords. The

180

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

English monarchy had considerable territorial and strategic interests in continental Europe, and its territories there were intermittently threatened by the powerful French monarchy. The English periphery also comprised what were essentially marcher regions. At a time when, in general, English society was becoming more peaceful and law-abiding, the king’s subjects of the marches faced near-continuous warfare, albeit on a much smaller scale than in France – against the Scots in northern England (from 1296), against shifting combinations of Gaelic chiefs in Ireland, and to a declining extent in the recently reduced but still restless Welsh marches. For instance, there was no formal peace signed between England and Scotland for almost 170 years between 1333 and 1502, only periodic truces and temporary abstinences of war. Accordingly, English society in these regions was heavily militarized, frequently taking the form of marcher lineages. The classic examples were the border surnames of the Anglo-Scottish frontier, and the English lineages of the Leinster mountains. Likewise, from the late fourteenth century, the normal form of gentry residence in these marcher regions was the defended tower-house; and long after the age of castle-building was over in England, marcher lords like Lord Dacre or the earl of Kildare continued to erect new castles, such as Rockcliffe or Castledermot. Marcher landowners traditionally kept small permanent retinues for defence, and their estate-management policies were geared more towards the maintenance of an extensive manraed (i.e., a battle-hardened tenantry available to the lord for defence) than towards extracting high rents. In short, these were societies of near-professional soldiers, geared to continuous war.6 In the circumstances, the major role and responsibilities of the English borderlands were the defence of the realm against enemies and rebels, but they also provided a useful recruiting ground for experienced troops to serve in the king’s armies abroad. For instance, the four most northerly counties of England were from the 1380s discharged from payment of parliamentary taxation in return for border defence against the Scots. Yet northern spears were also highly prized in other theatres of warfare, serving for instance in successive English expeditionary forces sent to Ireland in 1494, 1520, 1530, and 1534.7 Small cohorts of these highly experienced troops frequently formed the professional nucleus of English armies fighting in France: for instance, the 500 horse and foot despatched in 1418 from Waterford in Ireland to serve Henry V at the siege of Rouen in Normandy or – a late example – Henry VIII’s 600 Irish kerne at the siege of Boulogne in 1544.8 In 1431, Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury, warden of the English west marches towards Scotland,

Steven G. Ellis 181

brought a retinue of 800 men with him when he accompanied Henry VI to Paris for his coronation as king of France. Naturally, Salisbury’s retinue would have included many borderers, among them Sir Henry Threlkeld, a Cumberland knight, who engaged to serve with eight menat-arms and 22 archers. Salisbury was back in France in 1436, when he agreed to serve under his brother-in-law, Richard, duke of York, with 1300 men.9 This close tie between the English periphery and the major political issues as viewed from the centre spilled over from the Hundred Years War into the next phase of English history, the three decades of dynastic rivalry, intermittent civil war, and internal weakness known to historians as the Wars of the Roses. The outstanding English military commander in France was John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury (‘the English Achilles’) killed in the final battle of the Hundred Years War at Châtillon (or Castillon in Anglo-Norman French). Shrewsbury was a leading landowner in Ireland and had twice served as governor there (1414–1420, 1445–1447). His successor Richard, duke of York (governor, 1447–1460), was the greatest English landowner in Ireland and also the king’s heir apparent until 1453.10 When England descended into civil war, it was Yorkist control of the English periphery which proved decisive in the war’s first phase (1459–1461), even though the Yorkist lords had little support among the English peerage at large. York himself controlled Ireland, with the support of the two resident earls of Desmond and Kildare. He also had large estates in the Welsh marches where his heir, the future King Edward IV, was a major figure in his own right. His brother-in-law, Salisbury, controlled the English west marches, and Salisbury’s son, Richard Neville, earl of Warwick (‘the Kingmaker’), was governor of Calais. Throughout the Wars of the Roses, control of the English borderlands with their ready supply of near-professional soldiers frequently proved decisive in the fight for the throne. The marcher lords had a disproportionate influence on developments.11 So long as the English monarchy harboured pretensions as a major European power, the English borderlands were valued as a source of experienced troops. When, in 1513, Henry VIII attempted to resume the Hundred Years War against France, he again drew heavily on the borderers for his great army of 30,000 men. This included companies of northern men under Lord Darcy, Welshmen under the earl of Worcester, and 500 Irishmen. Accordingly, Henry had to give orders ‘that no man give no reproach to none other by cause of the country that he is of; that is to say, be he French, English, Northern, Welsh, or Irish, or of any other country whence soever he be of’.12 By that date, however,

182

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

the balance of power in Europe was utterly different from the situation facing the Lancastrian kings a century before. The English c.1420 had long controlled the far larger duchy of Gascony in south-west France and had recently reconquered the duchy of Normandy, in addition to the tiny strip of territory around Calais plus the Channel Isles which was the reality of Henry VIII’s claim to the French crown. And France had then included other independent duchies also since absorbed by the French monarchy, notably Burgundy and Brittany whose rulers had offered the English intermittent support.13 To mount an effective challenge, Henry VIII now required the support of the Spanish king and the Emperor Maximilian, whereas earlier the English and French monarchies had been much more evenly matched.14 For instance, having reconquered Normandy, Henry V had then forced the French to accept the treaty of Troyes (1420). By its terms, the infant Prince Henry succeeded to the French crown on the death of his maternal grandfather, Charles VI, in October 1422: two months before, he had succeeded his father, Henry V, as king of England, so creating an Anglo-French dual monarchy. Lancastrian France extended as far south as Paris until 1436, plus Gascony; and the Lancastrian regime was forced to build up what was tantamount to a standing army in order to defend its French possessions from the Valois king.15 Until the final collapse of Lancastrian France in 1453, therefore, the strategic interests and ambitions of late medieval English kings were firmly focused on continental Europe. The defence of the northern frontier against the Scots was really only a sideshow which forced itself on the king’s attention as a preliminary to French expeditions. The western frontier, in Ireland, caught the king’s attention even more intermittently: despite the gradual deterioration of the English position there between c.1300 and 1470, major military expeditions to Ireland were mounted only in the period 1361–1399, during the long period of truce and peace with France.16 Overall, therefore, England’s chief city and traditional seat of government, London, was ideally situated for the rule of this multiple monarchy. Culturally, too, the French language retained an official status: it remained a familiar language of the court, albeit spoken with an accent which Parisians found hard to understand, and in England and Ireland law pleadings and parliament rolls were still written up in an archaic language known as law French.17 Knowing what came after, English historians have had little difficulty in dismissing this Anglo-French multiple monarchy – and continental adventures more generally – as the ephemeral product of English imperialism and ‘dynastic roulette’. Yet, ties of geography, language, and culture, even

Steven G. Ellis 183

Anglo-Norman feudalism, all combined to strengthen the influence of king and court in binding these territories together. A more effective king than Henry VI – the feeblest in English history! – would certainly have gone much further in developing a standing army, a professional bureaucracy, and an effective system of taxation to rule and defend his French possessions. As it was, when Henry VIII again invaded France in 1513, the French monarchy had long since absorbed the once independent fiefs. The English monarchy, by contrast, had only recently recovered from the Wars of the Roses. Throughout his reign, King Henry dreamed of emulating the great victories of Edward III and Henry V at Crécy and Agincourt. His three great wars against the French did result in temporary English occupations of Tournai (1513–1518) and Boulogne (1544–1550). Yet Henry’s claims to the French crown lacked credibility – his ally, the Emperor Charles V, remained uninterested in a joint conquest of France – and meanwhile, both in culture and in administrative practice, the English territories were developing on separate lines.18 English had, for instance, since ousted French in statutes and other official documents, even if Henry VIII could still on occasion write love letters in French to Anne Boleyn.19 There were early indications in the English borderlands of the later drive – culminating in the reforms of the 1530s – to centralize monarchical authority in accordance with lowland English administrative norms.20 Thus, although Henry VIII’s bellicose foreign policy and continental adventures – a reversal of his father’s focus on internal reconstruction – helped to mask or even briefly reverse England’s declining influence in continental Europe, security considerations gradually forced the Tudors to attend more carefully to affairs on the English periphery. In this context, the major development was the Reformation crisis, which shifted the focus back to internal security and cast a very different light on the borderers’ traditional lawlessness. Queen Elizabeth’s accession in 1558 saw the monarchy in an unprecedentedly weak position: the French bestrode the realm, with one foot in Scotland and the other in England’s last continental outpost, Calais, captured earlier the same year; there were huge debts, and an empty treasury; and in order to settle the vexed question of religion a reversal of Queen Mary’s Catholic policies in favour of some kind of royal supremacy seemed the least bad option. Accordingly, Elizabeth abandoned Calais; manoeuvred to secure a moderate religious settlement which fell just short of alienating the Protestant support on which she depended; and chiefly by good luck secured a French withdrawal from Scotland. After this, with

184

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

one aberration (the Newhaven expedition of 1562–1563), she avoided major European entanglements for 25 years until drawn into the Dutch revolt against Spain. Indeed, the Spanish war of 1585–1604 was the only extended period of foreign war faced by the English monarchy for nearly two centuries from 1453.21 Thus the period from the 1530s until Elizabeth’s death in 1603 saw a fundamental reshaping of relations between centre and periphery in the English state – one which had been inherent in the loss of the French territories, but which was postponed first by civil war and then by Henry VIII’s ultimately unrealistic attempts to re-establish Henry V’s AngloFrench dual monarchy. At one level, the nature of this transformation was highlighted by the exclusion of the marcher lords from any major role in national politics. A few magnates remained important for the good rule of their own borderlands, like the earls of Kildare in early Tudor Ireland, or the Lords Dacre in the early Tudor north. Neither had any major estates elsewhere in the Tudor territories. Henry VIII’s leading military commanders were southern nobles like the duke of Norfolk, or Tudor creations like the duke of Suffolk or the earl of Hertford. And under Elizabeth the marcher lords were dislodged even from the rule of their own countries, notably the earl of Northumberland in 1560.22 Almost the only exception to this trend was Thomas Butler, earl of Ormond, Elizabeth’s military commander in Ireland twice (though never appointed governor), royal favourite in the mid-1560s, and eventually earl marshal of England, but then Ormond was the queen’s kinsman.23 Elizabeth in particular distrusted these marcher lords. She was fundamentally uncomfortable with major military exploits which, as a woman, she was less able to control, and so had little time for military men. It is a telling comment on Elizabeth’s changed priorities that the largest army despatched from England during her reign, the 17,300 men commanded by the earl of Essex in 1599, was not only less than half the size of Henry VIII’s last army royal of 1544, but was also destined for Ireland, not France or the Spanish Netherlands.24 In these circumstances, the borderers’ military skills were increasingly seen by the Tudors in a much less positive light. For the most part, the Tudors lacked a standing army. Small garrisons were maintained in Calais (until its loss in 1558); also in Carlisle and Berwick-on-Tweed, England’s chief military outposts in the Anglo-Scottish marches; and from 1534 a small army, frequently 1500 men, was also stationed in Ireland.25 Yet one reason why the extensive manraed of marcher lords like the Percy earls of Northumberland evoked such suspicion was the possibility of a rapid descent on London by a dissident magnate with

Steven G. Ellis 185

10,000 border tenants, resulting in the kind of coup d’état which had occurred during the Wars of the Roses. When in autumn 1536 the duke of Norfolk was sent north with the king’s army to suppress rebellion, he was confronted on the River Don by a rebel army of over 30,000 men, ‘all the flower of the North’, and forced to negotiate.26 It is significant that by 1600 this very word manraed (which meant the men a lord could call on in wartime for military service) was falling out of use: ‘tall fellows’ were now less in demand among the nobility. Instead, England developed as a naval power, which further privileged the more urbanized core territory at the expense of the borderlands.27 Tudor Ireland did indeed contain some substantial port-towns: many had strong trading links with English ports, although under Elizabeth the trade with Catholic Spain of the south-western seaports was increasingly viewed with suspicion.28 Yet Wales and the north, being predominantly pastoral regions, had relatively few major seaports whose merchant shipping could be impressed into the royal navy. Thus, from the 1530s border lawlessness, which was notorious but had previously attracted only occasional criticism, began to be seen as a distinct threat to royal authority. The state of the borders contrasted increasingly with lowland England where strong government and the long peace fostered a more settled society and resort to law over violence and feud to settle disputes. Like magistrates all over Europe, English officials believed that towns and tillage fostered a more civil society. They likewise thought in regard to the topographical divisions of the British Isles that this distinction was also a moral one – that where the land was uncultivated, as in the predominantly pastoral regions of ‘the Celtic fringe’, so also did its inhabitants live in a more primitive, savage manner. As early as 1125, William of Malmesbury had pioneered the characteristic English habit of describing the course of English history as the triumph of civilization over barbarism. Thus, Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) in the late twelfth century justified English expansion into the Celtic periphery on the grounds of the need to promote English civility (towns, tillage, and commerce) among those savage peoples living in idleness and brutality in their woods and bogs.29 Yet, if the wild borderers were increasingly seen as a threat to good rule, there was also a heightened optimism by the 1530s in Tudor official circles about the ability of English common law and administrative structures to work a reformation of manners among these misguided men, reducing them to English civility. Hitherto, the arrangements for the rule of the English territories had reflected what might be described

186

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

as a dual system of administration. The English realm itself was a conquest lordship par excellence; and by the standards of late medieval monarchy, England was certainly precocious in the centralization and uniformity of its administrative structures. The country was divided up into shires or counties, for each of which the king appointed the same combination of local officials headed by sheriffs, justices of the peace (JPs), escheators, and coroners, who each administered the same code of law, English common law, supervised by the king’s council and central law courts sitting at Westminster. North and west of lowland England, however, this standard system of English government was supplemented and modified by a quasi-military system based on feudal liberties administering different systems of march law among mixed populations where only freeborn Englishmen could claim the ‘benefits’ of English law. These marcher institutions had originally been developed to defend the northern and western frontiers against ‘Scots enemies’, ‘mere Welsh’, and ‘wild Irish’ beyond – although by the 1530s the whole of Wales had been under English rule for at least 250 years, and the marcher lordships there were militarily obsolete.30 From the 1530s, therefore, the Tudor response to border lawlessness and the problem of internal security sparked by the Reformation crisis was to centralize their authority by reducing the feudal liberties to shire ground and, in place of marcher lords like Kildare and Dacre, entrusting the rule of these regions to courtiers or more reliable local gentry – Sir William Skeffington in Ireland, Sir Thomas Wharton in the north-west. By the so-called Welsh Act of Union, enacted in 1536, Wales was now ‘incorporated, united and annexed to and with this [the king’s] realm of England’; English became the language of government, Welsh law and customs were abolished, the marcher lordships were shired, and the whole region including the ‘mere Welsh’ were now governed solely by English law and administrative structures.31 In Wales, these changes were increasingly effective because there was no longer any military frontier to defend. Power had hitherto been too decentralized with the existence of 130 separate marcher lordships in eastern Wales alone; and the Tudor dynasty had strong ties with Wales anyway, so that Tudor reform there could be cast as political liberation for the ‘mere Welsh’, hitherto threatened with the legal disabilities imposed by the so-called Lancastrian Penal Code (1401). Thus, the new structures helped to stamp out disorders so that the Welsh appeared to become more civil.32 As Tudor rule was gradually extended into the Gaelic parts of Ireland, the erstwhile Gaelic lordships were likewise shired, the chiefs and clansmen were encouraged to hold their estates of

Steven G. Ellis 187

the crown as English subjects and to learn the English language, and the more prominent among them were given English titles, with a personal seat in parliament, and sometimes appointed to the king’s council in Ireland. Thus, the Mac Giolla Phádraig, chief of Ossory, became Barnaby Fitzpatrick, baron of Upper Ossory, and Conn Bacach Ó Néill, chief of Tyrone, became earl of Tyrone under the so-called Surrender and Regrant strategy of the early 1540s. Yet in Ireland this policy was much less effective because it did not address the underlying military problem presented by the Anglo-Gaelic frontier. In fact, in some respects it made the problem worse because, for instance, the extension of the English Pale into the Gaelic midlands from 1547 simply moved the military frontier away from the Pale’s standing defences of dikes, peles and fortified bridges. Likewise, the exchange of Gaelic titles for English ones essentially created a new group of marcher lords among the erstwhile chiefs, not a Tudor service nobility or noblesse de robe, as Tudor officials had hoped, because the new Irish peers had still to defend their titles and territories both from internal rivals who had lost out through surrender and regrant and also from external enemies not yet reconciled to the crown.33 A similar strategy of moving the military frontier further northwards was briefly tried (1547–1550) in regard to the Anglo-Scottish frontier, so as to create an English Pale in southern Scotland. Yet increased military pressure on Scotland simply consolidated the ‘auld alliance’, driving the Scots into the arms of the French. The English garrisons intruded to protect ‘the assured Scots’ (the more anglophile, Protestant party) simply proved an expensive liability when confronted by a larger French army and were withdrawn in 1550.34 Eventually, the advent of better Anglo-Scottish relations from 1560 with the treaty of Edinburgh reduced the problem of the borders to more manageable proportions. The war of 1557–1560 proved to be the last between the two nations before the Union of the Crowns in 1603, and thereafter the two Protestant regimes in London and Edinburgh collaborated to discipline the border surnames so that military defence was far less of a problem.35 In these circumstances, the traditional dynamics of centre and periphery within the English state was radically altered. From the 1540s onwards, Tudor foreign policy was essentially defensive: the efforts to centralize royal control over the borderlands reflected a growing fear that border lawlessness might otherwise encourage the French or, later, the Spaniards to intervene. These fears became even more acute as the Reformation crisis spawned an age of religious wars. The Elizabethan regime, in particular, saw itself as an embattled Protestant

188

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

minority surrounded by Catholic enemies, both home and abroad. Not only could border violence and feuds encourage outside intervention by Catholic powers, but the borderers themselves were notoriously backward in religion.36 Beginning in the English north in 1536 (the Pilgrimage of Grace), but much more clearly in the case of the rebellions of 1569–1570 (the Revolt of the Northern Earls, and in Ireland the Fitzmaurice rebellion) movements of political dissent began to take on religious forms. Essentially, these were provincial reactions to growing Tudor centralization, but in each case the defence of regional autonomy also involved the defence of the old religion. Thus, for much of Elizabeth’s reign, the demands of security and religion were closely intertwined: until the Reformation began to take hold more generally in the 1580s, Tudor officials looked out upon a region of towns and villages which were peaceful, law-abiding and Protestant, surrounded by turbulent borderlands which were violent, warlike, and papistical. And when in Ireland in 1579–1580 landings by Spanish and Italian troops sparked off widespread Catholic risings in Munster and the English Pale, the worst fears of Elizabethan officials were realized. Underpinning this revised appreciation of relations between centre and periphery was the development of new forms of community consciousness in England. English identity had traditionally included strong ethnic and cultural dimensions: the English were the king’s subjects of English blood, born in the territories under the allegiance of the English crown, which included the Englishries of Ireland and Wales, not just those born in England. By the 1540s, however, large numbers of mere Irish and mere Welsh had been granted the rights of English subjects, as a result of Tudor reform policies in these two countries, while by then the most important exception to the increasing identification of the English crown with English law, culture and administrative norms – the erstwhile French territories – was but a distant memory. Accordingly, English identity was increasingly redefined in the mid-Tudor period, in regard to civility and religion. From the 1530s, under the influence of humanism, the concept of the patria, the native country, gradually ousted older ethnic forms of community consciousness. Not only was England set apart – in Saxton’s maps, for instance – from other English territories, but Reformation England also acquired a divine mission: it was the elect nation, sent by God to save the world from popery. Similarly, cultural norms were more narrowly defined: English civility was precisely the norms and values of God-fearing civil society as it developed in lowland England. From the 1530s, therefore, Tudor reform in the borderlands was not simply an instinctive reaction to heightened

