ireland and the english world in the late middle ages

Ireland and the English World in the Late Middle Ages

A-PDF Text Replace DEMO: Purchase from www.A-PDF.com to remove the watermark

mailto: [email protected]

http://www.a-pdf.com/?tr-demo

Also by Brendan Smith

COLONISATION AND CONQUEST IN MEDIEVAL IRELAND: The Englishin Louth, 1170–1330

BRITAIN AND IRELAND 900–1300: Insular Responses to MedievalEuropean Change (ed.)

HANDBOOK AND SELECT CALENDAR OF SOURCES FOR MEDIEVALIRELAND IN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM(Edited with Paul Dryburgh)


Ireland and the EnglishWorld in the LateMiddle AgesEssays in Honour of Robin Frame

Edited by

Brendan SmithReader in History, University of Bristol


Editorial matter, selection, Introduction and Chapter 1© Brendan Smith 2009All remaining chapters © their respective authors 2009

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of thispublication may be made without written permission.

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmittedsave with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of theCopyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licencepermitting 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 publicationmay be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identifiedas the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published 2009 byPALGRAVE 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 companiesand 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 hardbackISBN-10: 0–230–54289–1 hardback

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fullymanaged and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturingprocesses are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of thecountry 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 2 118 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09

Printed and bound in Great Britain byCPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne


Contents

Abbreviations vii

List of Contributors ix

Robin Frame: An Appreciation xMichael Prestwich

Introduction 1Brendan Smith

1 The British Isles in the Late Middle Ages: Shaping theRegions 7Brendan Smith

2 Three Thirteenth-Century Declarations of English Rule:Over Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales 20J. R. S. Phillips

3 A Versatile Legal Administrator and More: The Career ofJohn of Fressingfield in England, Ireland and Beyond 44Paul Brand

4 Galloway, the Solway Shore and the Nature of Borders 55Ruth M. Blakely

5 Gascony and the Limits of Medieval British Isles History 68Andrea C. Ruddick

6 Roger Mortimer and the Governance of Ireland,1317–1320 89Paul Dryburgh

7 The Case against Alexander Bicknor, Archbishop andPeculator 103James F. Lydon

8 A People Divided? Language, History and Anglo-ScottishConflict in the Work of Andrew of Wyntoun 112Steve Boardman

v


vi Contents

9 Policies, Priorities and Principles: The King, theAnglo-Irish and English Justiciars in the FourteenthCentury 130Beth Hartland

10 The Ulster Revolt of 1404 – an Anti-LancastrianDimension? 141Katharine Simms

11 Henry V and the Proposal for an Irish Crusade 161Elizabeth Matthew

12 ‘Reducing their Barbarous Wildness . . .unto Civility’:England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625 176Steven G. Ellis

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Robin Frame 193

Works Cited 201

Index 228


Abbreviations

AC Annála Connacht: The Annals of Connacht, ed.A. M. Freeman. Institute for Advanced Studies(Dublin, 1944)

AClon The Annals of Clonmacnoise, ed. D. Murphy(repr.: Lampeter, 1993)

AFM Annála Ríoghachta Éireann: Annals of the King-dom of Ireland by the Four Masters from theEarliest Period to the Year 1616, ed. and trans.J. O’Donovan, 7 vols. (Dublin, 1851; repr.:New York, 1966; reprint with introduction byK. Nicholls, Blackrock, 1998)

AU Annála Uladh, The Annals of Ulster, ed. B. Mac-Carthy, 4 vols. (repr.: Blackrock, 1998)

BL British Library, LondonThe Bruce John Barbour, The Bruce, ed. A. A. M. Duncan

(Edinburgh, 1997)Cal. Calendar of [the]CCR Calendar of the Close Rolls (London, 1900– )CDI Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, ed.

H. S. Sweetman, 5 vols. (London, 1875–1886)CDS Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, ed.

J. Bain et al., 5 vols. (Edinburgh, 1881–1986)CFR Calendar of the Fine Rolls Preserved in the Pub-

lic Record Office, 1272–1509, 22 vols. (London,1911–1962)

Chron. Bower (Watt) Walter Bower, Scotichronicon, gen. ed.D. E. R. Watt (Aberdeen, 1993–1998)

Chron. Wyntoun The Original Chronicle of Andrew of Wyntoun,ed. F. J. Amours, 6 vols. Scottish Texts Society(Edinburgh, 1903–1914)

CJR Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls . . .of Ireland, ed.J. Mills et al., 3 vols. (Dublin, 1905–1956)

Clyn The Annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn, ed.B. Williams (Dublin, 2007)

vii


viii Abbreviations

CPR Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Pub-lic Record Office 1216–1509, 54 vols. (London,1891–1916)

CSM Chartularies of St Mary’s Abbey, Dublin . . .andAnnals of Ireland, 1162–1370, ed. J. T. Gilbert,2 vols. RS (London, 1884–1886)

EHR English Historical ReviewIHS Irish Historical StudiesIMC Irish Manuscripts CommissionLI Lincoln’s Inn, LondonNAI National Archives of Ireland, DublinNat. MSS. Scot. Facsimiles of the National Manuscripts of

Scotland (London, 1867–1871)NLI National Library of Ireland, DublinODNB 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)

PROME The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England,1275–1504, gen. ed. C. Given-Wilson, 16 vols.(Woodbridge, 2005)

RC Record CommissionRot. Pat. Hib. Rotulorum Patentium et Clausorum Cancellariae

Hibernie Calendarium, ed. E. Tresham (Dublin,1828)

RRS Regesta Regum Scottorum, ed. G. W. S. Barrowet al. (Edinburgh, 1960– )

RS Rolls SeriesSHR Scottish Historical ReviewSTS Scottish Text SocietyTCD Trinity College DublinTCWAAS Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmor-

land Antiquarian and Archaeological SocietyTDGNHAS Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Gal-

loway Natural History and Antiquarian Society,3rd series

TNA The National Archives, London (Kew)TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical SocietyWHR Welsh History Review


List of Contributors

Ruth M. Blakely, Independent scholar and Honorary Fellow, Depart-ment 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 CollegeDublin

Elizabeth Matthew, Research Fellow, Department of History, Universityof Reading

J. R. S. Phillips, Emeritus Professor of Medieval History, UniversityCollege Dublin

Michael Prestwich, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Durham

Andrea C. Ruddick, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, PembrokeCollege, Cambridge

Katharine Simms, Senior Lecturer in Medieval History, Trinity CollegeDublin

Brendan Smith, Reader in History, University of Bristol

ix


Robin Frame: An AppreciationMichael Prestwich

Robin Frame was brought up in Northern Ireland, where his rootsremain strong.1 With an outstanding academic record already attainedat Trinity College Dublin he came, as yet beardless, to Durham in 1969,to a lectureship in a department dominated by the redoubtable ProfessorOffler. The group of medievalists was small but distinguished, includingas it did Donald Matthew and Gerald Harriss. It was a supportive envi-ronment, for although Offler is said to have discouraged his colleaguesfrom publication, he gave Robin his full backing, reading all the type-script of his first book. Most important to Robin, however, has alwaysbeen his family; the support of his wife Christine has underpinned hisachievements. He is hugely proud of their four children, one of whomis to his delight a published historian, and thoroughly enjoys the expe-rience of being a grandfather. Students from his earliest days at Durhamremember with admiration the resilience with which he combined aca-demic output with the rigours of bringing up the expanding family in asmall house without a car.Despite his publications in impressive journals, Robin’s initial

advance up the ladder of academic success was slow by more recentstandards. With two books out in two years, however, he achieved thedistinction of being promoted in one and the same year, 1983, to bothsenior lecturer and reader. In 1987–1988 he held the university’s pres-tigious Sir Derman Christopherson Fellowship, an acknowledgement ofthe importance of his research work. A part of the duties of this fel-lowship was to give a public lecture. This was a triumph, despite theproblems presented by an overhead projector. In 1992 Robin achievedwell overdue professorial status and in the same year came to the rescueof the department when, its chairman-elect having abruptly deserted itto become a pro-vice-chancellor, he stepped in to fill the breach at theunanimous behest of his colleagues. He served for three years as chair-man 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 depart-

ment in developing policies, and displayed consistent kindness to hiscolleagues. 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 deflatedifficulties. There is no doubt that he felt a sense of overpoweringirritation at many of the demands placed on a head of department,but he kept his temper and his impatience in check, with well-deservedexpletives largely confined to private occasions. Any follies of theuniversity administration were met with controlled but forceful andeffective protests. One particular cross he had to bear was that of mod-ularisation; in the 1990s university managements were leaping likelemmings over that particular cliff, leaving it to departments to work outhow schemes, often inappropriate, could be implemented. Robin’s wiseguidance, and ability to win support, ensured that the Durham historydepartment developed a workable and effective syllabus within the newparameters. External assessment of teaching was another issue; the typi-cally skilful prose of Robin’s submission to the Teaching Quality Agencyhelped to ensure that the department duly received an ‘excellent’ rat-ing. Research was becoming ever more important; Robin’s chairmanshipcovered the years of the build-up to the 1996 Research Assessment Exer-cise, and the department’s success both then and subsequently owed agreat deal to his vision of the way in which collective excellence shouldbe achieved by every individual contributing in their own way. Whiledue regard was to be had for meeting targets through applications forexternal funding, this was to be no substitute for individuals producingexcellent 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 hisperiod as departmental chairman, devoted himself primarily to teach-ing and research, until he became an emeritus professor in 2002. Heis always ready to assist his medievalist colleagues, as, for example, byjoining with Richard Britnell and Michael Prestwich in editing the seriesof Thirteenth Century England volumes for a decade. His sense of duty,and desire to help the department, encouraged him to apply, success-fully, for a major research grant, and after retirement he has remainedan active member of the department, notably managing and bringingthis 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 thatmatched the character of the eighteenth-century department building,was decorated with an ever-increasing number of empty tins of pungenttobacco. He appeared to ascribe inspirational properties to the lingeringhaze of smoke that filled his room; writing camemore easily when Robin


xii Robin Frame: An Appreciation

had a pipe to hold. Nor did its effects lessen the fierce pace at which heascended the steep slopes between the peninsula and Neville’s Cross. Histeaching was inspiring and he encouraged his students by treating theirideas and suggestions with genuine interest. In tutorials a mischievoussense of humour was combined with total lack of pomposity. He caredfor all his students; fears over the possible way in which one might reactto a poor degree result led Robin and a colleague on one occasion to alengthy search for him. His teaching was not limited to his own immedi-ate field. For example, for a great many years he gave a good number ofthe lectures on a course on early medieval European history. His key role,however, was in developing the British and Irish dimensions of medievalhistory, notably with courses on Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and onEngland and Ireland in the fourteenth century. He had the power toconvert students with a moderate interest in his subject into enthusiasticmedievalists, 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 meticulousattention to detail. He expected the same care with language that charac-terizes his own work, and demanded the highest level of scholarship. Hisstudents had an absolute confidence that their work had gone througha most thorough process of evaluation. At the same time as providingexpert advice, he could poke fun at his students, who might in timelearn to respond in kind. His generosity to his postgraduates naturallyextended long after the period of formal supervision was over.Robin is a scholar of remarkably wide reading and intellectual sympa-

thies, with an open and questioning mind. He has never been a man tofollow academic fads and fashions, and has had no interest in innova-tion for its own sake. Modest and self-deprecating, his values are thoseof real scholarship and research, and have remained steadfast. Duringhis years in the Durham history department he has been an inspirationto 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 March2008 as an Honorary Member of the Royal Irish Academy reflected thehigh 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, inparticular Ruth Blakely, Chris Brooks, Beth Hartland, Sarah Layfield, ElizabethMatthew, Ranald Michie, David Rollason, Len Scales and Philip Williamson.


IntroductionBrendan Smith

Robin Frame’s achievement has been to approach the medieval historyof the British Isles and the Plantagenet dominions from the directionof Ireland in ways that have changed our understanding of all theseentities. It is no exaggeration to say that his work has transformed howhistorians of Ireland in the late Middle Ages view their subject. He hassummarised his approach thus: ‘. . .historians have traditionally inclinedto start out with negative assumptions; they have, so to speak, askedwhat was wrong with the Lordship of Ireland. There may be somethingto be said for concentrating . . .on the less value-laden question of whatEnglish Ireland in the later Middle Ages was like.’1

Frame’s English Ireland was like no other representation of the subjectto be read by an undergraduate at Trinity College Dublin in the early1980s. One recently published article in particular demanded of thereader a complete reconsideration of prevailing approaches: in ‘Powerand Society in the Lordship of Ireland, 1272–1377’, which appearedin Past and Present in 1977, Frame expounded many of the core ideaswhich 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 toend a land of marches’ in which even the king’s representative actedincreasingly as ‘a circumscribed marcher lord’ in the region aroundDublin. Only a ‘wide dispersal of power’ relying on ‘strong ties of kin-ship and lordship’ was appropriate in such circumstances, and thisin turn explained the appearance of such phenomena as kerne (bil-leted mercenaries), vendetta, and changes to inheritance customs whichfavoured male over female succession to land. Adaptation to the fron-tier, rather than ‘Gaelicisation’ lay at the root of such developments, and

1


2 Introduction

explained why the settlers continued to regard themselves as differentfrom their Irish neighbours centuries after their first arrival, and despitethe cultural accommodations with them which they undoubtedlymade.2

Issues such as the balance between central and local authority, thenature of magnate power, the character of frontier society, colonialidentity, and the problems associated with viewing the late medievalperiod in general as one of retreat, which Frame raised in this wide-ranging and fundamental challenge to prevailing understandings oflate medieval Irish history, clearly had resonances beyond Irish shores.His outward-looking, comparative approach was inspired by his under-graduate and postgraduate studies at Trinity College Dublin: a specialsubject offered by Professor Otway-Ruthven on ‘The Great Libertiesof England, Ireland and the Marches of Wales’ he has described as ‘abold and unusual adventure in comparative history’, while the workof his Ph.D. supervisor, James Lydon, which focused on Irish involve-ment in Edward I’s Scottish wars, displayed a precocious willingness toview medieval Ireland’s frontier character in a broader European per-spective.3 Contextualisation of the Irish experience within a wider orbitwas 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 MedievalIreland (ed. J. Lydon, Dublin); the fruits of the first joint meeting of theRoyal Irish Academy and the British Academy held in 1982.4 In the yearsthat followed the writings of these two scholars would prove mutu-ally complementary and stimulating. One of Frame’s most importantessays, ‘Aristocracies and the Political Configuration of the British Isles’appeared in The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts, Con-nections (Edinburgh, 1988), edited by Davies, while both contributedarticles to Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), edited by RobertBartlett and Angus Mackay, a volume that sprang from a conferenceheld at Edinburgh in 1987.5 Davies also read drafts in 1987–1988 ofFrame’s next book, The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400(Oxford), first published in 1990, which remains unique as a single-authored survey of its subject. It is fitting that one of Frame’s most recentpublication has been in the memorial volume in honour of his latefriend, while the book upon which Davies was working at the time ofhis 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 pre-sented in ‘Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland, 1272–1377’made later modification of some of the ideas it contained likely, andin this work of revision Frame himself has taken the lead. Identifyingsome of his earlier views as ‘partly a reaction against a rather abstractstyle of institutional history that was influential in Ireland in the mid-dle of the twentieth century’, he has noted that ‘in the 1970s I wasmore pessimistic about the effectiveness of the Dublin government thanI had become by the 1990s’.7 While still prepared to accept that theperiod after 1350 ‘undoubtedly saw the balance of advantage tip infavour of local as against central authority, and of march custom asagainst English law’ he has recently asserted that ‘it remains strikingthat English systems rooted themselves as firmly as they did. There isplenty of evidence that the state in Ireland was more than an emptyshell.’8 In short, while he has always seen power in English Ireland asresting to varying degrees on central authority, the great regional lords,and the county communities, Frame has of late tended to emphasisethe particular significance of the first of these pillars of English rule.Such a modified perspective remains compatible with – and perhapsreinforces – his long-held views about the sense of identity and polit-ical outlook of the descendants of the original colonists: even the mostacculturated of settler lords continued to consider themselves as English,and the political trajectory of the late medieval settler community wasnot in the direction of any constitutional distancing from England orthe English crown. In English Lordship in Ireland Frame argued that theattitude of the great lords was representative of the settlers at large andthat this attitude ‘was not “separatist” but “loyalist” – with all the ambi-guity that epithet implies’.9 In ‘ “Les Engleys Nées en Irlande”: The EnglishPolitical Identity in Medieval Ireland’, published in 1993, he was pre-pared to speculate that ‘in their unbuttoned moments’ the English ofIreland might have reflected upon their identity in ways which empha-sised their distinctive past and sincere attachment to Ireland, but hestressed that there was no room for any ambiguity in the ‘public’ sphereof their dealings with England: ‘On the public stage one was Englishor nothing.’ His warning in the same article against imagining that theEnglish of Ireland ‘formed a community with a steady self-awarenessand consistent attitudes’ has recently been amplified with reference tothe deep and genuine engagement of many of the settlers with nativeculture: ‘So, of course, there was not a homogenous “English” peoplein Ireland, with a single sense of its past.’ However, those who cleavedto 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 proprietor-ship that rested not just on the sword, but on English royal documentssanctioning 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 prefaceto The Political Development of the British Isles that ‘British history is allthe 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, thisis less the case now than it was in 1990, but particularly for the periodafter c.1320 there has been, to paraphrase Frame, little looking over thepartition-walls, let alone thinking about the structure of the buildingthat is the British Isles.11 The essays in this volume address this largerconcern either in the round or through concentration on some of themore specific aspects of the whole which Frame’s work has illuminated.The ambitions and actions of central government in the late thirteenthand fourteenth centuries, for instance, were explored by him in articlesconcerned with individual justiciars or chief governors, among themStephen Fulborne, Ralph Ufford and Thomas Rokeby.12 The essays inthis volume by Paul Dryburgh on Roger Mortimer, James Lydon onAlexander Bicknor and Paul Brand on John of Fressingfield not only addto our knowledge of the careers of particular individuals, and the waysin which Irish experience could boost or destroy such careers, but high-light the key role played by bureaucracy in maintaining bonds betweenIreland and England. It is a theme taken up by Beth Hartland in anessay which emphasises the need always to remember that Ireland rarelycame high on the agenda of English rulers in the late Middle Ages, andthat long-range thinking was not a strength of medieval government.The sophistication with which the settler community sought to keep itsneeds somewhere near to the forefront of the royal mind in the reignof Henry V is demonstrated by Elizabeth Matthew in her account of theattempt 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 loy-alties and cultural identities in the region in the late Middle Ages.Undoubtedly the pressures to choose sides and declare allegiances inthe British Isles increased after 1300, particularly in frontier regions.Ruth Blakely’s analysis of such issues in the setting of early fourteenth-century Galloway emphasises the importance of the short-term factorswhich brought the province irrevocably into line with the Scottish cam-paign for independence from England and suggests how easily matters


Brendan Smith 5

might have ended differently. Contingency and ambiguity are furtherexplored in the Scottish context by Steve Boardman who exposes thecrucial and enduring ‘Englishness’ of Scottish identity in the late Mid-dle Ages, with special reference to the vital issue of language. If eventhe ‘hard’ border between England and Scotland in the late Middle Agesfailed to eradicate such complexities, how much less tractable to centristassumptions was the region where English Ireland, Gaelic Ulster andwestern Scotland met. Yet as Katharine Simms demonstrates, politicaldevelopments here in the early fifteenth century can only be prop-erly understood with reference to the usurpation of Henry Bolingbrokein 1399.England, and the concerns of its rulers and people, remained pre-

eminent in the late medieval British Isles, though some of those con-cerns, and the very meaning of ‘English’ itself might change with time.Relatively resistant to change, however, was the English self-image ofa civilizing force; of a people obliged to rescue the fallen Welsh andIrish in particular from their benighted ways. It is a theme that unitesthe essays of J. R. S. Phillips and Steven Ellis, which together cover theperiod from the 1280s to the 1600s. Phillips’ essay in particular remindsus of the need to remember that English kings considered Gascony tobe an integral part of their domain. The complications this generated,as the English became more territorially conscious and more suspiciousof those not born in England, is explored by Andrea Ruddick in an essaywhich challenges those with a British Isles perspective to consider theirremit. Ways of thinking about the late medieval British Isles and its rela-tions with the English realm are central to Ruddick’s article and at theheart 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 inspirenew thinking not only about Ireland, but also about the English worldin the late Middle Ages.

Notes

1. Frame, ‘Failure’, 13. Throughout this volume the page numbers given in ref-erences to those articles by Robin Frame which are collected in his Ireland andBritain, are to that volume rather than to the pagination in the original placeof 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 Introduction

4. Frame, ‘War and Peace’; Davies, ‘Lordship or Colony?’5. Frame, ‘Military Service’; Davies, ‘Frontier Arrangements’.6. Frame, ‘Lordship and Liberties’; Davies, Lords and Lordship.7. Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 145; Frame, Ireland and Britain, x.8. Frame, ‘Ireland’, 379; Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’, 145.9. Frame, English Lordship, 331.10. 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 theBritish Isles after c.1320 see in particular Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’;Davies, Lords and Lordship; and the works by Ellis cited in the bibliographyof this volume. A particularly important recent contribution is Griffiths (ed.),Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries.

12. Frame, ‘The Justiciar’; Frame, ‘Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford’; Frame, ‘EnglishOfficials’; Frame, ‘Thomas Rokeby’. See also his contributions to Connolly(ed.), Oxford Companion, and the ODNB.


1The British Isles in the Late MiddleAges: Shaping the RegionsBrendan Smith

Does Robin Frame’s remark, made with reference to the twelfth andthirteenth centuries, that ‘the wider perspective has the advantage thatit refreshes those parts of the past that “national” history does not reach’hold true for the two centuries that followed? Sandy Grant has writ-ten that ‘the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were the least obviously“British” of any in the archipelago’s history’, and it is clear that by the1340s at the latest some of the most important unifying features of theearlier period – such as the movement of English peasant cultivatorsinto other parts of the archipelago, and the existence of a trans-national,trans-marine, aristocracy of Anglo-French origin and culture – no longerpertained, or were much reduced in significance. With England’s ener-gies from that time directed towards its ambitions in France and, as ReesDavies put it, ‘the national shutters coming down’, there seems littlepoint in continuing to engage with Frame’s exhortation ‘to do somethinking about the design of the building itself’ as well as looking overthe increasingly sturdy partition-walls of the British Isles.1

This may come as something of a relief to historians who have neverbeen entirely comfortable with the wider, British Isles perspective. It waspresumably with Frame’s assertion that ‘there is value in trying to assem-ble [the history of the British Isles] in ways that make it more than thesum of “Welsh history”, “Scottish history”, “Irish history”, and “Englishhistory”’ in mind that Barbara Harvey asked in her conclusion to theTwelfth and Thirteenth Centuries volume of the Short Oxford History ofthe British Isles series whether ‘the British Isles possess a history of theirown in this period amounting to more than the sum of the histories ofEngland, 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 bySteve Rigby. It was from ‘a desire to do justice to the history of each ofBritain’s component parts’ that the decision was taken to treat England,Ireland, Scotland and Wales in separate chapters, rather than to analysethemes in relation to the British Isles as a whole. It was a decision thatmet with the approval of Tim Thornton, whose review of the volumelauded it for eschewing ‘the type of “British” approach which attemptsto write a unified history of these islands during this period, and whichwould be an impossible and meaningless task’. The single essay in thebook which offered a British Isles perspective, written by Seán Duffy,struck a cautious note, urging that ‘for all the insight that the suprana-tional approach provides, it is essential that British history complementrather 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 nationalhistoriographies ‘a more unnatural form of tyranny’ – and both, ofcourse, wrote highly regarded national histories themselves – it is alsothe case that the British Isles perspective they advocated was intended tochallenge, as least as much as to complement, the tradition of nationalhistory writing within the archipelago. Davies’ disdain for the excep-tionalism and particularism typical of the genre was especially evident,perhaps most strikingly in his remark that the histories of the fourcountries of the archipelago ‘are no less, and no more, constructs ofhistoriographical imagination than are histories of Europe – or theBritish Isles’.4 British Isles history in its medieval form grew from theimpatience reflected in this remark with the tendency to read presentconcerns back into the past, a tendency that directed the types of ques-tions historians asked, the sorts of evidence they used and how theyused it. ‘Once our historical gaze could be shifted from the state and itsinstitutions and from the seductive appeal of its prolific archives’, Davieswrote, ‘other solidarities and collectivities could come more clearly intofocus. Some of them seemed to have as great, if not occasionally greater,depth and historical resilience than did the nation state. At the veryleast they deserve to be studied alongside it’.5

The state, and perhaps even the nation state, can be argued to havebeen in existence or in genesis in parts of the British Isles in thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but once the archipelago is regardedas a whole it becomes apparent that an approach dedicated to tracingthe development of these phenomena cannot comprehend other impor-tant 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 becauseit deals with and gives prominence to unitary, centralized, politics. It isnot a formula which works well in the rest of the British Isles.’6 Such aperspective becomes more not less relevant in dealing with the periodafter the early fourteenth century, when unifying factors which had pre-viously operated within the British Isles had largely gone into abeyance,and when some sort of ‘state-based’ order appeared to have been putin place in the region. In terms of political geography, the half-centurybetween Edward I’s conquest of Wales in 1283 and the final annexationof the Isle of Man to England in 1333 witnessed the establishment ofrelationships within the archipelago which were to prove long-lasting.Wales had lost its independence for ever; the kingdom of the Scotsendured in the face of English claims to overlordship which were notto be retracted; English rule in Ireland and the Isle of Man would neveragain be contested by the Scots.7 That subsequent change occurred wasdue in large part to the fact that the politics of the archipelago were notself-contained. England won and lost massive estates in France betweenthe 1340s and the 1450s, and its fluctuating fortunes there allowed theScots to regain by the 1390s almost all they had lost to Edward III inthe 1330s and 1340s. They retook the remnant in the 1460s, the samedecade in which, by peaceful means, they acquired Orkney and Shetlandfrom Norway.8

Recognition of the fact that the borders of the kingdoms of Englandand Scotland continued to be subject to alteration after 1333, however,still provides at best a very inadequate insight into the political realitiesof the late medieval British Isles. If the king of England’s claim to beking of France could not be made effective in this period, royal claimsexceeded practical control within the archipelago too.9 Ireland’s consti-tutional ties to England in the Middle Ages were never again challengedfrom without after 1318, for instance, but the effective reach of thecrown within the island was much shorter in 1470 than it had been in1300. The same could be said of the king of Scotland’s position in High-land Scotland and the Western Isles after 1330. The two situations werein fact closely related since the establishment by West Highland Scot-tish mercenary families of their own lordships in the north of Irelandnot only reflected the weakness of the Scottish crown but in turn alsoreduced English royal authority in Ireland.10 The effectiveness of thatauthority could also be called into question much closer to ‘home’ onoccasion. Damaging French raids on southern coastal regions of Englandoccurred in the 1330s, 1340s, 1370s and 1390s, and there were reportsof full-scale invasion plans in 1339, 1344 and 1386. The persistence



of Welsh resentment a century after the Edwardian conquest was alsoexploited by the French, with the English finding it politic in 1378 toassassinate the last heir of the Gwynedd dynasty, Owain ap Thomas apRhodri [Owain Lawgoch], who hadmade a career fighting for France andwho attempted more than one landing in Wales with French support.Such a landing, of course, did occur at Milford Haven in August 1405 inresponse to the invitation of Owain Glyn Dwr.11

If actual events served to demonstrate the vulnerability of the politicalconfiguration of the British Isles brought into being in the half-centurybefore 1333, they paled in comparison with the plans – real orrumoured – for alternative arrangements of the archipelago which cir-culated in the region. A clear echo of Robert Bruce’s proposed Scottish–Irish–Welsh alliance of the early fourteenth century resonates in GlynDwr’s letters to the king of Scotland and the Irish chiefs in 1401–1402seeking support against the English.12 The so-called Tripartite Inden-ture, supposedly drawn up in February 1405 between Owain, HenryPercy, earl of Northumberland, and Edmund Mortimer senior, brotherof Roger, earl of March (d. 1398), and Owain’s son-in-law, envisaged thethreefold division of Britain south of the Scottish border ‘If it appearsto the three lords with the passage of time that they are indeed thepersons of whom the Prophet speaks, between whom the governanceof Greater Britain ought to be divided and partitioned.’ The schemeclosely resembles the plot outlined by Orderic Vitalis in his account ofthe revolt of the English earls against William the Conqueror in 1075, inthe course of which Earl Roger of Hereford and his brother-in-law EarlRalph of East Anglia attempted to lure Earl Waltheof of Northamptoninto their conspiracy with the words ‘we can promise you a third part ofEngland . . .one of us shall be king and the other two dukes’.13 Whileit is unlikely that the single chronicler who discusses the Indenturewas aware of Orderic’s work it is significant that attempts to denigrateopponents and alarm loyalists in England across this time span shouldinvolve the peddling of the same scare-stories about threats to the unityof 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 Tri-partite Indenture, how much more vulnerable to fracturing was Ireland,so lacking in any such tradition of unity. In February and March 1332juries at Clonmel (co. Tipperary) and Limerick alleged that a combi-nation of Irish and English settler lords had plotted to make the earlof Desmond the king of Ireland in 1327. The island, according to theLimerick jury, was then to have been divided into its ancient provinces,


