Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:32:42.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Edward III and His Family

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2017

W. M. Ormrod
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The chroniclers and poets of the later Middle Ages credited Edward III with many successes, among which the production of a large family rated highly. The king had a total of twelve children, of whom no fewer than nine—five sons and four daughters—survived to maturity (fig. 1). Historians have not always been enthusiastic about the generous provisions made for this large family. Edward's very fecundity, viewed by fourteenth-century writers as a sure sign of God's grace, has been seen as a political liability because it exhausted resources, created a political imbalance between the crown and the younger branches of the royal family, and led ultimately to the deposition of Richard II and the Wars of the Roses.

It is possible, however, to view Edward III's family arrangements in a different and rather more favorable light. Since the loss of many of their overseas territories in the thirteenth century, the Plantagenet kings had come to regard their remaining possessions as an inalienable patrimony to be handed on intact from father to eldest son. Unless younger children were able to create titles for themselves in foreign lands, kings had no option but to reward their sons with English earldoms. This was not a policy guaranteed to benefit the crown: the bitter quarrels between Edward II and his cousin Thomas of Lancaster showed very clearly the dangers that might arise when cadet branches of the Plantagenet dynasty became bound up with the English aristocracy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 398 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., the lists of Edward's children contained in obituaries of the king ( Wright, Thomas, ed., Political Poems and Songs Relating to English History, Rolls Series no. 14 [London, 1859–1861], 1:219–20Google Scholar; Galbraith, V. H., ed., The Anonimalle Chronicle, 1333–1381 [Manchester, 1927], p. 106 Google Scholar; Arnold, Thomas, ed., Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey, Rolls Series no. 96 [London, 1890–1896], 3:294)Google Scholar. Most of the chronicles of the later Middle Ages, including the most popular, Froissart and the Brut, record the births, marriages, and deaths of Edward's children and include many reports of their deeds.

2 Details on the royal family are taken from Fryde, E. B. et al., eds., Handbook of British Chronology, 3d ed. (London, 1986), pp. 39–40 Google Scholar; Cokayne, G. E., The Complete Peerage, new ed., rev. by Gibbs, V. et al. (London, 1910–1959)Google Scholar; and Rymer, T., Foedera, Conventiones, Literae et Cujuscunque Generis Ada, ed. Clarke, A. and Holbrooke, F. (London, 1816–1830)Google Scholar.

3 See, e.g., Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England, 3d ed. (Oxford, 1887), 2:435–37Google Scholar; and Tout, Thomas F., The History of England from the Accession of Henry III to the Death of Edward 111, 1216–1377, vol. 3 of The Political History of England, ed. Hunt, William and Poole, Reginald L. (London, 1905), pp. 427–31Google Scholar. Since McKisack, May (The Fourteenth Century [Oxford, 1959], pp. 265–69Google Scholar); Wolffe, Bertram P. (The Royal Demesne in English History [London, 1971], pp. 52–75)Google Scholar; and McFarlane, Kenneth B. (The Nobility of Later Medieval England [Oxford, 1973), pp. 72, 156–57)Google Scholar, interpretations have been more favorable, but the older view still obtains in such works as Tuck, Anthony, Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973), pp. 1–32 Google Scholar; and Chrimes, S. B., Lancastrians, Yorkists and Henry VII (New York, 1966), pp. 1–6 Google Scholar.

4 Le Patourel, John, Feudal Empires, Norman and Plantagenel (London, 1984), chap. 8, pp. 301–2Google Scholar. Wherever possible, I cite from this collection of Le Patourel's articles. My debt to his work will be obvious throughout.

5 McFarlane, pp. 248–67.

6 Edward continued his mother's policy in his support of the canonization of Thomas of Lancaster ( Strachey, J., ed., Rotuli Parliamentorum [London, 1767–1777], 2:7 [no. 2]Google Scholar; Rymer, 2, pt. 2:695, 707, 782, 814). For the restoration of Edmund of Kent's heir, see Strachey, ed., 2:54 (no. 8), 55 (nos. 11–12); Public Record Office (PRO), Special Collections, Ancient Correspondence (SC) 1/38/87; Richardson, Henry G. and Sayles, George, eds., Rotuli Parliamentorum Angliae Hactenus Inediti, Camden Society, 3d ser. vol. 51 (London, 1935), p. 213 (no. 59)Google Scholar.