Steven G. Ellis 189

fears among Tudor officials about security, it was a considered policy to reduce the wild men of the marches to peace and civility – a policy which refashioned traditional English ideas about the march of history as the triumph of civilization over savagery in a quite different context. Accordingly, the shiring of marcher or Gaelic lordships and feudal liberties, the extension of English common law in place of march law, and the increase of true religion and the English tongue had as their overriding aim the reduction of the borderers to civility. Of course the attempt to promote English civility by a policy of administrative uniformity, centralization and cultural imperialism proved an abject failure. Quite apart from problems of frontier defence in Ireland and the north which it simply did not address, the policy failed to take account of differences of geography and so of social structures in these peripheral areas. For instance, the classic system of English local government, as it had developed in the fourteenth century, presupposed a heavily manorialized society of towns and nucleated villages, and a diffuse pattern of landholding so as to provide a substantial pool of county and parish gentry to discharge the major offices of local government. In short, it presupposed the same social conditions as existed in lowland England. Already under the early Tudors there were problems in operating this system throughout the English north which, as a predominantly pastoral region of compact lordships and few towns, lacked the necessary pool of gentry to discharge the increasing administrative burden placed on the unpaid and part-time justices of the peace. Similar problems were encountered in Wales when the marcher lordships were shired and peace commissions were introduced after 1536. Bishop Rowland Lee, president of the king’s council there, commented sourly that there were ‘very few Welsh in Wales above Brecknock’ [the uplands] ‘who have £10’ in land [an English yeoman’s income] ‘and their discretion is less than their land’.37 In the event, though, English local government as applied to Wales did curb the worst disorders, even though English officials constantly complained about the disorderly character of Welsh society. In Ireland, when English local government was extended to Gaelic regions as part and parcel of the Tudor conquest, it proved even less successful. Quite apart from the different patterns of landholding in Gaelic Ireland, the Gaelic aristocracy also lacked the necessary legal expertise to operate the system. Thus, the only way in which English local government could initially be made to work was by an increasing reliance on English army captains and settlers who were intruded as a new colonial elite in Gaelic society. Concurrently, the erstwhile Gaelic chiefs were encouraged to

190

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

adopt tillage and build stone houses as marks of civility. In practice, the settlers showed no great inclination to hand over power to Gaelic landowners, and so English local government as it operated in large parts of Ireland remained a colonial imposition without deep roots in Gaelic society. The classic illustration of the workings of the English official mind in regard to the Celtic fringe was the transplantation of the Grahams from the Anglo-Scottish borders to county Roscommon in Ireland in 1608. This was part of King James’s policy to turn the erstwhile Anglo-Scottish frontier – and the troublesome border surnames there, of whom the Grahams were one – into what he called The Middle Shires, following the Union of the Crowns in 1603. The Graham surname inhabited the English west marches immediately south of the frontier line. Officially, therefore, they were English subjects, although in practice a ‘naughty and factious people’ who, notably in the so-called Busy Week following King James’s accession, supplemented the meagre living which they scratched in the pastoral uplands by rustling cattle from the neighbouring lowlanders. Transplantation to Roscommon, therefore, seemed not only a useful way of ridding the borders of a disruptive influence, but also a good means of exposing ‘the wild Irish’ to the benefits of English civility by planting among them these Englishmen who were ‘withal very civil’ and also had some smatterings of religion. In fact, the Grahams showed no more inclination or ability to settle down as tillage farmers in Ireland than they had in the Anglo-Scottish marches and soon drew complaints from local officials that they were even more adept at cattle rustling than the wild Irish. The idea that Englishmen were ipso facto civil arable farmers was a serious mistake.38 Overall, therefore, the basis of power within the English state was redrawn in the early modern period by a policy of administrative uniformity, monarchical centralization and cultural imperialism. This Tudor strategy of state formation was far more radical than anything attempted in continental Europe, aiming, as it did, to remodel social and administrative structures, religious beliefs, even cultural norms and values so as to turn the Celtic fringe into a replica of lowland England. Of course, the Celtic fringe never embraced – could not embrace – ‘English civility’ as the Tudors had intended, with results which have shaped the character of the British state down to the present. That this policy succeeded as far as it did reflected in large measure the state’s peripheral location – off the north-west coast of continental Europe. After 1453, the English monarchy no longer had to defend remote landed frontiers against the major continental powers. Indeed, the British multiple monarchy

Steven G. Ellis 191

created by the Anglo-Scottish dynastic union of 1603 had no landed frontiers at all. In these circumstances, Tudor and Stuart monarchs had less need to pursue continental strategies of Staatsbildung – developing a standing army, a professional bureaucracy, and a more effective system of taxation. Yet this distinctive strategy of sweeping anglicization and centralization combined with weak, underdeveloped mechanisms for central control could only work in the absence of serious European competition. Once the monarchy went to war again, as it did in the midseventeenth century, the inadequacies of the English Sonderweg were very rapidly exposed.

Notes 1. Remarks based on Potter, ‘Foreign Policy’, 106–7, 111–14, except that I have adjusted the figure for the Tudor population to allow for the other Tudor territories. A draft of this paper was first presented at a conference on Writing European Histories: Centres and Peripheries, sponsored by The Danish Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, in May 2002. I am grateful for the many comments received there, which I have tried to take on board. 2. For instance, Kearney, British Isles, 1. 3. Many of these points are developed in Ellis, ‘From Dual Monarchy to Multiple Kingdoms’; and Ellis, ‘Writing Irish History’. 4. Robin Frame was of course a pioneer in this field. For the early modern period, useful collections of essays from the New British perspective include Asch (ed.), Three Nations; Grant and Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom?; Ellis and Barber (eds.), Conquest and Union; Bradshaw and Morrill (eds.), British Problem; Bradshaw and Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity; Burgess (ed.), New British History. 5. See, for instance, Davies, First English Empire; Saul (ed.), England in Europe. 6. For this paragraph, see in general, Ellis, ‘English State’; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers. 7. Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, 212–13; Chrimes, Henry VII, 199, n. 2; Newton, NorthEast England, 52–3. And for 1494, see the transfer for service in Ireland of Sir Richard Salkeld and Sir Henry Wyatt, both senior officials in the Carlisle garrison: Conway, Henry VII’s Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 54–9, 65–7, 83–6, 168, 194–6. 8. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 355; White, ‘Henry VIII’s Irish Kerne’. 9. Storey, End of the House of Lancaster, 112–13, 122. 10. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 377–89; Ellis, Ireland, 51–69; Johnson, Duke Richard of York. 11. Goodman, Wars of the Roses; Gillingham, Wars of the Roses; Ellis, Ireland, 51–64. 12. Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, 114; Letters and Papers, I, nos. 1412, 2051, 2053, 2139. For the campaign, see Cruickshank, Henry VIII and the Invasion of France.

192

England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

13. Vale, English Gascony; Allmand, Lancastrian Normandy. 14. Cruickshank, Henry VIII, ch. 1; Potter, ‘Foreign Policy’, 108–16; Wernham, Before the Armada, ch. 6. 15. A. Curry, ‘First English Standing Army?’; Thompson, Paris and Its People; Saul, ‘Henry V and the Dual Monarchy’, 144–50. 16. Neville, Violence, Custom and Law; Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, chs. 9–10. 17. Thompson, Paris and Its People, 214–16. The rolls of the English parliament continued to be written in French until 1489 (with English alongside from 1485), and in the Irish parliament until 1493. Thereafter they were in English: Price, Languages of Britain, 218–19; Statute Rolls of the Irish Parliament. 18. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 36–8, 71–3, 450–64; Potter, ‘Foreign Policy’, 108–16, 127–8; Blockmans, Emperor Charles V, 153–4. 19. Love Letters of Henry VIII; Price, Languages of Britain, 218–19; Ellis, ‘Languages 1500–1800’, 152. 20. Ellis, ‘Tudor State Formation’. 21. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, chs. 3–6; MacCaffrey, ‘Newhaven Expedition’; Alford, Early Elizabethan Polity, 43–85. 22. Miller, Henry VIII, ch. 5; Williams, Tudor Regime, 433–48; Williams, Later Tudors, 523–5; Ellis, Tudor Frontiers. 23. ODNB sub Thomas Butler, eleventh earl of Ormond; Edwards, Ormond Lordship, chs. 3–4. 24. Fissel, English Warfare, 14–16, 222–5; Ellis, Ireland, 346; ODNB sub Thomas Butler, eleventh earl of Ormond. 25. Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, 230; Ellis, Ireland, 179, 186. 26. Bush, Pilgrimage of Grace, 374–94; Hoyle, Pilgrimage of Grace, 282–305 (quotation, 305); Bean, Estates of the Percy Family, 45–7, 129; James, Society, Politics and Culture, 60, 68–9, 76; Gillingham, Wars of the Roses, chs. 8–10. 27. Williams, Tudor Regime, 127–35, 438–52 (quotation at 128). 28. Longfield, Anglo-Irish Trade, 27–40, 71–93, 117–24, 196–212. 29. Gillingham, ‘Foundations of a Disunited Kingdom’; Davies, First English Empire, ch. 5; Brigden, New Worlds, 9–11. 30. Ellis, Tudor Frontiers, pt. i. 31. Williams, Recovery, ch. 11; Jones, Wales and the Tudor State, 1–38, 172–3 (quotation at 173); Ellis, ‘Crisis of the Aristocracy?’ 32. Williams, Wales and the Act of Union. 33. Ellis, Ireland, chs. 6, 11–12; Brady, Chief Governors. 34. Bush, Government Policy, ch. 2; Merriman, Rough Wooings, chs. 10–14. 35. Donaldson, Scotland, 85–211; Williams, Later Tudors, 238–40, 251–3, 259, 286, 288, 299–300, 523–5; Wernham, Before the Armada, 244–58. 36. Doran, Elizabeth I; Wernham, Before the Armada, 158–408; Haigh, Elizabeth I, 27–57; Hoyle, ‘Faction, Feud and Reconciliation’. 37. Quoted, Williams, Wales and the Act of Union, 20. 38. Spence, ‘Pacification of the Cumberland Borders’; Ellis, Pale and the Far North, 27–33 (quotations 27, 28).

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

1966 Review: R. H. M. Dolley, The Hiberno-Norse Coins in the British Museum (London, 1966), Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 71 (1966), 178–9.

1967 ∗

‘The Judicial Powers of the Medieval Irish Keepers of the Peace’, The Irish Jurist, new series, 2 (1967), 308–26.

1971 Review: P. W. A. Asplin, Medieval Ireland c.1170–1495: A Bibliography of Secondary Works (Dublin, 1971), Studia Hibernica, 11 (1971), 184–6.

1972 ∗

‘The Justiciar and the Murder of the MacMurroughs in 1282’, Irish Historical Studies, 18 (1972–1973), 223–30. ‘The Immediate Effect and Interpretation of the 1331 Ordinance Una et eadem lex: Some New Evidence’, The Irish Jurist, new series, 7 (1972), 109–14.

1973 ‘The Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford: Warfare and Politics in Fourteenth-Century Ireland’, Studia Hibernica, 13 (1973), 7–47.

1974 ∗ ‘The Bruces in Ireland, 1315–1318’, Irish Historical Studies, 19 (1974–1975), 3–37. Review: J. Lydon, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Dublin, 1973), Studia Hibernica, 14 (1974), 162–6.

1975 ∗

‘English Officials and Irish Chiefs in the Fourteenth Century’, English Historical Review, 90 (1975), 748–77. 193

194

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

Review: R. Dudley Edwards, An Atlas of Irish History (London, 1973), Durham University Journal, 68 (1975), 95–6.

1977 ∗

‘Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland, 1272–1377’, Past and Present, 76 (1977), 3–33.

1978 Review: G. W. S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland, 2nd edn. (Edinburgh, 1976), Welsh History Review, 9 (1978–1979), 98–9.

1980 Review: N. Fryde, The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II, 1321–1326 (Cambridge, 1979) Welsh History Review, 10 (1980–1981), 243–4.

1981 Colonial Ireland 1169–1369 (Dublin, 1981). ∗ ‘English Policies and Anglo-Irish Attitudes in the Crisis of 1341–2’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 86–103.

1982 English Lordship in Ireland 1318–1361 (Oxford, 1982).

1984 ∗

‘War and Peace in the Medieval Lordship of Ireland’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 118–41.

1985 ∗

‘The Campaign against the Scots in Munster, 1317’, Irish Historical Studies, 24 (1985), 361–72.

1986 ∗

‘Ireland and the Barons’ Wars’, in P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd (eds.), Thirteenth Century England I (Woodbridge, 1986), 158–67.

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

195

Review: M. Richter, Irland im Mittelalter: Kultur und Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1983), Welsh History Review, 13 (1986–1987), 105–6. Review: K. J. Stringer, Earl David of Huntingdon 1152–1219: A Study in AngloScottish History (Edinburgh, 1985) and K. J. Stringer (ed.), Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland (Edinburgh, 1985), History, 71 (1986), 503–4.

1987 Review: R. R. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales 1063–1415 (Oxford, 1987), The Times Higher Education Supplement, 760 (29 May 1987), 15. Review: A. Cosgrove (ed.), Medieval Ireland 1169–1534: A New History of Ireland II (Oxford, 1987), The Times Literary Supplement, 4403 (21 August 1987), 905. Review: S. G. Ellis, Reform and Revival: English Government in Ireland 1470–1534 (London, 1986), Albion, 19 (1987), 225–6.

1988 ∗

‘Aristocracies and the Political Configuration of the British Isles’, in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988), 142–59. Review: T. O’Neill, Merchants and Mariners in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1987), History, 73 (1988), 482.

1989 ∗

‘Military Service in the Lordship of Ireland, 1290–1360: Institutions and Society on the Anglo-Gaelic Frontier’, in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), 101–26. ∗ ‘England and Ireland, 1171–1399’, in M. Jones and M. Vale (eds.), England and Her Neighbours 1066–1453: Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais (London, 1989), 139–55.

1990 The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400 (Oxford, 1990). Review: M. T. Flanagan, Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship: Interactions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1989), The Times Higher Education Supplement, 901 (9 February 1990), 20. Review: K. Simms, From Kings to Warlords: The Changing Political Structure of Gaelic Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1987), English Historical Review, 105 (1990), 446–7.

1991 Review: C. McGladdery, James II (Edinburgh, 1990), Archives, 19 (1991), 442–3.

196

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

1992 ‘Commissions of the Peace in Ireland, 1302–1461’, Analecta Hibernica, 35 (1992), 1–43. ∗ ‘King Henry III and Ireland: The Shaping of a Peripheral Lordship’, in P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd (eds.), Thirteenth Century England IV (Woodbridge, 1992), 179–202. Review: S. Taylor and D. E. R. Watt (eds.), Scotichronicon, by Walter Bower, V (Aberdeen, 1990), Welsh History Review, 16 (1992–1993), 117–19. Review: J. Given, State and Society in Medieval Europe: Gwynedd and Languedoc under Outside Rule (Ithica, 1990), History, 78 (1992), 281–2.

1993 ∗

‘ “Les Engleys nées en Irlande”: The English Political Identity in Medieval Ireland’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, 3 (1993), 83–103. Review: N. H. Reid (ed.), Scotland in the Reign of Alexander III, 1249–1286 (Edinburgh, 1990), Durham University Journal, 85 (1993), 171–2. Review: T. M. Charles-Edwards, Early Irish and Welsh Kinship (Oxford, 1993), The Times Literary Supplement, 4712 (23 July 1993), 23. Review: D. Crouch, The Image of Aristocracy in Britain 1000–1300 (London, 1992), Early Medieval Europe, 2 (1993), 165. Review: P. Connolly and G. Martin (eds.), The Dublin Guild Merchant Roll c.1190– 1265 (Dublin, 1992), Archives, 20 (1993), 87.

1995 The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400. Revised edn. (Oxford, 1995). Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon, ed. [with T. B. Barry and K. Simms] (London, 1995), and the essay therein: ‘Two Kings in Leinster: The Crown and the MicMhurchadha in the Fourteenth Century’, 155– 75. ∗ ‘Overlordship and Reaction c.1200–c.1450’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History, ed. A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (London, 1995), 65–84. ‘Medieval History’, Centre for Manx Studies: Research Report, i, pp. 22–4. Review: A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Medieval Scotland: Crown, Community and Lordship. Essays presented to G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1993), Scottish Historical Review, 74 (1995), 111–14. Review: R. A. Griffiths, Conquerors and Conquered in Medieval Wales (Stroud, 1994), Archives, 22 (1995), 103. Review: M. Clark and R. Refaussé, Dictionary of Dublin Historic Guilds (Dublin, 1994), Archives, 22 (1995), 104.

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

197

1996 ‘The Defence of the English Lordship, 1250–1450’, in T. Bartlett and K. Jeffery (eds.), A Military History of Ireland (Cambridge, 1996), 76–98, 468–70. ‘Thomas Rokeby, Sheriff of Yorkshire, Justiciar of Ireland’, Peritia, 10 (1996), 274–96. Review: R. C. Stacey, The Road to Judgment: From Custom to Court in Medieval Ireland and Wales (Philadelphia, 1994), Early Medieval Europe, 5 (1996), 246–7.

1997 ‘Wales: The Principality and the Marches’, in A. MacKay and D. Ditchburn (eds.), Atlas of Medieval Europe (London, 1997), 164, 167–8 [2nd edn., 2007, ed. D. Ditchburn, S. MacLean and A. MacKay, 209–10]. ‘Ireland: English and Gaelic Lordship c.1350’, in A. MacKay and D. Ditchburn (eds.), Atlas of Medieval Europe (London, 1997), 168–9 [2nd edn., 2007, ed. D. Ditchburn, S. MacLean and A. MacKay, 210–12]. Thirteenth Century England VI, ed. [with M. Prestwich and R. H. Britnell] (Woodbridge, 1997). Review: W. N. Osborough (ed.), Explorations in Law and History (Dublin, 1995), American Journal of Legal History, 41 (1997), 164–5. Review: D. Broun, The Charters of Gaelic Scotland and Ireland in the Early and Central Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1995), Scottish Historical Review, 76 (1997), 264. Review: A. D. Carr, Medieval Wales (London, 1995), Archives, 22 (1997), 67. Review: K. L. Maund, Handlist of the Acts of Native Welsh Rulers 1132–1283 (Cardiff, 1996), Archives, 22 (1997), 67–8.

1998 Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998) [Includes the fifteen papers marked ∗ above, in some cases with revisions and notes on later work. They are prefaced (pp. 1–13) by ‘The “Failure” of the First English Conquest of Ireland’.] ‘Thomas Rokeby, Sheriff of Yorkshire, the Custodian of David II’, in D. Rollason and M. Prestwich (eds.), The Battle of Neville’s Cross 1346–1996 (Stamford, 1998), 50–56. Entries in S. J. Connolly (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford, 1998). [Absentees; Anglo-Scottish wars; archers; army; bastard feudalism; Bermingham family; Bermingham, John de, earl of Louth (d. 1329); Bermingham, Walter de (d. 1350); black rent; Burgh, Hubert de, earl of Kent (d. 1243); Burgh, Richard de (d. 1243); Burgh, William de, earl of Ulster (d. 1333); Clare, family; Clare, Thomas de (d. 1287); Curtis, Edmund (1881– 1943); Darcy, John (d. 1347); Desmond, Maurice fitz Thomas, first earl of (d. 1356); frontier society; Gaelicization; Geneville (Joinville), Geoffrey de (d. 1314); government and administration; Hundred Years War; justiciar; keeper of the peace; king’s lieutenant; knight service; Kyteler, Alice (fl. 1324); Lacy family; Lacy, Walter de (d. 1241); lordship of Ireland; Lucy, Anthony (d. 1343); MacMurrough, Art, king of Leinster (d. 1416/17); Marshal family; Marshal, Richard, earl of Pembroke and lord of Leinster (d. 1234); ‘More

198

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

Irish than the Irish themselves’; Mortimer family; Mortimer, Roger, first earl of March (d. 1330); Normans; parliament; Resumption, acts of; Rokeby, Thomas (d. 1357); Ufford, Ralph (d. 1346); Ulster, earldom of; wardship.]

1999 Thirteenth Century England VII, ed. [with M. Prestwich and R. H. Britnell]. (Woodbridge, 1999). Entries in W. J. McCormack (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Modern Irish Culture (Oxford, 1999) [(with R. J. Hunter) County; Pale.] Review: C. McNamee, The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland 1306– 1328 (East Linton, 1997), History, 84 (1999), 140–1. Review: J. F. Lydon (ed.), Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997), English Historical Review, 114 (1999), 690–1. Review: T. Barnard, D. Ó Cróinín and K. Simms (eds.), ‘A Miracle of Learning’. Studies in Manuscripts and Irish Learning. Essays in Honour of William O’Sullivan (Aldershot, 1998), English Historical Review, 114 (1999), 967–8.

2000 ‘Ireland’, in M. Jones (ed.), New Cambridge Medieval History, VI. c.1300–1415 (Cambridge, 2000), 375–87, 967–70. ‘The Two Nations of Medieval Ireland’, http://www.bbc.uk. Review: C. Harper-Bill (ed.), Anglo-Norman Studies XX: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference 1997 (Woodbridge, 1998), History, 85 (2000), 122–3. Review: B. Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (Cambridge, 1999), English Historical Review, 115 (2000), 926–7. Review: B. Smith, Conquest and Colonisation: The English in Louth 1170–1330 (Cambridge, 1999), History, 85 (2000), 703–4. Review: S. Leigh Fry, Death and Burial in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1999), English Historical Review, 115 (2000), 1269–70.