Brendan Smith 11

with Desmond ruling Munster and Meath, and Leinster, Connacht andUlster being parcelled out between three other settler lords. Unlikely asthe accusation was, it demonstrated on the part of the jurors an aware-ness both of the traditional structure of authority in Ireland and of thedamage that could be done to an opponent by suggesting that he wishedto harness such traditions. The same sensitivity to broader concerns andwillingness to exploit them in order to undermine an opponent was ondisplay again at Tralee (co. Kerry) – situated deep in Desmond’s ownearldom – in August 1346, when a jury claimed that two years earlierthe earl had written to the kings of France and Scotland and had sentmessengers to Pope Clement VI at Avignon, urging their support for hisbid to seize Ireland and rule it as the pope’s vicar. It is a British Islesperspective that allows us to identify first in Ireland in the 1330s and1340s, and then in Wales in the 1400s, the continuity of concern inEnglish political society in the late Middle Ages about the twin threatsof internal disintegration and external intervention. As the landing ofthe French at Milford Haven at the behest of Glyn Dwr in 1405 servedto demonstrate, the second of these threats was real enough.14

And what of the first? Were there forces within English political soci-ety which worked against the maintenance of the long-established unityof the kingdom? That the answer is no does not mean that the charac-ter of that unity was immune to change or that such change as didoccur was detrimental to royal authority – indeed, it was often inspiredby kings themselves. Stephen’s policy of appointing earls as regionalgovernors in the 1130s and 1140s was not repeated by later Englishkings, but these rulers were accustomed to countenance divisions oftheir kingdom for administrative purposes, with the River Trent, forinstance, serving as a convenient border between north and south, andwere prepared to accept the existence of magnate liberties wherein royalauthority was to varying degrees curtailed. Richard II took such tradi-tional arrangements a significant step further in 1385 when he bestowedupon his favourite Robert de Vere the title duke of Ireland and dele-gated to him full regal powers within the island. In the last years ofhis reign Richard went further still by adding a regional dimension toEnglish kingship which had no recent historical precedent. His construc-tion of a royal power-block encompassing Cheshire, north Wales, therecently forfeited estates of his enemies in the northern Welsh marchesand Lancashire, the Isle of Man and eastern Ireland was quickly reversedby Henry IV following his usurpation of the throne, but had a lastingimpact on English political thought. It perhaps inspired the extreme sce-nario of disintegration outlined in the story of the Tripartite Indenture,



and left a legacy in the fifteenth century (and much later) of distrust ofsemi-autonomous regions both in England and in parts of the BritishIsles under English rule.15

Whether real or imagined, whether internal or external in origin, chal-lenges to the political configuration of the British Isles in the late MiddleAges, and more particularly to the dominant role of England therein,were ever-present. That they were recognised by English contempo-raries, and filled them with foreboding, is suggested by the defensivetone of The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye of c.1436. Composed in the imme-diate aftermath of the duke of Burgundy’s defection to the French, thetract is concerned with borders and their preservation and views thethreat 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, drawingon the opinions of James Butler, fourth earl of Ormond, advocates a fullconquest of Ireland in order to prevent French attacks on England viaWales.16 The interrelatedness of England’s worsening situation in Franceand its position within the British Isles was personified in the careerof Richard, duke of York, who was appointed lieutenant of France in1436 – probably the same year as the composition of The Libelle – andlieutenant of Ireland in 1447. His remark to his brother-in-law, the earlof 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 prede-cessor 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 per-petual hert’s hevynesse and sorrow’, and reflected the same revulsion atthe idea of the loss of any of the England’s territories. That Ireland andCalais served as the respective points of departure for York and the earlof Warwick as they invaded England in pursuit of the former’s claim tothe throne in 1460 reminds us that in political terms the British Islesand France were one arena in this era.17

The contest for the English crown between the 1450s and the 1480shad very little impact on territorial boundaries within the British Isles.With the exception of its few remaining Scottish enclaves England lostnone of its British possessions, and direct French military interventionin the archipelago was limited to occasional, severe, cross-Channel raids.If the long-held fear of external invasion and conquest was not fulfilledin this era of civil war, neither was that of internal disintegration, withboth 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 theTripartite 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 partition-walls in the British Isles at this juncture brings home the significance ofHenry VI’s inadequacies. Fifteenth-century Scotland was devoid of nei-ther political turmoil nor ambitious provincial magnates, yet prolongedcivil war was avoided there not only because the Stewart kings neverfailed to produce sons to succeed to the throne, thus precluding theappearance of legitimate potential competitors, but also because thesewere ‘exceedingly tough and effective kings’.19

The pitched battles of the Wars of the Roses – whether of the privatefeud variety, or those involving royal forces – were a type of militaryactivity with which the late medieval British Isles was largely unfamiliar.Fifteenth-century Ireland, for instance, witnessed only one engagementof this sort, at Piltown in 1462.20 The region as a whole, however, expe-rienced as a shared phenomenon the preparation for and conduct ofwarfare throughout the late medieval period, and in this context thetrue novelty and importance of the Wars of the Roses lay in the wayin which they brought England into closer conformity with the rest ofthe archipelago.21 While for the English the arena of warfare since the1340s had for the most part been France rather than the British Isles,the remilitarisation of the English aristocracy under Edward III and thefact that warfare thereafter became a usual experience for generations ofnobles, created a hunger for military adventure which could be hard tosatisfy. Conflict within the aristocracy between, to take one example, itsolder and more recently established elements, which could be containedwhile the war in France proceeded well, erupted into armed conflict inEngland itself almost as soon as the French war ended in defeat.22 Else-where in the British Isles, on the Anglo-Scottish border and in muchof Ireland, frequent, small-scale, warfare was common, prompting thewidespread building of a type of defensive structure, the tower house,not seen in other parts of the archipelago. In such militarised regionsthe economy, legal system, inheritance customs and family organisationall adapted to meet the demands of warfare, and a variety of lordshipprevailed which involved the recruitment and billeting of mercenarysoldiers.23

It is possible, without downplaying the significant differences thatexisted between the situation in England and elsewhere in the BritishIsles, to consider warfare as a phenomenon common to the archipelagoas a whole in the late Middle Ages. To do so, however, demandsawareness of patterns and relationships that were regional rather thannational in character. It was its regionalism that Ranulf Higden, writing



in the disturbed 1320s, emphasised first in his description of England,and he went on to ascribe different combinations of moral traits topeople from the south, the midlands and the north of the country.24

Late medieval comment on regional identities throughout the BritishIsles usually arose in response to some form of discord, and as a resultwas often framed in negative terms. In Ireland, for instance, Gaelic andEnglish sources, whether administrative or annalistic, rarely deviatedfrom the use of ethnic descriptions of individuals or groups as eitherEnglish or Irish, Gaill or Gaedhil. As strict as any other contemporaryin this regard was John Clyn, the Kilkenny Franciscan chronicler, whoprobably died in 1349. It is significant, therefore, that he describes thoseattacked by the citizens of Drogheda in 1317 as ‘Ulstermen’ (Ultonienses).These were almost certainly English refugees who had been drivenfrom their lands in the liberty of Ulster by the Bruces but who hadlost the sympathy of their fellow settlers by then pillaging and burn-ing Meath, Leinster and Munster ‘like Scots’ (quam Scoti).25 Clyn usesthe word Ultonienses to denote a distinctive and dangerous group ofpeople defined by their place of origin rather than by their politicalallegiance or ethnic identity. We have seen that regional issues couldbe used against the earl of Desmond in the 1330s, and the aristocraticfactionalism so typical of late medieval Irish politics could also assumea provincial colour, as at the battle of Knocdoe, near Galway, in 1504,when ‘the Gaill and Gaedhil of Leinster’ defeated a mixed force of settlersand natives from Connacht and Munster.26

In similar fashion, Adam Usk, writing in south-east Wales during theGlyn Dwr revolt, was particularly critical of ‘Snowdonia . . . the sourceof all evils in Wales’ with its ‘woods and caves’ and wrote of hissojourn in Welshpool between 1409 and 1411 as an experience ofexile from his native country.27 Contrasting landscapes were central toJohn Fordun’s description of c.1370 of the different peoples of Scot-land, which famously distinguished between the English-speaking andrefined ‘people of the coast’ on the one hand, and the savage and Gaelic-speaking ‘Highlanders and people of the islands’ on the other.28 InEngland regional polemic was never far below the surface in times ofcrisis. Vitriol was heaped on the men of Cheshire by Adam Usk and oth-ers in the aftermath of the deposition of their patron, Richard II, and ithas been said that Henry IV regarded the area ‘almost like a conqueredenemy country’ immediately after his usurpation. Fifty years later ref-erence to the ‘malice of the northmen’ supporting Margaret of Anjouwas employed by partisans of Richard, duke of York, in order to gain thefavour of the inhabitants of southern England during the civil war.29


Brendan Smith 15

We can recognise that regionalism was a powerful political weapon inthe late medieval British Isles without accepting either that the negativepolemic associated with it had a basis in objective reality, or that thoseto whom a regional identity was assigned by critical contemporaries hadany sense of themselves belonging to the community concerned. TonyPollard has argued that ‘the north had northernness thrust upon it’ inthe late Middle Ages, and to the extent that ‘northerners’ may havefound any meaning in such a label, they would have rejected the asso-ciation made by Higden that they were ‘more cruel and volatile’ thanthose whose origins lay further south.30 If at times in the late MiddleAges 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 bedifferent from their neighbours, they were also aware of belonging tolarger communities and witnessed in the period after the Black Deatheconomic and social changes that diluted many of the bonds whichheld them together.31 In the Welsh March, for instance, closed commu-nities shattered in the late fourteenth century as labourers and tenantsmigrated eastwards in large numbers, leading to the breakdown of tra-ditional Welsh pattern of tenure based on kindred and hereditary right,while in Ireland there was concern over the migration of those of set-tler stock to England.32 Wendy Childs has argued that moving aroundin late medieval England was neither uncommon nor particularly diffi-cult, and migration to England from elsewhere in the archipelago is, likethe impact of warfare, a theme which calls for a wider, British Isles per-spective. The fact that students at Oxford University were designatedas either ‘northerners’ or ‘southerners’, but that the former includedScots, Welsh and Irish, suggests a blurring of categories of identifica-tion which such migration surely encouraged, and adds force to theremark of Rees Davies that ‘important as are the frameworks of poli-tics, ethnicity and national loyalties, there are other orbits of power andrelationships which operate outside and across these frameworks’.33

The region, Tony Pollard has argued with regard to the north-east ofEngland, ‘is but a cultural construct of the past by the present, drivennow by a contemporary political discourse’. The same, of course, maybe said of the nation, and it is clear that throughout the late medievalBritish Isles the acquisition and exercise of political power had a regionalaspect. English historians have tended to approach this topic with somecaution. 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



true character of medieval political life can only be comprehended bystudying the “low” politics of the regions and localities and the “pop-ular” politics of the mob’. Whatever about the lowness or otherwise ofregional politics, study of it does involve, to paraphrase Davies, shift-ing our gaze somewhat from the state and its institutions, and ChristineCarpenter and Gerald Harriss, among others, have argued for the exis-tence of regional elites and a regional politics in parts of Englandat particular points in time. The development and character of thesephenomena cannot be satisfactorily understood within the parametersof the venerable ‘County community or Magnate affinity?’ paradigm.34

Regional politics received some, though not all, of its character fromthe attempts of nobles to consolidate their territorial lordships, whetherby purchase, marriage, the currying of royal favour, or intimidation andviolence. Most noticeable in times of political uncertainty such as the1320s and in areas where military concerns persisted, such as the Anglo-Scottish border and Ireland, the process was ongoing throughout thelate Middle Ages, and encompassed not only areas where lordship hadtraditionally been intense, such as the Welsh March, Lennox and theIsles, but also parts of England where such lordship was less likely to beconcentrated in the hands of a single noble family, such as the Northand West Midlands, Sussex, Somerset and East Anglia.35 Simultaneousand complementary to this process of consolidation was the determina-tion of the greatest lords to avoid concentration of their landed propertyin only one region. It was usually lords of the second rank such asthe Courtenay earls of Devon, or the earls of Desmond in south-westIreland, whose estates were thus concentrated, and their national polit-ical significance was proportionately small. By contrast, the greatest ofthe ‘northern’ families which would play such a key role in the Warsof the Roses, the Percies and the Nevilles, and the premier lords offourteenth-century Scotland, the Douglases and Stewarts, held land notonly near the Anglo-Scottish border but also in other parts of Englandand Scotland.36 The new dynasties which ascended the thrones of Scot-land and England in 1371 and 1399 had in common the fact that theybrought to their kingships large family estates; the ways in which theyblended their private and royal inheritances, and sought to extend theirinfluence beyond the family patrimony is one of the most importantstories in fifteenth-century British history.37

That for the aristocracy in most parts of the British Isles exertingregional influence was not an end in itself but rather a means to wieldpower at a higher level was one of the many reasons why regional pol-itics 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 aspatterns of warfare and migration, the pattern of regional politics wasnot constrained by national or ethnic borders, and like these other phe-nomena argue for the continued validity in the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies of a broader, British Isles perspective. Rees Davies contendedthat ‘If “British Isles history” is to succeed as a category it may needa somewhat different focus and even terminology from that to whichso much current national histories have habituated us; it may need toplace more emphasis on environment and communications; it will needto attend more closely to the social and economic context of “politi-cal” power; it will need to analyse the changing character of bonds oflordship, kinship and community.’39 It will need, in part at least, to beregional.

Notes

1. Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, quotes at 162, 169; Davies, ‘In Praise of BritishHistory’, quote at 17; Grant, ‘Scottish Foundations’, quote at 97; Davies,First English Empire, 142–90. Versions of this article were delivered at theUniversity 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 mefrom 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 BritishIsles approach see the contribution to the Rigby volume by J. Beverley Smithand 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 MiddleAges, and Scottish interest in reclaiming the island see Thornton, ‘Scotlandand 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 theScots; 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 ofthe Isles’; Grant, ‘Scotland’s “Celtic Fringe” ’.



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 Irishand French elements in English royal politics see Green, ‘Lordship andPrincipality’.

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 regionalelement 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. Forthe distribution of the estates of Richard, duke of York, see Johnson, DukeRichard 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 cen-

tury 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 nota country at war’: Wormald, ‘Scotland’, 528.

22. Ormrod, Political Life, 99; Waugh, ‘England’, 210; Harriss, ‘Dimensions ofPolitics’, 8; Richmond, ‘Identity and Morality’. ‘Once France was irretriev-ably lost there was less incentive for the nobility to pull together if otherthings were pulling them apart’: Carpenter,Wars of the Roses, 254.

23. Goodman, ‘Kingship and Government’, 212 and map at 213; Frame, Politi-cal Development, 198–224; Davies, Lords and Lordship; Brown, ‘Developmentof 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 Mid-dle Ages’: R. Griffiths, ‘Introduction’, quote at 17; Given-Wilson, Chronicles,131–6.

25. Clyn, 167. ‘Throughout [Clyn’s] narrative the national labels are remorse-lessly 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 Cen-turies. The identity of the Haliwerfolc of Durham in the late Middle Ages wasthe theme of a paper delivered at the 76th Anglo-American Conference ofHistorians at the IHR in July 2007 by Dr Bill Aird, and of a contribution tothe Late Medieval Seminar at the same venue in February 2008 delivered byDr 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 Migra-tion’, 19–21.

33. Childs, ‘Moving Around’; Frame, ‘Wider World’, 436; Griffiths, ‘Crossing theFrontiers’. Excellent case studies of the impact of migration on Bristol andChester are Fleming, ‘Identity and Belonging’, and Morgan, ‘Cheshire andWales’. Also see Davies, ‘History of the British Isles?’ 360.

34. Pollard, ‘Introduction’, 12; Ormrod, Political Life, 39; Gross, ‘Regionalism andRevision’; Carpenter, ‘Gentry and Community’; Harriss, Shaping the Nation,ch. 6. Peter Coss advocates the primacy of the county in medieval Englishpolitics, but concedes that in the midlands ‘it may well be that those majorknights and minor barons with strong interests in several counties belongedrather to extra-county or even regional elites’: Coss, Origins of the EnglishGentry, 214.

35. ‘See how the earls and other great men of the land, who could live fittinglyenough on their inheritance, now regard all their time as wasted, unlessthey double or treble their patrimony’: Childs, Vita Edwardi Secundi, 171,sub anno 1319. For Roger Mortimer’s acquisitions in Ireland see the essayby Dryburgh in this volume. For the attempts of Humphrey Bohun, earl ofHereford, to consolidate his estates in the mid-fourteenth-century Brecon seeDavies, Lordship and Society, 91–5. For general discussion and case studies inEngland see Given-Wilson, English Nobility, 104–13, 126–37; Walker, Lancas-trian Affinity, 182–5; Rawcliffe, Staffords, 7–27, 104–24; Castor, King, Crownand Duchy of Lancaster, 53–74, 193–224. A recent study of Scottish borderlordship is MacDonald, ‘Kings of the Wild Frontier?’ See also, Brown, ‘Earl-dom and Kindred’. For the expansion of the Lordship of the Isles into theHighlands 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 Earlsof Devon’; Neville, Native Lordship in Medieval Scotland, 37.

37. Castor, King, Crown and Duchy of Lancaster, 22–38, 306–12; Boardman, EarlyStewart Kings, 49–107.

38. Hicks, English Political Culture, 164–80.39. Davies, ‘History of the British Isles?’ quote at 359.


2Three Thirteenth-CenturyDeclarations of English Rule:Over Aquitaine, Ireland and WalesJ. R. S. Phillips

In his paper, ‘On the Influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth in EnglishHistory’, Walter Ullmann noted the existence in a fourteenth-centurymanuscript now in the Cambridge University Library of a short treatisecontaining declarations of the rights of the English crown to rule overAquitaine, Ireland and Wales.1 The declarations are recorded in betweentwo treatises by the English Dominican Simon of Boraston, De muta-bilitate mundi and De unitate et ordine ecclesiasticae potestatis, while themanuscript begins with another treatise by Boraston, De ordine iudiciariocirca crimine corrigenda.2 Ullmann also noted a second copy of the Decla-ration concerning Ireland, preserved in a fifteenth-century manuscriptnow in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. This manuscript,which also includes the three treatises by Boraston, was completed inor about 1430 by Cornelius Oesterwik in the Dominican convent atOxford.3 Ullmann was, however, interested only in the Declaration onIreland and did not examine either of the other two, on Aquitaine andon Wales. Neither did he succeed in dating the Declaration on Ireland,beyond noting that the last historical event mentioned in it was theCouncil of Lyon of 1245. This chapter will examine all three declarationsand 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 ofthe events from the death of William X, duke of Aquitaine, in 1137,and the marriage of Henry Plantagenet of Anjou to Eleanor of Aquitainein 1152 to Henry’s succession to the kingdom of England in 1154. Thesecond Declaration, Declaratio quomodo dominium Hibernie est ad regemAnglie devolutum,5 begins with a brief account of the life and career ofPope 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 ecclesieterminos ad declarandum indoctis et rudibus christiane fidei veritatem et vicio-rum plantaria de agro dominico extirpanda. The Declaration then gives anaccount of how Henry II had finally come to Ireland in 1171 and hadsubjected it to his authority. The Declaration argued that English ruleover Ireland was justified on three legal grounds: first, that ‘it was thehereditary right of the English king stemming from his succession toArthur’. Here the author of the Declaration was drawing on the fictionalhistory of Geoffrey of Monmouth.6 Second, English rule was justifiedon the basis of ‘the voluntary gift of Richard Strongbow’; and finally ‘itwas the papal permission which, to the author, yielded a perfect title-deed for English sovereignty over Ireland’.7 The Declaration then goeson to describe how, in the author’s view, King John’s promise to pay anannual tribute to the papacy for both England and Ireland was extortedfrom him in 1213 by a combination of the papal interdict, baronial pres-sure and a French threat to invade England. It ends with the Council ofLyon in 1245 when an English delegation unsuccessfully attempted topersuade the pope to revoke the agreement.8

The last and the longest of the declarations is the Declaracio iusticieRegis Anglie ad Walliam et eius dominium.9 This begins with the statementthat ‘according to ancient chronicles’, the Welsh had lost the domin-ion of the island which is now called England to the Saxons, exceptfor the mountains and woods of the western part of the island, wherethey appointed a prince for themselves and lived, ‘oppressed by hungerand misery because of the Saxon yoke’, until the year 1245. In thatyear Dafydd ap Llywelyn, prince of Gwynedd and nephew by marriageof Henry III, wrote to Pope Innocent IV stating that he was unjustlyforced to hold his principality from the king and asking that he mightinstead hold it in fee from the Church. The pope then wrote to the abbotof Aberconwy asking for further information on the matter.10 In 1264Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales, allied with Simon de Montfortand cruelly devastated the county of Chester and the March, destroy-ing the castles of Diserth and Gannoc [Degannwy]. Edward, the sonof the king, then invaded Wales but did not bring Llywelyn to battle.After the recall of Edward by his father, Simon de Montfort and manyof his Welsh allies were killed at the battle of Evesham [1265]. AroundMichaelmas 1268 [recte 1267], Edward came to Shrewsbury with a largearmy and invaded Wales. Prince Llywelyn sent the king £2000 to obtainpeace, and at the intervention of the papal legate Ottobuono, who wasthen in England, the four cantreds which the king had taken by right ofwar 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 refusedto attend for fear of treachery, unless he received hostages to guaranteehis safety. Edward I then went to Chester [August 1275] and again sum-moned Llywelyn to perform homage.12 In the sixth year of his reignEdward I entered Wales from Chester and took the castle of Rhuddlan.He also sent Payn de Chaworth to devastate west Wales, whose peoplesought peace. Llywelyn also sought and obtained peace.13 The Decla-ration then gives a brief account of the terms of the resulting treaty[of Aberconwy, 9 November 1277], by which Llywelyn was allowed toretain the title of prince of Wales for his lifetime and recognised that heowed homage to the English crown, while being allowed to retain thehomages of five Welsh lords in Snowdonia as a token of his own statusas prince.14 There then follows an account of the road to renewed warbetween England and Wales. In 1281 Llywelyn’s brother Dafydd, whohad previously been loyal to Edward I, began to plot against him and onPalm Sunday [1282] captured the castle of Hawarden from its constable,Roger Clifford. Edward I, who was at Salisbury, then hastened to Walesand raised the siege of Rhuddlan. Meanwhile the castle of LlanbadarnFawr [Aberystwyth] and many other castles in those parts were cap-tured by theWelsh. In the same year the archbishop of Canterbury, JohnPecham, entered Snowdonia and tried unsuccessfully to persuade Llywe-lyn and Dafydd to make peace. Prince Llywelyn devastated the lands ofa Welsh supporter of the king in Cardigan and Ystrad Tywi and then pro-ceeded to Builth where he encountered John Giffard and Edmund Mor-timer. He was killed on 13 December but not immediately recognised.Llywelyn’s head was then cut off and sent to London to be displayed atthe Tower. In the following year [1283] Edward I invaded Anglesey andSnowdonia and reduced all of Wales to his authority before the feast ofSt John [24 June]. In the same year the prince’s brother Dafydd was cap-tured, taken to Rhuddlan and then to Shrewsbury where he was tried byroyal justices during parliament. Dafydd was hanged, drawn and quar-tered, and his head was fixed on a spike in London. Hearing of thisall the great men of Wales promptly surrendered to the king and hisministers, ‘and thus the king justly and peacefully occupies Wales’.15

In his analysis of the Declaration concerning Ireland, Ullmann notedthat the document did not go any further than 1245 and suggested thatit was composed at some point between then and the second Councilof Lyon in 1274, at which Edward I’s envoys presented further argu-mentation concerning King John’s submission to the pope in 1213 andthe payment of tribute. He further suggested that the Declaration was‘more than a mere Stilübung and less than a semi-official piece’ and



that the author ‘clearly intended to enlarge it’, and notes that in thefifteenth century John Rous did indeed enlarge upon it.16 However,a reading of all three Declarations, taken together, suggests that theywere composed at the same time as a single short treatise and that theauthor simply went as far as he considered necessary to support hisargument.17 Thus in the case of Aquitaine, his outline of the rights ofthe English crown over the duchy stops with the accession of Henry IIto the English throne in 1154. There is no discussion of later events, suchas 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 theremainder of Aquitaine.18 Similarly, with regard to Ireland, the authorfelt no need to go beyond the Council of Lyon in 1245.19 The author’sinterest appears to have been particularly engaged by relations betweenWales and England. It may be more than a coincidence that, havinggiven a very brief survey of their earlier relations, he begins his moredetailed treatment of the subject with the same council of 1245. Theaccount of Anglo-Welsh relations which follows covers the history ofthe period down to the completion of the English conquest of Wales in1282–1283.Overall the Declarations give the impression of having been written

by someone with an interest in the arguments supporting English rulein Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales, but without any authoritative supportor purpose. The information employed seems to have been obtainedfrom readily available chronicle sources20: with the exception of the bullLaudabiliter there is no obvious documentary content.21 Even the text ofLaudabiliter, 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 Declarationsis in or soon after 1283, the year of the last dated event, the execu-tion of Dafydd ap Gruffudd, but before the revolt of Rhys ap Mareduddin 1287.23 The treatise was possibly written even before the Statute ofRhuddlan of March 1284 which laid down the structures of the futuregovernment of Wales under English rule, but given the author’s lackof interest in any further information once he had satisfied himselfas to England’s right to govern Aquitaine, Ireland and Wales this dat-ing must remain speculative.24 However, the period when Edward Iwas seeking to prove his claims to the overlordship of Scotland maybe a likely terminus ante quem. In 1291 Edward asked the Englishmonasteries to search their chronicles for any information on the his-torical relationship between England and Scotland and an account



of about 5000 words in length was produced. In 1300 the processwas repeated and a long and closely argued document was composedwhich was sent to the pope in 1301. Among other information derivedfrom chronicles and from official records, this document made useof the mythical history of Geoffrey of Monmouth in a way simi-lar to the Declaration concerning Ireland.25 Had the author of thethree declarations been writing after 1291 or, more particularly per-haps, in or soon after 1300–1301, he might have found it hard toresist adding a fourth Declaration, dealing with English claims overScotland.As to the authorship of the Declarations on Aquitaine, Ireland and

Wales there is no firm information. The presence of all three Declara-tions in Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5 and of two of the three inTrinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11 is suggestive since, as alreadyindicated, both manuscripts are associated with the English Domini-can, Simon of Boraston. He probably came from Boraston [Burneston]in south Shropshire, and is first heard of in March 1311 when he tookpart in proceedings against the English Templars at London. He wasprovincial of the English Dominicans between 1327 and 1336, and wasin Oxford in 1337–1338, when he wrote his three treatises, De mutabil-itate mundi and De unitate et ordine ecclesiasticae potestatis, dealing withthe controversies between the friars and the secular clergy, and De ordineiudiciario circa crimine corrigenda, intended as a guide to dealing with theoffences of errant friars.26 It is just possible that he also wrote the threeDeclarations; perhaps as a youthful exercise, but only if he was activeas early as the 1280s or 1290s. It is also interesting that the Declarationconcerning Wales contains several references to events in and aroundShrewsbury, Simon of Boraston’s home area. Most notably there werethe dramatic public events surrounding the Shrewsbury Parliament ofOctober 1283 and the execution for treason of Dafydd ap Gruffudd.27

In the absence of any information on Boraston’s date of birth, whenand where he entered the Dominican order, and on his education (itis thought that he was a graduate of either Oxford or Cambridge, butit is not known which), it is pointless to speculate further. However,if he had written the Declarations it is likely that the two Cambridgemanuscripts in which they are now preserved would have indicatedas much. In the end it seems more likely that the treatise containingthe three Declarations was composed by another slightly earlier writer,came to Boraston’s notice and was copied by him or on his behalf in1337–1338.



Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, ff. 79–81.28

F.79r:29

Column 2

Line 1. Declaratio quomodo ducatus Aquitanus sit2. ad regem Angliae devolutus.30

3. Sciendum quod anno domini mcxxxvi W-4. illelmus aquitanie et comes pictavie31

5. ad sanctum existens Jacobum peregrinus proficiscens.6. In die per asceues? obiit sepultusque est7. in ecclesia sancti Jacobi coram magno alta-8. ri.32 Iste dux et comes ullam33 habens prolem9. masculinam reliquit post se duas filias quarum10. primogenitam Elienoram34 nomine. Inheredite11. primogenita integraliter sibi statuit successu-12. ram suosque instante morte adiuravit pro-13. ceres ut dictam primogenitam filiam suam14. iuniori regi Francorum Lodowyco cum in-15. tregro35 ducatu traderent in uxorem.16. Coronovat rex Francorum senior filium suum17. sicut nomine Lodowycum36 in regem ipso ad huc18. superstite et regnante. Pater quod auditis hiis19. misit filium suum predictum Burdagalam37

20. ut dictam puellam in uxorem duceret21. et ducatum acciperet antedictum Francorum22. rex pater post nupcias has moritur in Francia mense23. s. anno domini mcxxxvii.38 Regnabant antedicti24. sicut rex et regina sine omni prole usque ad annum25. domini mclii quo anno probata inter26. eos consanguinitate celebratum est divorcium inter27. ipsos. Ac eodem anno Henricus dux Normannie28. ac comes Andegavie filius Matildis29. imperatricis ex viro suo secundo domino Galfrido30. comite Andegavie scilicet cognominato planta-31. genorth39 ipsam Elienoram accepit matrimonialiter32. in uxorem habere. Haec Matildis filia fuit Hen-33. rici primi regis Anglie qui fuit filius Willelmi34. Conquestoris inprimis que submersis fratribus suis35. in redeundo de Normannia in portu de36. Popa sola remansit habens ius in regem



37. Anglie et suus filius secundum lineam descend-38. entem. Iste Henricus mortuo iam patre factus39. comes Andegavie et comes Manie et ex con-40. cessione matris adhuc unum et dux Nor-41. mannie ac per uxorem suam antedictam factus42. dux Aquitanie. Audita morte Stephani43. regis Anglie qui obit anno domini mc-44. liiii viii kalend Novembris40 de consilio45. suorum iubente matre sua transfretat se de46. Normannia in Angliam et suscipitur a clero47. et populo vii idus decembris41 clamante cum48. gaudio maximo et honore. Dominica igitur

F.79vColumn 1

1. ante navitatem domini que fuit xiiii kalendis2. januarii apud Vestmonasterium coronatus3. est42 a Theobaldo archiepiscopo Cantuariense et in-4. vergitur? in regem presentibus archiepiscopis Anglie5. et Normannie et episcopis ac proceribus etatis6. sue annum xxii agens et tam sua scilicet gratia7. uxoris sue hereditas est ad regem Anglie8. devoluta.9. Declaratio quomodo dominium Hibernie est ad re-10. gem Anglie devolutum43

11. Anno domini mcliiii Nicholaus12. episcopus Albanenses nacione Anglicus13. de urbe Verolamio que nunc dicitur14. urbs Sancti Albani electus est in summum ponti-15. ficem et vocatus est Adrianus. Hic factus16. est post canonicus regularis in Provincia apud Sanctum17. Ruphum44 et ob nimiam religionem ab Euge-18. nio papa factus romane ecclesiae cardinal et cito19. post factus ab eodem legatus in Darmarcia45

20. pro verbi dei predictione. In qua legacione21. gentem illam barbaram in lege dei diligenter22. instruxit Romaque reversus in papem sublevatur.23. Hic summus pontifex anno domini mclv24. concessit Henrico secundo regi Anglie conquisitionem25. Hibernie cuius concessionis potestate cam? et mod?26. In bulla sua ad regem directa exprimit



27. in hiis verbis.46 Adrianus47 servus servorum dei karissimo28. in Christo filio illustri regi Anglie Henrico29. salutem et apostolicam benedictionem. Laudabiliter et30. satis fructuose de glorioso nomine in terren-31. is48 et eterne felicitatis49 premiis50 cumulando in32. celo tua magnificencia cogitat dum ad dila-33. tandos ecclesie terminos ad declarandum in-34. doctis et rudibus christiane fidei veritatem et vicio-35. rum plantaria51 de agro dominico extirpan-36. da52 sicut catholicus princeps intendis et ad37. id conveniencius exequendum consilium apostolice sedis53

38. et favorem. In quo facto quanto39. altiori consilio et maiori dicrecione proc-40. edis54 tanto feliciorem progressum te41. prestante domino55 confidimus habiturum eo quod ad42. bonum exitum semper56 et in finem valeat57 pertin-43. gere qui de arbore58 fidei et religionis44. amore principium acceperunt.59 Sane45. Hyberniam et omnes insulas quibus iusticie46. sol60 Christus61 illuxit et documenta fidei Christiane47. perceperunt62 ad ius beati Petri apostoli et sacro-

Column 2

1. sancta Romane ecclesie quod tua nobilitas63 re-2. cognoscit non est dubium pertinere. Unde tan-3. to64 in eis libentius plantacionem65 et germen4. Deo gratum inserimus66 quanto id a nobis5. in nostro67 examine districcius prospicimus ex-6. igendum.68 Significasti siquidem nobis7. fili in Christo karissime te Hibernie insulam8. ad subdendum illum populum69 legibis et vi-9. ciorum plantaria inde70 extirpanda71 ve-10. lle intrare et de singulis domibus11. annuatim unius denarii beato Petro velle12. persolvere72 pensionem et iura ecclesiarum illius13. terre illata73 integra reservare. Nos14. itaque pium74 et laudabile desiderium favore15. congruo prosequentes et peticioni tue be-16. nigne75 impendentes assensum gratum et acceptum habemus ut pro

dilatandis ecclesie terminis



17. pro viciorum restringenda per te76 pro corrigendis moribus etvirtutibus inserendis et pro relig-

18. ionis augmento insulam illam ingredia-19. ris et que ad honorem Dei et salutem terre20. illius spectaverint77 exequaris et illius21. terre plus78 honorifice populus te susc-22. ipiat79 et sicut dominum venerentur80 iure nimi-23. rum ecclesie81 illibato et integro permanente24. et salvo82 beato Petro apostolo et sacrosancte25. Romane ecclesie de singulis domibus annu-26. atim unius denarii pensione.83 Si ergo quod animo27. concepisti effectu84 duxeris consequendi85 complendum86 stude87

gentem illam bonis28. moribus informare et cogites88 tam29. per te quam per illos89 quos ad hoc fide90 verbo30. ydoneos et vita esse91 perspexla92 ut per31. doctores93 ibi ecclesia plantetur et crescat32. devocio fidei Christiane94 et que ad hon-33. orem Dei et salutem pertinent animarum taliter34. ordinentur ut a Deo sempiterne mercedis35. cursum merearis in terris gloriosum nomen36. valeas in seculis optineris.95 (End of the text of Laudabiliter) Rex37. igitur Henricus circa festum Sancti Michaelis38. Wyntonie parliamento96 de con?danda ?97 Hibernia cum suis opti-

matibus pertractat39. quod quia matri euis imperatrici non placuit40. ad tempus aliud dilatata est illa41. expedicio illo anno. Transiturus est igitur xv42. annis anno domini mclxxi98 rex ipse43. Henricus apud Argentomagum99 barones

F.80rColumn 1

1. suos convocat de profectione sua in Hybern-2. iam tractans. Supervenerunt ad huic tra-3. ctatum nuncii comitis de Strogoyl ma-4. rescalli Anglie qui propter eius singularem5. fortius precipue in brachiis dicebatur6. a populo Ricardus Strongbow100 huius terras propter7. quandam offensam rex acceperat in manu



8. sua et ipse exul in Hybernia morabatur.9. Hii nuncii obtulerunt regi ex parte10. ipsius comitis pro pace sua habenda civitatem11. Dublinie et urbem Waterfordie et12. omnes alias firmitates suas quas habebat13. in Hibernia per mortem regis Dublinie14. cuius duxerat filiam et heredem.101 Quo aud-15. ito rex eidem comiti restituit terras scilicet16. planam terram quam acceperat in Hibernia cum17. uxore sua libere concessit constituens eum18. totius Hybernie senescallum. Mense igitur19. Augusto102 rex transivit de Normannia in20. Angliam adiunato pro tanta expedi-21. cione exercitu. In vigilia Luce103 profectu-22. rus in Hibernia navibus se commisit et23. feliciter applicans terram illam suo dominio24. sine nobili resistencia104 subiugavit.25. Est autem iuxta historiam Britonum advertendum26. quod cum Arthurus, rex totius insule an-27. glicane, Hiberniam sibi subiungasset cap-28. tivato Gilmiro rege105 illius terre et29. principibus ceteris non valentibus ei30. resistere sponte Arthuro se dederunt.31. Rex Anglie non tenetur inviti concessioni32. summi pontificis nec tributum taxatum33. per eum ei reddere quia potest iure here-34. ditario terram illam vendicare. Nam35. et submissio quam fecit Johannes rex Anglie36. qui regnat in Anglia anno domini m37. ccxiii106 et submisit regnum suum romane38. curie pro se et suis successoribus ut39. singulis annis de qualibet domo tam40. Anglie quam Hibernie denarium unum daret41. beato Petro, quia coactus per interdictum et per42. regem Francie contra eum romanam curiam43. et provocatum et rogatum ut regnum Anglie44. invaderet. Barones insuper Anglie con-45. federati sunt cum rege Francie46. promiserunt sibi quod regnum Anglie filio47. suo Lodowyco traderent. Hiis per-48. iculis et angustiis per hostes tam



Column 2

1. domesticos quam extraneos volens ecclesiastica2. protectione muniri procurante legato Pan-3. dulpho107 qui tunc in Anglia presens erat4. submisit regnum Anglie et Hibernie summo5. pontifici in forma superius memorata.6. Post hoc anno domini mccxlv regnante7. Henrico filio Johannis antedicti ad consilium8. Lugdunense108 missi sunt nuncii per regem9. de consilio prelatorum comitum et baronum10. viri videlicet nobiles Hugo Bygod Johannes11. filius Galfridi Willelmus de Canti-12. lupo Philippus Baseth dato eis ad-13. vocato magistro Willelmo de Poywyk109

14. ut isti submissioni regis Johannis de censu annuo15. pro Anglia et Hibernia contradicerent et quod de16. regni assensu non processerat scilicet per archiepiscopum17. Cantuariensem vice totius regni fuerat18. reclamatum. Scilicet papa hiis auditis dixit19. quod hoc negotium indiguit morosiori110 deliberatione.20. quia tunc propter alia negotia po-21. tuit optinere et sic mansit negocium in sus-22. penso. Utrum? iuxta predicta post que rex Anglie23. regnum Dublinie cum urbe Waterford24. et omnibus finibus optinuit ex dono Ricardi25. comitis de Strogoyl heredis regis26. Dublinie per uxorem et sic habens ingressum27. in insulam ad terras proprias partem residuam28. vendicare poterit libere iure belli29. et sic post specialiter de Hibernia quia iure du-30. plici ad minus et triplici rex Anglie libere31. occupat terram illam. De Anglia32. vero est advertendum quod qu?? Romani Inperato-33. res subiuganderunt sibi et extorserunt34. tributum ab illa insula que nunc Anglia35. dicitur. Iulio Cesare primo terram intrante36. ante nativitatem Christi xlvii annis et post eum sex37. adimplus? inperatores Romani terram illam tri-38. butaria tenuerunt et in ea fuerunt.39. Sic Claudius, Severus, Caritius, Constan-40. tinus Constantini filius, Maximus et Maximinianus



41. et secundum quid dicunt adhuc duo post istos42. Britones regnaverunt et tributum susc-43. eperuntque alius Severus et unus alius44. Constantius. Ita quod apud istos regnaverunt45. Romani inperatores quadringentis et no-46. vem annis. Scilicet postea Britones inperium Ro-47. manorum contempserunt vel c?? dederunt

F.80vColumn 1

1. vel illorum reges susceperunt scilicet libere2. apud semetipsos vixerunt dando unicuique3. extraneo quod s?? erat. Hoc extracta est4. de libro Sancti Germani111 qui de origine5. Britonum scripsit. Absit quod moderni reges6. nostri permittant terram illam liberam7. submitti alicui extrinsece potestati seu ser-8. vituti.9. Declaracio iusticie Regis Anglie ad10. Walliam et eius dominium11. Circa annum domini secentissimum sept-12. uasium? novem secundum patet in antiquis croni-13. cis Britonum perdiderunt s? Wallen-14. ses qui et Britones dicuntur se dominium15. insule que nunc dicitur Anglia Saxoni-16. bus prevalentibus in omnibus contra ipsos sic igitur17. in occidentalibus partibus insule qui re-18. manserunt ex eis in montibus et nemori-19. bus principem sibi constituentes usque ad20. annum domini mccxl quartum vixe-21. erunt oppressi sunt e fame et miseria22. propter iugum Saxonum super ipsos. Anno23. predicto. David112 a’ eorum princeps regis24. Anglie ex sorore nepos suggessit25. Innocentio pape principatum Wallie ad26. ecclesie ratione feodum pertinere seque de re-27. ge tenere compulsum et iniuste vol-28. ens scilicet et papam partem assumens et vica-29. rium dominum Guitard. Super quo negocio30. scripsit summus pontifex abbati de31. derconewey113 a quo plenius instructus



32. sub dissilacione transivit. Anno domini33. mcclxiii domino Symone Fortis114 insu-34. rgente contra regem Anglie Henricum fil-35. ium Johannis regis principi Wallie Lou-36. enis115 eidem comiti confederatus comi-37. tatum Cestrie et marchiam crudeliter38. devastavit duoque castra scilicet Dissard39. et Gaymok116 diruit et ad solum complanat.40. Deinde cum dominus Edwardus filius Regis41. et comes Cestrie117 cum exercitu propteria42. quereret ille ad nemorosa loca43. et palustra fugiens non pugnabat.44. Edwardus a patre suo in Angliam45. est revocatus sic ipse princeps Wallie46. antedictus cum sua potestate inbelendes47. in capcionibus civitatum regiarum et48. in omnibus iniuriis factis regi et suis pre-49. dictum Symonem comitem Laycestr’50. manum fortem118 probuit adnitentes?

Column 2

1. In bello vero de Evysham119 interfecto2. Symone sepe dicto cum suis maioribus3. multitudine et Wallencium interfecta invenitur.4. Anno gracie domini mcclxviii circa festum5. Sancti Michaelis120 rex cum magno exercitu6. venit Salopiam121 in Walliam progressur-7. us ut principem Lewlinum122 qui parti communitatis8. contra regem faverat debellaret ac9. ipse princeps missit ad regem mancus10. scilicet duo milia librarum sterlingorum pro11. pace habenda regi concessit sicque inter-12. veniente legato Ottobono123 qui tunc13. fuit in Anglia restituta erat princi-14. pi terra quatuor cantredorum quam rex ab-15. stulerat iure belli.124 Cum vero mortuus16. estque rex Henricus et filius eius17. Edwardus coronaretur London’125 prin-18. ceps Wallie licet ab eo invitatus no-19. luit interesse propter quod fecit eum vocari



20. pro homagio sibi debito faciendo21. qui fugiens et fingens se non au-22. sum intrare Angliam quibusdam maior-23. ibus sibi insidiantibus petivit obsi-24. des scilicet filium regis126 comitem Glovernie25. et Robertum regis cancellarium127 quia26. peticionem rex indigne ferens27. dissilaverit negocium et ut principi pa-28. teret liberior accessus ad regem.29. Rex usque in Cestriam progreditur que est30. in confinio Wallie et miss’ ad eum31. nuncius ad homagium sibi faciendum32. ipsum vocat quo regulum? adat? per?33. decrescante exercitum convocat disp-34. ones? de negante sibi homagium35. de suo feodo principem exp-36. ugnare. Sexti128 vero anno rex de Ce-37. tria in Walliam progrediens cepit38. castrum Rodelam129 misitque in ipsam Wa-39. lliam occidentalem militem nobilem40. Paganum de Camurciis130 qui cuncta41. sede incendiorum vastavit. Post hoc42. statim Wallenses occidentales ad43. pacem regis Anglie venientes Pa-44. gano militi regis in partibus illis cap-45. itaneo castrum de Frendcuwey131

46. cum adiacenti patria rediderunt pr-47. inceps et Wallie videns se et48. regi Anglie cotidie invalescens.49. Non posse resistere (this is a new heading written on the last line of the

column)

F.81rColumn 1

1. Pacem petuit et optinuit sub hac forma132

2. videlicet quod omnes captivi quos actenus ratione3. regis Anglie detinuit in vinculis4. summarie? et sine calumpnia liberarentur.5. Item pro pace regis benevola habenda dar-6. et L milia librarum sterlyngorum quorum7. terminus solutionis in voluntate et gratia Regis



8. foret?. Item quod terra quatuor cantredorum si-9. ne omni contradiccione regi Anglie et suis10. heredibus cum omnibus terris conquestis per11. reges hominesque suos excepta insu-12. la Angleseye in perpetuum reman-13. eret. Insula vero Angleseye concessa14. est principi ita ut solvat pro ea singulis15. annis regi mille marcas quarum so-16. lucio incipienda erat in festo17. Sancti Mychalis proximo tunc instanti133

18. pro ingressu vero v milia marcarum da-19. ret et si princeps sine heredibus de20. corpore suo moreretur illa insula in21. regis Anglie possessionem rediret. Item22. quod princeps veniret in natale domini23. in Angliam pro homagium faciendo. Item quod24. omnia homagia Wallie remaner-25. ent regi praeter quaecunque? v baronum qui26. in confinio Snoudonie morebantur27. se ut principem quevit vocari non28. posse nisi sub se aliquos barones29. haberet. Item quod nomen principis tunc30. haberet ad vitam suam et post mortem31. eius v predictorum baronum homagia32. regi fierent et suis heredibus33. in perpetuum pro assecuracione istorum trad-34. idit princeps x obsides de mel-35. ioribus Wallie absque incarceracione et36. exheredacione et termino liberacionis37. et de omni cantredo et de Snoudonia38. et de consilio principis xx iurab-39. ant tactis sacrosanctis reliquiis quod40. conventubus? princeps anime? predictorum a?lorum41. fregerit nisi admonitus se corig-42. eret ab aliquabunt se ab eo et43. eidem in omnibus que potuerint ho-44. stes forent. Item post hoc princeps f-45. ratres suos quos lesit placabat46. habuit ii videlicet fratres quorum Ouwenum47. et Rodoricum posuerat in carcere videlicet48. vero David134 fuga dilapsis multis



Column 2

1. annis cum rege Anglie stetit a quo contra ordinem2. ?tis sue miles factus in guerra obprobitus?3. et fidelitatem suam plurimam erat regi acc-4. eptus unde et eidem castrum de Dynbek135

5. obtulit in Wallia cum terris ad valorem6. mille librarum anni reditus. Insuper et ux-7. oris dedit filiam comitis Derbeye.8. Oweinus qui liberatur a carcere quem pau-9. lo dum fugerat Rodoricus fratrem10. fugiens in Angliam morabatur. Rex vero11. in occidentali parte Wallie apud Lampader12. Wau136 insigne castrum construxit ad cohib-13. endum subrepciones Wallicorum. Anno14. vero domini mcclxxxi David germanus prin-15. cipis137 Wallie immemor beneficiorum regis16. Anglie qui eum promoverat et eum contra fratrem17. suum eum persequentem pertexerat ad insurgendum18. contra regem Walliam concitavit atque ut princip-19. em nobilesque Wallensium ad sedicionem20. facilius inclinaret ipse primus facinus21. aggreditur Rogerus de Clyfford138 nichil22. suspicante prodiciose in castro suo de23. Hauwardyn139 dominica in ramis palmarum140

24. cepit quosdam milites eius resistere25. volentes inermes occidit. Deynde26. reversus ad principem collecto exercitu una27. cum uno exercitu Rodolanum141 venit obsi-28. dionemque posuit contra castrum quod rex qui in29. partibus Sarum142 fuit cum omni celeritate ad30. partes Wallie festinavit cuius audito31. adventu princeps obsidione soluta32. se longius subtraxit. Interim captum est33. castrum de Lampader Waur143 per Resum filium34. Maylonis et Gryffinum filium Mered-35. oci144 capta et sunt in illis partibus per alios36. Wallensium nobiles castra plura. Eodem37. anno archiepiscopus Johannes Peccham145 intravit38. Snoudoniamque146 ut principem et fratrem suum39. David ad pacem reducereque regis set fru-



40. tratus in toto? in eos sentenciam excommunicationis41. fulminavit. Anno sequenti rex cum vali-42. do exercitu per insulam Anglesey ?it43. per nautas portum acceperat usque Snou-44. doniamque progrediens ut viam pararet exerci-45. tui ultra maris brachium quod insulam46. dividit a continuente terra iuxta Bangoriam147

47. constituit pontem fieri ex navibus invicem48. colligatis comes Glovernie interim in49. Wallenses magnus strages fecit.

F.81vColumn 1

1. Princeps vero vastatis terris Resi filii Me-2. ruduci148 qui cum rege fideliter tenuit3. se de Kardigan et Stredewy149 inde4. progressus est versus terram de Buelt150

5. cum quibusdam paucis cui cum sua milicia6. supervenientes nobiles viri Johannes7. Gyffard Edmundus de Mortuo Ma-8. ri151 nihil suspicientes de principe ipsum cum9. sociis pugnant aggredientes occide-10. runt. Facta sunt ante?152 festum beate Lucie153 prin-11. cipis a? post mortem a quodam qui intererat12. agniti capud abscisum regi defert quod13. London’ transmissum positum est per tempus ad14. super Turrim154. Anno sequente155 parata potestate15. de quo predictum est rex de Angleseia16. cum suo exercitu Snoudoniamque156 intravit17. castra omnia principis sine omni nobili re-18. sistencia157 capta et cito post tota Wallia19. subacta est regie potestati ante festum Sancti20. Johannis.158 Illo anno captus est David frater21. principis159 et Rodolanum160 adductus quem rex22. licet instanter hoc petereque ad summum conspec-23. tum? accedere non permisit in Salop-24. iam161 missus est carceri mancipandus.25. Quo anno rex ibidem tenens parlia-26. mentum162 per deputatos justiciarios27. morti adiudicatus est primo que suspen-28. sus est tandem combustis intestinis est



29. corpus truncatum in quatuor partes divi-30. sum missum quatuor civitatibus maioribus31. Anglie163 et capud super palum fixum32. est London’ ad terrorem consilium pro-33. ditorum. Haec audientes alii maior-34. es de Wallia se et sua prompte35. regi et ministris eius cotidie red-36. iderunt et sic rex Anglie iuste37. et pacifice Walliam occupat.38. Explicit declaracio iusticie39. regalis ad dominium Wallie et cetera.40. Incipit tractatus de un-41. itate ecclesiastice potestatis.164

Notes

1. In Bauer et al. (eds.), Speculum Historiale, 257–76, reprinted as item XIII inUllmann, Church and the Law. The Declarations are in Cambridge UniversityMS. 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 WesternManuscripts . . .Trinity College, Cambridge, I, 473–5. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 269,n. 78, was however incorrect in stating that the Trinity College manuscriptcontains only the Declaration on Ireland, since the text is preceded, as in theCambridge University library manuscript, by the Declaration on Aquitaine.As in Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, the two declarations are precededand followed by treatises by Boraston.

4. Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, ff. 79r and 79v; Trinity College, Cam-bridge, MS. B.15.11, f. 55r. The heading appears only in CambridgeUniversity 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 UniversityMS. 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 ofEdward I’s reign.



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 Decla-

ration on Wales of very similar phrases sine nobili resistencia and sine omninobili resistencia to describe how the respective countries finally came underEnglish rule strongly suggests the hand of one author.

18. The treaty of Paris however required the king of England, in his capacity asduke of Aquitaine, to perform homage to the king of France. This changein the legal status of the duchy may not have suited the author’s argumentand so have been omitted.

19. Despite, one might add, leaving the argument hanging inconclusivelybecause of Pope Innocent IV’s unwillingness to give a clear reply on thequestion of King John’s submission to Innocent III.

20. In the case of the Declaration on Ireland, Ullmann noted the use of materialdrawn from the chronicles of Robert of Torigni and Matthew Paris, and fromGeoffrey of Monmouth: Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 269–71.

21. The accounts given, for example, of the treaties of Montgomery (1267) andAberconwy (1277) do not read as if they are taken from copies of the originaldocuments.

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 TrinityCollege, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, ff. 55r. and 55v. It has also been com-pared with the two early fourteenth-century texts in TNA SC 8/177/8818and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, transcribed and edited by Haren in ‘Laud-abiliter: Text and Context’, esp. 160–3. For further comment on these twoversions of Laudabiliter, see Phillips, ‘Remonstrance Revisited’, esp. 16–17,23–4. Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5, f. 79v, has also been comparedwith 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 79–81in Arabic numerals at the top right hand corner. These numbers are fol-lowed in the present edition. Each folio is written in two columns, each of48 lines. The manuscript is written in a heavily abbreviated and crampedfourteenth-century hand, which is sometimes very difficult to read. Seeabove, n. 3.

29. The text in column 1 ends with the following: Explicit libellus editus demutabilitate mundi a Symone de Boraston ordinis predicatorum. The text whichfollows is written in the same hand.

30. Underlined in the text. The text of the Declaration concerning English rulein Aquitaine appears in Trinity College, Cambridge, MS. B.15.11, f. 55r., butwithout the heading.



31. William X, duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou. Died 9 April 1137.32. Sic: altare.33. Sic: nullam.34. Eleanor of Aquitaine.35. Sic: integro.36. Louis VII, king of France (1137–1180).37. Bordeaux.38. 1 August 1137. The author seems unsure of the month.39. Geoffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou.40. 25 October 1154.41. 7 December 1154.42. 19 December 1154.43. 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, butwithout the heading.

44. St Ruf near Avignon.45. He was sent to Scandinavia as papal legate.46. See above n. 22.47. Omits Episcopus.48. TNA SC 8/177/8818; TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read

terris.49. Bower also reads felicitatis. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 23,

read salutis.50. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read

premio.51. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads plantas.52. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads extirpandas.53. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read consilium apostolicum

exigis. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads apostolice sedis exigis.54. in eo omitted after tanto.55. These two words are omitted in Chron. Bower (Watt).56. semper is not in TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233.57. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read

soleant.58. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read

ardore.59. 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 amoreprincipium acceperunt.

60. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) read soliusticie.

61. Chron. Bower (Watt) omits Christus.62. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read que documenta

fidei perceperunt. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads et que documentum fideiacceperunt.

63. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read voluntas.64. Chron. Bower (Watt) reads et tanto. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339,

f. 233, omit tanto.65. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read plantacionem fidei.

Chron. Bower (Watt) reads fidei plantacionem.



66. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 23, and Chron. Bower (Watt) readgermen 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 districciusprospicimus exigendum.

69. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) readpopulum illum.

70. inde is not in Chron. Bower (Watt); in TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCDMS. 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, whichappears later in the sentence, twice.

79. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) readrecipiat.

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) readecclesiarum.

82. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) readsalva.

83. TNA SC 8/177/8818 and TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, read unius denarii annuapensione. 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.



93. Again the text is garbled. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, andChron. Bower (Watt) read ut decoretur.

94. TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) readfidei Christiane religio.

95. In TNA SC 8/177/8818, TCD MS. 1339, f. 233, and Chron. Bower (Watt) thewords after sempiterne read mercedis cumulum consequi merearis in celis et glo-riosum nomen valeas in terris obtinere/optinere. Datum etc. The end of the textcopied by the scribe of Cambridge University MS. Ii.iv.5 may have beendefective or damaged. This may account for some of the strange variantreadings.

96. C. 29 September 1155. The meeting at Winchester was not a parliament inthe thirteenth-century sense of the term.

97. Ullmann, ‘Influence’, 269, n. 81, has conquirendo but this is not confirmedby 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 ofwords 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, citingGeoffrey 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 royalclerk).

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 episodein Matthew Paris. Maybe this is a transcription error by the scribe of themanuscript, which might suggest that an existing text was being used by oron 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. Thepoor 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.



118. Sic.119. Battle of Evesham, 4 August 1265.120. C. 29 September 1268 (recte 1267).121. Shrewsbury.122. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales.123. Cardinal Ottobuono Fieschi, papal legate in England, 1265–1268. He later

became pope as Adrian V (1276).124. 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.

125. 19 August 1274.126. In 1274 Edward I’s only living sons were Henry (born 1267; died 14 October

1274) and Alfonso (born November 1273).127. Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester; Robert Burnell, chancellor 21 September

1274–1292.128. 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 ofEdward I’s reign.

129. Rhuddlan.130. Payn de Chaworth, lord of Cydweli in west Wales.131. The identity of this castle is unclear.132. Treaty of Aberconwy, 9 November 1277. See Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd,

438–45.133. 29 September 1278.134. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’s brothers, Owain, Rhodri and Dafydd.135. Denbigh.136. Llanbadarn Fawr (Aberystwyth).137. Dafydd ap Gruffudd.138. Roger Clifford.139. Hawarden near Chester.140. Palm Sunday, i.e., 22 March 1282.141. Rhuddlan.142. Salisbury.143. Llanbadarn Fawr (Aberystwyth).144. Rhys ap Maelgwn and Maredudd ap Gruffudd.145. John Pecham, archbishop of Canterbury.146. Snowdonia.147. Bangor.148. Rhys ap Meredudd.149. Cardigan and Ystrad Tywi.150. Builth.151. John Giffard and Edmund Mortimer.152. There is damage to the ms. in this place.153. 13 December 1282.154. Tower of London.155. 1283.156. Snowdonia.157. 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



note 77 above. The very similar form of words may suggest that the sameauthor was responsible for all three Declarations edited here and that allthree were composed not long after the completion of the English conquestof Wales in 1283.

158. 24 June 1283.159. Dafydd ap Gruffudd, brother of Llywelyn, the former prince of Wales.160. Rhuddlan.161. Shrewsbury.162. The Shrewsbury parliament began on 30 September 1283.163. Dafydd ap Gruffudd was executed on 3 October.164. Written in the same hand.