7 PRO, Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1330–34, 2:265; Fowler, Kenneth, The King's Lieutenant (London, 1969), p. 28 Google Scholar.

8 For the influence of “Lancastrian” ideas in 1341, see Harriss, Gerald L., King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 270–74Google Scholar. Haines, Roy Martin (Archbishop John Stratford [Toronto, 1986], pp. 429–31Google Scholar) rightly warns against too close an association between Stratford and a “Lancastrian party.”

9 Fowler, pp. 35–37; Harriss, pp. 281–82, 305–7. The loyalty of the Lancastrian family was no doubt sustained by the strategic grant to the elder Henry in July 1341 of all jura regalia in the county of Lancaster. These powers were later surrendered and regranted to Henry of Grosmont for life ( Somerville, Robert, History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1265–1603 [London, 1953], 1:37)Google Scholar.

10 On the Scottish war, see Campbell, James, “England, Scotland and the Hundred Years War in the Fourteenth Century,” in Europe in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Hale, J. R., Highfield, J. R. L., and Smalley, B. (London, 1965), pp. 184–216 Google Scholar; Nicholson, Ranald G., Edward III and the Scots, 1327–1335 (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar; and Grant, Alexander, Independence and Nationhood: Scotland, 1306–1469 (London, 1984), pp. 16–37 Google Scholar. In 1332, it was actually suggested that Joan should repudiate her betrothal to David and marry Balliol.

11 Rymer, 2, pt. 1:524; 766, 777, 785; Chaplais, Pierre, ed., English Medieval Diplomatic Practice (London, 1975–1982), vol. I, pt. 1, no. 14Google Scholar; vol. I, pt. 2, no. 254. At the end of his reign, Edward II was trying to marry the future Edward III to an Aragonese princess (Rymer, 2, pt. 1:573, 584, 617; Chaplais, Pierre, ed., The War of Sainl-Sardos [1323–1325], Camden Society, 3d ser., vol. 87 [London, 1954], no. 178)Google Scholar, but Queen Isabella went directly against her husband's wishes (Rymer, 2, pt. 2:623) and betrothed Prince Edward to Philippa of Hainault, the niece of Philip of Valois. This brought some useful military assistance for the queen's invasion of England, but it also probably obliged Isabella to acknowledge the precedence of Philip's claim to the throne of France over and above that of her son. For the complicated implications of the Hainault connection, see Lucas, Henry S., The Low Countries and the Hundred Years' War, 1326–1347 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1929), pp. 52–124 Google Scholar.

12 Rymer, 2, pt. 2:822, 838. For the context of these negotiations, see Dèprez, Eugène, Les prèliminaires de la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1902), pp. 38–85 Google Scholar. it seems to have been the policy of the magnates and royal councillors (Strachey, ed., 2:60), not of the king, that dictated this brief revival of a marriage proposal. Following Le Patourel (chap. 11, pp. 44–45, and chap. 12, pp. 179–80), I am disposed to think that Edward took seriously his claim to the French throne.

13 Rymer, 2, pt. 2:990, 994, 1109–10; 3, pt. 1:72.

14 The most detailed account is Everett, Mary Anne (Mrs.Green, J. R.), Lives of the Princesses of England (London, 1851), vol. 3 Google Scholar; but the marriage negotiations may be traced in the diplomatic histories of this period, most notably Trautz, Fritz, Die Könige von England und das Reich, 1272–1377 (Heidelberg, 1961), pp. 199–343 Google Scholar.

15 Talks continued until 1347 for the marriage of Edward III's eldest son with the daughter of the duke of Brabant (Trautz, pp. 320–21).

16 The marriage took place in the royal chapel (Rymer, 3, pt. 1:235). For the diplomatic consequences, see Cuttino, G. P., English Medieval Diplomacy (Bloomington, Ind., 1985), p. 88 Google Scholar.