2001 ‘Conquest and Settlement’, in B. Harvey (ed.), Short Oxford History of the British Isles: The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2001), 30–66. Thirteenth Century England VIII, ed. [with M. Prestwich and R. H. Britnell] (Woodbridge, 2001).

2002 ‘English Political Culture in Medieval Ireland’, in The History Review (University College Dublin), 13 (2002), 1–11. Article in S. J. Connolly, Oxford Companion to Irish History, new edn. (Oxford, 2002) [Desmond].

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

199

Review: M. Sughi (ed.), Registrum Octaviani alias Liber Niger. Register of Octavian de Palatio, Archbishop of Armagh, 1478–1513, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1999), English Historical Review, 117 (2002), 168–9.

2003 ‘Kingdoms and Dominions at Peace and War’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), Short Oxford History of the British Isles: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2003), 148–80. Thirteenth Century England IX, ed. [with M. Prestwich and R. H. Britnell] (Woodbridge, 2003). Review: J. B. Smith and L. B. Smith (eds.), History of Merioneth, II. The Middle Ages (Cardiff, 2001), English Historical Review, 118 (2003), 437–8. Review: P. Connolly, Medieval Record Sources, Maynooth Research Guides for Irish Local History, 4 (Dublin, 2002), Journal of the Society of Archivists, 24 (2003), 115–16.

2004 Entries in H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). [Bermingham, John de, earl of Louth (d. 1329); Burgh, Walter de, earl of Ulster (d. 1271); Burgh, William de, earl of Ulster (d. 1333); Butler, Edmund (d. 1321); Butler, James, first earl of Ormond (d. 1338); Butler, James, second earl of Ormond (d. 1382); Carew, John (d. 1362); Clare, Thomas de (d. 1287); (with T. W. Moody) Curtis, Edmund (1881–1943); Fitzgerald, John fitz Thomas (d. 1261); Fitzgerald, Maurice fitz Gerald (d. 1268); Fitzgerald, Maurice fitz Maurice (d. 1286); Fitzgerald, Maurice fitz Thomas, first earl of Desmond (d. 1356); Fitzgerald, Maurice fitz Thomas, fourth earl of Kildare (d. 1390); Fitzgerald, Thomas fitz John, second earl of Kildare (d. 1328); Lancaster, Matilda of, countess of Ulster (d. 1377); MacMurrough, Art, king of Leinster (d. 1416); Morice, John (d. 1362); Rokeby, Thomas (d. 1357); St Amand, Almaric de (d. 1381); Ufford, Ralph (d. 1346).] Review: J. Muldoon, Identity on the Medieval Irish Frontier: Degenerate Englishmen, Wild Irishmen, Middle Nations (Gainesville, 2003), English Historical Review, 119 (2004), 1029–30.

2005 ‘Exporting State and Nation: Being English in Medieval Ireland’, in L. Scales and O. Zimmer (eds.), Power and the Nation in European History (Cambridge, 2005), 143–65. Thirteenth Century England X, ed. [with M. Prestwich and R. H. Britnell] (Woodbridge, 2005).

2006 ‘The Wider World’, in R. Horrox and W. M. Ormrod (eds.), A Social History of England 1200–1500 (Cambridge, 2006), 435–53.

200

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame

Review: H. Pryce with C. Insley (eds.), The Acts of Welsh Rulers 1120–1283 (Cardiff, 2005), Welsh History Review, 23 (2006–2007), 187–9. Review: G. H. Opren, Ireland under the Normans 1169–1333, with an Introduction by Seán Duffy (Dublin, 2005), Medium Aevum, 75 (2006), 353–4. Review: D. Hall, Women and the Church in Medieval Ireland c.1140–1540 (Dublin, 2003), English Historical Review, 121 (2006), 1441–3.

2007 ‘Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales, c.1170–c.1360’, in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), 125–38. Review: E. FitzPatrick, Royal Inauguration in Gaelic Ireland c.1100–1600: A Cultural Landscape Study (Woodbridge, 2004), English Historical Review, 122 (2007), 159–61. Review: D. Moore, The Welsh Wars of Independence c.410–c.1415 (Stroud, 2005), English Historical Review, 122 (2007), 232–3. Review: M. Potterton, Medieval Trim: History and Archaeology (Dublin, 2005), English Historical Review, 122 (2007), 237–8.

2008 ‘Historians, Aristocrats and Plantagenet Ireland, 1200–1360’, in C. Given-Wilson, A. Kettle and L. Scales (eds.), War, Government and Aristocracy in the British Isles, c.1150–1500: Essays in Honour of Michael Prestwich (Woodbridge, 2008), 131–47.

Note: [Items marked ∗ also appear in R. Frame, Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998)]

Works Cited

Primary sources Cambridge, Trinity College MS. B.15.11 Cambridge, University Library MS. Ii.iv.5 Dublin, NAI EX 1 – Original Memoranda Rolls Ferguson – J. F. Ferguson’s ‘Repertory to the Memoranda rolls’ KB 1 – Original Justiciary Rolls KB 2 – Calendars of Justiciary Rolls Lodge – Lodge MS ‘Articles with Irish chiefs, Denizations etc.’ [1A 53 66] RC 7 – Record Commissioners’ Calendar of Plea rolls RC 8 – Record Commissioners’ Calendar of Memoranda Rolls Dublin, NLI MS 4, Harris Collectanea MS 761, W. Betham, ‘Excerpta Rotulis Pipae Hiberniae’ ii Dublin, Trinity College MS. 1339 Curtis Papers Box II. London, BL Additional MS. 6041 Additonal MS. 31826 Cotton Titus B xi Cotton Vespasian F. vii London, College of Arms Betham MSS: Repertory to Records of the Exchequer, H.V–H.VI William Lynch MS: Repertory of Irish Memoranda rolls London, Lambeth Palace Library Carew MS. 608 London, LI MS. Hale 188 – Reports of Cases MS. Miscellaneous 87 – Reports of Cases 201

202

Works Cited

London, TNA 1. Chancery C 47 – Miscellanea C 61 – Gascon Rolls, 1253–1468 C 65 – Parliament Rolls C 241 – Certificates of Statute Merchant and Statute Staple SC 1 – Special Collections: Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and Exchequer SC 8 – Special Collections: Ancient Petitions 2. Exchequer E 101 – King’s Remembrancer: Accounts Various E 159 – King’s Remembrancer: Memoranda Rolls E 175 – Parliament and Council Proceedings E 208 – King’s Remembrancer: Brevia Baronibus files E 368 – Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer: Memoranda Rolls E 401 – Exchequer of Receipt: Receipt Rolls and Registers SC 6 – Special Collections: Ministers’ and Receivers’ Accounts SC 9 – Special Collections: Parliament Rolls, Exchequer Series 3. Judicial CP 25 – Court of Common Pleas, General Eyres and Court of King’s Bench: Feet of Fines Files, Richard I – Henry VII CP 40 – Court of Common Pleas: Plea Rolls JUST 1 – Justices in Eyre, of Assize, of Oyer and Terminer, and of the Peace, etc: Rolls and Files KB 27 – Court of King’s Bench: Plea and Crown Sides: Coram Rege Rolls 4. Other PRO 28 – Public Record Office: Reproductions of Records, etc: Film Copies of Extraneous Documents. (Society of Antiquaries, London, MSS. 120, 121) Oxford, Bodleian Library Laud Misc. 614

Primary printed sources ‘An Account of Military Expenditure in Leinster, 1308’, ed. P. Connolly, Analecta Hibernica, 30 (Dublin 1982), 1–5. Account Roll of the Priory of the Holy Trinity, Dublin, 1337–1346, ed. J. Mills (Dublin, 1891). Acts of Archbishop Colton in his Metropolitan Visitation of the Diocese of Derry, 1397, ed. W. Reeves (Dublin, 1850). Acts of the Lords of the Isles, 1336–1493, ed. J. Munro and R. W. Munro (Edinburgh, 1986). Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions from All Souls MS 182, ed. M. D. Legge (Oxford, 1941).

Works Cited

203

Anglo-Scottish Relations 1174–1328, ed. E. L. G. Stones (London, 1965). Annála Connacht: The Annals of Connacht, ed. A. M. Freeman. Institute for Advanced Studies (Dublin, 1944). Annála Ríoghachta Éireann: Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters from the Earliest Period to the Year 1616, ed. and trans. J. O’Donovan, 7 vols. (repr.: with introduction by K. Nicholls, Blackrock, 1998). Annála Uladh: The Annals of Ulster, ed. B. MacCarthy, 4 vols. (repr.: Blackrock, 1998). Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, 5 vols. RS (London, 1864–1869). The Annals of Clonmacnoise, ed. D. Murphy (repr.: Lampeter, 1993). The Annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn, ed. B. Williams (Dublin, 2007). The Annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn and Thady Dowling, ed. R. Butler (Dublin, 1849). ‘Annals of Worcester’, in Annales Monastici, IV, ed. H. R. Luard. RS (London, 1869). ‘The Bridlington Chronicle’, in Chronicles of Edward I and II, II, ed. W. Stubbs. RS (London, 1883). The Brut, or Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. E. Brie, 2 vols. Early English Texts Society (London, 1906–1908). Calendar of Archbishop Allen’s Register c.1172–1534, ed. C. McNeill (Dublin, 1950). Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, 1515–74 (London, 1867). Calendar of Chancery Warrants Preserved in the Public Record Office. Vol. 1, AD 1244– 1326 (London, 1927). Calendar of the Charter Rolls, 6 vols. (London, 1903–1927). Calendar of the Close Rolls (London, 1900– ). Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, ed. H. S. Sweetman, 5 vols. (London, 1875–1886). Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, ed. J. Bain, G. G. Simpson and J. D. Galbraith, 5 vols. (Edinburgh, 1881–1986). Calendar of the Early Mayor’s Court Rolls, ed. A. H. Thomas (Cambridge, 1924). Calendar of the Fine Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1272–1509, 22 vols. (London, 1911–1962). Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls . . . of Ireland, ed. J. Mills and M. C. Griffith, 3 vols. (Dublin, 1905–1956). Calendar of the Ormond Deeds, 1172–1350 [etc.], ed. E. Curtis, 6 vols. IMC (Dublin, 1932–1943). Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1216–1509, 54 vols. (London, 1891–1916). Catalogue of the Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 5 vols. (Cambridge, 1856–1867). Chartularies of St Mary’s Abbey, Dublin . . . and Annals of Ireland, 1162–1370, ed. J. T. Gilbert, 2 vols. RS (London, 1884–1886). The Chronicle of Adam Usk 1377–1421, ed. C. Given-Wilson (Oxford, 1997). The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey: A Stratigraphic Edition, Volume I, ed. D. Broun and J. Harrison (Woodbridge, 2007). The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. T. Wright, 2 vols. (London 1866–1868). The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. H. Rothwell, Camden Society (London, 1957). Chronicles of Edward I and II, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. RS (London, 1882–1883).

204

Works Cited

The Chronicles of Engerrand de Monstrelet, ed. and trans. T. Johnes, 2 vols. (London, 1840). Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynbroke, ed. E. M. Thompson (Oxford, 1889). Documents on the Affairs of Ireland before the King’s Council, ed. G. O. Sayles. IMC (Dublin, 1979). ‘Documents on the Early Stages of the Bruce Invasion of Ireland, 1315–1316’, ed. J. R. S. Phillips, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 79 (1979) C, 247–70. ‘Documents Relating to the Suppression of the Templars in Ireland’, ed. G. Mac Niocaill, Analecta Hibernica, 24 (1967), 183–226. Dowdall Deeds, ed. C. McNeill and A. J. Otway-Ruthven. IMC (Dublin, 1960). The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Volume II, ed. M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1968). ‘The Enrolled Account of Alexander Bicknor, Treasurer of Ireland, 1308–14’, ed. J. F. Lydon, Analecta Hibernica, 30 (1982), 7–46. The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, ed. J. Stuart and G. Burnett, 23 vols. (Edinburgh, 1878–1908). Expugnatio Hibernica: The Conquest of Ireland by Giraldus Cambrensis, ed. and trans. A. B. Scott and F. X. Martin (Dublin, 1978). Extracta e Variis Cronicis Scocie. Abbotsford Club (Edinburgh, 1842). ‘Extracts from Historia Aurea and a French “Brut” (1317–1347)’, ed. V. H. Galbraith, EHR, 43 (1928), 203–17. Facsimiles of the National Manuscripts of Scotland, 3 vols. (Southampton, 1867–1872). The First English Life of Henry V, ed. C. L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1911). Flores Historiarum, ed. H. R. Luard, 3 vols. RS (London, 1890). ‘A French Metrical History of the Deposition of King Richard II’, ed. J. Webb, Archaeologia, 20 (1824), 1–423. Froissart, Chronicles, ed. and trans. G. Brereton (Harmondsworth, 1968). Gascon Rolls, 1307–17, ed. Y. Renouard (Paris and London, 1962). The Great Book of Irish Genealogies compiled 1645–66 by Dubhaltach MacFirbhisigh, ed. N. Ó Muraíle, 5 vols. (Dublin 2004). Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, in M. Hanmer, E. Campion and E. Spenser, The Historie of Ireland (Dublin, 1633). ‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle of Ireland’, ed. J. Ware, in Ancient Irish Histories, 2 vols. (Dublin 1809), II. Historic and Municipal Documents of Ireland, AD 1172–1320, ed. J. T. Gilbert. RS (London, 1870). Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, ed. J. Gairdner. Camden Society, n.s., 17 (London, 1876). Irish Exchequer Payments, 1270–1446, ed. P. Connolly. IMC (Dublin, 1998). Irish Historical Documents, 1172–1922, ed. E. Curtis and R. B. McDowell (London, 1943; repr.: 1967). ‘Irish Materials in the Class of Chancery Warrants Series I (C. 81) in the Public Record Office, London’, ed. P. Connolly, Analecta Hibernica, 36 (1995), 135–62. Issues of the Exchequer, Henry III–Henry VI, ed. F. Devon (London, 1837). Jacobi Grace Kilkenniensis Annales Hiberniae, ed. R. Butler (Dublin, 1842). John Barbour, The Bruce, ed. A. A. M. Duncan (Edinburgh, 1997). John of Fordun, Chronica Gentis Scottorum, ed. W. F. Skene, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1871–1872).

Works Cited

205

Laing Charters: Calendar of the Laing Charters 854–1837, ed. J. Anderson (Edinburgh, 1899). Leabhar Cloinne Aodha Buidhe, ed. T. Ó Donnchadha (Dublin, 1931). ‘The Legal Proceedings against the First Earl of Desmond’, ed. G. O. Sayles, Analecta Hibernica, 23 (1966), 3–47. Legends of the Saints in the Scottish Dialect in the Fourteenth Century, ed. W. M. Metcalfe, 3 vols. STS (Edinburgh, 1896). Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, 21 vols. (London, 1862–1932). The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye: A Poem on the Use of Sea-Power 1436, ed. Sir George Warner (Oxford, 1926). ‘Lord Chancellor Gerrard’s Notes of His Report on Ireland’, ed. C. McNeill, Analecta Hibernica, 2 (1931), 93–291. The Love Letters of Henry VIII, ed. H. Savage (London, 1949). ‘The Metropolitan Visitation of the Diocese of Derry by Archbishop Colton A.D. 1397’, ed. and trans. J. Scott Porter, Ulster Journal of Archaeology, first series, 1 (1853), 66–78, 184–97, 232–41. Miscellaneous Irish Annals (AD 1114–1447), ed. S. Ó hInnse (Dublin, 1947). Oeuvres de Froissart Publiées avec les Variants des Divers Manuscrits, ed. H. Kervyn de Lettenhove, 25 vols. (Brussels, 1867–1877). The Original Chronicle of Andrew of Wyntoun, ed. F. J. Amours, 6 vols. STS (Edinburgh, 1903–1914). Original Letters Illustrative of English History Including Numerous Royal Letters, ed. H. Ellis, second series, 4 vols. (London 1827). The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, 1275–1504, gen. ed. C. Given-Wilson, 16 vols. (Woodbridge, 2005). Parliamentary Texts of the Later Middle Ages, ed. N. Pronay and J. Taylor (Oxford, 1980). Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons, ed. F. Palgrave, 2 vols. in 4. RC (London, 1827–1834). Parliaments and Councils of Mediaeval Ireland, I, ed. H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles. IMC (Dublin, 1947). Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews. Volume VI, ed. P. Brand. Jewish Historical Society of England (London, 2005). Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, ed. N. H. Nicolas, 7 vols. (London, 1834–1837). Regesta Regum Scottorum, ed. G. W. S. Barrow, A. A. M. Duncan, 6 vols. of projected 8 (Edinburgh, 1960– ). The Register of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1418– 1439, ed. D. A. Chart (Belfast, 1935). The Register of Milo Sweteman, Archbishop of Armagh 1361–1380, ed. B. Smith. IMC (Dublin, 1996). The Register of Nicholas Fleming, Archbishop of Armagh 1404–1416, ed. B. Smith. IMC (Dublin, 2003). Registrum de Dunfermelyn. Bannatyne Club (Edinburgh, 1842). Registrum Honoris de Morton, 2 vols. Bannatyne Club (Edinburgh, 1853). [First (etc.)] Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records in Ireland (Dublin, 1869– ).

206

Works Cited

Reports of the Commissioners . . . Respecting the Public Records of Ireland; with Supplement and Appendixes, 1811–15 (London, 1815). Rôles Gascons, ed. C. Bémont, 3 vols. (Paris, 1896–1906). A Roll of the Proceedings of the King’s Council in Ireland . . . 1392–93, ed. J. Graves. RS (London, 1877). Rotuli Scotiae in Turri Londoniensi et in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservati, ed. D. Macpherson, J. Caley and W. Illingworth, 2 vols. RC (London, 1814– 1819). Rotulorum Patentium et Clausorum Cancellariae Hibernie Calendarium, ed. E. Tresham (Dublin, 1828). The Scalacronica, 1272–1363, by Sir Thomas Gray, ed. A. King (Woodbridge, 2005). Secret of Secrets (Secreta Secretorum): A Modern Translation, with Introduction, of The Governance of Princes, ed. L. K. Kerns (Lewiston, NY, 2008). Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench, Edward I – Edward III, ed. G. O. Sayles, 5 vols. Selden Society (London, 1936–1958). ‘Sheriffs’ Accounts of the Honor of Dungarvan, of Tweskard in Ulster, and of Co. Waterford, 1261–3’, ed. E. Curtis, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 39 (1929–1931), C, 1–17. Sir John Froissart’s Chronicles, trans. T. Johnes, 2 vols. (London, 1848). Statute Rolls of the Irish Parliament, Richard III to Henry VIII, ed. P. Connolly (Dublin, 2002). Statutes and Ordinances and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, King John to Henry V, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1907). ‘A Survey of Egypt and Syria, Undertaken in the Year 1422, by Sir Gilbert de Lannoy’, ed. J. Webb, in Archaeologia, 21 (1827), 281–444. Three Prose Versions of the Secreta Secretorum, I, ed. R. Steele. Early English Texts Society. Extra Series, 74 (London, 1898). Treaty Rolls, 1234–1325, ed. P. Chaplais (London, 1955). Tudor Royal Proclamations, ed. P. L. Hughes and J. F. Larkin, 3 vols. (New Haven, 1964–1969). ‘Unpublished Letters from Richard II in Ireland, 1394–5’, ed. E. Curtis, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 37 (1927), C, 276–303. Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N. Denholm-Young (London, 1957). Vita Edwardi Secundi: The Life of Edward II, ed. W. Childs (Oxford, 2005). Vita Nobilissimi Defensoris Scotie Wilelmi Wallace Militis, ed. M. P. McDiarmad, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1968). Walter Bower, Scotichronicon, gen. ed. D. E. R. Watt, 9 vols. (Aberdeen, 1987–1998). The War of St. Sardos, ed. P. Chaplais. Camden Society 3rd series, 77 (London, 1954). Welsh Records in Paris, ed. T. Matthews (Carmarthen, 1910). The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalogue, ed. M. R. James, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1900–1904). The Westminster Chronicle: 1381–1394, ed. L. C. Hector and B. F. Harvey (Oxford, 1982). Willelmi Rishanger, Chronica et Annales, ed. H. T. Riley. RS (London, 1865). Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the First. Years 21–22, ed. A. J. Horwood (London, 1873).