3A Versatile Legal Administratorand More: The Career of Johnof Fressingfield in England,Ireland and BeyondPaul Brand

John of Fressingfield had a long and a varied career.1 That career began inEngland some time before 1290; took him to Ireland in 1295, where helived for 12 years; brought him back to live in England in 1307, but thentook him off on official journeys to the Channel Islands in the summerof 1309 as well as to Avignon and to Gascony in 1309 and 1310. It seemsto have ended shortly after his capture in south Wales as one of the sup-porters of Hugh Despenser the younger and subsequent ransom in 1321.It encompassed clerical service as a clerk of the Common Bench at West-minster between 1289 and 1291, as a senior clerk of the ‘northern’ eyrecircuit led by Hugh of Cressingham between 1292 and 1294, as keeper ofthe rolls and writs of the Dublin Bench between 1296 and 1298 and aschief clerk of the justiciar, JohnWogan, in 1299. Closely connected withthis was his judicial career: initially in Ireland as a temporary replace-ment justice in the justiciar’s court in 1302–1303 and 1305–1306 aswell as in the Tipperary eyre of 1305–1307; then as chief justice of theChannel Islands eyre held in the summer of 1309; finally as a judicialcommissioner appointed to various special and general commissions inEngland between 1311 and 1317. He also had a brief military career: incharge of the castles of Roscommon, Rindown and Athlone in 1299–1300, leader of an Irish contingent to Scotland in the service of EdwardI in 1301–1302, and presumably with Hugh Despenser the younger atthe end of his life. For a four- or five-year period his career also took inservice on diplomatic missions (in 1309–1310) and as a member of theking’s council in England in 1312–1313. In this chapter, I will attemptto 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 traceit through the surviving documentation, in order to try to understandthe career trajectory of this individual whose working life involved bothclerical, 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 townof Halesworth. There is nothing other than his name to connect Johnwith Fressingfield, and he seems never to have held property there. Hisproperty acquisitions in England do, however, link him specifically withthe county of Suffolk and, moreover, with parts of that county whichare close to Fressingfield,2 and there can be little doubt that his fam-ily had once lived and held property there. We also know from hisproperty dealings the name at least of his father, Walter, son of Semanof Fressingfield, as well as the name of Walter’s wife, Levota, who wasperhaps John’s stepmother rather than his mother.3 We know nothingabout John’s father other than his name and the fact that his originswere probably humble. He does not seem to have been a major prop-erty owner and his own father’s name seems to be a peasant one. Weknow nothing of John’s education, other than that it clearly equippedhim with the ability to read and write fluently. It is possible, but by nomeans certain, that during the 1280s John had been in the service ofRobert de Vere, earl of Oxford. In 1290 we find John in possession of alife interest in the earl’s Suffolk manor of Mendham (five miles to thenorth of Fressingfield), acknowledging that he owed an annual rent of£16 and was obliged to acquit the earl of the castle-guard owed by themanor at Norwich, a financial, not a military, obligation.4 Life leasesof this kind were sometimes used as a way of rewarding service to amagnate, 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 ofthat year an agreement was enrolled on the Common Bench plea rollbetween John and Robert of Retford, both simply described as clerks,under which Robert (who was by then himself a senior Common Benchclerk) leased to John on behalf of his brother Thomas, the rector of Bey-ton by Bury St Edmunds, all the offerings of his church for three yearsas from Michaelmas, with the rent payable in London.5 This looks like atransaction between two men who knew each other as Common Benchclerks. In Easter term 1291 John acknowledged (as John of Fressingfieldclerk) a debt of £10 in the Common Bench and had it enrolled on thecourt’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 inlitigation on behalf of a Common Bench clerk, John of Chertsey, andanswered a question from one of the serjeants acting for John’s oppo-nent on the basis of John’s claim to an annuity.8 Such interventions werenormally the province of serjeants, and this intervention has thereforebeen taken as proving that Fressingfield had been acting as a serjeant inEngland before he went to Ireland. There is, however, no other evidenceto support such a conclusion, but some other evidence to show seniorclerks of the court speaking on behalf of litigants in the court during thisperiod.From the Common Bench Fressingfield seems to have moved in the

summer of 1292, on the resumption of the eyre circuits, which had beensuspended in 1289 on Edward I’s return from France, to becoming asenior clerk on the ‘northern’ eyre circuit led by Hugh of Cressingham.In Hilary term 1293 he was pardoned the money he offered to pay forpermission to make a final concord because he was in Cressingham’sservice,9 and damages were assigned by a successful litigant to John ofFressingfield clerk and his colleagues (other clerks of the same eyre) inthe Yorkshire eyre of 1293–1294.10 Unpublished law reports show himproviding information to the court about a tenant coming out of gaolto request a view and then being remanded and the prisoner’s attor-ney 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 andalso speaking there about previous practice allowing a loss in novel dis-seisin to be followed by a recovery in mort d’ancestor and then a furtherloss by the writ of right;12 and of him contributing to the discussion ofa case in the 1293–1294 Yorkshire eyre his reminiscence of two assizesbrought (presumably in Suffolk and perhaps some considerable time ear-lier) by the recently deceased Suffolk Common Bench justice, Williamof Gisleham.13

It was while he was still acting as a senior clerk in the Common Benchthat Fressingfield made his first major property acquisition, of the Suf-folk manor of ‘Rughhaghe’ in Cookley, close to Halesworth, acquiredfrom Alan Hovel in 1292. The manor was to be held jointly with hisfather Walter and Walter’s wife Levota, but to pass to John’s own heirsafter the deaths of all three of them. Only a nominal purchase price isrecorded for this acquisition.14 While he was acting as a senior eyre clerkin 1293, Fressingfield made his second major property acquisition, theSuffolk 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 wasto be held jointly with his father and stepmother in the same way, andit was also subject to liability for the continuing payment of instalmentsof Robert’s fine with the king for misconduct while in office.15

The eyre circuits were suspended in the summer of 1294 on the out-break of war with France and abandoned later the same year. The nextevidence of Fressingfield is in late November 1295 when he was going toIreland with John Wogan by the king’s order and appointed an attorneyto represent his interests in England for two years.16 Fressingfield musthave met Wogan while serving as an eyre clerk, for Wogan had served asa junior justice in all the eyres of the same ‘northern’ circuit. Wogan hadbeen appointed as justiciar of Ireland in mid-October 1295 and Fress-ingfield must have impressed him sufficiently on the eyre circuit forWogan to have wanted to take him with him to Ireland. His first knownappointment in Ireland was as keeper of writs and rolls in the DublinBench, a post for which his previous experience in the English courtsystem was clearly an excellent preparation. He was appointed by a writattested by Wogan in Dublin on 4 May 1296 and was paid till Hilaryterm 1298.17 He then appeared briefly as senior clerk in the justiciar’scourt in 1299 and as an assign of damages by successful litigants in thatcourt.18

Up to this point John of Fressingfield’s recorded career is that of alegal administrator, a senior clerk employed in the courts to write plearolls and writs and to assist the justices with the dispatch of the court’sbusiness. Such clerks were sometimes also clerks in a second sense, thatis to say clerics in major orders holding benefices with cure of souls.Fressingfield had probably taken at least minor orders at an early stagein his career, but he seems not to have gone further and there is noevidence to show that he ever held an ecclesiastical benefice, whetherin England or in Ireland. By Easter term 1296 at the latest, and proba-bly at least a decade earlier, he had excluded himself from any hope offuture ecclesiastical office-holding by taking a wife named Alice.19 This‘secularisation’, if such it was, renders less surprising the next turn inFressingfield’s career, which finds him being paid in 1299–1301 as cus-todian of the castles of Roscommon, Rindown and Athlone in Connachtand westernMeath;20 and then leading a group of Anglo-Irish and purelyIrish followers on the king’s service to Scotland in 1301–1302.21 It wasperhaps at this time, though possibly not till later, that Fressingfieldwas knighted. He had certainly become a knight by October 1307.22

It was perhaps his military service to the king that ensured Fressing-field received a favourable response to various requests made in a 1302



petition. He asked to be allowed to pay off a debt at the Englishexchequer in easy instalments. This was for goods seized from Frenchmerchants in Ireland. He also asked for grants of free warren and theright to hold a market in his lands in England and Ireland.23

His military activities were, it seems, no more than a short interludein a mainly non-military career. On his return to Ireland, Fressingfieldbecame for the first time a royal justice, though no more than a tempo-rary substitute for other, more permanent, justices whose services wereneeded elsewhere. He stood in for Walter Lenfant as a justice of the justi-ciar’s court between mid-September 1302 and mid-March 1303 (duringMichaelmas and Hilary terms and a little more), because Lenfant wasneeded as an eyre justice in Meath;24 for Walter de la Haye as a justiceof Tipperary eyre between mid-October 1305 and mid-January 1306 andagain from Christmas 1306 to Easter 1307;25 and once more as a tempo-rary substitute for Lenfant in the justiciar’s court while Lenfant was atthe Tipperary eyre between Christmas 1305 and Easter 1306.26

There are some indications that Fressingfield may have intended tosettle permanently in Ireland. He had not disposed of his two Suffolkmanors nor of his life interest in a third, but he had begun soon afterhis 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 ofDuiske (Graiguenamanagh).27 He also made two other major and morepermanent property acquisitions that same year. One was of the manorof Fennor in Inchirourke in the north-east of Tipperary and close toUrlingford, acquired jointly with his wife Alice from Thomas, son ofDavid.28 The second was of the manor of Lynn in Westmeath, closeto Mullingar, with various appurtenances, also acquired jointly withhis wife Alice from Ralph of Pitchford for 200 marks.29 Later, in 1297and 1299, came the acquisition of property at ‘le Boly’ in Old Ross inWexford,30 and in 1301 the acquisition of the manor of ‘Bilrath’, appar-ently close to Dysart in Westmeath, and thus not far from his earlieracquisition of Lynn.31 His first wife Alice, first mentioned in 1296 andlast mentioned in 1301, was probably English.32 The birth-place of hissecond wife Joan, first mentioned in 1302, is not known but she wasprobably Irish and we know that she brought him substantial dowerproperty in Ireland in Tipperary, Kildare and Connacht including thecastle of Knockgraffon in Tipperary, which gave him further good rea-sons for staying in Ireland. Joan was the widow of Meiler – the son andheir apparent of Peter, son of Meiler of Bermingham – who had endowedhis 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 suggest-ing that Fressingfield may have been intending to put down permanentroots in Ireland is the petition, perhaps dating from 1302, in which hesought to gain permission from the king to establish a chantry in thechurch of Lynn, endowed with some, though probably only part, of hisproperty there.34 The king seems to have authorised an inquisition adquod damnum by the escheator of Ireland, but any inquisition he mayhave held does not survive and there is no trace of a mortmain licencebeing 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 himfor the next two years in Ireland.35 There is no obvious explanationfor his return to England at this time. John Wogan, in whose com-pany he had gone to Ireland in 1295 and with whom he was stillsaid to be ‘continuously on the king’s service’ in Hilary term 1306,36

did not himself return to England until September 1308 and thenreturned to Ireland for a second period as justiciar between May 1309and August 1312. Fressingfield’s second wife Joan, with her extensivedower properties in Ireland, accompanied him to England, or per-haps joined him there a little later, for in September 1309 they bothappointed another attorney to act in Ireland on their behalf for twoyears.37 The explanation may have been the prospect of advancementin England. In the summer of 1309 Fressingfield received his first properjudicial position, as the most senior of the three justices appointed tohold a judicial eyre for the king in the Channel Islands.38 Later thatsame year (in November 1309) he was commissioned to go on a mis-sion to Pope Clement V in Avignon with the English lawyer, John ofMutford, 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 theexchequer to receive instructions before setting out for Gascony, per-haps in connexion with the Anglo-French negotiations preceding theprocess of Perigueux.40 In 1312 he was appointed to a commissionto deal with the claims of Flemish merchants against their Englishcounterparts,41 and in 1315 to commissions relating to the claims offoreign merchants at Great Yarmouth and in London.42 In 1310 orperhaps later he became a member of the king’s council and he wassummoned with other lawyers and administrative officials to the parlia-ments summoned for August 1312, March and September 1313.43 Fora six-year period beginning in 1311 he received a variety of judicial



commissions. Some related to London or the south-east of England.44

More related to Norfolk and Suffolk, and these included both specialand general commissions.45 There are a few relating to other Englishcounties.46

Fressingfield was clearly on an upward trajectory in his career andin his steady acquisition of properties until the second decade of thefourteenth century. Then things began, it seems, to go wrong. Thelimited number of judicial commissions issued to him coupled withhis apparent failure to secure any more permanent position withinthe English judicial system, whether as an assize justice or in someother grander judicial post might simply be a reflection of his relativelyadvanced age when he returned to England and the lack of the contactsneeded to secure such positions. What is more surprising is what hap-pened during this decade to his Irish and English property interests. In1313 he sold off his manor of Inchirourke for cash,47 and in 1314 hisproperty in Old Ross, also for cash.48 He must, however, have retainedsome Irish interests for in October 1316 he appointed two attorneys torepresent him in Ireland for the next two years.49 In 1310 he borrowed£80 from Richard of Loughborough in London by a statute merchantsecured on his Suffolk properties,50 and in or before 1313, £149 fromRobert Burdeyn in London by a statute merchant secured on the sameproperties.51 Robert Burdeyn subsequently gave or sold his interest inthese lands to Fressingfield’s lord, Walter of Norwich, the chief baron ofthe exchequer, who in March 1321 in Fressingfield’s last recorded deedsecured a release to these manors from Fressingfield.52 It may just havebeen a matter of Fressingfield living beyond his means and the debtsfinally catching up with him. Litigation in the London mayor’s court in1307 seems to show him already borrowing money and victuals (to thevalue of £40) when setting out for Ireland in 1295 by statute merchantbond 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 toEngland.53

The last chapter in the story is the strangest. From a petition of 1322submitted by Hugh Despenser the younger, we know that in May 1321Fressingfield was captured in Hugh’s company during the fighting insouth Wales that preceded the exile of the Despensers and had to beransomed.54 His connexion with Despenser may have been a last des-perate attempt to repair his damaged fortunes. If so, it evidently did notsucceed. Fressingfield disappears from the record and perhaps died soonafterwards. He may, however, have left issue. A second (and just possiblya 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 therepresentative of John of Fressingfield senior in Ireland for two years.55

A John of Fressingfield junior, perhaps the same man, received a sim-ilar appointment from John of Fressingfield senior in February 1311.56

However, only a few months later (in June 1311) John of Fressingfieldjunior received a joint appointment as the attorney of the Anglo-Irishlawyer and justice, William of Bardfield, and his wife Katherine for twoyears, but to act as their agent in England, not Ireland.57 In 1317 a Johnof Fressingfield (evidently a clerk) was presented in the king’s nameto the church of Dysart in the diocese of Meath, close to where ourJohn of Fressingfield may still have held land at ‘Bilrath’.58 A John ofFressingfield, presumably the same man, also appears as the attorney inIreland, appointed for two years in March and again in May 1329, ofRoger Mortimer earl of March and his wife Joan.59 We cannot be surethat 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 Johnwho was a beneficed clerk and he was John senior’s only child, John ofFressingfield’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 inthe years round 1300 not only through service to the English crownand to the crown’s agents mainly in clerical and judicial adminis-tration but also through some military and diplomatic service andthrough marriage to a doweress to become a significant, though hardlya major, landowner in the two countries under the rule of the Englishcrown, but could also then lose most of his acquisitions prior to hisdeath and fail to create a lasting Fressingfield inheritance for his fam-ily in either England or Ireland. Men like John of Fressingfield areimportant because they helped through their careers to reinforce thepersonal links between royal administration in England and Irelandand beyond and perhaps even began to create something like a sin-gle royal administrative service in England and Ireland in the yearsaround 1300, providing some break on the natural centripetal forcestending to force the two countries, even though they shared the sameruler, apart. There is much we still do not know, and may neverknow, about John of Fressingfield: about the early years of his career,his rise from humble beginnings and his education; what it was thatbrought him back to England in 1307–1308; why his career stalled inthe second decade of the fourteenth century; how he came to throwin his lot with the younger Despenser; when exactly he died. Whatwe do know, though, is enough to make him an interesting figure for



historians investigating the links between England and Ireland in thelate 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 ofobligation 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 interesthere in 1308 when he was suing an assize of nuisance against the prior ofMendham 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 belong-

ing to the Middlesex eyre of 1294, but identifiable as a case heard this termin 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 wellhave become his wife, or at least his partner at least a decade before her firstappearance 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 Pay-

ments, 168, 588.


Paul Brand 53

25. Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 144; Irish Exchequer Pay-ments, 191. It was during this period that George de Roche got himself introuble for misbehaviour in court at Cashel after overindulging in the bestwhite wine in Fressingfield’s lodgings: CJR 1305–7, 46.

26. Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 167; Irish Exchequer Pay-ments, 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 weeklymarket at Fennor and free warren); NAI RC 7/10, 49, 264. The best indica-tion of its extent and of where the appurtenant lands lay comes from the1313–1314 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 fromWilliam son of John, see NAI RC 7/4, 48. John was also granted free warrenand 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 hereand other property in Dungarvan and ‘Tylaghtyryn’ to David of Pembrokeand 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 havebeen 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 aprisoner held there see CPR 1313–17, 327, 502; relating to Surrey see CPR1307–13, 421, 422; relating to Kent see CPR 1307–13, 477, 548.

45. For Norfolk special commissions, see CPR 1307–13, 317–18, 364; CPR1313–17, 238–9, 251 (bis), 318, 411, 412, 418, 419, 431, 495, 496, 682,683; CPR 1317–21, 85, 89. For Suffolk special commissions, see CPR1307–13, 540; CPR 1313–17, 428, 503, 678; CPR 1317–21, 83. For generalcommissions for both counties, see CPR 1313–17, 243–4 (official mis-conduct), 262 (and 314) (related to conspiracy), 686 (prises), 688 (falsemeasures).

46. CPR 1307–13, 316; CPR 1313–17, 497–8 (official misconduct in Oxon. andBerks. and Beds. and Bucks.), 502, 700.



47. Cal. Ormond Deeds, I, nos. 479, 481, 484, 485.48. TNA KB 27/216, m. 28.49. CPR 1313–17, 553.50. TNA C 241/96, no. 40.51. See the litigation of 1317 where Fressingfield unsuccessfully challenged the

seizure of part of these lands as not included in the original extent: TNA JUST1/851, mm. 1-1d and TNA JUST 1/1374, m. 5.

52. CCR 1318–23, 362.53. Cal. Early Mayor’s Court Rolls, 250–60.54. CCR 1318–23, 541–6.55. CPR 1307–13, 72.56. CPR 1307–13, 324.57. CPR 1307–13, 354.58. Rot. Pat. Hib., 24, no. 135.59. CPR 1327–30, 367, 395.


4Galloway, the Solway Shore andthe Nature of BordersRuth M. Blakely

The region of Galloway has been described as a microcosm of Scotlandboth topographically, by encompassing within its borders examples ofall those physical features which have come to typify Scotland, andpolitically, by providing a major focus in the struggle for indepen-dence of the early fourteenth century which reflected the situation inthe country as a whole.1 While the reasons for this latter focus arereadily apparent in the conjunction in the area of the interests of thethree major families involved in the struggle, those of Balliol, Bruce andComyn, and in its proximity to England, there is a measure of irony inthe fact that a region which had for so long repudiated the full over-lordship of the kings of Scots and had, on occasions, courted Englishsupport against them should be seen as representative of the nationas a whole in its battle for the defence of Scottish sovereignty againstits absorption into an English realm.2 Although Galloway had beenincreasingly drawn under the domination of the kings of Scots sincethe time of Fergus, it was only after 1234, following the death of Alan ofGalloway, the suppression of his bastard son Thomas’s claim to the lord-ship by Alexander II and the division of the region between Alan’s threedaughters and their predominantly English husbands, that its autonomywas effectively ended and it was brought fully under Scottish jurisdic-tion.3 This was scarcely two years before the treaty of York by whichAlexander II formally agreed to relinquish Scottish claims to the threenorthern counties of England, in return for lands worth £200 annually,and the long-established customary line linking the Solway Firth to theTweed was thereby confirmed as marking the definitive border betweenthe two kingdoms.4

Initially this fixing of the Anglo-Scottish frontier made little materialdifference 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 itsneighbour across the Solway continued as before. The firth was no bar-rier to communications either by boat or, further up the coast, by thefords which were traversable at low tide. Trade flourished; Galloway’sCistercian abbeys looked to a mother-house in England; monks fromCumberland grazed their flocks on its pastures; even justice on occasionstranscended the Border.5 It was still the heyday of cross-border land-holdings: Desnes Ioan, the eastern area of Galloway between the RiversUrr and Nith, for instance, had long been settled by Anglo-Scottishlords, while the English husbands of the co-heiresses of Galloway rein-forced the region’s associations with England. More than half a centurywould pass before circumstances brought an end to the amicable rela-tions between the realms.6 The treaty of York does, however, highlightthe arbitrary nature and, indeed, the dangers of such politically estab-lished borders, lines of convenience defined by those in power in sucha way as to satisfy their own ambitions or to meet the needs of a par-ticular contingency, dividing ancient loyalties and taking no account ofthe diversity of affiliations or origins of those peoples encompassed bythem. Although the Border does not, of itself, define the coastal bound-ary of Galloway which separates it from England (the line as marked onOrdnance Survey maps ends near Annan) its fixing did serve to empha-sise the finality of the region’s annexation by Scotland; the southernshore of the firth, together with the major trading centre at Carlisle,was now unequivocally in another country, a situation which wouldbring increasing hostility as the Border hardened into a frontier duringthe Wars of Independence. With the ‘pacification’ of Galloway the waywas opened to Alexander’s westward advance and Norway’s cession ofthe Western Isles in 1266, so that by the last decade of the thirteenthcentury the realm of Scotland had almost reached the limit of its expan-sion, with its encompassing borders defined and established along linesstill recognisable today. Only the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetlandremained to be gathered in while Man, following intermittent subjec-tion to Scottish rule for some 50 years, was lost to England in 1333. Yetat the start of the fourteenth century that newly shaped kingdom cameperilously close to annihilation.It was in the course of the decade 1296–1306, following the depo-

sition of King John Balliol, that Edward I’s perception of the status ofScotland displayed an ominous shift from that of a sovereign, if infe-rior, kingdom with which he had been prepared to treat, through thatof a satellite kingdom towards the prospect of a single united kingdomand 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 Howevermuch John Comyn of Badenoch, Guardian of Scotland, and his fellownegotiators deluded themselves that a change of circumstances, per-haps of reign, might bring renewed hopes of further negotiations and aresumed independence, there is no doubt that Scotland was fast movingtowards 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 handof Robert Bruce in the Greyfriars church at Dumfries precipitated Bruceinto an action he had long been contemplating, his bid for the Scottishthrone. All attempts at diplomacy were thrown to the winds in Edward’sfury at his vassal’s sacrilegious act and Scotland was plunged back intoturmoil. The second, not unexpected, death in July of the followingyear was that of Edward himself, on the southern shore of the Solway,within sight of the region where his hunted adversary lurked and besidethe fords which provided access to it. With Edward’s death the impetuswhich fuelled English ambitions to dominate Scotland was effectivelyreduced; 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 thatregion where the powerhouses of the major rivals for the kingship wereconcentrated, where feelings ran high and ancient loyalties, feuds andaspirations meant more than an amorphous concept of national sol-idarity. Galloway itself was still a self-contained region with distinctboundaries, its own code of laws, and a population with a long-standingconsciousness of its own cohesion and sense of common purpose.8

Furthermore Galloway’s ‘discrete lordship’, far from being a ‘preservedfiction’ remained a tangible reality. Despite its initial threefold divi-sion between the daughters of Alan, and subsequent subdivisions, itpossessed a very real sense of continuity, with the native lords still main-taining a loyal adherence to the recognised descendants of their lastlord, a loyalty which now focused on the Balliol presence as holders ofthe largest remaining single share.9

The Bruce/Balliol rivalry is so well documented that it needs nofurther explanation here except to point up the proximity of therivals’ respective lordships. The landward borders of Galloway which,like the Anglo-Scottish border, followed the natural lines of riversand mountains were closely flanked by Bruce-held territory, creatinga psychological as well as a physical barrier. To the east, across theRiver Nith, lay Annandale, granted to the first Robert de Brus in a joint



Anglo-Scottish project by David I and Henry I specifically to containthe marauding Galwegians. Nor would the present Robert Bruce, sonof the Competitor, with his pro-English but anti-Balliol stance havebeen a comfortable neighbour. Beyond the mountains to the north laythe earldom of Carrick, now held by Bruce the younger, from wherethe Bruce raids on Galloway castles had originated within a year ofAlexander III’s death.10 This mountain border also marked the legacyof that earlier violent quarrel between the lords of Galloway, the heirsof Fergus, now resurgent in their Bruce and Balliol descendants.11 It wasthis wild terrain, where the specific boundary was surely indistinct, thatBruce turned to his advantage, biding his time in and around Glentroolwhile Edward lay dying, consolidating his supporters, narrowly escapingcapture while attempting to ambush the English treasurer in his desper-ate need for funds, and later using it as a base to launch devastatingattacks on the people of Galloway who were hostile to his kingship.12

This state of affairs must have engendered a siege mentality for theGalwegians, not unlike that which they had experienced a century ormore earlier when King William established royal castles worryinglyclose to those same borders at Dumfries and Ayr. It was the thin endof a wedge which Alexander II pushed into Galloway itself with royalcastles at Kirkcudbright and Wigtown and the sheriffdoms of Dumfriesand Wigtown. It has been suggested that it was Roger de Quincy’s per-ceived association, as constable of Scotland, with this increasing royaloppression, rather than his English connections, which caused the Gal-wegians to rise against him in 1247 and he was forced to fight his wayout of Cruggleton castle.13

There is no doubt that Edward I was acutely aware of the situation inGalloway and its implications from the very outset of the war. In the firstweek of March 1296, while on his way towards the Border, he orderedthe release of Thomas, son of Alan, from a lifetime of captivity in theBalliol stronghold of Barnard Castle. Supplied with a charter of libertiesfor the people of Galloway granted, it was said, by Edward in responseto Thomas’s pleas, the 88-year-old man was escorted as far as Carlislecastle, which he must have reached shortly before the Comyn-led raidof the Scottish earls on the city gave Edward his excuse to cross theTweed and sack Berwick.14 Events thus pre-empted Edward’s cynical useof the old man to deflect the Galwegians’ loyalty away from Balliol bysuggesting that Thomas, rather than the descendants of Alan’s daugh-ters, was their rightful lord and as such had accepted on their behalfEdward’s own overlordship and magnanimity towards them.15 PerhapsEdward 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 Comynearl of Menteith, that Thomas’s bid for the lordship had been brutallydefeated more than half a century before and a settlement alien to theirlaws of inheritance imposed upon them by a king of Scots. Whateverhis intentions the ploy failed. The native lords of Galloway either knewnothing of the charter or were unimpressed. Thomas was forgotten,superseded by loyalty to his half-sister and her son.16 The loyalty of oneextended family of impeccable Celtic origin who were tenants of Balliolin the Glenkens is well illustrated in the words of their submission tothe 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 “foleenprise” ’, though only through fear of a threatened army being sentamong them.17

It could have been another attempt to conciliate the Galwegians,through diplomacy rather than fear, which influenced Edward’s choicefor the post of warden of Galloway and Ayr. While it was inevitable,after 200 years of baronial integration between the two kingdoms, thatmany of those English administrators drafted in by Edward would haveScottish connections through inter-marriage, Henry Percy had an inter-est in Galloway itself. Not only was he an influential lord in the northof England, a kinsman of Edward, a grandson of John de Warenne earlof Surrey, the king’s lieutenant in Scotland and nephew by marriage ofJohn Balliol, but he also had a claim, through his grandmother, to theGalloway lands of Ingram de Balliol, Scottish kinsman of John, which hewas subsequently granted.18 Percy’s appointment, like that of Warenne,was not wholly successful; despite subduing a short-lived rising in thesouth-west in 1297, in which the earl of Carrick was involved, and tak-ing hostages of some families of Galloway, he never achieved full controlover the region.19 His authority was further undermined by the returnfrom house arrest in England of John Comyn earl of Buchan, entrustedby Edward with helping to keep the peace, principally in the northbut evidently free to resume his authority in Galloway also.20 It was amistaken trust, as Edward was to find. In the summer of 1300, takingmatters into his own hands, he made his first and, as it transpired, hisonly 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 bridgedat Dumfries by Dervorguilla de Balliol, symbolically joining Galloway toScotland, it is likely that the army crossed lower down the estuary wherean ebbing tide and firm sands could, like the Solway fords, provide timefor large numbers to make a safe passage.21 The Nith was only the first



of the several rivers Edward would encounter which, by running northto south, subdivide Galloway itself into regions and could in times offlood create formidable barriers.22 Two of them besides the Nith hadalso served as boundaries, witnesses to the expansionist policies of theearlier lords of Galloway who, in their smaller way, had conformed tothe behaviour expected of a ruler until halted and finally overwhelmedby 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 provideda boundary, an ecclesiastical one, that of the diocese of Whithorn whichalone of all dioceses north of the Border remained a dependant of thearchdiocese of York.24 The Universal Church took no account of chang-ing political boundaries. Whithorn’s continued adherence to York afterGalloway’s absorption into Scotland became a matter of considerableembarrassment to the Scottish Church which had spent so much energyin repudiating any subservience to the English archbishopric.25 Out tothe west the River Cree, which marked the internal division between thesheriffdoms of Dumfries and Wigtown and, earlier, between the landsof the sons of Fergus, proclaimed its role by its name, derived from theGaelic crích ‘boundary’, and is likely to have been the original westwardextent of Fergus’s territories beyond which lay the Manx-dominated areaof the Rhinns and Machars.26