17 See, in general, Hughes, Dorothy, A Study of Social and Constitutional Tendencies in the Early Years of Edward III (London, 1915), pp. 166–71Google Scholar. For England, see Harriss, pp. 283–84, 299; Fryde, Natalie M., “Edward III's Removal of His Ministers and Judges, 1340–1,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 48 (1975): 149–50, 156–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, W. R., “Rex et Ministri: English Local Government and the Crisis of 1341,” Journal of British Studies 13, no. 1 (1973): 1–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crook, David, “The Later Eyres,” English Historical Review 97 (1982): 263 Google Scholar. For Wales and Ireland, see Waters, W. H., The Edwardian Settlement of North Wales in Its Administrative and Legal Aspects (1284–1343) (Cardiff, 1935), pp. 76, 84–85 Google Scholar; Frame, Robin, English Lordship in Ireland, 1318–1361 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 242–61Google Scholar.

18 Ormrod, W. M., “Edward III and the Recovery of Royal Authority in England, 1340–60,” History 72 (1987): 13–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 See the grants of sheriffdoms made to the nobility (ibid., p. 7).

20 It is interesting to note that the earl of Arundel and Sir Walter Mauny, both of whom had widespread authority in Wales, later married cousins of Edward III (Tuck (n. 3 above], p. 5; Waters, pp. 74, 76).

21 List of Sheriffs for England and Wales, Public Record Office Lists and Indexes, vol. 9 (1898; reprint (with amendments], London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1963), p. 21 Google Scholar.

22 Lists of Sheriffs for England and Wales, pp. 72, 127; Somerville (n. 9 above), 1:40–45; Fowler (n. 7 above), pp. 174–75. Alexander, James W. (“The English Palatinates and Edward I,” Journal of British Studies 22, no. 2 [1983]: 11–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar) notes various restrictions on the 1351 grant. It is particularly interesting to note the limitations resulting from the continued liability of Lancashire to taxation. In 1357, Edward III released the county from the threat of an eyre in return for the fifteenth and tenth (Harriss, pp. 345–46, 408), and, because Lancashire would be assessed for this tax, the king sought to advise the duke not to hold an eyre (PRO, Chancery Warrants, ser. 1, C 81/1334/36). This contrasts with the situation in the palatinate of Chester, which was not liable to royal taxation and where the earl held regular eyres throughout this period (see Booth, P. H. W., “Taxation and Public Order: Cheshire in 1353,” Northern History 12 [1976]: 16–25)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Griffiths, Ralph A., South Wales, 1279–1526, vol. 1 of The Principality of Wales in the Later Middle Ages: The Structure and Personnel of Government, University of Wales Board of Celtic Studies, History and Law Series, no. 26 (Cardiff, 1972), p. 49 Google Scholar. In North Wales, Edward seems to have been content to reinforce the political authority of the nobility.

24 Frame, pp. 243–50.

25 For the dates and political significance of these marriages, see ibid., pp. 51, 264–65.

26 For the effect of this appointment and the subsequent system of administration in Wales, see Evans, D. L., “Some Notes on the History of the Principality of Wales in the Time of the Black Prince (1343–1376),” Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, 1925–26 (London, 1927), pp. 28–40 Google Scholar.

27 Harriss, pp. 309–10, 405–6; Griffiths, 1:34; Edwards, J. Goronwy, ed., Calendar of Ancient Correspondence concerning Wales, University of Wales Board of Celtic Studies, History and Law Series, no. 2 (Cardiff, 1935), pp. 229–30Google Scholar; Frame, Robin, “The Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford: Warfare and Politics in Fourteenth-Century Ireland,” Studia Hibernica 13 (1973): 10–12 Google Scholar. The inquiries in England and Wales continued for some years, raising money for the king and the Black Prince ( Putnam, Bertha H., The Place in Legal History of Sir Williams Shareshull [Cambridge, England, 1950], pp. 64–74, 78 Google Scholar; Crook [n. 17 above], pp. 263–68). Note, however, that the value of such revenues from the King's Bench has been exaggerated (see Ormrod, W. M., “Edward III's Government of England, c. 1346–1356” [D. Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1984], pp. 213–20Google Scholar).

28 Campbell (n. 10 above), pp. 191–96; Fowler, p. 37. For the context of this and other campaigns in the early 1340s, see Prestwich, Michael, “English Armies in the Early Stages of the Hundred Years War: A Scheme in 1341,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 56 (1983): 103–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Le Patourel (n. 4 above), chap. 12, pp. 179–89.