Works Cited

207

Secondary sources Alford, S., The Early Elizabethan Polity: William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 1558–1569 (Cambridge, 1998). Allmand, C. T., Henry V (London, 1992). ——, Lancastrian Normandy, 1415–50: The History of a Medieval Occupation (Oxford, 1983). —— (ed.), New Cambridge Medieval History VI. c.1415–c.1500 (Cambridge, 1998). Appleby, J. C. and Dalton, P. (eds.), Government, Religion and Society in Northern England, 1000–1700 (Stroud, 1997). Arbel, B. (ed.), Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean (London and Portland, 1996). Archer, R. (ed.), Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century (Stroud, 1995). Asch, R. G. (ed.), Three Nations – a Common History? England, Scotland, Ireland and British History c.1600–1920 (Bochum, 1993). Ball, F. E., The Judges in Ireland 1221–1921, 2 vols. (London, 1926). Bannerman, J. W. M., ‘The Lordship of the Isles’, in J. M. Brown (ed.), Scottish Society in the Fifteenth Century (London and New York, 1977), 209–40. Barlow, F., The Feudal Kingdom of England (5th edn, Harlow, 1999). Barrell, A. D. M., Medieval Scotland (Cambridge, 2000). Barron, E. M., The Scottish War of Independence: A Critical Study (1st edn, London, 1914); (2nd edn, Inverness, 1934). Barrow, G. W. S., The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History (Oxford, 1980). ——— (ed.), The Declaration of Arbroath: History, Significance, Setting (Edinburgh, 2003). ———, ‘French after the Style of Petithachengon’, in B. E. Crawford (ed.), Church, Chronicle and Learning in Medieval and Early Renaissance Scotland (Edinburgh, 1999), 187–93. ——, Kingship and Unity: Scotland, 1000–1306 (Edinburgh, 1981). ——, ‘The Lost Gàidhealtachd’, in G. W. S. Barrow (ed.), Scotland and Its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), 105–26. ——, ‘Lothian in the First War of Independence, 1296–1328’, SHR, 55 (1976), 151–71. ——, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland (3rd edn, Edinburgh, 1988). —— (ed.), Scotland and Its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992). —— (ed.), The Scottish Tradition (Edinburgh, 1974). Barry, T. ‘The Last Frontier: Defence and Settlement in Late Medieval Ireland’, in T. Barry, R. Frame and K. Simms (eds.), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon (London and Rio Grande, 1995), 217–28. ——, Frame, R. and Simms, K. (eds.), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon (London and Rio Grande, 1995). Bartlett, R., Gerald of Wales, 1146–1223 (Oxford, 1982). ——, The Making of Europe (Harmondsworth, 1993). —— and MacKay, A. (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989). Bauer, C., Boehm, L. and M˝ uller, M. (eds.), Speculum Historiale: Geschichte im Spiegel von Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsdeutung (Freiburg and Munich, 1965).

208

Works Cited

Bawcutt, P. and Hadley Williams, J. (eds.), A Companion to Medieval Scottish Poetry (Cambridge, 2006). Bean, J. M. W., The Estates of the Percy Family, 1416–1537 (Oxford, 1958). Bennett, M., ‘Forms of Cultural Expression’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2003), 117–48. ——, Richard II and the Revolution of 1399 (Stroud, 1999). ——, ‘Richard II and the Wider Realm’, in A. Goodman and J. Gillespie (eds.), Richard II: The Art of Kingship (Oxford, 1999), 187–204. Bhreathnach, E., ‘Medieval Irish History at the End of the Twentieth Century: Unfinished Work’, IHS, 32 (2000–2001), 260–71. Bisson, T., Medieval France and Her Pyrenean Neighbours: Studies in Early Institutional History (London, 1989). Bjørn, C., Grant, A. and Stringer, K. J. (eds.), Nations, Nationalism and Patriotism in the European Past (Copenhagen, 1994). Blakely, R. M., The Brus Family in England and Scotland, 1100–1295 (Woodbridge, 2005). Blockmans, W., Emperor Charles V, 1500–1558 (London, 2002). Boardman, S., ‘The Campbells and Charter Lordship in Medieval Argyll’, in S. Boardman and A. Ross (eds.), The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland, c.1200–1500 (Dublin, 2003), 95–117. ——, ‘Chronicle Propaganda in Late Medieval Scotland: Robert the Steward, John of Fordun and the “Anonymous Chronicle” ’, SHR, 76 (1997), 23–43. ——, The Early Stewart Kings: Robert II and III, 1371–1406 (East Linton, 1996). ——, ‘Late Medieval Scotland and the Matter of Britain’, in E. J. Cowan and R. J. Finlay (eds.), Scottish History: The Power of the Past (Edinburgh, 2002), 65–71. ——, ‘ “Thar nobill eldrys gret bounte” ’ . Politics, History and Literature in the Reigns of Robert II (1371–1390) and Robert III (1390–1406)’, in M. H. Brown and R. Tanner (eds.), Scottish Kingship 1306–1488 (Edinburgh, 2008). —— and Ross, A. (eds.), The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland, c.1200–1500 (Dublin, 2003). Bolton, J. L, ‘Irish Migration to England in the Late Middle Ages: The Evidence of 1394 and 1440’, IHS, 32 (2000–2001), 1–21. Boutruche, R., La Crise D’Une Société: Seignurs et Paysans du Bordelais Pendant la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1947). Bradshaw, B. and Morrill, J. (eds.), The British Problem c.1534–1707: State Formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (Basingstoke, 1996). Bradshaw, B. and Roberts, P. (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Making of Britain, 1533–1707 (Cambridge, 1998). Brady, C., The Chief Governors: The Rise and Fall of Reform Government in Tudor Ireland, 1536–1588 (Cambridge, 1994). Brigden, S., New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors 1485–1603 (London, 2000). Britnell, R. H. and Pollard, A. J. (eds.), The McFarlane Legacy: Studies in Late Medieval Politics and Society (Stroud, 1995). Brooke, D., Wild Men and Holy Places: St Ninian, Whithorn and the Medieval Realm of Galloway (Edinburgh, 1994). Broun, D., ‘Attitudes of Gall to Gaedhel in Scotland before John of Fordun’, in D. Broun and M. MacGregor (eds.), Mìorun Mòr nan Gall, ‘The Great Ill-Will of the

Works Cited

209

Lowlander’? Lowland Perceptions of the Highlands, Medieval and Modern (Glasgow, 2007), 49–82. ——, ‘Becoming Scottish in the Thirteenth century: The Evidence of the Chronicle of Melrose’, in B. B. Smith, S. Taylor and G. Williams (eds.), West Over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Seaborne Expansion and Settlement before 1300 (Leiden, 2007), 19–32. ——, ‘The Declaration of Arbroath: Pedigree of a Nation?’ in G. W. S. Barrow (ed.), The Declaration of Arbroath: History, Significance, Setting (Edinburgh, 2003), 1–12. ——, The Irish Identity of the Kingdom of the Scots (Woodbridge, 1999). ——, Scottish Independence and the Idea of Britain (Edinburgh, 2007). —— and MacGregor, M. (eds.), Mìorun Mòr nan Gall, ‘The Great Ill-Will of the Lowlander’? Lowland Perceptions of the Highlands, Medieval and Modern (Glasgow, 2007). Brown, A. L., The Governance of Late Medieval England, 1272–1461 (London, 1989). Brown, E. A. R., ‘Gascon Subsidies and the Finances of the English Dominions, 1315–24’, in H. L. Adelson (ed.), Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History VIII (Lincoln, 1971), 37–145. Brown, J. M. (ed.), Scottish Society in the Fifteenth Century (London and New York, 1977). Brown, M. H., The Black Douglases: War and Lordship in Late Medieval Scotland, 1300–1455 (Edinburgh, 1998). ——, ‘The Development of Scottish Border Lordship, 1332–58’, Historical Research, 70 (1997), 1–22. ——, ‘Earldom and Kindred: the Lennox and Its Earls, 1200–1458’, in S. Boardman and A. Ross (eds.), The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland, c.1200–1500 (Dublin, 2003), 201–24. ——, ‘Scoti Anglicati: Scots in Plantagenet Allegiance during the Fourteenth Century’, in A. King and M. Penman (eds.), England and Scotland in the Fourteenth Century: New Perspectives (Woodbridge, 2007), 94–115. ——, ‘Scotland Tamed? Kings and Magnates in Late Medieval Scotland, a Review of Recent Work’, Innes Review, 45 (1994), 120–46. ——, The Wars of Scotland 1214–1371 (Edinburgh, 2004). —— and Tanner, R. (eds.), Scottish Kingship 1306–1488 (Edinburgh, 2008). Buck, M., Politics, Finance and the Church in the Reign of Edward II (Cambridge, 1983). ——, ‘The Reform of the Exchequer, 1316–26’, EHR, 98 (1983), 241–60. Burgess, G. (ed.), The New British History: Founding a Modern State 1603–1715 (London, 1999). Bush, M., The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (London, 1975). ——, The Pilgrimage of Grace: A Study of the Rebel Armies of October 1536 (Manchester, 1996). Cannadine, D., ‘British History as a “New” Subject’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995), 12–30. Carney, J. and Greene, D. (eds.), Celtic Studies: Essays in Memory of Angus Matheson 1912–62 (London, 1968). Carpenter, C., ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’, Journal of British Studies, 33 (1994), 340–80. ——, The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution of England c.1437–1509 (Cambridge, 1997).

210

Works Cited

Carr, A. D., Medieval Wales (Basingstoke, 1995). ——, Owen of Wales: The End of the House of Gwynedd (Cardiff, 1991). ——, ‘Wales: Economy and Society’, in S. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 125–41. Castor, H., The King, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster: Public Authority and Private Power, 1399–1461 (Oxford, 2000). Catto, J., ‘Written English: The Making of the Language 1370–1400’, Past and Present, 179 (2003), 24–59. Chaplais, P., Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981). ——, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages. 2 pts. (London, 1975, 1982). Cherry, M., ‘The Courtney Earls of Devon: The Formation and Disintegration of a Late Medieval Aristocratic Affinity’, Southern History, 1 (1978), 71–98. Childs, W., ‘Moving Around’, in R. Horrox and W. M. Ormrod (eds.), A Social History of England 1200–1500 (Cambridge, 2006), 435–53. Chrimes, S. B., Henry VII (London, 1972). Clark, L. (ed.), The Fifteenth Century VI: Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2006). Clarke, M. V., Fourteenth-Century Studies, ed. L. S. Sunderland and M. McKisack (Oxford, 1937). ——, ‘Irish Parliaments in the Reign of Edward II’, in M. V. Clarke (ed.), FourteenthCentury Studies, ed. L. S. Sunderland and M. McKisack (Oxford, 1937), 1–35. Connolly, P., ‘The Financing of English Expeditions to Ireland, 1361–1376’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 104–21. ——, ‘Lionel of Clarence and Ireland 1361–1366’. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dublin (1977). ——, ‘Pleas Held Before the Chief Governor of Ireland, 1308–76’, Irish Jurist, new series, 9 (1983), 101–31. Connolly, S. J. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford, 1998). Conway, A., Henry VII’s Relations with Scotland and Ireland, 1485–1498 (Cambridge, 1932). Cooney, H. (ed.), Nation, Court and Culture (Dublin, 2001). Cosgrove, A., ‘The Emergence of the Pale, 1399–1447’, in A. Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland II. Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987), 533–56. ——, ‘England and Ireland, 1399–1447’, in A. Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland II. Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987), 525–32. ——, Late Medieval Ireland, 1370–1541 (Dublin, 1981), 37–46. —— (ed.), A New History of Ireland II. Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987). Coss, P., The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003). Cowan, E. J. and Finlay, R. J. (eds.), Scottish History: The Power of the Past (Edinburgh, 2002). Crawford, B. E. (ed.), Church, Chronicle and Learning in Medieval and Early Renaissance Scotland (Edinburgh, 1999). Crook, D., Records of the General Eyre. Public Record Office Handbooks 20 (London, 1982). Crooks, P., ‘The Background to the Arrest of the Fifth Earl of Kildare and Sir Christopher Preston in 1418: A Missing Membrane’, Analecta Hibernica, 40 (2007), 1–15.

Works Cited

211

——, ‘Factionalism and Noble Power in English Ireland, c.1361–1423’. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dublin (2007). ——, ‘Factions, Feuds and Noble Power in the Lordship of Ireland, c.1356–1494’, IHS 35 (2006–2007), 425–54. ——, ‘ “Hobs”, “Dogs” and Politics in the Ireland of Lionel of Antwerp, c.1361–6’, in S. Morillo and D. Korngiebel (eds.), Haskins Society Journal 16 (Woodbridge, 2006), 117–48. Cross, F. L. and Livingstone, E. A. (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd edn, Oxford, 1997). Crowder, C. M. D., ‘Henry V, Sigismund and the Council of Constance: A Reexamination’, Historical Studies, 4 (1963), 93–110. Cruickshank, C., Henry VIII and the Invasion of France (Stroud, 1990). Cunliffe, B., Bartlett, R., Bourke, J., Briggs, A. and Morrill, J. (eds.), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History (London, 2001). Curry, A., Agincourt: A New History (Stroud, 2005). ——, ‘The First English Standing Army? Military Organization in Lancastrian Normandy’, in C. Ross (ed.), Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England (Gloucester, 1979), 193–214. ——, The Hundred Years War (Basingstoke, 2003). Curtis, E., ‘Feudal Charters of the de Burgo Lordship’, in J. Ryan (ed.), Féilsgríbhinn Eóin Mhic Néill (Dublin, 1940), 286–95. ——, A History of Medieval Ireland from 1086 to 1513 (2nd edn, London, 1938). ——, ‘The MacQuillan or Mandeville lords of the Route’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 44 (1938), C, 99–113. ——, Richard II in Ireland 1394–5 and the Submissions of the Irish Chiefs (Oxford, 1927). Davies, J., A Discoverie of the True Causes Why Ireland Was Never Entirely Subdued, Nor Brought under Obedience of the Crowne of England, until the Beginning of His Majesties Happie Raigne (London, 1612). Davies, R. R. (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988). ——, Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales, 1063–1415 (Oxford and Cardiff, 1987). ——, Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland, Scotland and Wales, 1100– 1300 (Cambridge, 1990). ——, ‘The English State and the “Celtic” Peoples, 1100–1400’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 6 (1993), 1–13. ——, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles 1093–1343 (Oxford, 2000). ——, ‘Frontier Arrangements in Fragmented Societies: Ireland and Wales’, in R. Bartlett and A. Mackay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), 77–100. ——, ‘A History of the British Isles?’ WHR, 21 (2002–2003), 357–60. ——, ‘In Praise of British History’, in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles, 1100– 1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988), 9–26. ——, Lords and Lordship in the British Isles in the Late Middle Ages, ed. B. Smith (Oxford, 2009). ——, ‘Lordship or Colony?’ in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 142–60.

212

Works Cited

——, Lordship and Society in the March of Wales, 1282–1400 (Oxford, 1978). ——, ‘The Medieval State: The Tyranny of a Concept?’ Journal of Historical Sociology, 16 (2003), 280–98. ——, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. I: Identities’, TRHS, 6th series, 4 (1994), 1–20. ——, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. IV: Language and Historical Mythology’, TRHS, 6th series, 7 (1997), 1–24. ——, The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr ˆ (Oxford, 1995). ——, ‘Richard II and the Principality of Chester’, in F. R. H. du Boulay and C. M. Barron (eds.), The Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour of May McKisack (London, 1971), 256–79. DeVries, K., ‘The Reasons for the Bishop of Norwich’s Attack on Flanders in 1383’, in W. M. Ormrod (ed.), Fourteenth Century England, III (Woodbridge, 2004), 155–65. Dobson, R. B., Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester and New York, 1984). Dockray, K., Henry V (Stroud, 2004). Dodd, G. (ed.), The Reign of Richard II (Stroud, 2000). Dolan, T., ‘Writing in Ireland’, in D. Wallace (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature (Cambridge, 1999), 208–28. ——, ‘Yonge, James (fl. 1405–1434)’, in ODNB, LX, 811–12. Dolley, M., ‘Anglo-Irish Monetary Policies, 1172–1637’, in J. C. Beckett (ed.), Historical Studies VII (London, 1969), 45–64. Donaldson, G., Scotland: James V – James VII (Edinburgh, 1965). Doran, S., Elizabeth I and Foreign Policy, 1558–1603 (London, 2000). Drexler, M., ‘Fluid Prejudice: Scottish Origin Myths in the Later Middle Ages’, in J. Rosenthal and C. Richmond (eds.), People, Politics and Community in the Later Middle Ages (Gloucester,1987), 60–76. Dryburgh, P. R., ‘The Career of Roger Mortimer, First Earl of March (c.1287–1330)’. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol (2003). ——, ‘The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel? Edward II and Ireland, 1321–7’, in G. Dodd and A. Musson (eds.), The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives (Woodbridge, 2006), 119–39. Du Boulay, F. R. H. and Barron, C. M. (eds.), The Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour of May McKisack (London, 1971). Dudley Edwards, R., Ireland in the Age of the Tudors (London, 1977). Duffy, S., ‘The British Perspective’, in S. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 165–82. ——, ‘The Bruce Brothers and the Irish Sea World’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 21 (1991), 55–86. ——, ‘The Bruce Invasion of Ireland: A Revised Itinerary and Chronology’, in S. Duffy (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: The Invasions of Ireland 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002), 9–43. ——, ‘Historical Revisit: Goddard Henry Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, 1169– 1333 (1911–1920)’, IHS, 32 (2000–2001), 246–59. ——, Ireland in the Middle Ages (Dublin, 1997). ——, ‘The Problem of Degeneracy’, in J. Lydon (ed.), Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997), 87–106.

Works Cited

213

—— (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: The Invasions of Ireland 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002). —— (ed.), The World of the Galloglass: Kings, Warlords and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200–1600 (Dublin, 2007). Duncan, A. A. M., Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1975). ——, ‘The Scots’ Invasion of Ireland, 1315’, in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500 (Edinburgh, 1988), 100–17. ——, ‘The War of the Scots, 1306–23’, TRHS, 6th series, 2 (1992), 125–51. Edbury, P. (ed.), Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff, 1985). Edwards, D., The Ormond Lordship in County Kilkenny 1515–1642: The Rise and Fall of Butler Feudal Power (Dublin, 2003). Ellis, S. G., ‘A Crisis of the Aristocracy? Frontiers and Noble Power in the Early Tudor State’, in J. Guy (ed.), The Tudor Monarchy (London, 1997), 330–40. ——, ‘From Dual Monarchy to Multiple Kingdoms: Unions and the English State, 1422–1607’, in A. Macinnes and J. Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century (Dublin, 2002), 37–48. ——, ‘The English State and its Frontiers in the British Isles, 1300–1600’, in D. Power and N. Standen (eds.), Frontiers in Question: Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700 (Basingstoke, 1999), 153–81. ——, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors: English Expansion and the End of Gaelic Rule (London, 1998). ——, ‘Languages 1500–1800’, in B. Cunliffe, R. Bartlett, J. Bourke, A. Briggs and J. Morrill (eds.), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History (London, 2001). ——, The Pale and the Far North: Government and Society in Two Early Tudor Borderlands (Galway, 1988). ——, Tudor Frontiers and Noble Power: The Making of the British State (Oxford, 1995). ——, ‘Tudor State Formation and the Shaping of the British Isles’, in S. G. Ellis and S. Barber (eds.), Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State, 1485–1725 (London, 1995), 40–58. ——, ‘Writing Irish History: Revisionism, Colonialism, and the British Isles’, The Irish Review, 19 (1996), 1–21. —— and Barber, S. (eds.), Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State, 1485–1725 (London, 1995). Empey, C. A., ‘The Settlement of the Kingdom of Limerick’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn OtwayRuthven (Dublin, 1981), 1–25. —— and Simms, K., ‘The Ordinances of the White Earl and the Problem of Coign in the Later Middle Ages’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 75 (1975), C, 161–87. Ferguson, W., The Identity of the Scottish Nation (Edinburgh, 1998). Finucane, R. C., Miracles and Pilgrims (2nd edn, Basingstoke, 1995). Fissel, M. C., English Warfare, 1511–1642 (London, 2001). Flanagan, M. T., Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship: Interactions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1989). —— and Green, J. A. (eds.), Charters and Charter Scholarship in Britain and Ireland (Basingstoke and New York, 2005).