While the necessity of traversing half a dozen rivers with his armymust have slowed Edward’s progress across the region it was not onlyas physical barriers that they impeded him but, in their traditional roleof meeting points, as political barriers too, serving to remind him thathis overlordship of Galloway was not universally welcome. His firstcheck came at the Dee bridge, where he was met by the bishop ofWhithorn,27 not to welcome him to the diocese but sent by the Comynsto negotiate a settlement. Having rebuffed the bishop and returned tothe coast at Kirkcudbright to meet up with his delayed supply ships,Edward was confronted by the Comyns themselves, who also left empty-handed. Thereafter Edward kept to the safety and convenience of thecoast and estuary crossings until his forces encountered physical oppo-sition from the Comyn army, first near his encampment by the Fleetthen finally and more forcibly at the Cree. Although the English armytemporarily crossed the estuary and the Comyn troops dispersed, deser-tions and uncertainty of supplies compelled Edward to retreat. He hadfailed to penetrate and assert his authority in the secular and ecclesias-tical heartland of Galloway.28 His son fared better the following year.After successfully, if only temporarily, taking the castles of Ayr andTurnberry, 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 coast-line reaching far beyond the shelter of the firth into the open sea,provides the clue to the earlier orientations of the lordship and its linkswith the ‘Irish Sea World’, especially with Man and Ulster. Galloway’scloseness to this world contrasts strongly with its apparent remotenessfrom the centres of Scottish government and is graphically illustrated inanymap of the area where Man is seen as the hub of a large wheel, its rimbeing the shores of several countries. We see Galloway as an obvious partof the mainland mass of northern Britain which for us, indoctrinatedas we are by historical/political but artificial divisions, means Scotland.Not so in earlier ages. The sea then was less a barrier than a high-way, a link between nations, a means of migration, of trade, of culturalexchange. It was a world which took less account of emerging nationalboundaries than of a shared past.30 Much has been written about Bruce’sappeals to the common culture Scotland shared with Ireland and Walesto raise support for his cause, and the suggested reasons behind his andhis brother’s subsequent attempt to subject Ireland to Scottish ratherthan English rule.31 This ease of sea-born communication had its dan-gers too, making Galloway, and indeed Carrick, vulnerable to invasionfrom Ireland and interference from England. It was from Ireland as wellas the ports of Cumberland that supplies and troops came to assist theEnglish cause. Yet it was from an English king that a lord of Gallowayand an earl of Carrick obtained their temporary footholds in Ulster; afact which Bruce evidently ignored when seeking to revive his ancestor’sclaims, even as he placed greater emphasis on his Celtic descent and Car-rick inheritance through his mother than on his father’s Anglo-Normanheritage and Annandale lordship.32

The sea-coast was also the gateway by which successive waves ofsettlers brought that ethnic and cultural mix, not only to Gallowaybut elsewhere in Scotland, which was eventually melded with otherinfluences to shape the nation’s identity. This mix is yet another wayin which Galloway can be regarded as a microcosm of Scotland, byreflecting the conflict of loyalties which affected so many Scots lordsto an extent that has brought upon them ill-considered accusationsof ‘lukewarmness’ and ‘disaffection’, or worse, towards their country’sstruggle.33 Galwegians, like the lords of the Isles, had more reason thanmost for their ambivalence, being so recently annexed into Scotland.They were among the first, along with Bruce of Carrick, to returnto Edward’s peace in 1302–1303 after his foray into Galloway and



subsequent truce at Dumfries; while some, such as Donald McCan, seemnever to have left it after 1296.34 Any residual doubts the families ofGalloway might have held over their choice of allegiance were dispelledby Bruce’s killing of John Comyn and seizure of the throne, a betrayalof their own lord and king in exile. From now on Galloway lookedto England, even if any hope of a Balliol return had faded. Better anEnglish overlord than a Bruce king. Their strength of feeling is typifiedby the response of Dungal McDowell, head of the most influential Gal-loway family who, when two of Bruce’s brothers landed at Loch Ryanin February 1307 accompanied by an Irish contingent, led the forcewhich defeated them and handed the brothers over to Edward for sum-mary execution. Bruce responded with predictable violence to crush theregion which not only failed to accept him but continued to harbourand support the occupying English, subjecting it to devastating raidsthen handing over the command to his brother Edward whom he sub-sequently created lord of Galloway, scarcely a conciliatory move. Therewere those who fled the destruction, seeking refuge across the Solway tograze their cattle in Inglewood forest, an area which, in the year of Ban-nockburn when the men of Cumberland failed to pay Bruce’s protectionmoney, would prove to be little safer than Galloway.35

It is no surprise that Bannockburn has been described as a defeatfor Galloway.36 Its continuing support for the English occupation hadplaced it on the losing side. Only the previous year had DungalMcDowell finally been dislodged by Bruce from Dumfries castle, to reap-pear shortly in Man where he suffered another eviction, from Rushencastle which he was holding for the English.37 With the Border nowhardened into a frontier and its porosity compromised, all living withinits bounds must conform, at least nominally, and surrender any landsand allegiance elsewhere. Those who did not were expelled. The predic-tion of the unknown writer of the letter from Forfar in 1307 was beingfulfilled.38 It affected Galloway hugely. In a state of continuing war thisforfeiture understandably implicated all whose primary allegiance laysouth of the Border; as a result only a small share of the former lord-ship was still in the keeping of one of Alan’s descendants, a niece ofJohn Comyn earl of Buchan, who had married John of Ross. Her sis-ter and co-heiress, as wife of Henry Beaumont, was treated as English.Bruce had almost the entire region at his disposal and made the mostof it, installing his own kinsmen and partisans in the lands that hadbeen held by Balliol, Comyn, Ferrers and Zouche, as heirs of Alan. Gal-loway was deprived of its heritage as well as its borders. Once againa 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 beendemised to the descendants of the last lord, even if the division of thelordship had been against the wishes of the people. That link had nowbeen severed. Nor was it only the ‘greater’ lords, or even those suchas McDowell, McCulloch and the bishop of Whithorn who had consis-tently opposed Bruce, who were forced to seek refuge in England. Thereare examples of smaller landholders who chose to leave or to retain theirholdings in Cumberland rather than Galloway which resulted in theirexpulsion.39 Yet there were clearly some who, despite reservations, man-aged to remain in or return to Scotland, as witnessed by the subscribersto the Declaration of Arbroath. Whether, as has been suggested, thiswas due to Bruce’s leniency or their own diplomacy is open to question.The Soules conspiracy, which followed so soon after the Declarationand involved some of the subscribers, demonstrates how fragile still wasBruce’s hold on the region.40 Furthermore, after the treaty of Edinburghin 1328 when Bruce reluctantly agreed to reinstate the confiscated landsof some of the ‘Disinherited’ in Galloway, such as Beaumont, Percy andZouche, only Percy’s agreement seems to have taken effect.41

Bruce’s policy created a situation ripe for the rebellion which eruptedso soon after his death when much of Galloway, even those familieswho had submitted to him, supported the return of the ‘Disinherited’in the wake of Edward Balliol.42 Scotland’s civil war was not yet overand Galloway was again at the forefront of the action. Again its identitywas reallocated at the whim of power-seekers when most of the regionwas ceded to England as part of Edward Balliol’s dubious transactionwith Edward III. Only the far west remained in Scotland. The Cree nowdelineated a major national boundary.43 However, borders which arearbitrarily moved to suit a change of circumstance, to reflect the wax-ing or waning of powers, do not immediately change the identity of thepeople affected. Although the borders of a region or nation can define itsgeographical area and the extent of influence at a given moment, theycan only reinforce an identity which has grown within them as part of ashared experience over time; they cannot themselves create it. While theGalwegians suffered anew from Edward III’s punitive measures and theresumed hostilities between the Bruce and the Balliol factions, it was stilltheir own region and identity for which they were fighting. The strugglecontinued for more than 20 years. By the end even the majority of Gal-wegians who opposed the Bruce dynasty became half-hearted in theirsupport for Edward Balliol. The young king of England had less will thanhis grandfather to maintain the annexation of his northern neighbourin the face of more concerted Scottish opposition, the Franco-Scottish



alliance and his own continental commitments.44 Once the king’s sup-port for his protégé had withered and Edward Balliol had thrust thecrown back at him, Scotland was left to pick up the pieces yet againand re-establish itself as a nation within the geographical boundariesas they were at the death of Alexander III, which Bruce had reaffirmedin 1328. Even Galloway reluctantly accepted what had become a faitaccompli. Native lords who left the country with Edward Balliol after hisresignation found their way back to their homeland after his death.45

Following such unhappy experiences of both Scottish and Englishinterference the region might well have preferred to return to its ownautonomy, but events had moved too far. For good or ill Galloway wasnow undoubtedly one with Scotland. It was spared the lingering Englishoccupation which persisted in Annandale and, more damagingly, in theeastern counties. In the continuing cross-border, and internal, conflictsits identification with the Scottish cause became axiomatic.46 Scotland’sbitter struggle for independence, although far from over, had avertedthe total annihilation with which it was threatened, had consolidatedits geographic unity and brought new impetus to a political unity withinits borders. Drawn into a closer coherence by common vicissitudes,its edges were more firmly defined, its people forced to confront theirpriorities and make what must have been for some, including manyGalwegians, unpalatable choices. Although the borders remained asthey were in 1286, the national consciousness within them had beensubtly reshaped.Nor was it only Scotland that was reshaped by the conflict but

England too. Its involvement in its neighbour’s affairs across the Bor-der influenced its own development, realigning its internal balance andweighting it more heavily towards the south. It was the northern coun-ties that bore the brunt of the change. As well as suffering long-termdecline from destructive cross-border raids and loss of trade, in addi-tion to the uncertain economic conditions of the fourteenth century,they were also effectively abandoned by the government. With the lossof their ambitions in Scotland the rulers of England lost interest in thenorth of their kingdom.47 Any opportunity which the northern coun-ties might have had to become the hub of a prosperous coalition oftwo nations was taken from them. The kingdoms diverged, treated eachother with suspicion, looked to other alliances and developed alonglines very different from those they might have shared.48

Where does this leave Galloway? During several centuries of obliv-ion, with its lordship extinct, its traditional code of laws ultimatelylost, 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 separate-ness was kept alive in the common saying: ‘Out of Scotland and intoGalloway’. Now, following modern reorganisation of district bound-aries, its ancient name has been revived and its individuality restoredas 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 thework of many scholars for the formulation of my ideas and, in particular,to Robin Frame for expanding my horizons beyond the borders of Englandto the wider context of ‘Britain and Ireland’ during my years of study underhis guidance. I am also most grateful to Keith Stringer, who kindly read aninterim draft of this paper, for his helpful comments.

2. For a detailed study of Galloway’s development as an independent lordshipand its relations with its neighbours, see Oram, Lordship of Galloway, chapters2–3 and Stringer, ‘Periphery and Core’.

3. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 81, 102–3, 106–7, 141–8, 152–3. Only Roger deQuincy, earl of Winchester, husband of Alan’s eldest daughter Helen, hadany Scottish interests. Helen’s half-sisters, Christina and Dervorguilla, weremarried, respectively, to William de Forz earl of Aumale and John Balliol ofBarnard Castle.

4. Only since the seventeenth century has ‘Solway’, derived from ‘Sulwath’ oneof the several fords, been applied to the whole of the firth, but for ease of ref-erence the modern usage will apply throughout this paper; Neilson, Annalsof 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 Par-

liaments of Edward I’, 310, 311–13. The change in terminology is clearlydemonstrated by comparing nos. 19 and 33 in Anglo-Scottish Relations,although the English version of no. 33 is inconsistent in its translation ofterre.

8. The laws were still recognised as valid in 1384 but seem to have disappearedfrom 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 ofGalloway, 147–8, 207–8. John Balliol had held his share only since 1290 onthe death of his mother, Dervorguilla, the last surviving daughter of Alan.The shares of Dervorguilla’s co-heiresses were either incorporated into hersor diffused by a further generation of divisions. Two shares were now in thehands of absentee English lords, Ferrers and la Zouche; the third was held bythe Comyn earl of Buchan whose family became the biggest champion forthe Balliol cause.

10. Blakely, Brus Family, 20, 23–4, 86–7.



11. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 102–4.12. Duncan, ‘War of the Scots’, 138–41; McNamee,Wars of the Bruces, 39–41.13. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 106, 152, 153.14. CDS, II, nos. 728, 729; Watson, Under the Hammer, 21.15. Even before his deposition of King John, Edward envisaged Galloway as

being peculiarly his own, anticipating that the Balliol share of the lordshipwould fall to him by escheat to join John’s previously confiscated estates inEngland.

16. The last record of Thomas dates from 30 August 1296, when he was grantedrestoration of the lands his father had given him more than 60 years before.CDS, V, no. 162; Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 145.

17. CDS, II, no. 990, p. 253. This particular submission by 14 men of ‘the lineageof Clenafren’ has only survived because of its later use by Edward in 1298to convince the king of France that Balliol was not eligible to be negotiatedwith as king of Scots because his own subjects had repudiated him.

18. In 1299, following the death of Ingram de Balliol, Percy was confirmed byEdward I in the possession of his lands, including Urr in Galloway, becausethe other claimant, Ingram de Umfraville, was supporting the Scottish side.CDS, II, no. 1060.

19. CDS, II, nos. 908, 909, 910, 1179. Of the 22 hostages held in Carlisle castle,ten died.

20. 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 hadbeen taken prisoner after Dunbar, was serving with Edward in Flanders butlater deserted. CDS, II, nos 742, 839, 940, 961. Young, Robert the Bruce’s Rivals,166–7.

21. This was a timber bridge. The present stone bridge which bears Dervorguilla’sname dates from the fifteenth century.

22. Bridges built in later centuries were repeatedly washed away by torrentspouring from the hills; McCulloch, Galloway, 446–7.

23. ‘. . . the authority and security of a ruler [were] measured by his impactbeyond his territory’; Frame, Political Development, 26.

24. The bishops of Man and the Isles had also been under the authority of Yorkuntil 1153 when they were transferred to Nidaros (Trondheim) in Norway;McDonald, Kingdom of the Isles, 207.

25. Stringer, Reformed Church, 18–21. Watt, ‘Provincial Council’, 140–1. The sit-uation was exacerbated at the time of the Great Schism when Scotland andEngland were supporting rival popes, but the attachment had effectivelyceased by the early fifteenth century; Brooke, Wild Men and Holy Places,171–2.

26. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 56–7.27. Thomas of Dalton (or Kirkcudbright), bishop of Whithorn 1294–1319, was a

Bruce appointee and pro-English. He subsequently sought refuge in Carlislethen permanent exile in England; McCulloch, Galloway, 155, 167.

28. Willelmi Rishanger, 440–6; Stafford (ed.), Itinerary of Edward I, part ii, 158–61;Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 36.

29. Although it is not clear from which direction Prince Edward reachedWhithorn, there is evidence to suggest that he had been at Ayr and Turn-berry first; Prestwich, Edward I, 493–4. The visit was not without its problems,


Ruth M. Blakely 67

the image of St Ninian having been spirited away by the Scots to Sweetheartabbey but ‘miraculously’ returned the following day; CDS, II, no. 1225.

30. Duffy, ‘Bruce Brothers’, 58–9; Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 150; Frame, PoliticalDevelopment, 6, 7, 12.

31. See, for example, papers by Duffy and Lydon reprinted in Duffy (ed.), Robertthe Bruce’s Irish Wars; Duncan, ‘Scots’ Invasion of Ireland’, 100–17; Frame,‘Bruces in Ireland’.

32. Greeves, ‘Galloway Lands in Ulster’, 115–22.33. Barrow, Robert Bruce, 79–80, 270; Grant, ‘Scottish Foundations’, 98–9.34. CDS, II, nos. 894, 1049 (which should probably be dated 1303, not 1298);

Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 37.35. CDS, III, no. 14; McNamee,Wars of the Bruces, 57.36. Brooke,Wild Men and Holy Places, 155.37. McNamee,Wars of the Bruces, 58.38. 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, ‘allmust be on one [i.e., Bruce’s] side, or they must die or leave the country . . .’

39. Barrow, Robert Bruce, 279–85; McCulloch, Galloway, 167, 174–6; Oram,‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 41–2.

40. Barrow, Robert Bruce, 308–10. William de Soules, the figurehead of the con-spiracy, had Galloway connections, having obtained Cruggleton through hismother, a daughter of Alexander Comyn earl of Buchan. For a detailed studyof the affair, see Penman, ‘A Fell Coniuracioun’.

41. RRS, V, no. 457; Nicholson, Edward III and the Scots, 57–8; McCulloch,Galloway, 181 n. 37.

42. Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 42–3. For the effectsof Edward Balliol’s campaign on Galloway, see ibid., 43–7; Reid, ‘Edward deBalliol’, 38–63.

43. Nicholson, Edward III and the Scots, 160–1.44. During the early Scottish campaign Edward III transferred his government

offices and parliament to York, but they had returned to Westminster by1338. Ormrod, Reign of Edward III, 18, 54, 193; Waugh, England in the Reignof Edward III, 170.

45. CDS, IV, no. 92; Oram, ‘Bruce, Balliol and the Lordship of Galloway’, 46–7.Many earlier refugees, however, chose to remain in exile.

46. For the continuing situation in the Border region, see, for example, MacDon-ald, Border Bloodshed.

47. Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III, 78–9; MacDonald, Border Bloodshed,7, 196–241.

48. McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, 248–51; Frame, Political Development, 200–3;Frame, ‘Overlordship and Reaction’, 83.

49. Oram, Lordship of Galloway, xxi, xxii.


5Gascony and the Limitsof Medieval British Isles HistoryAndrea C. Ruddick

Since the publication of Robin Frame’s account of The Political Develop-ment of the British Isles, the ‘British history’ project to move away from acompartmentalised, often anglocentric, ‘four nations’ approach towardsa more integrated study of the interactions between the constituentparts of Britain and Ireland has become an established feature of the his-toriographical landscape.1 Yet it has never been an entirely unproblem-atic concept. Proponents of British history emphasise the importanceof not simply replacing one rigid paradigm (that of Whiggish nationalhistoriography) with another, equally rigid one, and present the Britishapproach as complementary to the continued validity of studies of indi-vidual nations.2 Nonetheless, the British Isles have increasingly cometo be uncritically accepted as the most appropriate social, political andgeographical context for historians of its respective parts, without whichtheir individual histories cannot be properly understood. It is salutary,then, to remind ourselves that ‘Britain’, and even the ‘British Isles’, arejust as artificial and historically contingent a political construction asthe four nations from which they are formed, despite their undoubtedconvenience in forming a neat geographical unit. Moreover, we needto bear in mind Conrad Russell’s warning that the ‘British history’approach can be applied more convincingly to some periods of historythan to others.3

The Middle Ages, however, are often pinpointed as an ideal period forsuch an approach, particularly the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, dur-ing which Anglo-Norman political and economic expansion spilled overnational boundaries and brought a degree of cultural and political uni-formity to the British Isles, under a ruling elite who, it is argued, shareda ‘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 BritishIsles from Westminster, and the chronicler Peter Langtoft dreamed ofa quasi-Arthurian single monarchy under Edward I that would unitethe whole of Britain.5 The four centuries after 1066 have been con-vincingly characterised as a process of the expanding, often forcible,anglicisation of the rest of the British Isles, and then its gradual retreatand failure in the face of local resistance (and the ‘distraction’ of waragainst France) which, in turn, sharpened a sense of national identityin the non-English parts.6 Yet this is just one part of the story. As Framehas pointed out, there are reasons to question the appropriateness oftaking the British Isles as our default ‘mental arena’.7 The experienceof Scotland, for instance, which remained an independent kingdom inthe Middle Ages for all but a brief episode, is too often neglected bythe tendency to view the medieval British Isles as a single, anglicised,political unit.8 Even more problematic for the current grand narrativeof an English royal project to dominate Britain and Ireland, however,is the fact that the kings of England were also continental rulers.9 Thisstake in continental politics included a number of areas over the years:the Channel Islands, the county of Ponthieu (from 1279), Calais (from1347) and English Normandy in the early fifteenth century. However,the most enduring continental role in the period was the position ofthe king of England as duke of Aquitaine. Acquired by the Englishcrown in 1154 through Henry II’s marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine twoyears earlier, the connection lasted until the close of the Hundred YearsWar in 1453.10 Consequently, it was the duchy of Aquitaine and theoverlapping territory of Gascony which represented the most constantreminder of the king of England’s commitments and ambitions beyondthe 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 incor-porated into our narrative of the medieval history of the British Islesand, in addition, the extent to which this prompts a reconsideration ofthe notion of ‘British history’ in the period. Did this territory and itspeople form part of the ‘common world’ which, to a greater or lesserextent, united England and the rest of the British Isles? Or should it,as might be inferred from the minimal references to Gascony in muchrecent historiography, be viewed as somewhere entirely separate, andhaving little to do with the proper royal business of domination andconquest within the British Isles?A good starting point is the constitutional status of Aquitaine in rela-

tion to the king’s other lands. As noted above, the duchy was acquiredthrough 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 heldAnjou, Maine and Touraine in north-west France, so the acquisitionof Aquitaine added a new focus in the south-west. After the loss ofNormandy in 1204 and the surrender of most other French territoriesin the treaty of Paris in 1259, however, Gascony formed the main sub-stance of the king of England’s continental possessions.12 This treaty hadsignificant implications for the status of Aquitaine vis-à-vis the Englishcrown. The duchy now stood in an anomalous position among the kingof England’s lands, in that it was held by him as the vassal of anothersovereign ruler, the king of France, at a time when definitions of feu-dal obligation were being sharpened across western Europe. Before this,the parts of Gascony that did not fall under the comté of Poitou hadbeen considered an allod, autonomous from Capetian rule. By the termsof 1259, however, the whole duchy was held of the French king byliege homage, so that its duke owed him homage and fealty. Englishlawyers and diplomats attempted to circumvent the demeaning associ-ations of this relationship with tactics such as delays in performance ofhomage and the use of proxies. In addition, a more radical argumentbased on Gascony’s former allodial status was developed to argue thatit was not, in fact, part of the kingdom of France, but this continuedto be a matter for debate. The tensions generated by this unequal rela-tionship of equals, most notably when they spilled over into armedconflict, 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 inhabi-tants of Gascony could always appeal to a higher source of authority,a situation which the Capetian monarchy was happy to exploit. As aresult, a considerable portion of crown officials’ workload in Gasconywas taken up by dealing with appeals to the Paris parlement.14 This wasin sharp contrast to the position claimed by the king of England as thesupreme overlord of all his territories within the British Isles, and it setGascony 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 chroniclesand official documents, as parliaments were summoned and proclama-tions were made concerning the business of the kingdom of Englandand ‘our lands of Gascony, Wales, Ireland and Scotland’.15 This was alsoreflected 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 whichoverlordship of Scotland was sometimes added after 1291, althoughWales, annexed to the English crown in 1284, was omitted.16 The per-ceived unity of Gascony with other royal domains is also evident in its



parcelling out to members of the royal family. In 1254, the duchy wasincluded along with Chester, Wales and Ireland as part of the appanagegranted to the Lord Edward; on his accession to the throne in 1272,it was therefore restored to the king of England and was subsequentlyregarded as inalienably attached to the English crown.17 In the 1360s,Aquitaine was again viewed together with the king’s British lands aspart of a collection of resources for distribution among his sons. TheBlack Prince received the duchy as a principality in 1362, alongside hisroles as prince of Wales and earl of Chester, at the same time as hisyounger brother Lionel was appointed king’s lieutenant in Ireland, andJohn of Gaunt became duke of Lancaster.18 Aquitaine reverted to theking’s hands in 1372, but was again granted out in 1390, this timeto John of Gaunt, although Richard II’s attempts to make him dukefoundered on resistance from the Bordeaux Estates, where it was arguedthat this would represent separation from the crown.19 Throughout itsattachment to the English crown, therefore, the duchy of Aquitaine wasofficially regarded as part of a coherent package of royal lands. At thelevel of official rhetoric, this was reflected in the similarity between thevocabulary used to address the inhabitants of Gascony and the lan-guage used elsewhere in the king’s other domains. Although Gasconswere considered, in legal terms, aliens in the kingdom of England,in common with inhabitants of Wales and Ireland they were alsodescribed as subjects of the king of England until the fifteenth century.20

Consequently, they were frequently grouped together in diplomatic doc-uments, as inhabitants of distinct lands but the same political world:‘all . . .our fideles and subjects in our lands of Gascony and the duchy ofAquitaine, England, Ireland [and] Wales’, as one letter from Edward I toofficials in Aquitaine put it in 1296.21 This should be qualified by not-ing that in Aquitaine, at least before Edward III claimed the throne ofFrance in 1337, the duchy’s inhabitants were not subject to the Englishking as a king, but in his capacity as their duke. It seems that theking played on this ambiguity, however, describing himself as rex etdux in most official letters, even before 1337.22 In this way, Gasconyand its people were implicitly drawn under the broader political author-ity of the king of England, along with his subjects in Britain andIreland.To note the inclusion of Gascony alongside the king’s other lands

in official rhetoric is one thing; to discover whether this went beyondrhetoric is another. To do so, it is necessary to look more closely at theactual administration of Gascony under Plantagenet rule, not only tocompare it with arrangements elsewhere in the king’s domains, but also



to examine how integrated were Gascon government and personnel intothis wider network of lands and governance. To ask this question is alsoto engage with the broader question of the extent to which the king’sdomains as a whole functioned as an integrated political unit. For, ifGascony was viewed by the English crown as part of this collection oflands, it makes sense to include the duchy of Aquitaine in our analysisof how the king’s lands functioned as a whole, a question that has, todate, been largely the agenda of ‘British history’.23

The government of Gascony certainly had structural similarities toother territories under the king of England’s rule. One feature of thiswas the appointment of a vice-regal figure who could act on the king’sbehalf in his absence as, from the mid-thirteenth century, the king’spresence in England became more or less permanent.24 In Ireland andin conquered parts of Wales, this took the form of a justiciar, and in theChannel Islands the warden; in the duchy of Aquitaine, the equivalentfigure was the seneschal, whose extensive but vaguely delineated mil-itary, financial, judicial and political responsibilities gradually evolvedover the thirteenth century.25 The situation was clarified considerablyduring Edward I’s prolonged stay in the duchy from 1286 to 1289, whichculminated in a comprehensive overhaul of the Gascon administrationand a set of ordinances which laid out the responsibilities of all officials.The role of the seneschal was now more clearly defined as mainly diplo-matic, administrative and judicial, his overarching task remaining thedefence 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 ofknightly rank who was experienced in crown service, rather than by anative. Consequently, the seneschal personified a royal authority whichcould, by this point, be properly described as English.27 In times of par-ticular political sensitivity, again as elsewhere, the seneschal’s authoritycould be superseded by the appointment of a king’s lieutenant, oftenof 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 theseneschal, an example of the delegated governance that characterisedrule 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, andin which the Gascon administration had the most in common witharrangements elsewhere, is that of finance.29 The Bordeaux exchequer,created in 1255 under the Lord Edward, was the most anglicised insti-tution found in Aquitaine in the period. From 1289, the main financial



responsibility was placed in the hands of the constable of Bordeaux,whose tasks included the collection of rents and customs (most notablyfrom the lucrative Bordeaux wine trade), payment of wages and compil-ing accounts. Like the seneschal, the constable was rarely a native – mostwere English, with a proven record in the financial or diplomatic serviceof the English crown.30 Again, this has parallels with equivalent chieffinancial officers elsewhere – the chamberlain in Wales, the treasurer inIreland and the receiver in the Channel Islands similarly all headed theirown local exchequers.31 The constable was aided in his task by varioussubordinates: the controller, exchequer clerks and an array of provin-cial receivers and tax collectors. Despite this well-organised structure,however, the form of the accounts changed with each new constableand receipts varied greatly from year to year, often leaving the consta-ble short of funds. This was not helped by the complexity of the task,as information flowed in from the provinces, each with their own typesof rent and dues, and their accounts often late and incomplete.32 From1293, Gascon accounts were required to be presented for an annual auditat the English exchequer in Westminster, along with those from Ireland.This brought Gascony and Ireland in line with Wales and the ChannelIslands; Calais would follow in 1360. In Gascony, this practice continued(apart from a brief hiatus under the Black Prince) until the 1450s.33 Thisincreased supervision reflects an overall trend across the king’s lands inthe late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries towards greater finan-cial centralisation at the English exchequer, which perhaps representedthe high point of financial integration within the king’s domains. Evenwith this centralisation, however, the Gascon accounts did not achieveany great level of uniformity, and constables continued to struggle withmounting arrears with little assistance from the English government.34

The problems became particularly intense in wartime; the parliamentrolls from 1330, for example, contain a string of petitions from Adamof Lymbergh, who had been constable during the war of Saint-Sardosin 1323–1324, and still had not been reimbursed for the consider-able expenses incurred during that time. In 1341–1342, meanwhile,the seneschal Sir Oliver Ingham was unable to pay his troops on topof the high cost of maintaining local defences and buying off baronswhose loyalties were not secure.35 In addition to showing the particularexpenses faced by the Gascon administration, this latter situation alsoillustrates the impact of Gascony’s relationship with the king’s widerdomains on its finances, for the problems in 1341 were largely due tothe financial crisis in Edward III’s home government at the time.36 Thisknock-on effect was not a new experience; Edward I and Edward II had



both been forced to rely on Gascon revenues to service their debts toItalian bankers and other creditors (including, at one point, the GasconPope Clement V) to the extent that Gascon revenues granted for cam-paigns in Scotland were pledged in advance to creditors even beforecollection.37 Consequently, there was little money to spare in the duchyto repay old debts or to pay Gascon troops and officials, whose wagesfell further and further into arrears. The financial integration of royaldomains 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 Englishrevenues; between 1348 and 1361, more than half of the expenditure bythe Gascon administration came from the English exchequer.38 By thefifteenth century, as the costs of war and decline in wine exports tooktheir toll, the Gascon administration was forced into expedients such asloans, increased judicial fines and debasement of the coinage, while itbecame clear that subsidies from England would not be forthcoming. Asthe attention of the Lancastrian government shifted to northern France,Gascony was the poor relation when it came to getting a share of thecrown’s resources. Indeed, the lack of English taxation in 1451–1453contributed directly to the fall of Bordeaux, the nail in the coffin ofthe English presence in Gascony.39 This, too, had parallels with situa-tions elsewhere, notably in Ireland, which similarly became a financialliability for the English crown from the late fourteenth century.40 Inboth cases, part of the problem was the unwillingness and inability ofthe king’s English subjects to accept the extension of their obligationto provide for the defence of the realm to the king’s lands overseas,particularly as an ongoing concern in peacetime. This was not a newproblem; in the political and financial crisis of 1294–1297, the reluc-tance of Edward I’s leading nobles to serve overseas in Gascony wasone of the key issues at stake.41 However, the extent to which Englandwas responsible for the defence of the king’s other domains contin-ued to be a topic for debate in English parliaments throughout thefourteenth century and beyond. Indeed, by the early fifteenth century,royal policy itself had shifted away from the centralisation of the ear-lier period towards the view that the crown’s wider domains should beself-financing.42