30 Jones, Michael, “Edward III's Captains in Brittany,” in England in the Fourteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1985 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. Ormrod, W. M. (Woodbridge, 1986), p. 103 Google Scholar; Déprez (n. 12 above), p. 277. Note also the negotiations for marriages with the count of Eu, the lord of Coucy, and the count of Blois in the 1330s (Rymer [n. 2 above], vol. 2, pt. 2:854, 890; Haines [n. 8 above], p. 234).

31 Le Patourel, chap. 12, pp. 186–88; Jones, Michael, Ducal Brittany, 1364–1399 (Oxford, 1970), pp. 4, 16–17 Google Scholar.

32 Perroy, Edouard, The Hundred Years War (London, 1951), pp. 111–12Google Scholar; van Herwaarden, J., “The War in the Low Countries,” in Froissart: Historian, ed Palmer, J. J. N. (Woodbridge, 1981), p. 103 Google Scholar. Lucas ([n. 11 above], pp. 520–22) argued strongly that the chroniclers' reports were unfounded.

33 Chaplais, Pierre, “English Arguments concerning the Feudal Status of Aquitaine in the Fourteenth Century,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 21 (1948): 203–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Fryde, Edmund B., “Parliament and the French War, 1336–40,” in Historical Studies of the English Parliament, ed. Fryde, E. B. and Miller, Edward (Cambridge, 1970), 1:243 Google Scholar.

35 Watt, J., “ Laudabiliter in Medieval Diplomacy and Propaganda,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 5th ser., 87 (1957): 425, 430 Google Scholar.

36 Haines, pp. 44, 284, 287–88, 415, 430–31; Ormrod, , “Edward III and the Recovery of Royal Authority in England” (n. 18 above), pp. 4–5, 13 Google Scholar.

37 See the App.

38 Déprez, Eugène, “La conférence d'Avignon, 1344,” in Essays in Medieval History Presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, ed. Little, A. G. and Powicke, F. M. (Manchester, 1925), pp. 301–20Google Scholar; Perroy, p. 129.

39 See the provisions of the Treaty of Guines, 1354 ( Bock, Friedrich, “Some New Documents Illustrating the Early History of the Hundred Years War [1353–1356],” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 15 [1931]: 71–72, 91–92)Google Scholar. It was only at this point, when he looked set to obtain sovereignty over most of the old Plantagenet lands in France, that Edward was prepared once more to make offers of marriage alliances with the Valois.

40 Le Patourel, John, “Edouard III, ‘roi de France et due de Normandie,’” Revue historique de droit francais et etranger, 4th ser., 31 (1953): 317–18Google Scholar, and Feudal Empires, Norman and Plantagenet, chap. 12, pp. 182–84.

41 English Historical Documents, vol. 2, 1042–1189, ed. Douglas, D. C. and Greenaway, G. W., 2d ed. (London, 1981), p. 351 Google Scholar.

42 No English titles were bestowed on any of the king's children between 1343 and 1362. A detailed analysis of the provision of lands for the family (Wolffe [n. 3 above], pp. 230–44) reveals that only Edmund of Langley and Princess Isabella received any English territories in the period from 1343 to 1359.

43 Fowler (n. 7 above), pp. 76, 98–102; Bock, pp. 64, 85.

44 Russell, P. E., The English Intervention in Spain and Portugal in the Time of Edward III and Richard II (Oxford, 1955), pp. 6–9 Google Scholar; Tuchman, Barbara W., A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century (Harmondsworth, 1979), pp. 205–6Google Scholar, citing Everett (Green) (n. 14 above).

45 For what follows, see Campbell (n. 10 above), pp. 196–201; Grant (n. 10 above), pp. 35–37; Le Patourel, , Feudal Empires, Norman and Plantagenet, chap. 13, pp. 19–39 Google Scholar.