214

Works Cited

Fleming, P., ‘Identity and Belonging: Irish and Welsh in Fifteenth-Century Bristol’, in L. Clark (ed.), The Fifteenth Century VII: Conflicts, Consequences and the Crown in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2007), 175–93. ——, Gross, A. and Lander, J. R. (eds.), Regionalism and Revision: The Crown and Its Provinces in England, 1250–1650 (London, 1998). Forde, S., Johnson, L. and Murray, A. V. (eds.), Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages (Leeds, 1995). Forte, S. L., ‘Simon of Boraston, O.P. Life and Writings’, Archivium Fratrum Praedicatorum, vol. 22 (Rome, 1952), 321–45. Frame, R., ‘Aristocracies and the Political Configuration of the British Isles’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 151–69. [Originally published in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988), 142–59.] ——, ‘The Bruces in Ireland, 1315–18’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170– 1450 (London, 1998), 71–98. [Originally published in IHS, 19 (1974–1975), 3–37.] ——, ‘Butler, James, second earl of Ormond (1331–1382)’, in ODNB, IX, pp. 145–6. ——, ‘The Campaign against the Scots in Munster, 1317’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 99–112. [Originally published in IHS, 24 (1985), 361–72.] ——, Colonial Ireland 1169–1369 (Dublin, 1981). ——, ‘Conquest and Settlement’, in B. F. Harvey (ed.), The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: 1066–c.1280 (Oxford, 2001), 31–66. ——, ‘The Dublin Government and Gaelic Ireland 1272–1361: The Making of War and the Making of Peace in the Irish Lordship’. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dublin (1971). ——, ‘England and Ireland, 1171–1399’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 15–30. [Originally published in M. Jones and M. Vale (eds.), England and Her Neighbours 1066–1453: Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais (London, 1989), 139–55.] ——, English Lordship in Ireland 1318–61 (Oxford, 1982). ——, English Officials and Irish Chiefs in the Fourteenth Century’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 249–77. [Originally published in EHR, 90 (1975), 748–77.] ——, ‘English Policies and Anglo-Irish Attitudes in the Crisis of 1341–1342’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 113–29. [Originally published in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin: 1981), 86–103.] ——, ‘English Political Culture in Later Medieval Ireland’, The History Review, 13 (2002), 1–11. ——, ‘Exporting State and Nation: Being English in Medieval Ireland’, in L. Scales and O. Zimmer (eds.), Power and the Nation in European History (Cambridge, 2005), 143–65. ——, ‘The “Failure” of the First English Conquest of Ireland’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 1–13. ——, ‘The Immediate Effect and Interpretation of the 1331 Ordinance Una et Eadem Lex: Some New Evidence’, Irish Jurist, new series, 7 (1972), 109–14.

Works Cited

215

——, ‘Ireland’, in M. Jones (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History VI. c.1300– c.1415 (Cambridge, 2000), 375–87. ——, Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998). ——, ‘The Judicial Powers of the Medieval Irish Keepers of the Peace’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 301–17. [Originally published in The Irish Jurist, new series, 2 (1967), 308–26.] ——, ‘The Justiciar and the Murder of the MacMurroughs in 1282’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 241–7. [Originally published in IHS, 18 (1972–1973), 223–30.] ——, ‘The Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford: Warfare and Politics in Fourteenth Century Ireland’, Studica Hibernica, 13 (1973), 7–47. ——, ‘Kingdoms and Dominions at Peace and War’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2003), 149–82. ——, ‘ “Les Engleys nées en Irlande”: The English Political Identity in Medieval Ireland’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 131–50. [Originally published in TRHS, 6th series, 3 (1993), 83–103.] ——, ‘Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales, c.1170–c.1360’, in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), 125–38. ——, ‘Military Service in the Lordship of Ireland, 1290–1360: Institutions and Society on the Anglo-Gaelic Frontier’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 279–99. [Originally published in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), 101–26.] ——, ‘Overlordship and Reaction, c.1200–c.1450’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 171–90. [Originally published in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995), 65–84.] ——, The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400 (Oxford, 1990, new edn., 1995). ——, ‘Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland, 1272–1377’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 191–220. [Originally published in Past and Present, 76 (1977), 3–33.] ——, ‘Thomas Rokeby, Sheriff of Yorkshire, Justiciar of Ireland’, Peritia 10 (1996), 274–96. ——, ‘War and Peace in the Medieval Lordship of Ireland’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 221–39. [Originally published in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 118–41.] ——, ‘The Wider World’, in R. Horrox and W. M. Ormrod (eds.), A Social History of England 1200–1500 (Cambridge, 2006), 435–53. France, J., The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom 1000–1714 (London and New York, 2005). Fraser, T. G. and Jeffrey, K. (eds.), Historical Studies 18 (Dublin, 1993). Fraser, W., The Douglas Book, 4 vols. (Edinburgh, 1885). Gallagher, N., ‘Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop of Dublin, 1317–49’. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University College Dublin (1997). Gillingham, J., The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values (Woodbridge, 2000).

216

Works Cited

——, ‘Foundations of a Disunited Kingdom’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995), 48–64. ——, The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fifteenth-Century England (London, 1981). Given-Wilson, C., Chronicles: The Writing of History in Medieval England (London, 2004). ——, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community (London, 1987). Goldstein, R. J., The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland (Nebraska, 1993). Goodman, A., John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe (London, 1992). ——, ‘Kingship and Government’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2003), 183–216. ——, The Wars of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452–97 (London, 1981). —— and Gillespie, J. (eds.), Richard II: The Art of Kingship (Oxford, 1999). Grant, A., ‘Aspects of National Consciousness in Medieval Scotland’, in C. Bjørn, A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Nations, Nationalism and Patriotism in the European Past (Copenhagen, 1994), 68–95. ——, Independence and Nationhood: Scotland 1306–1469 (London, 1984; repr.: Edinburgh, 1996). ——, ‘Scotland’s “Celtic Fringe” in the Late Middle Ages: The Macdonald Lords of the Isles and the Kingdom of Scotland’, in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988), 118–41. ——, ‘Scottish Foundations: Late Medieval Contributions’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995), 97–108. —— and Stringer, K. J., ‘Introduction: The Enigma of British History’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995), 3–11. —— and Stringer, K. J. (eds.), Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community (Edinburgh, 1993). ——, Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995). Green, D., ‘Lordship and Principality: Colonial Policy in Ireland and Aquitaine in the 1360s’, Journal of British Studies, 47 (2008), 3–29. Greeves, R., ‘The Galloway Lands in Ulster’, TDGNHAS, 36 (1959), 115–22. Griffith, M. C., ‘The Talbot – Ormond Struggle for Control of the Anglo-Irish Government, 1414–47’, IHS, 2 (1940–1), 376–97. Griffiths, R. A., ‘Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century’, in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), 211–25. ——, ‘The English Realm and Dominions and the King’s Other Subjects in the Later Middle Ages’, in J. G. Rowe (ed.), Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society: Essays Presented to J. R. Lander (Toronto, 1986), 83–99. —— (ed.), The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2003).

Works Cited

217

——, ‘Wales and the Marches in the Fifteenth Century’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), King and Country: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London, 1991), 55–82. Gross, A., ‘Regionalism and Revision’, in P. Fleming, A. Gross and J. R. Lander (eds.), Regionalism and Revision: The Crown and its Provinces in England, 1250– 1650 (London, 1998), 1–13. Guenée, B., States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe, trans. J. Vale (Oxford, 1985). Guy, J. (ed.), The Tudor Monarchy (London, 1997). Gwynn, A., ‘Ireland and the English Nation at the Council of Constance’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 45 (1940), C, 183–233. Haigh, C., Elizabeth I (London, 1988). Hamilton, J. S., Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall: Politics and Patronage in the Age of Edward II (London, 1988). Hand, G. J., ‘English Law in Ireland, 1172–1351’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 23 (1972), 393–422. ——, English Law in Ireland 1290–1324 (Cambridge, 1967). Harbison, S., ‘William of Windsor in Ireland 1369–1376’. Unpublished M.Litt Thesis, University of Dublin (1977). Haren, M., ‘Laudabiliter: Text and Context’, in M. T. Flanagan and J. A. Green (eds.), Charters and Charter Scholarship in Britain and Ireland (Basingstoke and New York, 2005), 140–63. Harper-Bill, C. (ed.), Medieval East Anglia (Woodbridge, 2005). Harriss, G. L., ‘The Dimensions of Politics’, in R. H. Britnell and A. J. Pollard (eds.), The McFarlane Legacy: Studies in Late Medieval Politics and Society (Stroud, 1995), 1–20. —— (ed.), Henry V: The Practice of Kingship (Oxford, 1985). ——, King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975). ——, Shaping the Nation: England 1360–1461 (Oxford, 2005). Hartland, B., ‘The Household Knights of Edward I in Ireland’, Historical Research, 77 (2004), 59–70. ——, ‘The Liberties of Ireland in the Reign of Edward I’, in M. Prestwich (ed.), Liberties and Loyalties in Medieval Britain and Ireland (Woodbridge, 2008), 200–16. ——, ‘Reasons for Leaving: The Effect of Conflict on English Landholding in late Thirteenth Century Leinster’, Journal of Medieval History, 32 (2006), 18–26. Harvey, B., ‘Conclusion’, in B. Harvey (ed.), The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2001), 243–64. —— (ed.), The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2001). Harvey, M., England, Rome and the Papacy 1417–1464: The Study of a Relationship (Manchester and New York, 1993). ——, The English in Rome, 1362–1420: Portrait of an Expatriate Community (Cambridge, 1999). ——, ‘Martin V and Henry V’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 24 (1986), 49–70. Hays, L., and Jones, E. D., ‘Policy on the Run: Henry II and Irish Sea Diplomacy’, Journal of British Studies, 29 (1990), 293–316. Hicks, M., English Political Culture in the Fifteenth Century (London, 2002). Holmes, G., ‘The Libel of English Policy’, EHR, 76 (1961), 193–216.

218

Works Cited

Horrox, R., ‘England: Kingship and Political Community, 1377–c.1500’, in S. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 224–41. —— and Ormrod, W. M. (eds.), A Social History of England 1200–1500 (Cambridge, 2006). Housley, N., ‘Crusades against Christians: Their Origin and Early Development, c.1000–1216’, in P. Edbury (ed.), Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff, 1985), 17–35. ——, ‘Frontier Societies and Crusading in the Late Middle Ages’, in B. Arbel (ed.), Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean (London and Portland, 1996), 104–19. ——, The Italian Crusades: The Papal – Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay Powers, 1254–1343 (Oxford, 1982). ——, The Later Crusades, 1274–1580: From Lyons to Alcazar (Oxford, 1992). ——, Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400–1536 (Oxford, 2002). Hoyle, R. W., ‘Faction, Feud and Reconciliation among the Northern English Nobility, 1525–1569’, History, 84 (1999), 590–613. ——, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s (Oxford, 2001). Hudson, A. (ed.), Wyclif: Political Ideas and Practice: Papers by Michael Wilks (Oxford, 2000). James, M., Society, Politics and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1986). Johnson, P. A., Duke Richard of York 1411–1460 (Oxford, 1988). Johnston, D., ‘Chief Governors and Treasurers in the Reign of Richard II’, in T. Barry, R. Frame and K. Simms (eds.), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon (London and Rio Grande, 1995), 97–115. ——, ‘The Interim Years: Richard II and Ireland, 1395–1399’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn OtwayRuthven (Dublin, 1981),175–195. ——, ‘Richard II and Ireland, 1395–9’. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Dublin (1976). ——, ‘Richard II and the Submissions of Gaelic Ireland’, IHS, 22 (1980), 1–20. ——, ‘Richard II’s Departure from Ireland, July 1399’, EHR, 98 (1983), 785–805. Johnstone, H., ‘The County of Ponthieu, 1279–1307’, EHR, 29 (1914), 435–52. —— and Stuart, E. P., ‘Richard of Elsfield as Constable of Bordeaux, 1318–20’, EHR, 52 (1937), 23–38. Jones, J. G., Wales and the Tudor State: Government, Religious Change and the Social Order 1534–1603 (Cardiff, 1989). Jones, M. (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History VI. c.1300–c.1415 (Cambridge, 2000). ——, ‘Relations with France, 1337–1399’, in M. Jones and M. Vale (eds.), England and Her Neighbours, 1066–1453: Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. (London, 1989), 239–58. —— and Vale, M. (eds.), England and Her Neighbours, 1066–1453: Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais (London, 1989). Kaeuper, R. W. (ed.), Violence in Medieval Society (Woodbridge, 2000). Kearney, H., The British Isles: A History of Four Nations (Cambridge, 1989).

Works Cited

219

Keen, M., ‘Diplomacy’, in G. L. Harriss (ed.), Henry V: The Practice of Kingship (Oxford, 1985), 181–99. Kerby-Fulton, K. and Despres, D. L., Iconography and the Professional Reader: The Politics of Book Production in the Douce Piers Plowman (Medieval Cultures, 15: Minneapolis and London, 1999). —— and Justice, S., ‘Langlandian Reading Circles and the Civil Service in London and Dublin, 1380–1427’, in W. Scase, R. Copeland and D. Lawton (eds.), New Medieval Literatures, I (Oxford, 1997), 59–83. ——, ‘Reformist Intellectual Culture in the English and Irish Civil Service: The Modus Tenendi Parliamentum and its Literary Relations’, Traditio, 53 (1998), 149–202. King, A. and Penman, M. (eds.), England and Scotland in the Fourteenth Century: New Perspectives (Woodbridge, 2007). Kingston, S., Ulster and the Isles in the Fifteenth Century: The Lordship of the Clann Domhnaill of Antrim (Dublin, 2004). Kirby, J. L., Henry IV of England (London, 1970). Labarge, M. W., Gascony: England’s First Colony 1204–1453 (London, 1980). Le Patourel, J., The Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 1199–1399 (Oxford, 1937). ——, ‘The Plantagenet Dominions’, History, 50 (1965), 289–308. Liddy, C. and Britnell, R. (eds.), North-East England in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2005). Linehan, P. A., ‘A Fourteenth-Century History of Anglo-Scottish Relations in a Spanish Manuscript’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 48 (1975), 106–22. Lloyd, S., ‘ “Political Crusades” in England, c.1215–17 and c.1263–65’, in P. Edbury (ed.), Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff, 1985), 113–20. Lodge, E., ‘The Constables of Bordeaux in the Reign of Edward III’, EHR, 50 (1935), 225–41. ——, Gascony under English Rule (London, 1926). Longfield, A. K., Anglo-Irish Trade in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1929). Lydon, J. F., ‘The Bruce Invasion of Ireland’, in G. A. Hayes-Macoy (ed.), Historical Studies 4 (Galway, 1963), 111–25. ——, ‘Edward I, Ireland and the War in Scotland, 1303–4’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn OtwayRuthven (Dublin, 1981), 43–61. —— (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981). —— (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984). ——, ‘The Impact of the Bruce Invasion, 1315–27’, in S. Duffy (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: The Invasions of Ireland 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002), 119–52. ——, ‘Ireland and the English Crown, 1171–1541’, IHS, 29 (1995), 281–94. ——, Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Dublin, 1973). ——, ‘Irish Levies in the Scottish Wars, 1296–1302’, The Irish Sword, 5 (1963), 207–17.

220

Works Cited

—— (ed.), Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997). ——, The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle Ages. New edn. (Dublin, 2003). ——, ‘The Middle Nation’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 10–24. ——, ‘Nation and Race in Medieval Ireland’, in S. Forde, L. Johnson and A. V. Murray (eds.), Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages (Leeds, 1995), 103–24. ——, ‘The Problem of the Frontier in Medieval Ireland’, Topic. A Journal of the Liberal Arts, 12 (1967), 5–22. ——, ‘Richard II’s Expeditions to Ireland’, Journal of the Royal Society of the Antiquaries of Ireland, 93 (1963), 135–49. MacCaffrey, W., Elizabeth I (London, 1993). ——, ‘The Newhaven Expedition, 1562–3’, Historical Journal, 40 (1997), 1–21. McCulloch, A., Galloway: A Land Apart (Edinburgh, 2000). MacCulloch, D. (ed.), The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety (Basingstoke, 1995). McDiarmid, M. P. and Stevenson, J. A. C. (eds.), Barbour’s Bruce: A Fredome is a Noble Thing!, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1980–1985). MacDonald, A. J., Border Bloodshed: Scotland and England at War 1369–1403 (Edinburgh, 2000). ——, ‘Kings of the Wild Frontier? The Earls of Dunbar or March, c.1070–1435’, in S. Boardman and A. Ross (eds.), The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland, c.1200–1500 (Dublin, 2003), 139–58. McDonald, R. A., The Kingdom of the Isles: Scotland’s Western Seaboard c.1100– c.1336 (East Linton, 1997). McFarlane, K. B., ‘Had Edward I a “Policy” towards the Earls?’ History, 50 (1965), 145–59. ——, Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights (Oxford, 1972). Macinnes, A. and Ohlmeyer, J. (eds.), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century (Dublin, 2002). McNamee, C., The Wars of the Bruces (East Linton, 1997). MacNeill, E., Phases of Irish History (Dublin, 1920). MacQueen, H., ‘The Laws of Galloway: A Preliminary Survey’, in R. D. Oram and G. P. Stell (eds.), Galloway: Land and Lordship (Edinburgh, 1991), 131–43. MacQueen, H., ‘Laws and Languages: Some Historical Notes from Scotland’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 6.2 (July 2002), http://law.kub.nl/ejcl/62/art62-2.html. Maddicott, J. R., Thomas of Lancaster, 1307–1322 (Oxford, 1970). —— and Palliser, D. M. (eds.), The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell (London, 2000). Maginn, C., ‘English Marcher Lineages in South Dublin in the late Middle Ages’, IHS, 34 (2004), 113–36. Mason, R. A., ‘Scotching the Brut: Politics, History and National Myth in Sixteenth-Century Britain’, in R. A. Mason (ed.), Scotland and England, 1286– 1815 (Edinburgh, 1987), 60–84. —— (ed.), Scotland and England 1286–1815 (Edinburgh, 1987). Matthew, E., ‘Butler, James, fourth earl of Ormond (1390–1452)’, in ODNB, IX, 147–9.

Works Cited

221

——, ‘The Financing of the Lordship of Ireland under Henry V and Henry VI’, in A. J. Pollard (ed.), Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History (Gloucester and New York, 1984), 97–115. ——, ‘The Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland in the Time of James Butler, Fourth Earl of Ormond, c. 1420–1452’. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham (1994). Meek, C. and Simms, K. (eds.), ‘The Fragility of Her Sex’? Medieval Irishwomen in Their European Context (Dublin, 1996). Merriman, M., The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots 1542–1551 (East Linton, 2000). Miller, H., Henry VIII and the English Nobility (Oxford, 1986). Milner, J. D., ‘The Battle of Baugé, March 1421: Impact and Memory’, History, 91 (2006), 484–507. Moody, T. W., Martin, F. X. and Byrne, F. J. (eds.), A New History of Ireland. IX. Maps, Genealogies, Lists (Oxford, 1984). Morgan, P., ‘Cheshire and Wales’, in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), 195–210. ——, ‘Henry IV and the Shadow of Richard II’, in R. Archer (ed.), Crown, Government and People in the Fifteenth Century (Stroud, 1995), 1–31. ——, ‘Ranks of Society’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2003), 59–86. Morrison, I. A., ‘Galloway: Locality and Landscape Evolution’, in R. D. Oram and G. P. Stell (eds.), Galloway: Land and Lordship (Edinburgh, 1991), 1–16. Mortimer, I., The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, First Earl of March, Ruler of England, 1327–1330 (London, 2003). Mortimer, R. H. R., ‘Lordship and Patronage: John Darcy and the Dublin Administration 1324–47’. Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, University of Durham (1990). Moynes, J., ‘The Prestons of Gormanston, c. 1300–1532: An Anglo-Irish Gentry Family’, Riocht na Midhe, 14 (2003), 26–55. Murison, D. D., ‘Linguistic Relationships in Medieval Scotland’, in G. W. S. Barrow (ed.), The Scottish Tradition (Edinburgh, 1974), 71–83. Murphy, B., ‘The Status of the Native Irish after 1331’, Irish Jurist, new series, 2 (1967), 116–28. Neilson, G., Annals of the Solway until AD 1307 (new edn, Beckermet, 1974). Neville, C. J., Native Lordship in Medieval Scotland: The Earldoms of Strathearn and Lennox, c.1140–1365 (Dublin, 2005). ——, ‘Remembering the Past: Anglo-Scottish Border Law and Practice in the Later Middle Ages’, in C. Liddy and R. Britnell (eds.), North-East England in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2005), 43–55. ——, Violence, Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1998). Newton, D., North-East England, 1569–1625: Governance, Culture and Identity (Woodbridge, 2006). Nicholls, K., ‘Scottish Mercenary Kindreds in Ireland, 1250–1600’, in S. Duffy (ed.), The World of the Galloglass: Kings, Warlords and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200–1600 (Dublin, 2007), 86–105. Nicholson, R., Edward III and the Scots (Oxford, 1965). ——, Scotland: The Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1974).