Gascony was not always unprofitable, however; for many years itwas a valuable and well-integrated part of the transfer of resources thatwent on between different parts of the king’s domains. Financial aidsand fouage hearth taxes were granted on a one-off basis from Gascon



towns and nobles at various points under Edward I. The duchy hadcontributed funds, troops and victuals to his successful Welsh cam-paign in 1282, and also supplies for the Scottish wars in 1306, andGascon nobles served in Scotland under Edward II in return for wagesand rewards.43 There was, however, no regular English tax on Gascony,nor any traditional obligation to serve the king-duke in Scotland, andno centralised representative institutions for negotiations existed. Con-sequently, when the English government sought Gascon aid for thecrisis on the Anglo-Scottish borders in 1315, the embassy of Englishand Gascon nobles sent by Edward II to the duchy were acting withoutprecedent. As Elizabeth Brown’s detailed study of this fundraising oper-ation has shown, their campaign of letters of non-prejudice, plannedregional assemblies and meetings with individual towns and nobles metwith limited success. By 1316, the envoys had garnered a reasonable(although far from generous) collection of pledges, but collection wasslow. Even so, it was successful enough to encourage further fundrais-ing drives for war in Scotland from 1321 to 1323, which had thesame limited but nonetheless helpful results.44 This had parallels withtaxation elsewhere in the king’s lands. The same pattern of the kingraising local taxes in his capacity as lord of a particular place, ratherthan as king of England, by means of negotiations with local repre-sentative assemblies, also appeared not just in Ireland, Wales and theChannel Islands, but also within the English regnum, in liberties suchas Durham and Chester.45 There were correspondences on a theoreticallevel, too. Historians have noted how Henry III and Edward I’s insistenceon the inseparability of dominions such as Ireland and Gascony fromthe crown strengthened the idea that the various lands under the king’srule should contribute to the defence of the king’s dominions in gen-eral, rather than just within their own borders. This gave a theoreticalbacking to the extension of extraordinary taxation beyond the Englishregnum to all the king’s lands in times of urgent necessity, as traditionalfeudal levies proved inadequate to meet the rising costs of war.46 Theevident reluctance with which the Gascon population supported thecauses of their king-duke suggests that there was little sense of obliga-tion to a wider political unit, despite the development of sophisticatedofficial justifications for taxation.47 Yet even the reluctance with whichthe inhabitants of Gascony participated in this transfer of resources gavethem something in common with the mentalité of their fellow subjects,who were equally reluctant to view Gascony as worthy of either theirattention or their purse-strings. By the early fourteenth century, there-fore, the duchy of Aquitaine could certainly be described as integrated,



albeit grudgingly and inefficiently, into the financial systems of theking’s domains as a whole.The role played by representative assemblies, too, bears comparison

with situations elsewhere. In contrast to the frequently summonedIrish parliament, with its judicial, legislative and tax-granting functions,regional assemblies within the duchy of Aquitaine in the thirteenthand early fourteenth centuries were infrequent and embryonic, withill-defined powers.48 Some regions, such as the Agenais, had a strongertradition of local estates, which had grown out of seigneurial courts,but these were on the wane by the late thirteenth century.49 It is onlyfrom the later fourteenth century that the demands and deliberationsof regional assemblies in Gascony begin to appear more regularly andto resemble the kind of king–subject dialogue that was taking placein England and Ireland. In 1368, for example, an assembly met atAngoulême to grant the Black Prince a fouage in return for redress ofgrievances drawn up by the nobles.50 In 1395, by which time a morecoherent ‘Three Estates of Guyenne’ had emerged, comprising nobles,prelates and towns, representatives were sufficiently self-conscious andself-confident about their role to declare that any tax raised withoutthe free consent of the whole country would not be considered bind-ing. In the same year the Three Estates was involved in negotiating asettlement 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 artic-ulating reservations about Gaunt’s rule. Even in the fifteenth century,however, the assembly does not appear to have met regularly or to havehad clearly recognised powers.51 Nor was it at the beck and call of theEnglish monarch; in 1390, the count of Armagnac had summoned theThree Estates from various regions on his own initiative, to organise adelegation to Charles VI of France.52 This did not mean that Gasconsubjects had no means of communication with their king-duke priorto the late fourteenth century. From the reign of Edward I, Gasconpetitions were heard along with those from the king’s other lands inthe English parliament. This system became more institutionalised overtime, with panels of receivers and auditors specially appointed at eachparliament. The Gascon panels included not only key figures fromthe duchy from time to time, such as the constable of Bordeaux andleading nobles, but also English bishops, magnates and judges, whowere not necessarily expert in Gascon affairs.53 Consequently, as Gas-con affairs were drawn into the business of the English parliament andcouncil, the king of England was able to underline the essential unityof his authority in Gascony with his authority elsewhere, not only to



his subjects at home and abroad, but also to the rival court of appealin Paris.Yet, despite these administrative and financial parallels, Gascony

was in many ways distinct from the king’s British lands in its gov-ernmental culture. Unlike Wales and Ireland, there was little Englishsettlement, a difference which has prompted some to dispute Labarge’sdescription of Gascony as a ‘colony’.54 The duchy also retained itsown law and customs, in contrast to the extension of English com-mon law to Wales and Ireland that followed their respective conquestsand, in Wales, the anglicising reform of native law codes. Moreover,in both of these lands, these legal developments led ultimately tothe institutionalisation of discrimination between native and settlerpopulations, a situation that never occurred in Gascony.55 When itcame to local government, Aquitaine retained a much more nativeflavour than Ireland and Wales, where English rule was mediatedthrough the reproduction of English institutions, offices and terminol-ogy. In respect of territorial divisions, Gascony was organised undersub-seneschals who ruled over long-established regions, some of whichdated back to its time as a province of Roman Gaul, in contrast tothe newly created English-style shires, counties and boroughs of Walesand Ireland.56 Similarly, in place of English offices, such as the sher-iff and coroner, that were transplanted into Welsh and Irish society,Gascon local offices were based on traditional positions, such as sub-seneschals, castellans, prévots and baillis, and nearly all were filled byGascons.57 The contrast with the king’s other lands here should notbe exaggerated; there was also a degree of accommodation with exist-ing local structures in Wales, which had a relatively well-developedpolitical infrastructure at its conquest, and in the Channel Islands,which had previously formed part of the duchy of Normandy. Welshshires, for example, were superimposed over the traditional territorialand administrative division of the commote (although this was trans-formed into the English hundred), and certain minor Welsh officeswere retained alongside the new, English ones, and could be held byWelshmen. Welshmen never held the more significant offices, suchas sheriff or constable of a castle, however, in contrast to the acces-sibility of all but the highest-ranking posts to Gascon notables.58 Infourteenth-century Ireland, the traditional native dynasties were evenless integrated into English political structures, with office-holding, legalstatus and parliamentary representation all reserved for the Anglo-Irishelite. In contrast to the Irish justiciar’s council of Anglo-Irish mag-nates and senior ministers, meanwhile, the seneschal’s council consisted



of native Gascon clergy, burgesses, legal clerks and barons, whoseadvice provided the necessary continuity and local expertise for thenormal functioning of government, in the face of a (sometimes rapid)succession of seneschals.59

These disparities reflect more fundamental differences betweenAquitaine and the king’s territories in the British Isles. The absence ofEnglish settlers in any great number in Gascony obviously made thecrown reliant on the native nobility to fill official positions, as there wasno equivalent to the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. Behind this, however, laya more significant factor: the fact, noted already, that Aquitaine was ahereditary fief held by liege homage of the king of France. Consequently,it stood in a wholly different constitutional position from the con-quered lands of Wales and Ireland (and, at times, Scotland).60 Gasconywas not viewed as a blank canvas on which English-style governanceand reforms needed to be imposed, but as a long-established, semi-autonomous duchy with its own administration and political culture.Moreover, while the king’s British lands were regarded as subjugatedenemy territories inhabited by Celtic barbarians, the governing classesof Aquitaine shared with their English counterparts the ‘civilised’ social,moral and cultural values of francophone elite culture current acrossEurope at the time.61 Plantagenet rule in Gascony, therefore, stood onan entirely different ideological and practical footing from the patternsof domination and conquest that characterised royal government in theBritish 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 cross-border landholding and careers of several aristocratic families basedin Britain and Ireland during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.62

There has, however, been little consideration of the extent to whichthe Gascon elite fitted into this ‘British’ political world. Basic biogra-phies have been constructed for most seneschals and constables, but,as already noted, these posts were usually held by Englishmen.63 Oneexception was Amaury de Craon, who served as seneschal from 1313until 1316, and again from 1320–1322. Amaury came from a prominentnoble family and had a history of service to both the English and theFrench crowns. Indeed, one of his first tasks as seneschal was to mediatebetween the two kings in negotiations over disputed clauses of earlierpeace treaties. His local influence was also valuable, as seen in his roleon the tax commission of 1315, an appointment which made use ofnot only his official position, but also his prestige as a local lord. Yethis interests were not restricted to the duchy. In 1320, he was granted



custody of the lands in England and Ireland of his daughter-in-lawMarguerite during her minority, along with their issues, as a reward forhis services to the crown. This stake in British lands was not without itsinconveniences; in 1324, his Irish lands were seized, along with those ofother aliens, because Amaury was ‘of the power of the king of France’,although these were soon restored in recognition of his loyalty. None ofthis meant that Amaury was present in England or Ireland very often,however. His involvement in the fundraising campaign of 1315–1316meant that he was unable to attend the parliament to which he wassummoned in 1316, and the patent rolls contain numerous letters con-firming his appointment of attorneys to sort out his English and Irishaffairs 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 Englandand Ireland throughout the 1330s, during which time he was simulta-neously an absentee prebendary of Stillington of St Peter’s, York, andYatesbury of St Mary’s, Salisbury. Such measures were evidently nec-essary to protect his British interests; in October 1337, like his fatherbefore him, Peter’s English lands were confiscated because he was ‘bybirth of the power of the king of France’, but restored on account ofhis good service.65 Holding land and office in the British Isles, how-ever, clearly did not necessarily create strong British connections forGascon families in terms of marriages, mobility and involvement inlocal 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 withde Craon on the 1315 tax embassy. As lord of the Albret family’s exten-sive lands since 1298, Amanieu was an influential figure in Gasconpolitics, to the extent that, in 1305, one enemy complained that ‘thereis no other king in Gascony except him’.66 Amanieu’s allegiance wasfar from constant; he did not take sides in the Anglo-French conflictimmediately, but played the two kings off against one another, while hepursued local private wars. This included a long-running dispute withthe one-time seneschal, John Ferrars, which resulted in Amanieumakingan appeal to the Paris parlement in 1312.67 He defected to the French in1324 during the war of Saint-Sardos although, at the time of his death in1326, reconciliation with Edward II was in progress.68 Despite this che-quered history, he served Edward I and Edward II in various capacities,which included fighting in Gascony and Scotland, acting as an ambas-sador to the French court and the papal curia and, on one occasion,serving as a hostage on diplomatic business in Aragon. His wealth alsomeant that he was able to provide Edward II with several loans, with



little hope of speedy repayment.69 His services were rewarded in otherways, however, including lands in England; in 1299, he was granted thecastle and manor of Tickhill until such time as his lands in Gasconywere restored, having been seized by the king of France for his adher-ence to Edward. He also held lands in Cheshire, where an order in 1300from the justice of Chester to provide timber for repairs to his manor ofFrodsham perhaps indicates a slightly neglectful attitude to his Englishpossessions.70 In addition, like Peter de Craon, he was also granted var-ious English ecclesiastical posts, all held in absence, a cheaper measurethan raising his salary in the duchy. He also used his position on at leastone occasion to obtain a post for an equally absent relative.71 That hedid make trips to England is suggested by the letters of safe conduct thatwere issued to him and his agents on various occasions, but the mainfocus of his activity was the duchy itself. Indeed, in a career which tookhim all over Europe in the king of England’s service, and which wasrewarded with various lands and offices in England, his Gascon interestscontinued to dominate his horizons.72

Amanieu’s son Bernard Ezii continued in the family footsteps, oscil-lating between the French and the English kings before opting forEdward III in 1339. As a result, his French lands were confiscated bythe French king, but in compensation he received several land grantsfrom Edward III, and privileges including the right to set tolls withinhis lands, and the profits of the mints at Bordeaux and Dax.73 His con-siderable prestige led to him being given not only local responsibilities,but also more internationally significant diplomatic duties, includingpowers in 1344 to admit former adherents of Philip of Valois in theduchy into Edward’s obedience, and a role as an envoy in 1342 in mar-riage negotiations between Edward’s daughter and the king of Castile’sson.74 Financially, Bernard was another useful source of loans, althoughrepayments predictably quickly went into arrears and had to be madeup with advances from the wool grant being collected in England. Infact, arrangements were still being made to calculate and repay theoutstanding debts in the 1350s.75 He also contributed men to the wareffort, and in 1340 he was appointed as a captain and lieutenant ofthe king in the duchy, along with another Gascon nobleman. In 1351,consequently, he received a generous grant out of London customs, inexpectation of lands and rents to the equivalent value in England orAquitaine, and a marriage was even mooted between his son and theking’s daughter Isabel, although in the event this came to nothing.76

Moreover, while his father was still lord of Albret, Bernard held posts asarchdeacon of Canterbury and parson of Walpole, a pluralist absentee



like his father.77 Nonetheless, he clearly did travel between England andFrance on royal service; in August 1351, letters were issued permittinghim to exchange money in London without hindrance, because he wasreturning to Aquitaine on the king’s business, and by 1352 he was backin England, serving as an auditor of Gascon petitions at the Englishparliament.78 The Plantagenet alliance died with Bernard in 1359, how-ever, as his son Arnaud-Amanieu opted for an advantageous marriageinto the French royal family in 1368, after a decade of wavering.79 TheAlbret connection with the English crown, therefore, was in the end arelatively shallow one, based on continued mutual benefit. The lords ofAlbret were always, first and foremost, powerful local lords in Gascony,who had little desire or incentive to become enmeshed in the social andpolitical 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 exam-ple, the Gascon knight Peter Libaud.80 In contrast to the nobles, themore lowly Peter spent a considerable portion of his career in theBritish Isles. The first official mention of him appears in 1311, as somelands granted to him in Scotland by Edward II were resumed underthe Ordinances. This suggests that Peter already had a history of royalservice in Scotland, and by 1312 he was constable of Edinburgh cas-tle and of the peels of Linlithgow and Livingston.81 His success didnot last for long, however. Chroniclers varied in their accounts of thefall of Edinburgh castle to the Scots in 1314, but several placed theblame on Peter’s shoulders. Both the Historia Aurea and the Vita EdwardiSecundi recorded that the castle fell through Peter’s treachery, whilein the Scalacronica, Sir Thomas Gray blamed his neglect of the castledefences.82 Barbour’s Bruce, meanwhile, claimed that the English garri-son suspected Peter of treason while the siege was still underway andimprisoned him, appointing a man ‘of their own nation’ as constableinstead. Gray and Barbour also noted that Peter changed sides when thecastle fell, something that is substantiated by official documents fromScotland, which record his later execution by Robert Bruce, who wasapparently unconvinced by his change of allegiance.83 What is notableabout all these accounts is that they suggest considerable distrust oftheir Gascon constable by the English garrison, despite his previoushistory of service in Scotland. This may not have been without justifica-tion, as his subsequent defection indicates. However, as with chroniclereferences to Gaveston, writers always note Libaut’s Gascon identityas a salient fact.84 This suggests, at the very least, that Gascons con-tinued to be regarded as identifiably foreign, if not necessarily always



suspect, when their service to the king took them beyond the borders ofAquitaine.It appears, then, that in respect of personnel, as with administration

and finance, Gascony was at once an integrated part of the political andgovernmental culture of the English king’s dominions and yet, at thesame time, stood apart from it. The differences between Aquitaine andthe king’s British lands were, constitutionally speaking, profound andthis had an important influence on the ways in which the devolvedgovernment common to all of the king’s lands developed differentlyin Gascony. The duchy’s status as an inherited fief rather than a con-quered land, along with its geographical separation from the British Islesand minimal English settlement, produced a region that retained muchof its own political culture under Plantagenet rule. Aquitaine kept itsown laws and customs and local administrative structures, and officeswere held by Gascon natives to a much higher level than elsewhere inthe king’s domains. The well-established native nobility were rewardedwith lands elsewhere, but chose to focus largely on their careers withinGascony, rather than branching out across the British Isles in the waythat 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 noblesthe opportunity to play off Plantagenet and Capetian rulers against oneanother to their own advantage. The Gascon elite, therefore, while theyshared much of the political culture of English royal governance, cannotbe as straightforwardly categorised as belonging to the ‘common world’of the British aristocracy as their English, Scottish and Anglo-Irish coun-terparts. Indeed, the anomalous constitutional position of Aquitainegave Plantagenet rule in Gascony a completely different ideological basisfrom 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 interms of the overarching themes of English domination and governance.Throughout the period, Aquitaine was regarded as an integral part of theking of England’s lands. Gascony was frequently involved in the trans-fer of money, manpower and provisions between different parts of theking’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 andits relationship to Westminster: the role of the seneschal and other offi-cials, the receipt of Gascon petitions at the English parliament and thecreation of a subordinate local exchequer, for example. Similarities also



appear in the structural problems that emerged in Gascony and else-where – again, most notably in Ireland – as the costs of governance anddefence rose while their revenues declined. Consequently, both Gasconyand Ireland, once viewed as valued resources, came to be seen as expen-sive burdens by the late fourteenth century. Moreover, the situationin both of these lands demonstrates how closely connected were thefortunes of the different parts of the king’s domains with the politi-cal events and resultant needs and priorities that emerged in England,even while developments in these outlying regions in turn influencedpolicy and problems in England. To this extent, then, the affairs ofAquitaine impinged upon and were inextricably involved in the pol-itics of England and, more broadly, the whole British Isles, in a waythat makes them difficult to ignore when writing a history of medievalBritain. Indeed, almost in spite of their attempts to stay within a ‘British’framework, Gascony keeps on creeping into historians’ accounts ofmedieval British history.85 The anomalous and yet strangely familiarshape of English government in Gascony certainly suggests that cau-tion is required before we restrict ourselves to a British paradigm. Yetwhat Gascony may demonstrate is not so much the limits of ‘Britishhistory’, but rather its extent – even beyond the British Isles them-selves. The extent of the power and reach of the English crown in thelater Middle Ages represented something that was both less than (withregard to Scotland and much of Ireland) and also more than British Islesmonarchy. Frame has suggested that, in writing British history, ‘as wellas looking over the partition walls, we need to do some thinking aboutthe design of the building itself’.86 It is the suggestion of this chapterthat the building plans might from now on include an annexe for theking 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 andIreland. This article was written during a British Academy PostdoctoralFellowship.

2. For example, Pocock, ‘British History’, 613; Davies, ‘In Praise of BritishHistory’, 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 isno logical case for a medieval British history’, quote at 3. Frame, PoliticalDevelopment, 3; ‘Overlordship and Reaction’.



4. Davies, ‘In Praise of British History’, 14; Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 164. Seealso 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 beadopted here. However, their precise legal and territorial definitions hadimportant historical differences, a fact which increasingly mattered indiplomatic negotiations during the Hundred Years War, see Labarge, Gas-cony, 1–5; Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 6, 60–2; Curry, HundredYears 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 YearsWar, 9–15.

13. Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 48–63, 175–269; Curry, Hundred YearsWar, 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 UnderEnglish 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. Chron-icle of Pierre de Langtoft, II, 188; Denholm-Young (ed.), Vita EdwardiSecundi, 20; Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, 230, 348–9, 364, 371,375, 384.

16. Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy, I, 248–50. For references toScotland, 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 61/53m. 34 (1340); TNA C 61/56 m. 5 (1344); TNA C 61/68 m. 6 (1356).



23. Davies, First English Empire; ‘English State’; Frame, Political Development; LePatourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 289–308; Ormrod, ‘English State andPlantagenet Empire’.

24. Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 296–8.25. Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 138–9; J. P. Trabut-Cussac, L’Administra-

tion Anglaise, 141–62; Labarge, Gascony, 11–14; cf. Davies, Conquest, Coex-istence and Change, 340, 364; Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of theChannel 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 Administra-tion of the Channel Islands, 30; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Chief Governors’, 23–5.Although cf. comments by Vale, Origins of the Hundred Years War, 6 andLe Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 308, who question the concept of‘English’ Gascony.

28. Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 137–8; Vale, English Gascony, 7; Trabut-Cussac, L’Administration Anglaise, 218–23 cf. the appointment of Lionel ofAntwerp, earl of Ulster, in 1360 as the king’s lieutenant in Ireland, forexample, Duffy, Ireland in the Middle Ages, 152–4; Otway-Ruthven, ‘ChiefGovernors’, 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 UnderEnglish 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’AdministrationAnglaise, 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 Stateand Plantagenet Empire’, 206–10, 213. See Labarge, Gascony, 154–6 on theBlack 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 thesame 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; Johnstoneand Stuart, ‘Richard of Elsfield’, 26–7, 29–32.



38. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, 329–32, 344–5, 476; Shaping theNation, 61–2; Frame, Political Development, 137.

39. Vale, English Gascony, 8–9, 11–14, 152–3, 216–19; Vale, ‘Last years of EnglishGascony’, 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, Planta-genet 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 theLater 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 Administra-

tion of the Channel Islands, 111–12; Richardson and Sayles, Administrationof 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 YearWar, 6; cf. Green, ‘Lordship and Principality’, where the author argues thatrule in Aquitaine may have had more of a ‘colonial’ character under theBlack Prince’s regime from 1362. On settlement in Wales, see Davies, Con-quest, Coexistence and Change, 87–99, 371–3; Lordship and Society, 303–6; onIreland, 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 C61/43 m. 20 (1331); TNA C 61/56 m. 9 (1344); cf. Davies, Conquest, Coex-istence 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 andConquest, 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,



Coexistence and Change, 364–6, 372–3; Frame, Political Development, 87–8,157; Otway-Ruthven, ‘Anglo-Irish Shire Government’.

57. Lodge, Gascony Under English Rule, 142–4; Trabut-Cussac, L’AdministrationAnglaise, 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’.

58. Le Patourel, Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands, 28–9, 36–7;Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 364–6; Frame, Political Develop-ment, 157, 207–10.

59. 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.

60. Le Patourel, ‘Plantagenet Dominions’, 306.61. 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 theHundred Years War, 21–47; Vale, Princely Court, 282–300.

62. For example, Stringer, ‘Nobility and Identity’; Frame, ‘Aristocracies’.63. For example, Rôles Gascons, III, xix–lxxxiii, lxxxviii–cii; Gascon Rolls,

1307–17, xviii–xxxi; Lodge, ‘Constables of Bordeaux’, 230–7.64. 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., CPR1292–1301, 443; CPR 1301–07, 234; CPR 1317–21, 498, 499; CPR 1324–7,88; TNA SC 8/39/15447 (1324×33).

65. CPR 1330–4, 104, 401; CPR 1334–8, 12, 27, 534; CPR 1338–40, 49; CCR1337–9, 191.

66. Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 377–81; Vale, English Gascony, 159–60.67. Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies’, 64–6; Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 381–2.

This was not unusual behaviour for the Gascon nobility, see Vale, EnglishGascony, 170–9.

68. Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 381–2.69. 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; fordiplomatic 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.

70. CPR 1292–1301, 433. See also CCR 1302–07, 58. Tickhill had previouslybeen held by another Gascon family, having been taken into the king’shands during the recent war from Constance, who was the recentlydeceased daughter of Gaston de Béarn, and widow of one of Edward I’scousins, Henry of Almaine, see Weir, Britain’s Royal Family, 344.

71. Amanieu was, at various points, treasurer of Wells, archdeacon ofHuntingdon, a canon of Lincoln and parson of Horncastle, see CPR1307–13, 47, 140, 141. One of his nephews was a prebendary of Nassyngtonin Lincoln, see CPR 1313–7, 352. See also CCR 1296–1302, 314–15.



72. CPR 1307–13, 526. See Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 382: ‘Il n’a jamaisperdu 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 youngerbrother, Berard le Bret, who is described as ‘the king’s yeoman’ (CPR1324–7, 254) and who also provided money and manpower for Edward II’sexpeditions (e.g., CPR 1324–7, 295, 314, 319; CPR 1340–3, 250, 261) butwho died in 1347 (CPR 1345–8, 288–9, 331, 427) – a confusion not helpedby the fact that the editors of CPR frequently treat the two as one personin index entries. See Boutruche, Crise D’Une Société, 389–93 for more on thecadet branch of the family.

74. TNA C 61/53 m. 4; CCR 1341–3, 554. For a local role, for example, TNA C61/68 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; CPR1350–54, 127–8; CPR 1354–8, 94.

76. CPR 1338–40, 408; TNA C 61/56 m. 6 (1344); CPR 1350–54, 113, 114; CCR1349–54, 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 Peterwas a cousin of Piers Gaveston, see Denholm-Young (ed.), Vita EdwardiSecundi, 48.