46 There has been much misunderstanding over the dates of these weddings. Gaunt's marriage can be dated precisely to May 19, 1359 (PRO, Exchequer [E] 101/393/10). Fryde et al., eds. ([n. 2 above], p. 40), give the same date for the marriage of Princess Margaret, but the issue roll implies that this wedding had taken place by December 1358 ( Devon, Frederick, ed., Issues of the Exchequer, Henry III to Henry VI [London, 1847], p. 172 Google Scholar, misplaced because of Devon's error over the Exchequer year). The same entry on the issue roll in December 1358 refers to the marriage of Philippa of Ulster and Edmund Mortimer. Cokayne ([n. 2 above], 8:445) wrongly dates this marriage 1368 (on the basis of an ambiguous reference in PRO, Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1367–70, 14:114 Google Scholar). The error has been perpetuated through Holmes, George A., The Estates of the Higher Nobility in Fourteenth-Century England (Cambridge, England, 1957), pp. 12, 17 Google Scholar; and Tuck, Anthony, Crown and Nobility, 1272–1461 (London, 1985), p. 154 Google Scholar. There is in fact clear evidence to corroborate the earlier date for Philippa's marriage (see the references cited in Harriss [n. 8 above], p. 485 and n. 3; together with Rymer [n. 2 above], vol. 3, pt. 2:725).

47 For Edward's concern to uphold his rights in the Marches, see Davies, R. R., Lordship and Society in the March of Wales, 1282–1400 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 269–73Google Scholar.

48 Lionel's appointment had been expected for some time ( Frame, , English Lordship in Ireland [n. 17 above], pp. 323–25Google Scholar). Family arrangements need to be set alongside other factors leading to his commission in 1361. For these and the subsequent events of Lionel's lieutenancy, see Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland (London, 1968), pp. 277–95Google Scholar.

49 For what follows, see Somerville (n. 9 above), 1:49-56; Fowler pp. 174–75; and Goodman, Anthony, “John of Gaunt,” in Ormrod, , ed. (n. 30 above), pp. 75–76 Google Scholar.

50 For Edward's demands, see Campbell, pp. 196–98; and Balfour-Melville, E. W. M., ed., “Papers Relating to the Captivity and Release of David II,” Publications of the Scottish History Society, 3d. sen, 50 (1958)Google Scholar. Note also that, after the English chevauchée through the Lowlands in 1355–56, Edward Balliol renounced his claims in Scotland, and Edward III announced his intention of governing the northern kingdom directly (Rymer, vol. 3, pt. 1: 315–16, 325). It is just possible that David II's grant of the earldom of Moray to Henry of Grosmont in 1359 was an oblique reference to John of Gaunt's candidature for the Scottish throne (Fowler, p. 175). The treaty of Berwick is usually interpreted as an agreement between equals and a triumph for Scottish independence, but note that English transcripts of the treaty denied David II the title “king of Scots” (Campbell, p. 200; Webster, Bruce, ed., The Acts of David II King of Scots, 1329–1371, vol. 6 of Regesta Regum Scottorum, 1153–1424 [Edinburgh, 1982], no. 148, pp. 173–84Google Scholar, with comment).

51 Fraser, Constance M., ed., Ancient Petitions Relating to Northumberland, Surtees Society, vol. 176 (London, 1961), no. 196Google Scholar; Armitage-Smith, Sydney, John of Gaunt (London, 1904), pp. 242–54Google Scholar. Note Gaunt's valuable connections with the northern nobility through the family of his first wife (Cokayne [n. 2 above], 7:401, n. [b].

52 For what follows, see Le Patourel, , Feudal Empires, Norman and Plantagenet (n. 4 above), chap. 13, pp. 19–39 Google Scholar; and Chaplais, Pierre, ed., “Some Documents regarding the Fulfillment and Interpretation of the Treaty of Brétigny (1361–1369),” Camden Miscellany 19, Camden Society, 3d ser., 80 (London, 1952)Google Scholar.

53 Jones, M. (Ducal Brittany [n. 31 above], pp. 14–15 Google Scholar) notes the creation in 1360 of a special commission to deal with the Breton succession dispute. At Calais in 1360, Edward III also obtained interim agreements safeguarding his titles of king of France and duke of Normandy ( Le Patourel, , Feudal Empires, Norman and Plantagenet, chap. 13, pp. 38–39 Google Scholar). This deliberate policy of splitting off sections of the Bretigny settlement for separate treatment weakened the French position and helped Edward to delay the final ratification of the treaty. It should also be noted in this respect that, in November 1362, the English king assumed the power to make a private agreement with the French hostages (the so-called Treaty of Fleur-de-Lys), which brought Edward and his family additional gains not envisaged in 1360. The English king's son-in-law Enguerrand de Coucy, for instance, obtained the county of Soissons as a result of this treaty and rendered homage to Edward for it and for his barony of Coucy (see Delachanel, R., Histoire de Charles V [Paris, 1909–1931], 2:339–50Google Scholar; Perroy, Edouard, ed., “The Anglo-French Negotiations at Bruges, 1374–1377,” Camden Miscellany 19, Camden Society, 3d ser., 80 [London, 1952], p. 83 [no. 25] and n. 5)Google Scholar.