222

Works Cited

O’Byrne, E., War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 1156–1606 (Dublin, 2003). Ó Cléirigh, C., ‘The Absentee Landlady and the Sturdy Robbers: Agnes de Valence’, in C. Meek and K. Simms (eds.), ‘The Fragility of Her Sex’? Medieval Irishwomen in Their European Context (Dublin, 1996), 101–18. ——, ‘The O’Connor Faly Lordship of Offaly, 1395–1513’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 96 (1996), C, 87–102. O’Donovan, D., ‘Building the Butler Lordship, 1405–c. 1552’. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Dublin (2007). Oliver, A. E., ‘Battling Bishops: Late Fourteenth-Century Episcopal Masculinity Admired and Decried’, in C. Harper-Bill (ed.), Medieval East Anglia (Woodbridge, 2005), 272–86. Oram, R. D., ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, TDGNHAS, 67 (1992), 29–47. ——, The Lordship of Galloway (Edinburgh, 2000). —— and G. P. Stell (eds.), Galloway: Land and Lordship (Edinburgh, 1991). Ormrod, W. M., ‘Edward III and his Family’, Journal of British Studies, 26 (1987), 398–422. ——, ‘The English State and the Plantagenet Empire, 1259–1360: A Fiscal Perspective’, in J. R. Maddicott and D. M. Palliser (eds.), The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell (London, 2000), 197–214. —— (ed.), Fourteenth Century England, III (Woodbridge, 2004). ——, Political Life in Medieval England, 1300–1450 (Basingstoke, 1995). ——, The Reign of Edward III (new edn, Stroud, 2000). ——, Bonney, M. and Bonney R. (eds.), Crises, Revolutions and Self-Sustained Growth: Essays in European Fiscal History, 1130–1830 (Stamford, 1999). Orpen, G. H., Ireland under the Normans 1169–1333, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1911–1920; repr.: with introduction by S. Duffy, Dublin, 2005). Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘Anglo-Irish Shire Government in the Thirteenth Century’, IHS, 5 (1946–1947), 1–10. ——, ‘The Background to the Arrest of Sir Christopher Preston in 1418’, Analecta Hibernica, 29 (1980), 71–94. ——, ‘The Chief Governors of Medieval Ireland’, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 95 (1965), 227–36. ——, A History of Medieval Ireland (London, 1968). ——, ‘Ireland in the 1350s: Sir Thomas de Rokeby and his Successors’, Journal of the Royal Society of the Antiquaries of Ireland, 97 (1967), 47–59. ——, ‘The Native Irish and English Law in Medieval Ireland’, IHS, 7 (1950– 1951), 1–16. ——, ‘Select documents: The Request of the Irish for English Law, 1277–80’, IHS, 6 (1948–1949), 261–70. Palmer, J. J. N., England, France and Christendom, 1377–99 (London, 1972). Penman, M., ‘ “A Fell Coniuracioun again Robert the Douchty King”: The Soules Conspiracy of 1318–1320’, Innes Review, 50 (1999), 25–57. Phillips, J. R. S., Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, 1307–24: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford, 1972). ——, ‘Edward II and Ireland (in Fact and in Fiction)’, IHS, 33 (2002), 1–18. ——, ‘The Irish Remonstrance of 1317: An International Perspective’, IHS, 27 (1990), 112–29.

Works Cited

223

——, ‘The Mission of John de Hothum to Ireland, 1315–1316’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 62–85. ——, ‘The Remonstrance Revisited: England and Ireland in the Early Fourteenth Century’, in T. G. Fraser and K. Jeffrey (eds.), Historical Studies 18 (Dublin, 1993), 13–27. ——, ‘Simon de Montfort (1265), the Earl of Manchester (1644), and Other Stories: Violence and Politics in Thirteenth- and Early Fourteenth-Century England’, in R. W. Kaeuper (ed.), Violence in Medieval Society (Woodbridge, 2000), 79–89. Pocock, J. G. A., ‘British History: A Plea for a New Subject’, Journal of Modern History, 47 (1975), 601–28. Pollard, A. J., ‘The Characteristics of the Fifteenth-Century North’, in J. C. Appleby and P. Dalton (eds.), Government, Religion and Society in Northern England, 1000–1700 (Stroud, 1997), 131–43. ——, ‘Introduction’, in C. Liddy and R. Britnell (eds.), North-East England in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2005), 1–12. ——, North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses: Lay Society, War and Politics, 1450–1500 (Oxford, 1990). —— (ed.), Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History (Gloucester and New York, 1984). ——, The Wars of the Roses (Basingstoke, 2001). Potter, D., ‘Foreign Policy’, in D. MacCulloch (ed.), The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety (Basingstoke, 1995), 101–33. Potterton, M., Medieval Trim: History and Archaeology (Dublin, 2005). Power, D. and Standen, N. (eds.), Frontiers in Question: Eurasian Borderlands, 700– 1700 (Basingstoke, 1999). Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward: The Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1947). Prestwich, M., ‘Colonial Scotland: The English in Scotland under Edward I’, in R. A. Mason (ed.), Scotland and England 1286–1815 (Edinburgh, 1987), 6–17. ——, Edward I (new edn, London, 1997). —— (ed.), Liberties and Loyalties in Medieval Britain and Ireland (Woodbridge, 2008). ——, Plantagenet England, 1225–1360 (Oxford, 2005). Price, G., The Languages of Britain (London, 1984). Pryce, H. and Watts, J. (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007). Rawcliffe, C., The Staffords: Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham, 1394–1521 (Cambridge, 1978). Reid, R. C., ‘Edward de Balliol’, TDGNHAS, 35 (1958), 38–63. Reynolds, S., ‘There were States in Medieval Europe: A Response to Rees Davies’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 16 (2003), 550–55. Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The Administration of Ireland, 1172–1377. IMC (Dublin, 1963). ——, The Irish Parliament in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1964). ——, ‘The King’s Ministers in Parliament, 1272–1377’, EHR, 47 (1932), 194–203.

224

Works Cited

——, ‘The Scottish Parliaments of Edward I’, SHR, 25 (1928), 300–17. Richmond, C., ‘Identity and Morality: Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses’, in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), 226–41. Rigby, S., ‘Introduction’, in S. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), xvi–xviii. ——(ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003). Riley-Smith, J., The Crusades: A History (2nd edn, London, 2005). Rogers, C., War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360 (Woodbridge, 2000). Rosenthal, J. and Richmond, C. (eds.), People, Politics and Community in the Later Middle Ages (New York, 1987). Ross, C. (ed.), Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England (Gloucester, 1979). Rothwell, W., ‘The Role of French in Thirteenth-Century England’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 58 (1975–1976), 445–66. Rowe, J. G. (ed.), Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society: Essays Presented to J. R. Lander (Toronto, 1986). Rowlands, E. I., ‘Iolo Goch’, in Celtic Studies: Essays in Memory of Angus Matheson 1912–62, ed. J. Carney and D. Greene (London, 1968). Ruddick, A., ‘Ethnic Identity and Political Language in the King of England’s Dominions: A Fourteenth-Century Perspective’, in L. Clark (ed.), The Fifteenth Century VI: Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2006), 15–31. Russell, C., ‘John Bull’s Other Nations’, Times Literary Supplement, 12 March 1993, 3–4. Ryan, J. (ed.), Féilsgríbhinn Eóin Mhic Néill (Dublin, 1940). Saul, N. (ed.), England in Europe, 1066–1453 (London, 1994). ——, ‘Henry V and the Dual Monarchy’, in N. Saul (ed.), England in Europe, 1066– 1453 (London, 1994), 144–50. ——, Richard II (London, 1997). ——, ‘Richard II and the Vocabulary of Kingship’, EHR, 110 (1995), 854–77. Sayles, G. O., ‘The Battle of Faughart, 1318’, in S. Duffy (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars. The Invasions of Ireland, 1306–29 (Stroud, 2002), 107–18. Scales, L. and Zimmer, O. (eds.), Power and the Nation in European History (Cambridge, 2005). Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII (London, 1968). Scattergood, J., ‘The Lybelle of English Polycye: The Nation and its Place’, in H. Cooney (ed.), Nation, Court and Culture (Dublin, 2001), 29–49. Serle, E. and Burghart, R., ‘The Defense of England and the Peasants’ Revolt’, Viator, 3 (1972), 366–75. Silke, J. J., Kinsale: The Spanish Intervention in Ireland at the End of the Elizabethan Wars (Liverpool, 1970). Simms, K., ‘Bards and Barons: The Anglo-Irish Aristocracy and the Native Culture’, in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), 177–97. ——, ‘Gaelic Warfare in the Middle Ages’, in T. Bartlett and K. Jeffery (eds.), A Military History of Ireland (Cambridge 1996), 99–115.

Works Cited

225

——, ‘Niall Garbh II O’Donnell, King of Tír Conaill, 1422–39’, Donegal Annual, 12 no. 1 (1977), 7–21. Smith, B. (ed.), Britain and Ireland, 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (Cambridge, 1999). ——, Colonisation and Conquest in Medieval Ireland: The English in Louth, 1170– 1330 (Cambridge, 1999). ——, ‘Keeping the Peace’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), Law and Disorder in ThirteenthCentury Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997), 57–65. ——, ‘Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360: The Ebb Tide of the English Empire?’ in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), 153–63. ——, ‘The Murder of Richard Gernon, Sheriff of Louth, 1311’, Journal of the County Louth Archaeological Society, 21 (1988), 391–3. ——, ‘Swayne, John (d. 1439x42)’, in ODNB, LIII, 446. Smith, B. B., Taylor, S. and Williams, G. (eds.), West Over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Seaborne Expansion and Settlement before 1300 (Leiden, 2007). Smith, J. Beverley, ‘Gruffydd Llwyd and the Celtic Alliance, 1315–18’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 20 (1974–1976), 463–78. ——, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales (Cardiff, 1998). —— and Smith, L. Beverley, ‘Wales: Politics, Government and Law’, in S. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 309–34. Spence, R. T., ‘The Pacification of the Cumberland Borders, 1593–1628’, Northern History, 13 (1977), 99–122. Stafford, E. W. (ed.), Itinerary of Edward I, Part ii, 1291–1307, List and Index Society, 132 (London, 1976). Storey, R. L., The End of the House of Lancaster (2nd edn, Gloucester, 1986). Stringer, K. J., ‘Periphery and Core in Thirteenth-Century Scotland: Alan son of Roland, Lord of Galloway and Constable of Scotland’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community (Edinburgh, 1993), 82–113. ——, ‘Nobility and Identity in Medieval Britain and Ireland: The de Vescy Family’, in B. Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland, 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (Cambridge, 1999), 199–239. ——, The Reformed Church in Medieval Galloway and Cumbria (Whithorn, 2003). ——, ‘Scottish Foundations: Thirteenth-century Perspectives’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995), 85–96. Stubbs, W., Constitutional History of England, 3 vols. (5th edn, Oxford, 1896). Summerson, H., ‘Crime and Society in Medieval Cumberland’, TCWAAS, 82 (1982), 111–24. Thompson, G. L., Paris and Its People under English Rule: The Anglo-Burgundian Regime 1420–1436 (Oxford, 1991). Thornton, T., ‘Cheshire: The Inner Citadel of Richard II’s Kingdom?’ in G. Dodd (ed.), The Reign of Richard II (Stroud, 2000), 85–96, 144–8. ——, ‘Review of S. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003)’, WHR, 22 (2004–2005), 373–4. ——, ‘Scotland and the Isle of Man c.1400–1625: Noble Power and Royal Presumption in the Northern Irish Sea Province’, SHR, 77 (1998), 1–30.

226

Works Cited

——, ‘Taxing the King’s Dominions: The Subject Territories of the English Crown in the Late Middle Ages’, in W. M. Ormrod, M. Bonney and R. Bonney (eds.), Crises, Revolutions and Self-Sustained Growth: Essays in European Fiscal History, 1130–1830 (Stamford, 1999), 97–109. Tout, T. F., The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History (Manchester, 1914). ——, The Political History of England, 1216–1377 (London, 1906). Trabut-Cussac, J. P., L’Administration Anglaise en Gascogne Sous Henry III et Edouard I de 1254 à 1307 (Geneva, 1972). Tuck, J. A., ‘Anglo-Irish Relations, 1382–1393’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 69 (1970), C, 15–31. ——, Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973). Turville-Petre, T., England the Nation: Language, Literature and National Identity 1290–1340 (Oxford, 1996). ——, ‘The “Nation” in English Writings in the Early Fourteenth Century’, in N. Rogers (ed.), England in the Fourteenth Century (Stamford, 1993), 128–39. ——, ‘Politics and Poetry in the Early Fourteenth Century: The Case of Robert Manning’s Chronicle’, Review of English Studies, new series, 39 (1988), 1–28. Tyerman, C., England and the Crusades 1095–1588 (Chicago and London, 1988). ——, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades (Cambridge, MA, 2006). Ullmann, W., The Church and the Law in the Earlier Middle Ages (London, 1975). ——, ‘On the Influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth in English History’, in C. Bauer, L. Boehm and M. M˝ uller (eds.), Speculum Historiale: Geschichte im Spiegel von Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsdeutung (Freiburg and Munich, 1965), 257–76. Vale, M. G. A., English Gascony, 1399–1453: A Study of War, Government and Politics during the Later Stages of the Hundred Years War (Oxford, 1970). ——, ‘The Last Years of English Gascony, 1451–1453’, TRHS, 5th series, 19 (1969), 119–38. ——, The Origins of the Hundred Years War: The Angevin Legacy, 1250–1340 (Oxford, 1996). ——, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe, 1270– 1380 (Oxford, 2001). Valente, C., ‘Simon de Montfort. Earl of Leicester and the Utility of Sanctity in 13th Century England’, Journal of Medieval History, 21 (1995), 27–49. Van Elewyck, E., ‘Ghillebert de Lannoy: Voyageur, Diplomate et Moraliste du XVe siècle’, Revue de Belgique, 33 (1879), 105–34. Vaughan, R., Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy (London and Harlow, 1970). Walker, S., The Lancastrian Affinity, 1361–1399 (Oxford, 1990). Wallace, D. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature (Cambridge, 1999). Warren, W. L., The Governance of Norman and Angevin England, 1086–1272 (London, 1987). Waters, K., ‘The Earls of Desmond in the Fourteenth Century’. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham (2004). Watson, F. J., Under the Hammer: Edward I and Scotland, 1286–1306 (East Linton, 1998). Watt, D. E. R., ‘The Papacy and Scotland in the Fifteenth Century’, in R. B. Dobson (ed.), Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester and New York, 1984), 115–32.

Works Cited

227

——, ‘The Provincial Council of the Scottish Church 1215–1472’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community (Edinburgh, 1993), 140–55. Watt, J. A., ‘The Anglo-Irish Colony under strain, 1327–99’, in A. Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland II. Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987), 352–96. ——, The Church in Medieval Ireland (2nd edn, Dublin, 1998). ——,‘Ecclesia inter Anglicos et inter Hibernicos: Confrontation and Coexistence in the Medieval Diocese of Armagh’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 46–64. ——, ‘John Colton, Justiciar of Ireland (1382) and Archbishop of Armagh (1383– 1404)’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 196–213. ——, ‘Negotiations between Edward II and John XXII Concerning Ireland’, IHS, 10 (1956), 1–20. Watts, J., Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge, 1996). Waugh, S. L., ‘England: Kingship and Political Community, 1272–1377’, in S. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 208–23. ——, England in the Reign of Edward III (Cambridge, 1991). Weir, A., Britain’s Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy (London, 1999). Wernham, R. B., Before the Armada: The Growth of English Foreign Policy 1485–1588 (London, 1966). White, D. G., ‘Henry VIII’s Irish Kerne in France and Scotland, 1544–1545’, The Irish Sword, 3 (1957–1958), 213–25. Wilks, M., ‘Roman Candle or Dammed Squib: The English Crusade of 1383’, in A. Hudson (ed.), Wyclif: Political Ideas and Practice: Papers by Michael Wilks (Oxford, 2000), 253–72. Williams, G., Recovery, Reorientation and Reformation: Wales c.1415–1642 (Oxford, 1987). ——, Wales and the Act of Union (Bangor, 1992). Williams, P., The Later Tudors: England 1547–1603 (Oxford, 1995). ——, The Tudor Regime (Oxford, 1979). Wood, H., ‘The Muniments of Edmund de Mortimer’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 40 (1932), C, 312–55. Wormald, J., ‘Scotland: 1406–1513’, in C. T. Allmand (ed.), New Cambridge Medieval History VI. c.1415–c.1500 (Cambridge, 1998), 514–31. Wylie, J. H. and Waugh, W. T., The Reign of Henry the Fifth, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1914–1929). Young, A., Robert the Bruce’s Rivals: The Comyns, 1212–1314 (East Linton, 1997).

Index

Aberconwy, abbot of, 21 treaty of, 22, 38, 42 Aberystwyth (Dyfed), see Llanbadarn Fawr, castle Adrian IV, pope (1154–59), 20, 166 Adrian V, pope (d. 1276), see Fieschi, Ottobuono, cardinal and papal legate Agenais, 76 Aird, Bill, 19 Airthir (Armagh), 150 Alan of Galloway (d. 1234), 55 Albret, Amanieu, 79, 81 Arnaud-Amanieu, 81 Berard le Bret, 88 Bernard Ezii, 80, 88 Alexander II, king of Scots (1214–49), 55, 58, 63 Alexander III, king of Scots (1249–86), 64, 127 Alexander III, pope (1159–81), 166 Alexander V, pope (1409–10), 169 Alfonso (d. 1284), son of Edward I, 42 Alfred, king of England, 177, 179 Alice, first wife of John of Fressingfield, 47, 48, 52 Almaine, Henry, 87 Amory, Roger (d. 1322), 92 Anglesey, 22, 36 Anglo-Saxon dynasty, 122, 123 Angoulême, 76 Angus, 126 earl of, see Douglas, George, earl of Angus (d. 1403?) Anjou, 23, 70 Annals of Clonmacnoise, 145 Annals of Ulster, 145 Annan (Dumfries and Galloway), 56 Annandale (Dumfries and Galloway), 57, 61, 64, 126 Aquitaine, 20, 23, 24, 37–39, 69–72, 75–8, 80–3, 86

Arbroath, Declaration of, 63 Ardscull (Kildare), 138 Argentan, 41 family of, 95 Arklow (Wicklow), 91 Armagh, 144, 145, 149, 150, 153, 155 archbishops of, see Colton, John; Fleming, Nicholas; Swayne, John, Armagnac, count of, 76 Arundel, earl of, 100, 159, 171 Assheton, Robert, justiciar of Ireland, 144 Athlone (Westmeath), 44, 47, 105 Athy, John, 94, 97 Audley, Hugh, earl of Gloucester (d. 1347), 92 James, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1272), 142 Avignon, 11, 39, 44 Ayr, 58, 58, 60, 66 Badlesmere, Sir Bartholomew (d. 1322), 101 Balliol, family of, 55, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 66, 119 Dervorguilla, see Dervorguilla, lady of Galloway (d. 1290) Edward, ‘king of Scotland’ (d. 1364), 63, 64 Ingram, 59, 66 John, see John, king of Scots (1292–96) John, of Barnard Castle (d. 1268), 65 Bamburgh (Northumberland), 124 Bannockburn (Stirling), 62, 91, 124 Barbour, John (d. 1395), 81, 116 Bardfield, William, 51 Barnard Castle (co. Durham), 58 Barron, Evan, 112 Barrow, G. W. S., 112 Barrow, river, 162 228