85. For example, Davies, Domination and Conquest, 57, 105–6, 127; Frame,Political Development, 130–9, 142, 144, 159.

86. Frame, ‘Aristocracies’, 169.


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

On Thursday in Easter week 1317 an army numbering perhaps 1000English war veterans landed at Youghal (co. Cork). Captained by RogerMortimer, lieutenant of Edward II, this force came as a belated injec-tion of military manpower into Ireland at a moment of acute cri-sis. Shortly before Mortimer’s landing, Robert Bruce had penetrateddeep into Munster, hoping to provoke a rising amongst the nativeIrish to give effect to the inauguration two years previously of hisbrother, Edward, as ‘king of Ireland’. However, having misread theextent to which he could expect unity within the native commu-nity, Bruce was unable to liaise with Donnchad Ó Briain, the sym-pathetic leader of the Irish of Thomond, and was instead faced byMuirchertach, Donnchad’s brother and rival. Meanwhile, local leviesmarshalled by the justiciar, Edmund Butler, Mortimer’s deputy, har-ried the Scots to their rear. Campaigning far from home, frustratedby native reticence or outright hostility, and locked in a stalematewith the justiciar, the prospect of tackling Mortimer held little appeal.His ranks depleted by exhaustion and famine, King Robert retiredto Scotland via Ulster, leaving Edward to fight for his kingshipalone.1

To Robin Frame, in his seminal study of the Bruce invasion, this retreateffectively ended the threat to most of Ireland and signalled the broth-ers’ failure to destroy England’s hegemony within the British Isles. TheScots’ slow, painful trek from the bogs of Eliogarty to their Ulster fast-ness, moreover, contrasts strikingly with the historiographical canter toEdward Bruce’s defeat and death at Fochart on 14 October 1318. Foralthough these events lay eighteen months apart, they are often tele-scoped in modern accounts of the invasion, almost as if one were theinevitable 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 Irelandfollowing his demise – was tortuous. It was a path followed for themost part by Roger Mortimer, king’s lieutenant in Ireland from April1317 to May 1318 and justiciar from June 1319 to September 1320,but Mortimer’s footsteps have left little historiographical trace, withonly Otway-Ruthven pursuing them in any detail.3 This is puzzlingsince, while historians know nothing of Edward Bruce’s activities in hisUlster refuge for lack of sources, of the governors of medieval Ireland,Mortimer is one of the best served in terms of surviving documentaryevidence. Despite the destruction of Dublin’s Four Courts in 1922, amemoranda roll and a collection of plea rolls survive for his administra-tions together with nineteenth-century transcripts of original material,including a justiciary roll.4 The intention in this chapter is to bring theseand other sources to bear in an analysis of Mortimer’s aims and strate-gies in Ireland and to assess their success in meeting both long-term andmore 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 on23 November 1316, Mortimer was named commander of an expedi-tionary force of 150 mounted-soldiers and 500 foot-soldiers.5 His feeof 6000 marks would come from the king’s wardrobe rather than beingdrawn from the Dublin exchequer which traditionally supplied the £500annuity granted to the chief governor.6 In an unprecedented move,prominent non-resident lords were summoned either to go in person toIreland or send forces sufficient to defend their lands. Only a handful ofthe sixteen men summoned, of whom the most notable was the formerjusticiar, JohnWogan, can confidently be identified as having sailed andperhaps fewer than 1000 men disembarked at Youghal.7 Preparations forthe mission were protracted, as shipping ordered in December 1316 for amuster at Haverford on 2 February 1317 could not sail until early April.An examination of those given protection to travel suggests difficultyin constructing a broad-based force and reveals that many, like HughTurpilton who originated from a hamlet in the shadow of Wigmorecastle, came from Mortimer’s own milieu.8 It was fortunate that theScots’ march south, which coincided with this hiatus, did not achieveits aim and that Butler’s pursuit contained them until Mortimer’s arrival.Nevertheless, the appearance of an English army must have been highlysymbolic. It reversed the trend in which Ireland had long been an impor-tant source of men, money and victuals to the English war effort andtemporarily allowed the penurious Dublin exchequer to keep troops in


Paul Dryburgh 91

the field. Furthermore, at a time when the earldom of Kildare and thelordship of western Meath lay vacant, the implantation of men intovulnerable parts of Ireland could prove critical to their defence.9

It is only with hindsight that we can say that the Scots had effectivelybeen overcome shortly after Mortimer’s arrival. Throughout his inva-sion, Edward Bruce had frequently campaigned outside Ulster, defeatingforces sent against him by the justiciar and English magnates in Ireland.There would be no reason for the beleaguered communities of EnglishIreland to believe that he and his brother, who had repeatedly inter-vened in Ireland and still controlled the Irish Sea, would abandon theiraim ‘to conquer and bring into subjugation this kingdom and banishall Englishmen here hence’.10 Reports in 1316 and 1317 also suggestedthat their campaigns had provoked sympathy among some native kin-groups, with the Uí Mhorda [O’Mores], Uí Bhroin [O’Byrnes] and theUí Thuathail [O’Tooles] apparently rising in Leinster, the former burn-ing Laois and the latter two Bray, Arklow and Wicklow. Even though hisretreat from Munster highlighted the futility of the hopes of crystallis-ing native resentment to English rule under his crown, as long as heremained in Ulster Edward Bruce might still foment native dissent.11 Insetting himself up as king, moreover, Bruce had gambled that Edward IIwould baulk at his challenge to English lordship in Ireland. No Englishking had set foot there since John and it proved impractical in thestraitened circumstances after Bannockburn for Edward to do so. InAugust 1316 correspondence passed between Bruce and Gruffydd Llwyd,a leader of the Welsh of north Wales, in which Bruce offered assis-tance to cast off the English yoke in return for acceptance of Scottishlordship over Wales. By making shadowy appeals to pan-Celtic sen-timent, promising to end Welsh servitude so that ‘the Scots and theWelsh peoples would be one forever’, Bruce further tapped into Englishfears and threatened to establish Scottish cadet kingdoms on England’swestern seaboard. It is in these contexts that the appointment of RogerMortimer must be viewed.12

In 1301 Mortimer married Joan, grand-daughter of the former justi-ciar, Geoffrey de Joinville, adding the liberty of Trim in Meath to hispatrimonial lordship of Dunamase in Laois.13 Trim was affluent and set-tled, prompting Mortimer, unlike most English aristocrats with lands inIreland, to strive to establish his personal lordship there. In so doing, heaccumulated the ‘stock of knowledge’ vital to the success of any chiefgovernor there.14 His blooding in Irish warfare had come in 1309 – thefirst year he spent any time in Ireland – when he assisted the lieu-tenant, Piers Gaveston, in subduing the Uí Bhroin and Uí Dhiomsaigh



[O’Dempseys] in Leinster. He had been given a rude introduction tothe competitive nature of magnate society in the Irish midlands in thesame year, being forced to secure a pardon for his men of Trim forkilling 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 alienpolitical environment, and in 1312, in negotiating a peaceful conclusionto riotous rebellion in county Louth, he identified himself as a figure ofcompromise.15 Finally, he had experience of battling the Scots, albeitone to forget, having been routed at Kells on 6 December 1315 whiletrying to prevent their southward march.16

By appointing Mortimer Edward II exploited cross-channel connec-tions of his own making. On the day of his appointment to thelieutenancy Mortimer’s uncle, Roger Mortimer of Chirk, regained thejusticeship of Wales, which he had surrendered weeks before the Scotshad first invaded Ireland.17 Uncle and nephew shared a close work-ing relationship that must have improved the co-ordination of theEnglish response on either side of the Irish Sea. Furthermore, bothmen belonged to an increasingly dominant grouping at court, severalof whose members – Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke and lordof Wexford, and Roger Amory and Hugh Audley, co-parceners of theClare inheritance in Kilkenny – had significant Irish interests and whoprobably advocated a more active policy in the lordship.18 Mortimer’smission, indeed, dovetailed with a re-injection of manpower onto theScottish march and an embassy to the papacy which succeeded in secur-ing a papal interdict on Scotland. On one level, therefore, his expeditionwas only part of a re-assertion of English militarism on the fringes ofits hegemony.19 The naming of Mortimer as ‘lieutenant’ not ‘justiciar’was also significant. This was a title only Piers Gaveston had previ-ously borne. While Piers enjoyed some success in Leinster, his title hadbeen designed to mitigate the dishonour of his exile from England asthe king’s despised favourite. Richardson and Sayles, moreover, arguethat the title was honorific; in effect the duties differed little from themilitary and judicial functions of the justiciar.20 However, in the cir-cumstances of the Bruce invasion, where the king of England could notcome among his people and another rival ‘king’ asserted his authorityover Ireland, more than military and judicial measures were required.Primarily, loyalty to the king had to be fostered and strengthened. Thisimplied the dispensation of patronage and justice in the king’s name,the punishment and pardon of rebels and criminals, and negotiationwith native community leaders on an equal footing. Mortimer came


Paul Dryburgh 93

to Ireland, with its magnate feuds and lawlessness, prepared to confrontand compromise in order to ‘expedite royal business against the Scots’.21

Attention was first given to courting the Anglo-Irish community. Hisarrival coincided with the delivery of numerous letters to leading mag-nates, thanking them for their services against the Scots and exhortingthem to remain loyal. This reinforced the impression that the king wasfinally taking a closer interest in Irish affairs. Friar Clyn reports that soonafter disembarking, Mortimer knighted many young men; six monthslater he removed from less wealthy freeholders – those with land worthunder £20 a year – the requirement to travel to England to performhomage for their lands, with fines instead being taken to support theimpecunious Dublin exchequer.22 Reconciliation at the top of settlersociety meant securing the release of Ireland’s most powerful magnateand rooting out the constituency which had favoured Edward Bruce,and it was with these issues in mind that the Irish council convened atKilmainham on 23 April 1317.23 Mortimer impressed upon the coun-cillors the necessity of liberating Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster, whohad languished in a Dublin gaol since 15 February, having been arrestedby the mayor of Dublin following a failed ambush on the Scots at Slane,after which the invaders hadmenaced the city.24 Whatever might be saidabout the earl’s conduct during the Bruce invasion, he had embroiledhimself in land disputes with prominent figures in southern Ireland,including Arnold le Poer, seneschal of Kilkenny, and it is evidence ofthe enmity he had aroused that following his release on 8 May he wasgranted the king’s protection on 24 July on Mortimer’s testimony andgiven safe conduct to go to court.25

Elsewhere, the elements in Anglo-Irish society which had supportedBruce could not escape Mortimer’s gaze. Accused of inviting the Scotsto conquer Ireland and of deserting the royal army at Kells to guidethem through Meath, Kildare and Offaly, a jury had initially acquittedthe Lacys of Meath, the most notorious Anglo-Irish associates of theScots, and the king had even thanked them for their services againstthe Scots on 28 April.26 Having secured de Burgh’s release, Mortimerheaded for Trim from where he summoned the leaders of the Lacy fam-ily, Hugh and Walter, lord of Rathwire, to return to the king’s peace.They responded by murdering Hugh de Croft, his messenger. Gather-ing a posse of prominent local men, including John de Berminghamand Nicholas de Verdon, beneath the royal standard, Mortimer defeatedWalter Lacy on 3 June. Two days later, he repelled their counter-attackand put them to flight, ultimately outlawing and exiling them as traitorson 18 July.27 Throughout, the lieutenant had carefully clothed this



campaign in legal niceties, but his desire for revenge and restorationcannot be ignored. Defeat at Kells had cost him the lordship of Trim. Aspart of his conditions for service as lieutenant, he negotiated a grantof 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 hisEnglish clients to occupy estates forfeited by the Lacys and their allies.Hugh Turpilton, for example, received lands at Tubber, while RichardIdeshale from Shropshire obtained Foukeston in county Dublin.29 Thiscreated an environment in which Mortimer could exercise his powers oflordship more comfortably. It also ensured that the Lacys, whose hered-itary claim to Trim Mortimer’s marriage had negated, could not regain afoothold in the lordship. It was also critical in the wider conflict, for menlike 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 puttingdown the rebellion and insolence of the English and Irish’.30 Chroniclesrecord his campaign against Seán Ó Fearghail [O’Farrell] in Longford,after which he returned to Leinster. On 6 September battle was joinedat ‘Glynsely’ with the Irish of Uí Máil (co. Wicklow), in which bothsides suffered casualties in a royalist victory.31 Perhaps the most impor-tant outcome of this campaign was the submission of Ó Broin, who wasimprisoned in Dublin Castle, removing a major obstacle to the morepeaceful settlement of Leinster. Meanwhile, at sea, the first fruits of theintegrated strategy to tackle the Scots had been harvested. Around 2 July,Thomas Dun, the Scottish captain who had attained mastery of the IrishSea, was captured and executed by John of Athy in an engagement offthe Welsh coast.32 Athy had clearly caught the king’s attention havingbeen made a knight of his household on 29 March, a few days beforehe captained the fleet bearing Mortimer to Ireland. His position in theinner circle of Mortimer’s mission, with instructions to remain at seafor the defence of Ireland, was rewarded with the keepership of theIsle of Man, a crucial strategic outpost in the North Channel. Hence-forth, he became an important cog in the English military machine,maintaining a strong presence on the Irish Sea for many months.33 On17 October 1317, the king’s chamber disbursed £10 to Baldwin Darcyfor ‘bringing the king certain good rumours’ about Ireland.34 He musthave conveyed Roger Mortimer’s satisfaction with his progress: not onlyhad the immediate possibility of Scottish conquest been negated, ameasure of stability had also been restored. How fragile the situationremained, however, was shown during the autumn of 1317 when 200


Paul Dryburgh 95

men under the justiciar’s command were killed in battle by DonnchadÓ Cearbhaill [O’Carroll].35 What Mortimer had provided, though, wasbreathing space, which the administration needed to begin addressingcriminality 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 inIreland, however, the king forbade further pardons for murder withoutthe assent of the Irish council, possibly in response to petitions whichrailed against the liberal use of fines, as opposed to harsher measures, topunish murderers, or their pardon at the behest of senior magnates.36

However, with magnate consent Mortimer repeatedly flouted this pro-hibition in order to try to broker accord. During the winter of 1317–1318he and the justiciar, Edmund Butler went on a judicial circuit of south-western Ireland, an area suffering acutely from familial strife.37 Manyprominent members of the leading Anglo-Irish families of Cork andWaterford received some sort of pardon. Around Martinmas, for exam-ple, John son of John le Poer, several of his kinsmen, and membersof the Argentan, Walsh and Roche families were pardoned for all tres-passes and felonies committed by them until 21 January thereafter,on the pledge of David, son of Alexander Roche and Roger, Richardand John, sons of Benedict le Poer.38 Most notably in Cork, on 19December 1317, Mortimer oversaw the drafting of a concord to end thebitter, long-running disputes between the leading ‘progenies’ there. Theheads of the Barry, Carew, Caunton, Cogan, Courcy and Roche fami-lies swore to remit the enmities between them and faithfully observethe king’s peace. Fines would be imposed for contempt and, if foundguilty, each would be bound in 2000 marks. Maurice de Caunton agreedthat if he or any of his parentela rebelled against the king, they wouldbe pursued by the posse and forfeit their goods.39 Within 18 monthsthe Barrys had again rebelled but Mortimer, in using a brief windowof opportunity backed by intimidating military force, had succeeded,if only temporarily, in allowing warring factions to air and resolvegrievances and to reconnect with their king by receiving his great-est favour and drawing a line under past indiscretions.40 Crucially,too, clauses in the Cork agreement defined the parties’ relationshipwith the native Irish. They swore not to retain bands of Irishmenand that all Englishmen in the marches under the avowry of Diar-muid and Domnall ‘Carbragh’ Mac Carthaig [MacCarthy] would bemade to answer for their crimes. While this primarily mirrors the dis-turbed picture in Cork, it also touches on Anglo-Irish relations morewidely.



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 sub-jects in Ireland, the legal disability of the native Irish at English lawloomed large, and there appears to have been willingness in govern-ment to respond positively to this criticism. Geoffrey Hand has dated arequest from John de Bermingham and the earl of Kildare that the jus-ticiar be commanded to receive to English law all Irishmen ‘who desireto 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 toeffect a general grant of English law to free Irishmen, but Hand observedthat a marked increase in individual grants coincided with Mortimer’sadministration.41 This is interesting because usually only the king hadthe power to make such grants. Though few grants attested by Mortimerhave survived it is worth speculating that this petition, emanating fromhis adherents in Ireland, had his approval and represented an attempt toextend the practice and trump Bruce’s appeal. On 8 March 1318, more-over, Mortimer concluded an agreement with Richard de Bermingham,lord of Athenry, that the king should grant Sil Muiredaig, the Feths andUi Maine to Cathal Ó Conchobhair [O’Connor], prince of the ConnachtIrish, in order to preserve the peace of that land.42 By making suchconcessions, Mortimer might hope to conciliate some of the most influ-ential and potentially dangerous men in Irish society and so preventthem 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 achievementshad been exposed shortly before his departure when, on 10 May 1318,Richard de Clare, lord of Thomond, was slain in an ambush at DysartO’Dea, by the summer of 1318 the perception was that, by aggressionand concession, service and reward, Mortimer had engineered a changein fortunes for English authority in Ireland.43 Edward II commendedhim for having acted ‘for the safety of the land and to repel rebels, andmany have testified to his good service there’. Edward Bruce appeared tobe in abeyance and a Dublin chronicler gleefully reported bread beingbaked following the first good harvest in four years.44 The fair windwhich thus followed him from Ireland propelled him immediately intoa prominent role in the disturbed politics of England: on 9 August, theking and his cousin and foe, Thomas of Lancaster, sealed the peace ofLeake. Mortimer and other magnates with estates beyond the bordersof England played a crucial role in brokering this peace and in thesubsequent restructuring of royal government Mortimer sat as one of


Paul Dryburgh 97

sixteen councillors without whom royal business should not be under-taken. By the end of the year, he had been elected as one of fourcouncillors to remain with the king at all times, a position from whichhe secured his return to Ireland as justiciar on 15 March 1319.45 Thespirit of renewal at court drew further strength from Edward Bruce’sdefeat and death at Fochart on 14 October. By 2 December John of Athyhad regained control of Carrickfergus castle, being officially awardedcustody, while maintaining a garrison of 20 men-at-arms and ten cross-bowmen, on 2 March 1319. Large-scale preparations were made forvictualling the castle, including the commissioning of five shiploads ofcorn from Devon. Athy employed this base, and Rathlin as diplomaticand military outreach posts from which to extend English influenceinto the Western Isles and the Hebridean coastline of Scotland.46 Thesearrangements were put in place at a time when the preparations for acampaign to recover Berwick, which had been captured by the Scotson 2 April 1318, were made and surely formed part of an integratedscheme. On 20 March 1319, five days after Mortimer’s appointment asjusticiar, summonses were issued, while of even more significance, giventhe 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 theScots 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 theirfinal downfall should not be overlooked. As Seán Duffy has pointedout, each Scottish sally from Ulster after 1315 came when Mortimer,whose midland estates barred progress towards Dublin and the richlands further south, was outside Ireland.48 By the time battle was joinedat Fochart, Roger’s restructuring of land-holding in Meath and Louth,which involved granting lands to not only his English clients but alsolocal men and outsiders, meant that John de Bermingham, who com-manded the English contingents in the battle, and his ilk had more atstake than had been the case in the past.49 Mortimer, too, must havebeen the prime mover behind Bermingham’s elevation to the earldomof Louth on 12 May 1319 as reward for his triumph at Fochart.50 Intrigu-ingly, in 1318 Mortimer had also appointed Laoighseach Ó Mordha[O’More] as guardian of his patrimonial estates at Dunamase. After theScots defeated Mortimer at Kells, Laoighseach had accompanied them inassaulting his lordship in Laois. Mortimer chose to forgive this, recognis-ing and trying to harness Ó Mordha’s local authority to cement a bondbetween them and strengthen his lordship should the Scots return.51



Roger Mortimer returned to Ireland in late May 1319 and departedagain in September 1320. As justiciar he continued what he had startedas lieutenant. On 7 June, he, Bermingham and Thomas fitz John, earlof Kildare, were empowered to receive all Irishmen into English lawwho wished to come in. Again, the evidence for the application of thispolicy is slight, with only one grant being witnessed by Mortimer toa retainer of the earl of Ulster surviving, but it displays a continuedcommitment to meeting the aspirations of some sections of the nativecommunity.52 The most telling legacy of his justiciarship was the Dublinparliament of May 1320, where a serious attempt was made to establishgreater consistency in applying the law in Ireland. Parliament recog-nised that bands of evildoers, retained by men of birth, roamed thekingdom, lodging with loyal men and robbing them in the process. Todeal with this, hue and cry was to be raised and malefactors pursuedand arrested. Each county was to have a justice and two shire knightsassigned to hold assizes and inquire into sheriffs’ activities. No lord wasto exact victuals from their tenants against their will. Most importantly,heads of lineages were made statutorily responsible for disciplining theirkinsmen. More generally, the Statutes of Westminster, Marlborough,Merton, Gloucester and Winchester were given force. Mortimer under-took that any future English legislation would be examined and, ifexpedient, applied to Ireland, and yearly parliaments were ordained.53

The test for these policies would come over the longer term, but immedi-ate priorities suggested that the government was whistling in the wind.Within weeks of the parliament Mortimer found himself once again atthe head of an army, tackling the Barrys in Munster before moving onto Slievemargy ‘in order to expel the Irish rebels’.54 These were his lastcampaigns in Ireland.It is possible to paint too rose-tinted a picture of Mortimer gover-

nance. The statutes of the Dublin parliament of 1320 revealed a people‘greatly distressed and well-nigh destroyed’ and their lot had not beenimproved by 1324 when the responsibility of heads of lineages for thefelonious behaviour of their family had to be reinforced.55 Mortimer’slieutenancy temporarily filled a vacuum of royal lordship, but in thelonger term the Dublin government remained weak and powerful mag-nates continued to feud with each other, devastating parts of Ireland andspilling over into English politics.56 Edward II, desperately seeking alliesto save his kingship, reached out to some of these very magnates andperhaps contemplated taking refuge among them when toppled frompower in October 1326. Roger Mortimer, conversely, used his ascen-dancy 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 aschief governor heightened his awareness of the problems and problem-atic personalities of Ireland. On the one hand, he remained committedto strengthening the margins of the English king’s authority, even con-ceding Scottish independence in return, in part, for an agreement notto interfere in Ireland.58 On the other, he exploited his connectionswith some leading magnates. In personally conferring the earldoms ofOrmond and Desmond upon James, son of his former justiciar, EdmundButler, and Maurice fitz Thomas, he hoped to impose a more rigidpower structure on the volatile south-west of Ireland, responsive toroyal authority, which at the time was largely vested in him.59 Thiswas at a moment when, having had himself belted as earl of March,he was extending his power and influence elsewhere in Ireland, mostnotably in counties Meath and Louth over which he obtained fran-chisal jurisdiction following the murder of John de Bermingham, earlof Louth by his own tenants in June 1329.60 Ultimately, his own pursuitof gain loosed violent tensions that dominated the next half-century ofIrish history, forces which during his periods in office he had aimed tocontain.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 con-sequences of their actions when, in February 1317, in an attempt todissuade the marauding Scots from attacking, they had dismantled andburnt the western suburbs of the city, causing damage estimated at£10,000. Mortimer relieved them of 100 marks of the penalty theyincurred as a result and ensured that further actions initiated againstthem for this act were prohibited.61 The petitioners may, however,have had different motives in praising Roger, reflecting the cold-blooded reality of the times. They reported rumours to the king ofhis Irish enemies massing on their marches and of the Scots prepar-ing to descend again on Ireland. No landing was attempted, but itis possible Robert Bruce had indeed contemplated exploiting Mor-timer’s absence from Ireland to pressurise Edward on several fronts. Itmight even be that the Dubliners, who requested that a strong gover-nor be sent, concocted the rumours with Mortimer’s reinstatement inmind. Whatever the truth of this, the Dubliners’ attitude appears tohave reflected a pervasive view among the settlers of Mortimer as astrong governor. This contrasts with the opinions of Irish chroniclersabout Edward Bruce, whose death had brought ‘great joy and com-fort to the kingdom in general . . . for there reigned scarcity of victuals,



breach of promises, ill performances of covenants, and the loss of menand women throughout the whole realm’.62 Mortimer had clearly wonrespect throughout Ireland for combating the Scots and their alliesand for attempting to restore order. By combining military force withmore subtle arts he reinvigorated the loyalty and utility of the lord-ship of Ireland to the English crown, but also sowed the seeds of futurediscord.

Notes

1. Frame, ‘Campaign against the Scots’; CSM, II, 355. He arrived back inScotland on 22 May; The Bruce, 594.

2. Frame, ‘Bruces in Ireland’, 87–8, 97; Sayles, ‘Battle of Faughart’. The latestand most comprehensive analysis is Duffy, ‘Bruce Invasion’.

3. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 233–7. See also Mortimer, Great-est 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 high-

point of £6159 per annum in 1301–1302, Dublin exchequer revenuesplummeted 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 men-

at-arms on the Scottish march and Anthony Lucy agreed to keep Carlislecastle with 65 men-at-arms and 100 hobelars: TNA PRO 28/136 (Society ofAntiquaries, London, MS 120), 88; (MS 121), 41.

20. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, 55–7. On 15 June 1308, Richard de Burgh, earlof Ulster, had been made lieutenant but his appointment was quashed infavour of Piers on the following day: CPR 1307–13, 83; Richardson andSayles, 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 inMarch, at the height of the crisis, his release had not been procured. JacobiGrace, 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 PRO28/136 (Society of Antiquaries, London, MS 121, f. 9r). Was he enjoyingMortimer’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; CFR1307–19, 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 andmight 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; Doc-

uments 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 May1318). 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 inWales 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 andlord of Wexford, Bartholomew Badlesmere, whose wife was heir to the Clareestates in Thomond, and Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster: Maddicott, Thomasof Lancaster, 188–95; Tout, Political History, 270; CCR 1318–23, 61, 129; CPR1317–21, 317.



46. CPR 1317–21, 311, 313 (26 February). Rathlin was granted to him on4 February 1319: CPR 1317–21, 271. For Edward II’s dealings with a MagUighlín [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, Colonisa-

tion 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 tomake 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, ‘Earlsof Desmond’.

60. Dryburgh, ‘Career of Roger Mortimer’, 142–3; For Mortimer’s role in Louth’smurder, 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: JacobiGrace, 78; CSM, II, 352; NAI RC 7/12, 175 (10 December 1317).

62. AClon, 282.


7The Case against AlexanderBicknor, Archbishop and PeculatorJames F. Lydon

On 15 October 1325, in the royal exchequer at Westminster, the routineexamination of the accounts of the king’s treasurer of Ireland was inter-rupted because of grave problems which had arisen. Walter Islip thetreasurer, who was accompanied by Robert Cotgrave one of the baronsof the Dublin exchequer, was summoned before the treasurer and baronsof the exchequer. A further indication of the seriousness of the situationwas the arrival of the chancellor, the chief justice, and John de Hothum,bishop of Ely.1 Clearly something well beyond the ordinary was amisswhen such important people were involved in what should have beena routine examination. It soon emerged what the problem was. Therewas evidence that the accounts of Islip’s predecessor as treasurer ofIreland, Alexander Bicknor, now archbishop of Dublin, contained forg-eries and evidence of fraud. The result was a thorough inquiry into theenrolled account of Bicknor.2 The archbishop was summoned to thecourt of inquiry and ordered to attend daily. More serious transgres-sions were discovered and the court became increasingly alarmed. Therecord of the proceedings state that because transgressions on this scalehad never been witnessed ‘in modern times, it seemed expedient to thecourt that they should be shown to the lord king at this present timein his palace at Westminster’.3 King Edward ordered that the chancel-lor and the justices of both Benches ‘and others of the council’ shoulddecide what must be done. If they decided that the archbishop oughtto be committed to prison, it was the king’s wish ‘because of devotionto the holy church and reverence for the episcopal dignity’ that Bicknorshould 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 arespectable 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 wayup the administrative ladder. He played a prominent role in the organi-sation of shipping for the Irish army which joined Edward I in his 1303campaign in Scotland and later acted as clerk of the wages for the army,playing an important diplomatic role when the Irish were left strandedwithout 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 amember of the council; in 1308 he became treasurer and in 1309 deputychancellor; and by 1318 he had achieved the highest position of all inthe Irish administration, the office of justiciar.7 In 1317 he achieved thesecond highest office in the Irish church when he was provided to thearchbishopric 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 threat-ened in England.9 He was also a negotiator with King James of Aragon,concerning a marriage between his daughter and Prince Edward ofEngland; and he played a primary role in the inquiry into the crisisoccasioned by the decision of Charles IV of France to build a bastideat Saint-Sardos.10 This involvement in royal affairs stood him in goodstead and helped to gain him the archbishopric of Dublin, but it alsodrew him into politics. In the end this proved a disaster after he haddeserted the king and supported Isabella in opposition in 1325. It wasthis which helped to focus attention on his time as treasurer of Irelandso that he could be faced at least with mishandling royal revenues thereand 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 Irelandin 1315 and lodged, as was normal, in the Dublin exchequer. In August1325 this view had been delivered, on royal instructions, to the kingat Havering and subsequently was forwarded to the Westminster exche-quer where it could be examined in detail. Islip admitted that this viewhad been made in Dublin while he was treasurer. Asked it Bicknor hadfully charged himself with all receipts, he instanced the goods of theTemplars and of John de Bonevill, which had been taken into the king’shands and for which Bicknor had not fully accounted. Asked if theaccount was ‘false before it was sealed under the seal of the king’s exche-quer to be sent here to England’, he said that it was. He also said that hehad specifically asked the archbishop if the account was ‘good’ beforesealing it for England, and Bicknor had answered that it was and thatIslip 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 aboutthe falsity of the account – he instanced a writ ordering Bicknor topay the earl of Ulster £2500. 15s. of his wages for serving in the warin Scotland and that Bicknor had retained 500 marks of that for him-self, while charging the king in his account for the full sum.11 Bicknorused false writs of liberate, and he instanced supposed payments to theTemplars ‘when he paid them little or nothing’. Then Cotgrave was ‘dili-gently examined’ and said that ‘the same account was false and forged’,which he admitted he knew and that he had actually compiled it. Thearchbishop had given him an annual pension of 40s. until he could pro-vide himwith a benefice; he had also given him a total of £4. 10s. in cashfor his ‘expenses’ in compiling the account. The archbishop had askedhim if it were possible to remove the rolls called ‘journals’ (jornales)from the treasury, so that the records they preserved of receipts and pay-ments might not be accessible. The journals were compiled on a dailybasis as money was received and payments were made. They were themost reliable record and thus a check on the receipt and issue rolls.12 ButCotgrave told Bicknor that they were the rolls of Robert de Whatton, aformer 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 thesums in question had been paid; the receipt rolls from the indenturesof receipt issued to those paying in the money, copies of which werekept in the exchequer. It was only by forging false writs of liberate andacquittance that deception could be concealed. These would then haveto be enrolled on the relevant chancery rolls and because these rollswere then in the treasury in the care of Cotgrave himself, there wasno problem. The actual forgeries were fabricated by a clerk, John ofManchester, commissioned by the archbishop. He then listed some ofthe false writs and acquittances. The first three were for the paymentof his fee as chancellor to Walter Thornbury; the next four were forthe payment of fees to two justices, one constable of Castlekevin, anda keeper of writs and rolls in the bench.13 He next instanced six falseacquittances for monies paid to the Templars for their sustenance, underthe seal of Henry Danet, master of the Temple. At that time Danet wasalso seneschal of the hospice of the archbishop and knew that ‘littleor nothing’ of the sums listed had in fact been paid to the Templars.14

Another three acquittances were equally false, since no money had infact been paid out – that of Richard Copyn OFM and two sealed by theattorney of Richard de Burgh, keeper of the royal castles of Roscom-mon, Rindown and Athlone.15 More interesting was the claim that John



of Manchester concocted a letter patent dated 26 August 1313 in thename of John, son of Peter de Bermingham, acknowledging a receiptof 350 marks in part payment which the king had granted him16; andanother of 20 March from the prior of the Dominicans in Dublin for 35marks of alms received.17 In fact the genuine acquittances showed thatBermingham received only 50 marks and the prior only 5 marks. Theforged letters patent were then enrolled by Manchester, with the sup-port of Bicknor, in the relevant chancery rolls that were in the custodyof Cotgrave. When the court examined John of Manchester he confessedto all and swore that he acted under the command of Cotgrave and withthe 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 Headmitted that he had not fully charged himself with receipts from themoveable goods of the Templars and John de Boneville, but only smallsums amounting in all to not much more than £50. As regards theforgeries the archbishop said that he did not wish to ‘deny’ that heknew about and consented to them. The court decided that the suminvolved on foot of the forgeries, £1168. 6s., should be annulled andthat Bicknor be brought to judgement for forgery. By now, of course,suspicion was attached to all the writs and acquittances which Bic-knor had presented when his account was being audited. They wereall ‘diligently inspected’ and the ‘sinister suspicion’ arose that somewere in the hand of John of Manchester. As a result seven writs of lib-erate 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 wasreferred to the king and, as we have already seen, he ordered that itshould be inquired into by a greatly augmented court, including mem-bers of the council. There it was unanimously agreed that because of the‘enormity of the transgressions committed’ Islip and Bicknor should becommitted to the Fleet prison and all their lands and property shouldbe taken into the king’s hands.19 Manchester, too, was to be impris-oned. On 5 December 1325 Islip was removed from office and barredfrom royal service in future. Together with Manchester he was sent tothe Fleet. But in accordance with the king’s wishes the archbishop ofDublin was allowed to go free. On the same day the Dublin governmentwas ordered to seize all their lands and property, as were the sheriffs ofGloucester, Shropshire and Staffordshire (for Bicknor), and of London,Middlesex, Oxford and Berkshire (for Islip). Because of the questionsraised about receipts from the confiscated properties of the Templars in