54 Jones, M., Ducal Brittany, pp. 14–15, 17–18, 45–46 Google Scholar.

55 Perroy, pp. 152–53; Trautz (n. 14 above), pp. 394–95; Vaughan, Richard, Philip the Bold (London, 1962), pp. 4–5 Google Scholar. For additional documents, see Chaplais, , ed., English Medieval Diplomatic Practice (n. 11 above), vol. 1, pt. 2, nos. 260, 349Google Scholar. The Anglo-Flemish accord was itself a breach of the Treaty of Brétigny. The negotiations were carried out as between two independent rulers, although the marriage agreement of October 1364 made passing reference to the homage owed by Louis to the king of France (Rymer, 3, pt. 2:750–51. The planned campaign against the free companies is recorded in Rymer 3, pt. 2:777; and PRO, Chancery Warrant, ser. 1, C 81/908/27. Edward's determination to bring about this marriage may help to explain why, despite the political and financial disadvantages, he restored a Continental staple at Calais in 1362–63 ( Unwin, George, “The Estate of Merchants, 1336–1365,” in Finance and Trade under Edward III, ed. Unwin, George [Manchester, 1918], p. 244 Google Scholar; Ormrod, W. M., “The English Crown and the Customs, 1349–63,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 40 [1987]: 38–39 and references)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It also explains Edward's all-out attack on Pope Urban V when the latter refused to grant the necessary dispensation for the marriage ( Palmer, J. J. N. and Wells, A. P., “Ecclesiastical Reform and the Politics of the Hundred Years War during the Pontificate of Urban V [1362–70],” in War, Literature and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Allmand, C. T. [Liverpool, 1976], pp. 169–89)Google Scholar. As late as 1368, Edward was still attempting to bring about a dynastic alliance with Flanders, though he had substituted the recently widowed John of Gaunt in the place of Prince Edmund ( Palmer, J. J. N., “The Historical Context of the ‘Book of the Duchess’: A Revision,” Chaucer Review 8 [1973–1974]: 253–55)Google Scholar.

56 Barber, Richard (Edward, Prince of Wales and Aquitaine [London, 1978], pp. 172–74Google Scholar) rejects suggestions that the king opposed the Black Prince's marriage.

57 Connolly, P., “The Financing of English Expeditions to Ireland, 1361–1376,” in England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven, ed. Lydon, James (Dublin, 1981), pp. 104–11, 117–19Google Scholar.

58 Lionel's first wife died in 1363: the expenses of her funeral are contained in PRO, E 101/394/19. For his second marriage, which brought him considerable lands in Piedmont, see Trautz, pp. 396–99.

59 Russell (n. 44 above), pp. 1–5. Barber (pp. 186–89) emphasizes Edward III's involvement in preparing this expedition.

60 Russell, pp. 168–217.

61 Perroy, ed., pp. xvi–xvii. Compare Richard II's grant of palatine status in Ireland to Robert de Vere in 1386 and his handing over of Guyenne to John of Gaunt in 1390. It is possible that Richard was prepared permanently to alienate his possessions in southern France, though this matter is controversial (see Palmer, J. J. N., England, France and Christendom, 1377–99 [London, 1972], pp. 28–43 Google Scholar; and Sherborne, J. W., “Charles VI and Richard II,” in Palmer, , ed. [n. 32 above], p. 62)Google Scholar.