Index 229 Barry, family of, 95 Basset, Philip, 41 ‘Batesgrange’ in Forth, (Carlow), 48 Baugé, 165 Béarn, Constance, daughter of Gaston, 87 Beaumont, Henry (d. 1340), 62, 63, 127 Bedford, John duke of, see John, duke of Bedford (d. 1435) Benedict XIII, ‘pope’ (d. 1423), 163, 172 Bennett, Michael, 19, 136 Berclay, David, 126 Berkshire, 106 Bermingham, John, earl of Louth (d. 1329), 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102 106 Meiler, son of Peter, 48 Peter son of Meiler, 48 Richard, lord of Athenry (d. 1322), 96 Berwick-on-Tweed (Northumberland), 58, 97, 125, 127, 129, 184 Betaghs, 101 Beyton (Suffolk), 45 Bicknor (Gloucestershire), 110 Bicknor, (Kent), 110 Bicknor, Alexander, archbishop of Dublin (d. 1349), 101, 103–11 John, 110 Bigod, Roger, earl of Norfolk (d. 1306), 41, 132 ‘Bilrath’, near Dysart (Westmeath), 48, 51 Bitterley, Walter, seneschal of Ulster, 151 Blind Harry, 115 Black Death, 15 Black Prince, see Edward, prince of Wales (The Black Prince) (d. 1376) ‘Black-rent’, 147 Bohemia, 163 Bohun, Humphrey, earl of Hereford (d. 1361), 19 Boleyn, Anne, 183 ‘le Boly’, Old Ross, (Wexford), 48 Bonaght [buannacht], 147, 150 Bonevill, John, 105

Boniface IX, pope (1389–1404), 169, 172 Boraston [Burneston] (Salop), 24 Boraston, Simon, OP, 20, 37, 41 Bordeaux, 39, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 80 Boulogne, 180, 183 Bower, Walter, abbot of Inchcolm (d. 1449), 114, 115, 116, 119, 124, 128 ‘Brecknock’, 189 Brétigny, treaty of, 134, 166 Brit, John, 108 Britain, 10, 61, 68, 69, 71, 78, 83, 120, 136, 140, 177 British Isles, 1–6, 7–19, 68–88, 89, 97, 120, 141, 176–92 British Library, 166 Brittany, duchy of, 182 Broun, Dauvit, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121 Brown, Elizabeth, 75 The Bruce, 81, 116, 119 Bruce, family of, 55, 57, 58, 63, 119, 127 Edward, lord of Galloway, earl of Carrick, ‘king of Ireland’ (d. 1318), 89, 93, 94, 96, 99, 134, 138 Robert, king of Scotland, see Robert I, king of Scots (1306–29) Robert, earl of Carrick (d. 1304), 58 Brus, Robert (d. 1142), 57 Builth (Powys), 22, 42 Bullock, William, 126 Burdeyn, Robert, 50 Burgh, family of, 142, 144, 147, 148 Elizabeth, see Elizabeth Burgh, countess of Ulster (d. 1363) Emmeline, see Emmeline Burgh, countess of Ulster (d. 1274) John, of Camlin, seneschal of Ulster, 143, 144 Richard, earl of Ulster (d. 1326), 93, 98, 100, 101, 105, 110, 134, 142, 143, 144, 146 Richard, keeper of Roscommon, Rindown and Athlone castles, 105

230

Index

Burgh, family of – continued Walter, earl of Ulster and lord of Connacht (d. 1271), 142 William, earl of Ulster (d. 1333), 143, 146 Sir William, of Mayo (d. 1324), 146 Burgundy, duchy of, 161, 182 Burnell, Robert, chancellor of England, bishop of Bath and Wells (d. 1292), 42 Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk), 45 ‘Busy Week’, 190 Butler, Edmund, justiciar of Ireland, earl of Carrick (d. 1321), 53, 89, 95, 99, 101 James, first earl of Ormond (d. 1338), 99 James, second earl of Ormond (d. 1382), 166 James, third earl of Ormond (d. 1405), 141, 150, 153 James, fourth earl of Ormond (d. 1452), 12, 141, 146, 155, 162, 166, 167, 168, 171, 173, 174 Thomas, earl of Ormond, earl marshal of England (d. 1614), 184 Thomas, prior of Kilmainham (d. 1419), 173 Bysset, Elizabeth daughter and co-heir of Hugh, 146 Hugh, lord of the Glens of Antrim, 146 Marjorie, daughter and co-heir of Hugh, 146, 152, 155 Caerlaverock castle (Dumfries and Galloway), 59 Cairo, 161 Calais, 12, 69, 73, 181, 182, 183, 184 Cambridge University, 24 Canterbury (Kent), 80, 165 archbishop of, see Peckham, John treaty of, 1416, 168 Cantilupe, William, 41 Carbury (Kildare), 92 Cardigan, 22, 42 Carew, family of, 95

Capetian dynasty, 70, 82 Carlingford (Louth), castle and town 147, 152, 157 Carlisle (Cumbria), 56, 58, 66, 100, 184, 191 Carlow, 48 Carpenter, Christine, 16 Carrick, earldom of (Scotland), 58, 61 see also Bruce, family of Carrickfergus (Antrim), castle and town, 97, 145, 147, 153, 154, 157 Cashel (Tipperary), 53 archbishop of, see Ó hÉidigheáin [O’Hedigan], Richard Council of, 173 Castile, 163 Castledermot (Kildare), 180 Castlekevin (Wicklow), 105 Caunton, family of, 95 Maurice, 95 Cavan, 149 Channel Islands, 44, 49, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 182 Charles IV, king of France (1322–28), 104 Charles V, Emperor (1500–58), 183 Charles VI, king of France (1380–1422), 76, 182 Châtillon (or Castillon), 181 Chaworth, Payn, lord of Cydweli, 22, 42 Chertsey, John, 46 Cheshire, 11, 14, 15, 80 Chester, 19, 21, 22, 41, 42, 71, 75, 80 Childs, Wendy, 15 Christiana, sister of Domhnall Mac Domhnaill, lord of the Isles, 146, 157 Christina of Galloway, countess of Aumale (d. 1246), 65 Chronica Gentis Scotorum, 121 Cistercians, 56 Clann Aodha Buidhe, 159, 160 Clare, family, 92, 101 Gilbert, earl of Gloucester (d. 1298), 42 Richard (‘Strongbow’, ‘earl of Pembroke’, ‘earl of Striguil’) (d. 1176), 41

Index 231 Richard, lord of Thomond (d. 1318), 96, 101 Clement V, pope (1305–14), 49, 74, 111 Clement VI, pope (1342–52), 11 Clenafren, lineage of, 66 Clifford, Roger, 22, 42 Clogher (Tyrone), 145 Clonmel (Tipperary), 10 Clyn, John, OFM (d. 1349?), 14, 18, 93, 109, 111 Cogan, family of, 95 Coigners, Geoffrey, 101 Coleraine (Derry), 153 Colton, John, archbishop of Armagh (1383–1404), 145, 150, 151 Common Bench (Westminster), 44, 45, 46, 52 Compton, Henry, 17 Comyn family, earls of Buchan and Menteith, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65 Alexander, earl of Buchan (d. 1289), 40 John, the elder, of Badenoch, 66 John, Guardian of Scotland (d. 1306), 57, 59, 62, 66 Connacht, 11, 14, 47, 48, 96, 136, 142, 146, 150, 163 Connor (Antrim), 100 Constance, Council of, 163, 165, 169 Constantinople, 161 Cookley (Suffolk), 46 Copyn, Richard, OFM, 105 Cork, 95, 101, 134 Cornwall, 15 Cotgrave, Robert, 103, 104, 105, 106 Courcy, family of, 95 Courtenay, Philip (d. 1406), 134 earls of Devon, 16 Cranley, Thomas, archbishop of Dublin (1397–1417), 174 Craon, Amaury, 78, 79 Peter, 79, 80 Crécy, 183 Cree, river, 60, 63 Cressingham, Hugh (d. 1297), 44, 46 Crete, 161 Croft, Hugh, 93 Crok (Munster), 110

Cruggleton castle (Dumfries and Galloway), 58, 67 Cumberland, 46, 56, 61, 62, 63, 181 Curtis, Edmund, 164 Dacre, Lord, 180, 184, 186 Dafydd ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales (d. 1283), 22, 23 24, 42, 43 Dafydd ap Llywelyn, prince of Gwynedd (d. 1246), 21, 41 Dale, Thomas, 143 Dalton (or Kirkcudbright), Thomas, bishop of Whithorn, 66 Danet, Henry, master of the Temple, 105 Darcy, Baldwin, 94 John, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1347), 102 Lord, 181 David I, king of Scots (1124–53), 58 Davies, Sir John, 130, 131, 137, 138 Davies, Sir Rees, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 113 Dax, 80 Dee, bridge, 60 Derry, 146, 151 Dervorguilla, lady of Galloway (d. 1290) wife of John Balliol of Barnard Castle, 59, 65 Desmond, earls of, 181 see also Geraldines of Desmond Desnes Ioan (Galloway), 56 Despenser, Hugh, the younger (d. 1326), 44, 50, 51 Devon, 97 earls of, see Courtenay, Philip (d. 1406) Diserth, castle (Flintshire), 21, 41 The ‘Disinherited’, 127 Don, river, 185 Donaghmore (Donegal), 145 Douglas, George, earl of Angus (d. 1403?), 116 James, of Dalkeith (d. 1420), 127 William, earl of Douglas (d. 1384), 117, 127 Dowdall, John, sheriff of Louth (d. 1402), 152, 153

232

Index

Dowling, Thady, 154 Down, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154, 157 Downpatrick (Down), 144, 153 Drogheda (Louth), 14, 149 Dublin, 41, 47, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 106, 107, 108, 109, 132, 137, 143, 151, 152, 162, 167, 175 archbishop of, see Bicknor, Alexander; Talbot Richard Bench, 44, 47 Dominican priory of, 106 exchequer, 90, 93, 100, 103, 104, 107, 109, 110, 111 parliament, 98, 162, 165, 170 university, 108, 109 Duffy Seán, 8, 97 Duiske (Graiguenamanagh), abbot of, 48 Dumfries, 58, 59, 62 Greyfriars church at, 57 sheriffdom of, 60 Dun, Thomas, 94, 101 Dunamase (Laois), 91, 97 Dunbar (East Lothian), 59, 66 Dunbar, George, earl of March (d. 1416x23), 118 Duncan (MacDuff), earl of Fife (d. 1353), 127 Dundalk (Louth), 147, 148, 150 Dungarvan (Waterford), 53 Durham, 15, 19, 75 Dutch revolt, 184 Dysart, diocese of Meath, 51 Dysart (Westmeath), 48 Dysart O’Dea (Clare), 96 Earn, river, 115 East Anglia, 10, 16, 45 earl of, see Ralph, earl of East Anglia (d. 1097x9) Easter Ross (Highland), 123 Edinburgh, 81, 187 Treaty of (1328), 2, 63 Treaty of (1560), 187 Edmund Ironside, king of England (d. 1016), 121, 122 Edward the Confessor, king of England (d. 1066), 121

Edward I, king of England, previously the Lord Edward (1272–1307), 22, 23, 41, 44, 52, 58, 66, 69, 71, 73, 75, 76, 79, 104, 110, 112, 116, 121, 123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132, 134, 137, 138 Edward II, king of England (1307–27), 60, 66, 73, 75, 79, 81, 89, 91, 92, 96, 98, 101, 108, 110, 124, 131, 134, 137, 138 Edward III, king of England (1327–77), 9, 13, 63, 67, 71, 80, 104, 132, 134, 135, 137, 183 Edward IV, king of England (1461–1483), 181 Edward, prince of Wales (The Black Prince) (d. 1376), 71, 73, 76, 85, 86 Eleanor of Aquitaine (d. 1204), 20, 39, 69 Eliogarty (Tipperary), 89 Elizabeth I, queen of England (1558–1603), 183, 184, 185 Elizabeth II, queen of England, 177 Elizabeth Burgh, countess of Ulster (d. 1363), wife of Lionel of Clarence, 143 Elizabeth Mortimer (d. 1417), wife of Henry Percy (Hotspur), 159 Emmeline Burgh, countess of Ulster (d. 1274), 142 England, English, 7–19, 20–3, 38, 41, 42, 44–54, 55–67, 69–86, 92, 93, 96, 98, 103–11, 113–27, 130–40, 142, 144, 148, 151, 152, 154, 155, 161–75, 176–92 Errigal-keeroge (Tyrone), 145 Essex, earl of, 184 Ettrick Forest (Borders), 125 Europe, 8, 18, 70, 78, 80, 115, 163, 164, 168, 169, 176, 177, 180, 182, 183, 185, 190 Evesham, battle of, 21, 23, 123, 124 Falkirk (Central), 125 Fennor (Tipperary), 48, 53 Ferrers, family of, 62, 65 Fergus, lord of Galloway, 55, 58, 60

Index 233 Fieschi, Ottobuono, cardinal and papal legate (= Pope Adrian V) (d. 1276), 42 The Feths (Connacht), 96 Fife, 115, 119 earl of, see Duncan Fitzmaurice rebellion, 188 FitzWarin, William, seneschal of Ulster, 142 Flanders, 66, 163 Fleet (Galloway), 60 Fleet (London), 106, 107, 111 Fleming, Nicholas, archbishop of Armagh (1404–16), 154 Fochart (Louth), 89, 94, 97 Fordun, John (d. c.1384), 14, 121 Forfar (Angus), 62 Forth (Carlow), 48 Forth (Scotland), 114, 125 Forz, William de, earl of Aumale (d. 1260), 65 Fouage, 74, 76 Foukeston (Dublin), 94 Frame, Robin, 1–6, 7, 8, 65, 69, 83, 89, 113, 133, 134, 135, 191 France, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 38, 39, 46, 47, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 118, 133, 137, 165, 166, 167, 171, 173 Francis I, king of France (1515–47), 176 Fressingfield (Suffolk), 45 Fressingfield, John, 44–54 John, clerk, ?son of John of Fressingfield, 49, 50, 51, 52 Walter son of Seman, 45 Frodsham (Cheshire), 80 Froissart, Jean (d. 1404), 117, 118 Fulborne, Stephen, justiciar of Ireland, bishop of Waterford, archbishop of Tuam (d. 1288), 4 Galloglass, 144, 146 Galloway, 15, 55–67, 126 Gannoc (Degannwy), castle, 21, 41 Gascony (Guyenne), 5, 44, 49, 68–88, 132, 176, 179, 182 Gaveston, Piers, earl of Cornwall (d. 1312), 81, 88, 91, 92, 108, 109

Geese, John, bishop of Waterford and Lismore (d. 1425), 169 Geoffrey of Monmouth, 21, 24, 38, 41 Geoffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou, 39 Gerald of Wales, 137, 166, 167, 173, 185 Geraldines of Desmond Maurice fitz Thomas, earl of Desmond (d. 1356), 10, 11, 14, 16, 99, 101 Thomas fitz John, earl of Desmond (d. 1420), 173 Geraldines of Offaly John fitz Thomas, lord of Offaly, earl of Kildare (d. 1316), 92, 133 Maurice fitz Gerald, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1257), 142 Thomas fitz John, earl of Kildare (d. 1328), 98, 101 Gernon, Stephen, constable of Greencastle and Carlingford, 152, 153 Gesta Annalia, 121 Giffard, John, 22, 42 Giraldus Cambrensis, see Gerald of Wales Gisleham, William, 46 Glastonbury abbey (Somerset), 124 Glenkens (Dumfries and Galloway), 59 Glentrool (Dumfries and Galloway), 58 Gloucester, 106 Statute of, 98 Glyn Dwr, ˆ Owain (d. c.1416), 10, 11, 14, 151, 163 ‘Glynsely’ (? Leinster), 94 Graham, family, 190 Grant, Sandy, 7 Gray, Sir Thomas (d. 1369), 81 Great Schism, 66, 163, 169 Great Yarmouth (Norfolk), 49 Greencastle (Down), 147, 152, 157 Gregory XII, pope (1406–17), 169 Gruffydd Llwyd (d. 1335), 91 Gwynedd, dynasty of, 10, 21 Halesworth (Suffolk), 45, 46 Haliwerfolc, 19

234

Index

Halsale, Gilbert, seneschal of Ulster, 151 Hand, Geoffrey, 96 Harbison, Sheila, 133 Harriss, Gerald, 16 Harvey, Barbara, 7 Haverford (Pembrokeshire), 90 Havering (Essex), 104 Hawarden (Flintshire), 22, 42 Haye, Walter de la, 48 Helen of Galloway, countess of Winchester, 65 Henry I, king of England (1100–35), 58, 121, 122 Henry II, king of England (1154–89), 21, 23, 126, 130, 166, 167 Henry III, king of England (1216–72), 21, 41, 75, 120, 123, 142 Henry IV, king of England (1399–1413), 11, 14, 118, 138, 151, 152, 153, 163 Henry V, king of England (1413–22), 161–75, 180–2, 183 Henry VI, king of England (1422–61), 13, 181, 182, 183 Henry VIII, king of England (1509–47), 176, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 Henry, son of Edward I (d. 1274), 42 Hereford, earls of, see Bohun, Humphrey; Roger Hertford, earl of, 184 Higden, Ranulf (d. 1364), 13, 15 Highlands, Highlanders (Scottish), 9, 14, 19 Historia Aurea, 81 Holycross abbey (Tipperary), 174 Holyrood abbey (Edinburgh), 116 Homildon Hill or Humbleton, battle of, 152 Horncastle (Lincs.), 87 Hothum, John, bishop of Ely (1316–37), 103, 104, 106, 109, 134 Hovel, Alan, 46 Hundred Years War, 69, 179, 181 Huntingdon, 87 Hussites, 163 Hyde, James de la, 144

Ideshale, Richard, 94, 101 Inchcolm (Fife), 114 Ingham, Sir Oliver (d. 1344), 73 Inglewood forest (Cumbria), 62 Innocent III, pope (1198–1216), 38 Innocent IV, pope (1243–54), 21, 31, 38 Innocent VII, pope (1404–06), 169 Invergowrie (Perthshire), 126 Iolo Goch (d. 1397), 148 Irish Sea, 61, 91, 92, 94, 108, 163 Isabel, daughter of Edward III, 80 Isabella, queen of England, 104 Isle of Man, 9, 11, 56, 61, 62, 66, 94 Isles, bishop of Man and the, see Man and the Isles, bishops of lords of the, 61, 146, 152, see also Mac Domhnaill see also Western Isles Islip, Walter, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 111 Italy, 169, 176 Iveagh (Down), 141, 144, 149, 150, 154 James, king of Aragon, 104 James VI and I, king of Scotland and England (1603–25), 130, 131 Jerusalem, 161 Jews, 47 Joan, wife of John of Fressingfield, 48, 49, 51 Joan Joinville, countess of March (d. 1356), 91 John, king of England (1199–1216), 21, 22, 38, 56, 131, 173, 179 John, king of Scots (1292–96), 56, 59, 65, 66 John XXIII, ‘pope’ (1400–15), 169 John, duke of Bedford (d. 1435), 12, 17 John fitz Geoffrey, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1258), 41 John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster (d. 1399), 71, 76 John of Ross, 62 Joinville, Geoffrey (d. 1314), 91 Katherine of Valois, queen of England, 1420–22 (d. 1437), 166

Index 235 Katherine, wife of William of Bardfield, 51 Kells (Meath), 92, 93, 94, 97, 100, 149 Kent, 53, 110 Kerne, 1, 180 Kilbarry (Waterford), 110 Kilcolgan (Galway), 110 Kildare, 48, 93, 111, 132, 138, 139 diocese of, 169 Kildare, earls, earldom of, 91, 96 150, 180, 181, 184, 186 see also Geraldines of Offaly Kilkenny, 14, 92, 93, 166 King’s Bench, 46 Kintyre (Argyll), 102 Kirkcudbright castle (Dumfries and Galloway), 58, 60, 65 Knocdoe (Galway), 14 Knockgraffon castle (Tipperary), 48 Lacy family, of Meath, 93, 94, 101 Hugh, 93 Walter, lord of Rathwire, 93 Lancashire, 11, 46 Langtoft, Peter (d. c.1305), 69 de Lannoy, Ghillibert, 161 Laois, 91, 97, 162 Latimer, William, Lord Latimer (d. 1381), 135 Latin, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 127 Laudabiliter, 20, 23, 27, 28, 38 Lea (Laois), 162 Leake, peace of, 1318, 96 Lee, Rowland, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1534–43), 189 Legenda Aurea, 119 Legends of the Saints, 119 Leinster, 11, 14, 41, 91, 92, 94, 101, 134, 136, 146, 149, 163, 180 Lenfant, Walter, 48 Lennox, 16 Leulinghem, treaty of, 1393, 119 Levota, wife of Walter son of Seman of Fressingfield, 45, 46, 52 Libaud, Peter, 81 Libelle of Englysh Polycye, 12, 137 Liddy, Christian, 19 Limerick, 10 Lincoln, 87

Linlithgow (West Lothian), 81 Lionel of Antwerp, earl of Ulster, duke of Clarence (d. 1368), 71, 85, 132, 133, 139, 143, 148, 149, 162 Lithuania, 164 Little John, 128, 129 Livingston (West Lothian), 81 Llanbadarn Fawr [Aberystwyth], castle, 22, 42 Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales (d. 1282), 21, 22, 41, 42 Loch Ryan, 62 Logan, family, 143, 146 London, 22, 24, 32, 36, 37, 42, 45, 49, 50, 53, 80, 81, 106, 107, 108, 111, 182, 184, 187 Londres, Edmund, constable of Greencastle and Carlingford, 147 Longford, 94, 149 Lothian, 112, 114 archdeaconry of, 116 Loughborough, Richard, 50 Louis VII, king of France (1137–80), 39 Louth, 92, 97, 99, 144, 146, 148, 152, 155, 156 earl of, see Bermingham, John Lucy, Anthony, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1343), 100 Ludham, Robert, 47 Lydon, James, 2, 131, 135 Lymbergh, Adam, 73 Lynn (Westmeath), 48, 49 Lyon, first Council of (1245), 20, 21, 23, 41 second Council of (1274), 22 Mac Aílpin, Cinéad, king of Alba, 122 Mac Artáin [MacCartan], 150, 153 Mac Cába [MacCabe], constable of Mac Mathghamhna, 149 McCan, Donald, 62 Mac Carthaigh, Cormac, 172 Diarmuid, 95 Domhnall, 172 Domnall ‘Carbragh’, 95 Tadhg, 172 McCulloch, family of, 63

236

Index

Mac Domhnaill [MacDonald], (of Clann Alexander), 144, 146 lords of the Glens of Antrim, 154, 155 Domhnall, lord of the Isles, 146 Eoin Mór, 146, 152 Seán, constable of Ó Néill, 172 McDowell, Dungal, 62, 63 MacDuff, 115 Mac Duibhgheamhna, 150 Mac Duileacháin, 150 Mac Eochagáin [MacGeoghegan], 144 Mac Giolla Muire [MacGilmore], Adam, 141, 149, 153, 154, 155 Aodh son of Adam, 154 Mac Giolla Phádraig, Barnaby, chief of Ossory (= Barnaby Fitzpatrick, baron of Upper Ossory), 187 ‘McGion’ (? the MacEoin Bisset), 153 Mac Gráidhin [MacGrane], Canon Augustine, of Saints’ Island, Lough Ree, 154 Mac Mathghamhna, 144 Philip Rúadh, 149 Mac Murchadha, 163 Diarmait, king of Leinster, 41 Mac Murchadha Cáomhánach [MacMurrough Kavanagh], Art Mór, 137, 149, 172 Mág Aonghusa, family of, 141, 144, 147, 153, 155, 156 Aodh son of Art, king of Iveagh (Uí Eachach Uladh), 141, 154, 156 Art the son of Giolla Riabhach (d. 1360), 143, 157 Art na Madhmann (d. 1383), 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 157 Cú Uladh (d. 1396), 149, 157 Muircheartach (d. 1349), 143, 157 Muircheartach Óg (d. 1399), 146, 150, 154, 157, 172 Mag Uighilín [MacQuillin], family of, 146, 147, 158 Of Kintyre, 102 Jenkin, or ‘Seinicín Mór’, 146 ‘Seonacc’ (‘John Howelin’), 146 Stephen or ‘Sleimne’, 146 Maine, 70

Malcolm III, king of Scots (1058–93), 114, 116, 121, 122, 123 Malcolm IV, king of Scots (1153–65), 128 Man, see Isle of Man Man and the Isles, bishops of, 66 Manchester, John, 105, 106 Mandeville family, 142, 143, 146, 159 Sir Henry, custos of Tweskard and seneschal of Ulster, 142 Thomas, seneschal of Ulster, 142 William, seneschal of Ulster, 142 Manning, Robert, of Bourne, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127 Manraed, 180, 184, 185 March, Scottish, 92, 180, 181, 184, 186, 190 March, Welsh, 2, 15, 16, 19, 21, 179, 180, 181, 186, 189 earls of, see Dunbar; Mortimer Maredudd ap Gruffudd (d. 1297), 42 Margaret, queen of Scotland (d. 1093), 114, 116, 121, 122, 123 Margaret of Anjou, queen of England, 1445–61 (d. 1482), 14 Marlborough, Statute of, 98 Martin V, pope (1417–31), 165, 169 Mary I, queen of England (1553–58), 183 Matilda, queen of England (d. 1118), 121, 122 Matthew Paris (d. 1259), 38, 41 Maurice fitz Gerald, justiciar of Ireland, see Geraldines of Offaly Maurice fitz Thomas, first earl of Desmond, see Geraldines of Desmond Maximilian, Emperor (1508–19), 182 Meath, 11, 14, 47, 48, 91, 93, 97, 99, 132, 144, 149, 150, 168 diocese, 51, 159 Mediterranean, 176 Melrose (Borders), 114 Chronicle of, 113, 123, 124 Mendham (Suffolk), 45, 52 Merbury, Lawrence, 166 Mercamston, Thomas, constable of Carrickfergus castle, 145

Index 237 Mercenary families, 1, 9, 13, 146, 147 see also kerne; gallowglass Merton, Statute of, 98 Mettingham, John, chief justice of the Common Bench (d. 1301), 46 Middle Shires, 190 Middlesex, 52, 106 Milan, 132 Milford Haven (Pembrokeshire), 10, 11 Modus tenendi parliamentum, 168, 175 Monaghan, 149 Montfort, Simon, earl of Leicester (d. 1265), 21, 114, 120, 123, 124, 128 Montgomery, treaty of, 1267, 37, 38, 42 More, John, constable of Greencastle and Carlingford, 152 Mortimer, Edmund (d. 1304), 22, 42 Edmund (d. 1408/9) brother of Roger, earl of March (d. 1398), 10, 151 Edmund, earl of March (d. 1381), 143, 144, 145 Edmund, earl of March (d. 1425), 151, 152 Roger, earl of March (d. 1330), 19, 51, 89–102 Roger, earl of March (d. 1398), 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 159 Roger, of Chirk (d. 1326), 92 Thomas, 155 Mullingar (Westmeath), 48 Munster, 11, 14, 89, 90, 91, 98, 136, 188 Mutford, John, 49 Nassyngton (Lincs.), 87 Neville, family, 16 Richard, earl of Salisbury (d. 1460), 180 Richard, earl of Warwick (d. 1471), 12, 181 Newhaven (Sussex), 184 Nicholson, Ranald, 112 Nidaros (Trondheim), diocese of, 66 Ninian, St, 61, 67 Nith, river (Galloway), 56, 57, 59, 60

Norfolk, 50, 53 duke of, 184 earl of, see Bigod, Roger Normandy, 12, 23, 69, 70, 77, 176, 179, 180, 182 Normans, 127, 179 Northampton, earl of, see Waltheof Northern Earls, revolt of, 188 Northern Ireland, 177, 178 Northumberland, earl of, 184 see also Percy family Norway, 9, 56, 66 Norwich (Norfolk), 45 diocese of, 15, 41 Norwich, Walter, 50 Ó hAidíth, 150 Ó hAnluain [O’Hanlon], Uí Anluain 144, 145, 149 150, 153 Ó Briain of Thomond, 136, 163 Brian, 172 Donnchadh, 89 Muirchertach, 89 Toirdhealbhach, of Arra, 172 Ó Broin [O’Byrne], Uí Bhroin, 91, 94, 151, 168 Gerald, 172 Ó Catháin [O’Kane], Uí Chatháin, 143 Cúmhuighe, 142 Magnus, 146 Ó Catharnaigh, (O’Kearney), ‘the Fox’, 144 Ó Cearbhaill, Donnchad, 95 Ó Conchobhair, Cathal, 96 Ó Conchobhair Donn, 163 Toirdhealbhach, 172 Ó Diomsaigh [O’Dempsey], Uí Dhiomsaigh, 91 Ó Domhnaill [O’Donnell], 145 Ó hÉidigheáin [O’Hedigan], Richard, archbishop of Cashel, 169 Ó Fearghail [O’Farrell], 144, 149 Seán, 94 Ó Maolmhuaidh [O’Molloy], Niall, 172 Ó Mordha [O’More], Uí Mhorda, 91, 162 Laoighseach, 97

238

Index

Ó Néill [O’Neill], Uí Néill, 136, 143, 156, 159, 160 163 Aodh, earl of Tyrone, 171 Aodh Buidhe, 142 Aodh Reamhar, king of Tyrone, 146 Brian Óg, son of Niall Óg, 147, 148, 149, 160 Conn Bacach, chief of Tyrone, earl of Tyrone, 187 Cú Uladh Rúadh, 150, 154 Domnall, king of Tyrone, 96 Henry ‘the Turbulent’, 145 Muircheartach son of Cú Ulad Rúadh Niall Mór, ‘the Great’, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 172 Niall Óg, son of Niall Mór, ‘the Great’, 147, 149, 155 160, 172 Toirdhealbhach, 144 Ó Raghallaigh [O’Reilly], 144, 149 Seaán, 149 Ó Tuathail [O’Toole], Uí Thuathail, 91 Offaly, 92, 93 Old Ross (Wexford), 48, 50 Opusculum de Simone, 123 Orderic Vitalis, 2 Original Chronicle, 115, 119, 121 Orkney, 9, 56 Orleans, university of, 118 Ormond, earls and earldom of, 99, 137 See also Butler Ormrod, Mark, 15, 132 Orpen, G. H., 131, 142 Ossory, 187 diocese of, 109 Oesterwik, Cornelius, OP, 20 Otway-Ruthven, A. J., 2, 90, 141, 164 Owain ap Gruffudd (d. 1282), 42 Owain ap Thomas ap Rhodri [Owain Lawgoch] (d. 1378), 10 Oxford, 106 earl of, see Vere, Robert university, 15, 20, 24, 104 Pale, English, in Ireland, 187, 188 in Scotland, 187 Pandulph, papal legate in England (1215–21) and bishop of Norwich (1222–26), 41

Paris, 70, 77, 79, 166, 181, 182 treaty of, 23, 38, 70 university of, 118 Parliament, 98 See also Dublin; Shrewsbury Peckham, John, archbishop of Canterbury (1279–92), 22, 42 Pembroke, David, 53 earl of, see Clare; Valence Percy family, 151, 184 Henry, 59, 63, 66 Henry (‘Hotspur’) (d. 1403), 152, 159 Henry, earl of Northumberland (d. 1408), 10, 16 Perigueux, 49 Philip VI, king of France (1328–50), 80 Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy (d. 1467), 161 Philip of Valois, see Philip VI, king of France Philippa, countess of March (d. 1378), 143 Picts, 125 Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536, 188 Piltown (Kilkenny), 13 Pipard, Ralph, 132 Pitchford, Ralph, 48 Le Poer, Arnold, 93, 101 John son of Benedict, 95 John son of John, 95 Richard, 95 Roger, 95 Poitou, county of, 69, 70 count of, see William X Pollard, Tony, 15 Pontefract, 152 Ponthieu, county of, 69 Pontoise, 173 Power, Daniel, 18 Powick, William, 41 Preston, Sir Christopher, of Gormanston, 167, 168, 169 Prussia, 164 Quincy, Roger de, earl of Winchester, constable of Scotland (d. 1264), 58, 65

Index 239 Ragman Roll, 128 Ralph, earl of East Anglia (d. 1097x9), 10 Rathlin Island, 97, 102 Rathwire (Meath), 93 Reformation, 161, 183, 186, 187, 188 The ‘Remonstrance’, 96 Retford, Robert, 45 Retford, Thomas, rector of Beyton by Bury St Edmunds, 45 Rhinns and Machars, the (Scotland), 60 Rhodes, 161 Rhodri ap Gruffudd, 42 Rhuddlan (Denbyshire), 22, 42, 43 Statute of, 1284, 23 Rhys ap Maelgwn, 42 Rhys ap Maredudd (d. 1292), 23 Richard II, king of England (1377–99), 11, 14, 71, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 159, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169 Richard, duke of York (d. 1460), 12, 14, 18, 157, 181 Rigby, Steve, 8 Rindown (Roscommon), 44, 47, 105 Robert I, king of Scots (1306–29), 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 81, 89, 91, 99 Robert of Torigni (d. 1186), 38 Robin Hood, 128 Roche, family of, 95 David son of Alexander, 95 George, 53 Rockcliffe (Cumberland), 180 Roger, earl of Hereford (d. 1087), 10 Rokeby, Thomas, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1357), 4, 134, 135 Roscommon, 44, 47, 105, 190 Rouen, 166, 173, 180 Rous, John, 23 Rushen castle (Isle of Man), 62 ‘Rughhaghe’ in Cookley (Suffolk), 46 Russel, Walter, 103 Russell, Conrad, 68 Russia, 161 St Andrew, ‘black priory’ of, Ards (co. Down), 145

St Andrews, bishop of, 116, 127 St Mary’s, Salisbury, 79 St Peter’s, York, 79 St Ruf, 39 Saint-Sardos, 73, 79, 104 St Serfs (Fife), Andrew of Wyntoun, prior of, 115 Salisbury, earl of, see Neville, Richard Salkeld, Sir Richard, 191 Saul, Nigel, 136 Savage, family of, 141, 143, 146, 148, 151, 154, 155, 156 Edmund, seneschal of Ulster, 145, 146, 147, 150, 152, 156, 157, 158 Edmund son of Edmund, seneschal of Ulster, 147, 153, 156, 157 Sir Henry (d. 1383), 143, 157 Jenkin (d. 1375), 144, 157 Patrick, 154, 156, 157 Sir Robert, seneschal of Ulster (d. 1360), 143, 157 Robert, 146, 157 Saxons, 21, 179 Saxton, maps, 188 Scalacronica, 81 Schism, see Great Schism Scotichronicon, 114, 123 Scotland, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, 24, 44, 47, 55, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 92, 97, 100, 104, 105, 110, 112–29, 137, 151, 152, 155, 172, 178, 179, 180, 183, 187 see also March, Scottish Scrope, Stephen, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1408), 153 Secreta secratorum, 167 Shetland, 9, 56 Shrewsbury (Salop), 21, 22, 42 battle of, 1403, 152 earl of, see Talbot, John parliament at, 1283, 24, 43 Shropshire, 24, 94, 106 Siena, University of, 169 Sigismund, Emperor (1411–37), 168, 174 Sil Muiredaig (Connacht), 96 Skeffington, Sir William (d. 1535), 186

240

Index

Slane (Meath), 93 Slievemargy (Laois), 98 Snowdonia, 14, 22 Solway Firth, 55–67 Somerset, 16 Soules, Sir William de (d. 1320/1), 63, 67 Spain, 184, 185 Spanish Netherlands, 184 Staffordshire, 106 Stanley, John, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1414), 147, 149, 159 Stephen, king of England (1135–54), 11 Stewart, dynasty of, 13, 16 Strangford Lough, 151 Strathbogie, David, earl of Angus (d. 1335), 117 Strathmiglo, Thomas, 116 Stukeley, Thomas, 171 Suffolk, 45, 46, 48, 50, 53 duke of, 184 Surrender and Regrant, 187 Surrey, 53 earl of, see Warenne, John Sussex, 16 Swayne, John, archbishop of Armagh, 1418–39 (d. 1439x42), 167, 169 Sweetheart abbey (Dumfries and Galloway), 67 Tain, burgh of, 123 Talbot, John, lord Furnival, earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1453), 162, 163, 166, 168, 171, 181 Richard, archbishop of Dublin, 162 Templars, 24, 49, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111 See also Danet, Henry, master of the Temple Teramo, Simon, 165 Teviotdale (Borders), 117, 126 Thomas, earl of Lancaster (d. 1322), 96, 104, 124 Thomas of Lancaster, duke of Clarence (d. 1421), 153, 154 Thomas son of Alan of Galloway, 55, 58, 59, 66 Thomas son of David, 48

Thomond, 89, 137, 163 lord of, see Clare, family see also Ó Briain of Thomond Thornbury, Walter, 105 Thornton, Tim, 8 Threlkeld, Sir Henry, 181 Tickhill (Yorks.), 80, 87 Tipperary, 10, 44, 48, 49, 174 Tirawley (Mayo), 159 Touraine, 70 Tournai, 183 Tower house, 13, 180 Tralee (Kerry), 11 Trent, river, 11 Trim (Meath), 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 144, 145, 149 Trinity College Dublin, 1, 2 Tripartite Indenture, 10, 11, 12 Troyes, treaty of, 173, 182 Tubber (Meath), 94 Turnberry (Ayrshire), 60, 66 Turpilton, Hugh, 90, 94, 101 Tweed, river, 55, 58 Tweskard, 142, 146 Tyrone (Tír Eoghain), 145 see also Ó Néill [O’Neill], Uí Néill Ufford, Ralph, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1346), 4, 134, 135 Uí Eachach Uladh, see Iveagh (Down) Uí Máil (co. Wicklow), 94 Ui Maine, (Connacht) 96 Ullman, Walter, 20, 22 Ulster, 11, 14, 61, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 98, 135, 141–60, 173 earl of, see Burgh, family of; Lionel of Antwerp Umfraville, Ingram, 66 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 177 Urlingford (Kilkenny), 48 Urney (Donegal), 145 Urr, river (Galloway), 56, 60, 66 Usk, Adam (d. 1430), 14 Vairement, Richard, 144 Valence, Agnes, 133 Aymer, earl of Pembroke and lord of Wexford (d. 1324), 92, 101

Index 241 Venice, 161 Verdon, Bartholomew, 152, 153 Nicholas, 93, 132 Vere, Robert, earl of Oxford (d. 1331), 45 Robert, duke of Ireland (d. 1392), 11, 131, 139, 145 Verses of Gildas, 136 Vescy, William, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1297), 132, 134 Vienne, Jean de (d. 1396), 117 Vikings, 179 Vita Edwardi Secundi, 81 Vivian, papal legate, 166 Wales, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 20–43, 44, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 86, 91, 92, 101, 113, 126, 137, 151, 153, 178, 179, 185, 186, 188, 189 see also March, Welsh Wallace, 115 Walpole (Norfolk), 80 Walsh, family of, 95 Waltheof, earl of Northampton (d. 1076), 10 Ward, Thomas, ‘the Mammet King’ (d. 1419), 151 Warenne, John de, earl of Surrey, lieutenant of Scotland (d. 1347), 59 Wark-on-Tweed, 127 Wars of Independence, 56, 112 Wars of the Roses, 13, 16, 181, 183, 185 Warwick, earl of, see Neville, family Waterford, 29, 30, 95, 149, 180 bishop of, see Geese, John, bishop of Waterford and Lismore (d. 1425) Wells (Somerset), 87 Welsh Act of Union, 186 Welshpool (Powys), 14 Western Isles, 9, 16, 56, 97, 141 Westminster, 44, 45, 67, 69, 73, 82, 103, 104, 107, 108, 137, 166, 174, 186 Statute of, 98

Wharton, Sir Thomas (d. 1568), 186 Whatton, Robert, 105 White, family, 155 Christopher, 152, 153 Geoffrey, of Carlingford (d. 1366), 157, 159 Sir Geoffrey, keeper of the peace, co. Louth (d. 1392), 147, 152 Sir James son of Geoffrey, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 Robert, chancellor and treasurer of Ulster, 153 Whithorn, bishop and diocese of, 60, 63, 66 Wicklow, 91, 94, 151 Wigmore (Heref.), 90 Wigtown (Dumfries and Galloway), 58, 60, 65 William I (the Conqueror), king of England (1066–89), 10, 24, 128 William, king of Scots (1165–1214), 58 William X, duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou (d. 1137), 20, 39 William of Malmesbury, 185 Winchester, 41 earl of, see Quincy, Roger Statute of, 98, 138 Windsor, William, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1384), 133, 135, 149 Wogan, John, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1321/2), 44, 47, 49, 90, 132, 133, 134, 139 Worcester, earl of, 181 Wyatt, Sir Henry, 191 Wyntoun, Andrew, prior of St Serfs, Fife (d. c. 1422), 112–29, 152 York, archdiocese of, 60, 64, 66 duke of, see Richard, duke of York (d. 1460) parliament at, 67 treaty of, 55, 56 Yorkshire, 46 Youghal (Cork), 89, 90 Young, James (d. 1434), 167, 174 Ystrad Tywi (South Wales), 22, 42 Zouche, family of, 62, 63, 65