62 Rymer, 3, pt. 2:750–51. The treaty also stated that, if the counties of Hainault, Holland, and Zeeland passed to Edward through Queen Philippa, these, too, would be granted to Edmund. Calais and Guines were new English acquisitions, and Ponthieu had come into the hands of the English kings only in 1279, after Henry III's statement on the inalienability of the royal patrimony ( Le Patourel, , Feudal Empires Norman and Plantagenet, chap. 8, pp. 301–2, 303 Google Scholar). It may therefore be that Edward III was observing the earlier Angevin distinction between an indivisible “inheritance” and a partible “acquisition.” The most important point, however, is that sovereignty over Calais, Guines, and Ponthieu was specifically reserved to the king of England under the 1364 agreement.

63 The phrase is that of Gillingham, John (The Angevin Empire [London, 1984], p. 31)Google Scholar.

64 Alexander ([n. 22 above], pp. 20–22) suggests that the English concept of the palatinate developed from the model of the French appanages. But it must be remembered that Edward III's younger sons did not hold palatine status in this period and that, as Alexander himself points out, the exercise of jura regalia was an exceptional privilege in England, carefully regulated by the crown. The situation was very different in fourteenth-century France. The appanages created for the sons of the Valois kings were intended to bind previously independent principalities to the crown, but, in a short while, the princes themselves assumed the quasi-independent status of their predecessors (see Le Patourel, , Feudal Empires, Norman and Plantagenet, chap. 15, pp. 155–83Google Scholar; Lewis, Peter, Late Medieval France: The Polity [London, 1968], pp. 190–92, 195–99)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note also in this respect that Edward III's decision to maintain his claims over Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Touraine after 1360 was itself a direct challenge to the sons of John II, who held ducal titles in these regions.

65 Perroy, (n. 32 above), pp. 150–65. The defection of Brittany proved temporary, for Duke John later reverted to the English cause and was granted the earldom of Richmond in 1372. John of Gaunt was compensated for the loss of this title by grants from Queen Philippa's estates (Wolffe [n. 3 above], p. 242).

66 The idea of a court party is clearly evident in Stubbs ([n. 3 above], 2:439–53). Tout ([n. 4 above], 3:432–38) added the popular party. Tout enlarged and refined these themes in his Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England (Manchester, 1920–1933), 3:266–307 Google Scholar. The same interpretation applies to Tuck, , Richard II and the English Nobility (n. 3 above), pp. 1–32 Google Scholar; and still to some extent in Tuck, , Crown and Nobility (n. 46 above), pp. 166–74Google Scholar. My account depends heavily on Holmes, George, The Good Parliament (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar; and Given-Wilson, C. J., “The Court and Household of Edward III, 1360–1377” (Ph.D. thesis, University of St. Andrews; 1975)Google Scholar. The principal conclusions of the latter work are published in Given-Wilson, C. J., The Royal Household and the King's Affinity: Service, Politics and Finance in England, 1360–1413 (New Haven, Conn., 1986), pp. 146–60Google Scholar.

67 These were the castles and lordships that the duke of Orléans had put up as security in the Treaty of Fleur-de-Lys and that had subsequently been surrendered to Thomas in 1364–65 (Delachanel [n. 53 above], 2:339–41; Rymer, 3, pt. 2:758–59; PRO, Exchequer [Treasury of Receipt], Diplomatic Documents, E 30/1509).

68 For Edmund of Langley, see Goodman (n. 49 above), p. 78.

69 This is the conclusion of Holmes, The Good Parliament; and Given-Wilson, “The Court and Household of Edward III.”

70 Holmes, , The Good Parliament, p. 156 Google Scholar; Strachey, ed. (n. 6 above), 3:16 (no. 48). By the early fifteenth century, there was a tradition that, in his last ten years, Edward III had exhausted royal resources by making overgenerous grants outside his family circle ( Wolffe, Bertram P., “Acts of Resumption in the Lancastrian Parliaments, 1399–1456,” in Fryde, and Miller, , eds. [n. 34 above], 2:65–68 Google Scholar.

71 Richard also represented his grandfather in the parliament of January 1377 (Strachey, ed., 2:361).

72 Although Edmund and Thomas received lands and annuities and Thomas was granted the office of constable, both had to wait until 1385 before they secured dukedoms. It is also notable that the earl of March lost the office of marshal after the Good Parliament ( Holmes, , The Good Parliament, pp. 156–57, 183 Google Scholar). Whether this implies March's complete alienation from the court is, however, doubtful ( Given-Wilson, , “The Court and Household of Edward III,” p. 173 Google Scholar). It is possible that the continual council proposed by the Commons in the Good Parliament was intended to act during the impending minority, but it proved inoperative ( Holmes, , The Good Parliament, p. 158 Google Scholar). Tout ( Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, 3:323–24Google Scholar) suggested that the administrative problems created by an official minority made it more convenient to pretend, as in 1219 and 1327, that the young king was competent to rule. This, however, is to ignore the clear precedents of 1253 and 1272 and the subsequent careful arrangements made by Henry V in 1421-22 for a regency (see Wolffe, Bertram, Henry VI [London, 1981], pp. 28–32)Google Scholar.

73 Although the betrothal did not take place until 1381, the marriage was obtained by Gaunt in 1377 (Goodman, p. 82, with references). The reestablishment of palatine status in the duchy of Lancaster came in February 1377. This grant was unpopular and went directly against contemporary political opinion and administrative policy, as I hope to illustrate elsewhere.

74 Galbraith, ed. (n. 1 above), p. 95. For Edward's itinerary and continued political involvement during the last period of his life, see Given-Wilson, , The Royal Household and the King's Affinity, pp. 33–34 Google Scholar. Edward made reference to his illness in an undated privy seal letter some time after September 1376 (Perroy, ed., p. 78, no. 8).

75 Holmes, , The Good Parliament, p. 194 Google Scholar.

76 Tout, , Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, 3:324–39Google Scholar; McKisack (n. 3 above), pp. 399–406.

77 For the relationship of the royal uncles with the regency council, see Tout, , Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England, 3:335 Google Scholar. Goodman, Anthony (The Loyal Conspiracy [London, 1971], pp. 4–6 Google Scholar) suggests that Gaunt and Woodstock drew together as allies after the Good Parliament. It should be remembered that, when Thomas made his stand against Richard II, it was in alliance with Henry of Derby against the royal family's common enemy, Michael de la Pole ( Roskell, J. S., The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole Earl of Suffolk in 1386 [Manchester, 1984], pp. 113–48Google Scholar). This serves to emphasize the inconsistency and inadequacy of party labels.

78 For example, Wright, ed. (n. 1 above), 1:94–122, 215–18, 454–62; Hoccleve, Thomas, The Regement of Princes, ed. Furnivall, Frederick J., EETS E.S. 72 (London, 1897), pp. 19, 93, 96 Google Scholar; Capgrave, John, The Book of the Illustrious Henries, trans. Hingeston, Francis C., Rolls Series no. 7 (London, 1858), pp. 102, 186–92Google Scholar. Note in this context the high reputation enjoyed by Queen Philippa in the later Middle Ages (see, e.g., the references in Barnie, John, War in Medieval Society: Social Values and the Hundred Years War, 1337–99 [London, 1974], pp. 118 and 176, n. 4Google Scholar).

79 Only the figures on the ambulatory side of the tomb survive: these are identified as the Black Prince, Joan, Lionel, Edmund, Mary, and William of Hatfield (born 1336, died in infancy).

80 PRO, Special Collections, Ancient Correspondence, SC 1/39/161.

81 Robert Parving, chancellor from October 28, 1341, to August 26, 1343.

82 Richard de Crendon, abbot of Nutley, Buckinghamshire.

83 William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicanum, in Chronicles and Memorials of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. Howlett, Richard, Rolls Series, no. 82 (London, 1884–1889), 1:1–408, 2:409–53Google Scholar.

84 Nicholas Herle had close associations with the court (see Emden, Alfred B., A Survey of Dominicans in England [Rome, 1967], p. 362)Google Scholar.

85 Walter of London, a former clerk of the royal household and dean of Wells (see Emden, Alfred B., A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to 1500 [Oxford, 1957–1959], 2:1158 [where his death is wrongly dated 1340]Google Scholar; le Neve, John, Fasti ecclesiae anglicanae, 1300–1541, rev. by King, H. P. F., Horn, Joyce M., and Jones, B. [London. 1962–1967], 8:3–4 [Bath and Wells diocese])Google Scholar.

86 It is not known whether Edward III received the promised copy of Newburgh's Historia, but several fourteenth-century copies of the chronicle do survive (Howlett, ed., 1:xxxix, xliv–xlv, xlviii–xlix).