James F. Lydon 107

Ireland the Dublin government was ordered to forward to Westminstera full account of what Bicknor actually received as well as what came infrom the properties of John de Boneville.20 On the same day, 5 December1325, the Dublin exchequer was ordered to investigate the accountsof Islip as treasurer and to forward ‘whatever they might find’. On12 December transcripts of the forged writs and acquittances were sentto Dublin to be checked against the chancery rolls and the exchequerjornales.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 inconnection with the Bicknor account. His lands and property were alsorestored.21 Later, on 28 February 1327 the king pardoned Bicknor ofall transgressions ‘because of the good service’ he had rendered andthe costs and expenses he had incurred in performing that service.The king also ordered the restoration of all lands and properties whichhad been confiscated.22 In November 1328 Cotegrave also made finewith the king, was released from the Fleet, and Dublin was ordered toreturn all lands and properties which had been seized into the king’shands.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 Soit was agreed that Bicknor should return to the exchequer to explainthe concealments in the account he had rendered. On 16 April 1331 theIrish justiciar was ordered to distrain Bicknor by his lands and propertyto 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 wasthe king’s wish that he should be burdened no further, in support ofwhich he produced a royal letter dated 2 November 1333. It was agreedthat a comparison of his account with the Dublin certificate showedthat he had charged himself with all receipts relating to the Templarsand John de Boneville. He was therefore declared quit. But he was alsoasked to supply the names of all keepers, bailiffs, farmers and anyoneelse associated with the lands of the Templars. He came back on 10 April1334. As a result of a further inquisition the Irish justiciar was orderedto hold a complete and thorough inquiry and to return the result tothe English exchequer by 12 November, when the archbishop wouldreturn to the exchequer court. The Dublin government failed to returnthe record in time and despite repeated orders it was not until 26 Aprilthat a return was made. That was so defective that further proceedings



were ordered. But then on 2 September 1338 the king reminded thetreasurer and barons of the English exchequer that he had already freedBicknor 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 let-ter 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 hadbeen made against Bicknor. As a result, five days later the Dublin gov-ernment was ordered to have Bicknor in London by 8 October 1343to account yet again for the lands and property of the Templars. Thearchbishop sent John Brit, his attorney general, and claimed exemptionunder the royal dispensations he had received in the past. Because ‘theprelates and magnates of the kingdom and others of the king’s council’had already been summoned to Westminster for 16 April 1344, Bicknorwas ordered to attend on 26 April and was told that ‘interim sequaturpericulo quod incumbit’. The archbishop came on the day and told theexchequer court that ‘ipse prosecutus est judicium quantum potuit ergaconsilium etc. et nondum est expeditus’. So he was given another day,in July, when his attorney presented the court with yet another letterfrom the king, dated 14 June 1344, confirming that he and the councilhad examined all the earlier relevant letters and ordering that the arch-bishop should be exonerated and acquitted according to the tenor ofthose letters. ‘Therefore it is agreed that the archbishop should recedeacquitted of each and every article in the said record, according to thetenor 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 con-stant harassment during that long period. The number of summonsesto the exchequer in England was not only an irritant to a busy man;they could put him in danger. Crossing the Irish Sea was notoriouslydangerous – the very man who opposed Bicknor in seeking nominationto the archbishopric of Dublin, by rushing to Rome to gain the assentof the pope, was drowned on his way to England. When he vigorouslypursued the creation of the first university in Dublin, Bicknor himselfgave as one reason the danger to students if they had to cross the IrishSea to get to university in England.25 Even Edward II excused the failureof two archbishops to get to Rome in 1318 by telling the pope that ‘theIrish Sea is so very perilous and stormy in winter’.26 One of the worstharassments of all was when the exchequer court refused to allow himto 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 himthe 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 intoconflict with the king, though never again with the same acrimony andeven danger. He showed his vigour in his famous visitation of the dio-cese of Ossory. The chronicler Clyn reports that in 1336 ‘on Monday thefeast of blessed Vincent, lord Alexander Bicknor, archbishop of Dublin,began a visitation of the diocese of Ossory, that no metropolitan, in hiscapacity as ordinary, had visited for 40 years previously’.27 His successin founding the first university in Dublin, even though it did not lastlong, is another sign of his determination to get jobs done.28 Anothergood example of his capacity for laying down the law as he perceived itis the famous sermon he preached against beggars in Dublin, denounc-ing idleness, which the city used to try to get them off the streets. Asan archbishop he was constantly active, but mostly in the secular ratherthan the spiritual business of the diocese. He paid constant attention tothe manors and lands, visiting frequently and supervising the conductof work and was aggressive towards the mountain Irish who threatenedthose same lands.29

There can be no doubt that Bicknor’s involvement in English politicswas what brought him trouble in the first place and led to the lengthyinquiry which found him guilty of the worst kind of malpractice as trea-surer of Ireland. He accepted his guilt and so far as the existing evidencegoes, he never tried to clear his name. There is no apparent reason forhis actions. It can be said with some certainty that he did not need themoney for personal use. He certainly did not live a life of extravaganceand did not acquire wealth by the time of his death. Finally, as trea-surer he was effective and succeeded in increasing royal revenues, a factthat may have prevented his misbehaviour leading to more dire personalconsequences.

Notes

1. Hothum had acted as treasurer of Ireland in 1309–1310 and as baron andlater chancellor of the Dublin exchequer; Richardson and Sayles, Administra-tion of Ireland, 100, 106, 115. For his career in Ireland and connections withBicknor, 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



information. There is no record on the equivalent Lord Treasurer’s Remem-brancer’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 theExchequer’.

4. CDI 1302–07, no. 26.5. For his career in general, see Gallagher, ‘Alexander Bicknor’. He is usually

associated with Bicknor in Gloucestershire; but it is possible that he camefrom Bicknor in Kent where John Bicknor, the chief falconer of Edward Ilived and kept royal birds in his mews – Prestwich, Edward I, 115. This maybe the same John Bicknor who acted as attorney for the earl of Ulster in1284 in an action against the abbot of Leicester in England – CDI 1252–84,no. 2311.

6. Lydon, ‘Edward I’, 47–50. He was left short of money and it was not until1307 that he was paid £339, the ‘remainder of £400 which the king oweshim by his account rendered in the wardrobe’ for wages he had paid to theearl of Ulster and others in Scotland: Irish Exchequer Payments, 195.

7. Richardson and Sayles, Administration of Ireland, 145, 126 n.1, 100, 94, 84.8. Moody et al. (eds.), New History of Ireland, IX, 310. He owed his appoint-

ment to the strong influence exercised on his behalf by Edward II: Watt,‘Negotiations’, 2–3.

9. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 160.10. 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 His-toriarum, III, 222, 226). Payments from 2 April 1324 to 12 January 1325 maybe found on TNA E 101/309/28, giving full details of the journey of 286 daysbefore returning to the king.

11. In fact the counter-roll of the chamberlain of the Dublin exchequer (TNAE 101/235/20) records payment of £2140 15s. to the earl – Irish ExchequerPayments, 207.

12. Irish Exchequer Payments, x.13. 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.

14. The surviving rolls in fact contain payments which in each case are greaterthan what is given in the acquittances – Irish Exchequer Payments, 204, 209,217, 223. Of the payments recorded for 1308–1309 that roll adds that ‘nomore is paid to them this year because the justiciar and the king’s councilin Ireland delivered to Brother Henry and his fellow brothers the manorsof Kilcolgan, Crok and Kilbarry, for the maintenance of all of them untilMichaelmas 1311, when the brothers returned the manors to the justiciarand council’ (209).

15. For the relevant payments see Irish Exchequer Payments, 221, 222, 230.16. 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.

17. For payment, see Irish Exchequer Payments, 221.18. 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 Fleetfor deficiencies in their accounts – Buck, Politics, Finance and the Church, 182.

20. Before 23 June 1326 Dublin certified that the lands and properties of Bicknorand Islip had been taken into the king’s hands and they forwarded par-ticulars to London. They also returned a copy of the details of the landsand properties of the Templars and John de Boneville. Details of the Tem-plars’ estates can be found at ‘Documents Relating to the Suppression of theTemplars’ from the original in TNA E 101/239/11.

21. In 1328 Islip in a petition to the king claimed that the Dublin exchequer hadsold most of his goods for four or five times the amount of this fine. He hadmanaged to pay 300 marks of the fine and he asked for an inquiry into thesale and for a writ of supersedeas in respect of the remaining 200 marks. Hispetition was granted: ‘Irish Materials’, 143. Money was also given to Islip’sattorney, to be sent to him in England so that he could pay the remainder ofthe fine: Irish Exchequer Payments, 321.

22. In 1328 Bicknor appealed to the king for help in dealing with ‘debts owed tothe pope and cardinals from the time of his predecessors’ and the king sentletters to the pope and cardinals in his support: ‘Irish Materials’, 145–6.

23. In accounting for the delay in making returns the Dublin exchequer reportedthat the records for some Templar manors could not be found in exchequerrecords and that ‘because of the distance of the places and the war betweencertain magnates of Ireland moved in the aforesaid places, we dare not go tothose 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 Documentson 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 ofa 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 thePriory of the Holy Trinity (165), ‘the two occasions in these accounts whenthe Prior had to send to Kildare on Holy Thursday to procure the episcopallyconsecrated Holy Oil imply that his episcopal functions lay lightly on theArchbishop’.


8A People Divided? Language,History and Anglo-Scottish Conflictin the Work of Andrew of WyntounSteve Boardman

In 1914 the historian Evan Barron produced a highly chargedinterpretation of the way in which the various language groupsand regional communities of late thirteenth-century Scotland hadresponded to the opening of the Wars of Independence. Barron’s con-tention was that the English-speaking inhabitants of the south and eastof the realm had been, on the whole, more inclined to acquiesce to thepolitical designs of Edward I and his successors because of their cultural,historical and linguistic affinity with the English nation. The burden ofthe ‘patriotic’ wars, therefore, fell largely on the shoulders of the Gael ofthe north and west whose determined and unyielding opposition to theEnglish kings was fired, or at least partly explained, by clear-cut racialand linguistic animosity.1 Aspects of this argument remained attractivefor a number of later historians, such as Ranald Nicholson, before beingemphatically dismissed by G. W. S. Barrow, writing in 1976. Barrow’swithering critique of Barron’s thesis pointed out the inadequacy of anapproach that sought to explain political attitudes and activity simplyas the products of cultural and linguistic affiliation. Most obviously, asBarrow observed, any close examination of the extant historical evi-dence revealed the active involvement and sacrifice of many Lothianfamilies, whose lives and property were clearly most vulnerable to themilitary power of English kings, in support of those who were defendingthe rights and status of Scottish kingship and the Scottish realm.2

Although this was not its chief aim, Barrow’s article also raised a num-ber of intriguing wider questions about the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century kingdom with which Scottish historians have been rather slowto engage. Most notably, perhaps, why was it that the ties of a sharedlanguage and culture failed to create widespread and consistent support

112


Steve Boardman 113

amongst the inhabitants of southern Scotland for the ambitions of theEnglish crown after 1296 as Barron had anticipated? An answer to thisparticular puzzle may be provided, at least in part, by recent studies oftwelfth- and thirteenth-century Scotland, the results of which can onlybe reviewed briefly here.The latest work by Scottish historians on the period from the mid-

eleventh century to c.1300 has been informed by a critical engagementwith the ‘new British’ history pioneered by scholars such as Robin Frameand Rees Davies.3 From a ‘pan-British’ perspective one of the most strik-ing and significant aspects of the century and a half after the Normaninvasion of England was the appearance of English settlers and their cul-ture, economic and social organisation, legal customs and language inareas outwith the traditional boundaries of the English realm.4 In Walesand Ireland the advance generally came in the wake of the piecemealconquest of territory by men drawn from the new Francophone aristo-cratic elite established in England after 1066. The tide of English coloni-sation established farming, trading and clerical communities withinWales and Ireland that were, or at least presented themselves as, obe-dient and loyal to the institutions of English government, and whichnaturally looked to English kings for political leadership and defence.5

The spread of English settlement and the legal, social, economic andcultural traditions that were increasingly associated with ‘Englishness’was just as marked, and arguably more enduring, in many of the territo-ries and lordships that were, or came to be, within the political orbit ofScottish kings.6 The accepted place of the English as one of the distinc-tive constituent groups within the broader network of those consideredto be subjects of the Scottish king is made obvious by their inclusionin the ethnic address occasionally employed in the opening clauses ofScottish royal charters to the end of the twelfth century.7 In this north-ern British context in the eleventh and twelfth centuries there was,clearly, no straightforward or exclusive correlation between Englishnessand political attachment to English kingship.Gradually, however, the evidence suggests that as the thirteenth cen-

tury progressed those of English speech, descent and lifestyle livingwithin territories controlled by the Scottish monarchy became lessinclined to identify themselves first and foremost as English. DauvitBroun, for example, has outlined a significant two-stage shift, overthe course of the thirteenth century, in the meaning of geographical,racial and ethnic descriptors employed in the chronicle compiled by themonastic community at Melrose. At the start of the century the monksseem 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 outwiththe Scottish kingdom proper (the southern limit of which was thoughtto be the Forth). Inevitably, then, at this stage the chronicle contin-ued to use the term ‘Scots’ solely as a description of Gaelic speakersresiding north of the Forth. Increasingly, however, Lothian and otherareas of the south came to be regarded and described geographically aspart of Scotland. Eventually the Melrose community, composed of menperhaps born and raised, and certainly resident, within this expandedkingdom of Scotland, came to think of itself individually and collec-tively as ‘Scots’.8 Crucially, this new identification with Scotland wasbased on geography and political attachment, rather than language andculture. The new southern Scots remained English in speech and cultureand continued to regard themselves as distinct from (and usually supe-rior 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 under-lay the foundation and growth of other medieval polities and whichdepended 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 thirteenthcentury was reflected in, and advanced by, a scholarly reworking of thehistory of Scottish kingship and the Scottish race by Richard Vairement,probably produced in the 1260s, that emphasised the independent ori-gins of the Scots and the long tradition of sovereign liberty enjoyed byking and people.11 The revamped account of the ancient origins of theScots and their kingdom implicitly rejected older narratives that pre-sented the history of the Scots and Scotland simply as a branch of Irishhistory, but seems to have been designed to complement an existingdynastic history that dealt with the descendants of Malcolm III andMargaret.12 Broun’s argument that a coherent history of the Scottishnation, on which many later accounts were based, first emerged in thethirteenth century creates a number of problems for established inter-pretations of the motivations and aims informing historical writing inlate medieval Scotland, because so much emphasis has been laid on thepropaganda struggle that accompanied the political and military con-flict of the early decades of the fourteenth century as the key stimulus toScottish chronicle production.13 This is not to say that prolonged Anglo-Scottish 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 Latinchronicle, 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 bitterand unrestrained hatred of the ‘southron’ on display in Blind Harry’svernacularWallace.14

Bower and Harry, however, were not the only chroniclers of Scotland’spast at work in the late medieval period. One rather neglected writer isAndrew of Wyntoun, prior of St Serfs in Fife, whose so-called OriginalChronicle, compiled in the early decades of the fifteenth century, wasthe earliest full-scale history of Scotland produced in the vernacular.15 Aswe shall see, Wyntoun offered his readers a vision of the kingdom andits history and, thereby, what he held to be the constituent elementsof Scottish identity in his own time that may shed further light (froma much later perspective) on the thirteenth-century processes, outlinedby Broun, by which English speakers in the south of the kingdom cameto be regarded, and to regard themselves, as Scots. The present studywill concentrate on the manner in which Wyntoun, and others, treatedtwo of the supposedly critical markers of ‘national’ distinctiveness inmedieval 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 bulkof those in urban settlements throughout the realm, regarded Englishas their first language.16 The tendency of modern historians and liter-ary scholars to describe the English dialect spoken in Scotland in thefourteenth and fifteenth century as ‘Scots’ runs counter to all availablecontemporary evidence. Until the last decade of the fifteenth centurylate medieval lowland Scots unequivocally and universally described thelanguage they spoke as ‘Inglis’ rather than ‘Scots’.17 Numerous asides inWyntoun’s chronicle make clear that he, and by implication his audi-ence, understood the term ‘Scottis’ to refer exclusively to Gaelic. Inrecounting the supposedly eleventh-century tale of MacDuff rewardingthe ferrymen who had carried him to safety over the River Earn with agift of bread, for example, Wyntoun reported,

That passage wes callit efter thanIn Scottis Portu Abyrdan,That in Inglis is to sayThe 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 Norwas the chronicler alone in displaying a sense of proprietorial pride in



English as the natural and historic language of lowland Scots. In the latefourteenth and early fifteenth century we find a number of off-hand ref-erences 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 abbotof Holyrood and Thomas de Strathmiglo, officials of the bishop of StAndrews in the archdeaconry of Lothian described the entail in vernac-ular English it incorporated as being in ‘lingua nostra materna’. The samephrase, ‘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 Englishas a native vernacular in Scotland would seem, potentially, to haveraised some significant intellectual and organisational problems for hischronicle. As Broun suggests, a medieval nation might be ‘constructed’through traditions of shared political obedience rather than widespreaduniformity in language and culture.21 However, there remained a perva-sive medieval view that lingua and gens were, or should be, essentiallycoterminous.22 If distinct peoples and, by extension, late-medieval poli-ties were thought to arise naturally from differences in language, howwas the multi-lingual late medieval kingdom of the Scots to be satis-factorily explained and justified in contemporary and historical terms?Moreover, how could the hostile relationship between Scotland andEngland in the late medieval period be rationalised against the backdropof 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 sustainedAnglo-Scottish political and military conflict after 1296 was difficultto conceptualise and justify in terms of an underlying or exacerbatinglinguistic or ethnic hostility.23 Certainly Wyntoun did not view the warsof the fourteenth century as the inevitable result of a deep-seated ani-mus between rival gentes. Instead, in an echo of early twelfth-centurychronicles, he laid great stress on the way in which the Scottish royalhouse descended from the marriage of Malcolm III and Margaret alsoembodied and protected ‘English’ interests in the island. Thereafter,Wyntoun emphasised the largely cordial relationship between the twointerrelated royal families through the thirteenth century.24 War, whenit came, was seen to arise not from differences in language and ethnic-ity, but from the tyrannous behaviour of Edward I who unjustly soughtto destroy the liberties and freedoms of the inhabitants of the Scottishrealm, including those of English speech and descent.25 Even the chron-icler’s account of the warfare that continued through the fourteenth


Steve Boardman 117

century maintained a rather relaxed view of the relationship betweenScottish and English identity.26 Individual noblemen and communitiessuch as that of Teviotdale whose allegiance was uncertain or disputedcould ‘become’ Scots by the swearing of oaths of fidelity to the Scot-tish king or his representatives. Equally these individuals or groupscould also ‘become’ Englishmen by transferring their allegiance to theEnglish crown. In 1334, for example, David of Strathbogie, who hadbeen serving with English forces until that point, became ‘a Scottis man’by swearing a great oath. Thereafter he behaved well, according to thechronicler ‘while he Scottis was’. The following year however, becauseof 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 andcultural difference, and determined largely by political allegiance.28

If there was no sense in Wyntoun’s work of a struggle arising fromcultural or linguistic tension, this is not to say that language played nopart in establishing or sustaining mutually hostile attitudes, or that theoutbreak of open warfare had no effect on the relative status of the var-ious languages in use in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Scotland.The most notable, and maybe rather surprising, development in linguis-tic terms within Scotland in the century after 1296 was what seems tohave been a rise in the status of English and its use in a variety of newcontexts, and a relative decline (perhaps from an already rather weakposition) of French as a widely utilised high-status vernacular.29 For thelate fourteenth-century continental chronicler Jean Froissart, one of thechief characteristics of the Scots of his own time was their unfamiliar-ity with, or open hostility to, the French language. Commenting onthe aftermath of a joint Franco-Scottish military campaign in northernEngland in 1384–1385 the chronicler asserted that the commander ofthe French forces involved, Jean de Vienne, returned to his homelanddisappointed with the attitude of his Scottish hosts and allies. A partic-ular problem would seem to have been the indifference or animosityof the Scots to those of French speech. The Scots, Froissart reported,claimed that ‘We neither understand their language nor they ours, andwe cannot converse together.’30 Moreover, according to Froissart, deVienne felt on the basis of his experience that ‘the Scots would natu-rally incline to the English, for they were jealous of foreigners’.31 That



lowland Scots and Englishmen were so similar in language and appear-ance as to be virtually indistinguishable was a point made by a numberof continental observers. The similarity meant that Scots were regularlyemployed to mount covert operations against English forces on the con-tinent because they were easy to pass off as Englishmen, while therewere a number of well-attested examples of battlefield confusion arisingfrom the difficulty in distinguishing Scots and English forces.32

Froissart may not have been entirely wide of the mark in suggestingthat Scottish aristocrats in the fourteenth century were less francophonethan might have seemed appropriate in an age where the languageretained a glamorous association with high courtly culture and the cultof chivalry. In medieval England, ‘spoken French derived its prestigefrom its international usage as the language of chivalry and of the court,where it was widely used into the fifteenth century at least’.33 Frenchalso remained, in fourteenth-century England at least, a language oflaw and administrative record. In contrast, evidence for the regular useof written or spoken French within the Scottish realm (as opposed todeployment of the language in diplomatic correspondence) in the sec-ond half of the fourteenth century is relatively rare.34 It seems a distinctpossibility that Scottish noblemen were less likely to be in situations thatdemanded they should be able to write, speak, read or listen to Frenchthan equivalent lords in England. Although there were occasional andinfrequent indications of the use of French in aristocratic correspon-dence and agreements, these have to be balanced against signs that,even at the highest political and social levels, expertise, proficiency orinterest in French was by no means assured. This is not to say that thepractical need for, or benefits from, competence in French disappeared.The language obviously remained predominant as the medium for inter-national diplomacy. The flow of Scots to the universities of Paris andOrleans and personal interaction with the aristocracies of England andFrance would also have maintained an interest in the language. How-ever, these concerns and activities were not universal and would nothave been relevant to all members of the Scottish aristocracy to thesame extent. The most obvious and well-known example of aristocraticunease with French is provided by the letter in ‘englis’ sent by GeorgeDunbar, earl of March, to the English king Henry IV in 1400. The earlfelt sufficiently embarrassed in using that language rather than Latinor French (both obviously considered more appropriate for correspon-dence with the English king) that he had to justify his decision on thebasis that English ‘ys mare clere to myne understanding than Latyne oreFranche’.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 fourteenthand early fifteenth century. Andrew of Wyntoun clearly did not expectthe audience for his Original Chronicle, which probably included theknightly elite of Fife, to have any competence in the language. Whenconfronted with a list of French bishops, lawyers and clerks who hadsupposedly deliberated on the relative virtues of the Bruce and Balliolclaims to the throne in the 1290s, Wyntoun decided against includingdetails from the document because, he claimed,

Thare names can I nocht all declareFor 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 knawlegeExpremyt in till oure langage;Bot, wit ye, thai were all gret men36

Elsewhere in his chronicle Wyntoun did include direct quotes inFrench, but on each occasion felt obliged to provide an Englishtranslation.37 The Scottish government also, at times, recognised theneed to provide translations from French into English. In 1390, forexample, it had been thought expedient to have the terms of the treatyof Leulinghem translated from French into ‘our language’ (linguamnostram), presumably to ensure that the agreement could be fullyunderstood, and complied with, by the king’s subjects.38

To characterise the linguistic shift of the fourteenth century entirelyin terms of a declining capacity or inclination to deal with spoken orwritten French, however, may be unduly negative. An equally impor-tant part of the process would seem to have been a growing engagementwith, and exploration of, the possibilities of English as both an admin-istrative and a literary language. A notable feature of the late fourteenthand early fifteenth century was the appearance of a number of Englishvernacular works of Scottish provenance in genres where the languagehad not, as far as can be told, been used in Scotland before. Themost significant and well known of these was probably John Barbour’schivalric verse epic, the Bruce, dating from 1375. In the 1390s a now lost‘Anonymous’ chronicle, covering the period from c.1330 to c.1390 (anda significant source for both Andrew of Wyntoun and Walter Bower),was compiled in English while around the same time the Legends of theSaints, a selection of vernacular saints’ lives based on the Latin LegendaAurea, was completed.39



The apparently increased interest of Scottish patrons and audiences inworks in the English vernacular may perhaps be best understood againsta background of wider change in the status of the English languageacross the British Isles in the fourteenth century. It has been arguedthat this period witnessed the growth of a type of ‘linguistic patriotism’within England, in which the English language came to be expresslyidentified with the interests of the English people and kingdom.40 Thework of Robert Manning of Bourne, in particular, presented the Englishnation and its language as under threat from a variety of external foes,principally the French and the Scots. Manning, however, also seemsto have subscribed to a vision of the past that saw the English as thehistorical victims of social oppression within their own realm at thehands of the Norman aristocratic elite established as the upper rank ofthe ‘English’ aristocracy by the events of 1066.41 Manning’s work thusmelded a pride in the history and virtues of the English people andtheir language with a sense of struggle against ‘the manifest inequalitiesof English society – serfdom, personal degradation, feudal oppression’,all of which were seen to originate in the advent and entrenchmentof a francophone ruling elite within the English kingdom.42 Manningwas not alone in presenting the history of the English in terms of along war to defend or recover the ancient freedoms and liberties sub-verted by the establishment of a new royal dynasty and aristocracyin the eleventh century. In the second half of the thirteenth centuryRobert of Gloucester, again writing in the English vernacular, treatedthe baronial rebellions against Henry III as a continuation of this his-toric campaign. Thus, and perhaps rather illogically, the thoroughlyfrancophone baronial leader Simon de Montfort was portrayed as an‘English’ hero fighting for the restoration of the more equitable societylost in 1066.43

How did the English-speaking communities of Scotland react to theemergence in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century of thisrefashioned English history imbued, as it was, with a deep sense of‘linguistic nationalism’?44 It is possible that some would have been alien-ated by the intense hostility towards the Scots obvious in Manning’swork in particular.45 However, the chronicler’s fierce defence of theEnglish race and tongue, and his vision of a people engaged in a longstruggle against social and political subjugation by a Frankish aristoc-racy, may have appealed to many lowland Scots, particular in the con-text of the dynastic and Anglo-Scottish wars that convulsed northernBritain after 1296. It may be significant, for example, that a numberof 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) asso-ciated with John of Fordun’s Chronica Gentis Scotorum, the man mostoften represented as speaking French, via assigned or reported quo-tation, was Edward I, and precisely the same was true in Wyntoun’sOriginal Chronicle. Moreover, in both works Edward was typically por-trayed as using French in a context where his arrogance or deceit indealing with prominent Scots or the Scottish realm was manifest.46 Theauthors obviously did not include the quotations in the expectation thattheir respective audiences would instantly understand them, for bothchroniclers also felt the need to provide translations of Edward’s Frenchasides into their own language of composition (Latin or English).47 Onemay wonder whether the simple fact that Edward was reported as usingFrench conveyed as much to these Scottish audiences about the distant,haughty and tyrannical lordship he supposedly embodied as the actualsubstance 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 suchas Manning and Robert of Gloucester were directly relevant to themand their kingdom. The ‘Englishness’ of lowland Scotland in linguisticterms was bound up with, and partly rationalised by, an historical under-standing that the Scottish royal dynasty was in some senses the trueheir to Anglo-Saxon kingship. The crucial figure here was clearly Queen,later Saint, Margaret, the wife of Malcolm III and the granddaughter ofthe Anglo-Saxon lord Edmund Ironside. That Malcolm and Margaret’sdescendants were thought by English and Scottish chroniclers from theeleventh century onwards to embody the bloodline of the old Englishroyal house was a notion convenient to the kings of both realms. Themarriage of Malcolm and Margaret’s daughter Matilda to Henry I ofEngland was certainly presented in the southern kingdom as a meansby which Anglo-Norman kingship inherited the political, cultural andspiritual legacy of Saxon monarchs such as Edward the Confessor.48

A similar fascination with the legacy of Malcolm andMargaret took holdin the historical writings of late medieval Scotland. Moreover, despitethe extensive thirteenth-century reworking of the history of the ancientScottish kingdom illuminated by Broun, it would appear that a numberof late medieval Scottish chroniclers, including Wyntoun, were eitherunaware of or rather disinterested in this longer and deeper historicalcontext.49 Instead, Malcolm III and Margaret were treated as the startingpoint of a ‘new’ and expressly sanctified royal dynasty.50 Ancient originmyths and king lists provided the necessary ideological underpinning



for the existence of the Scottish kingdom and gens, but Wyntoun’ssources allowed him to provide no more than the names of these earlierkings set against a chronology derived from papal and Roman histo-ries. Wyntoun’s detailed historical account of events and personalitiesin the Scottish or British context really only got underway with hissympathetic portrayal of the fate of the eleventh-century Anglo-Saxondynasty, concentrating on Margaret’s grandfather Edmund Ironside andhis family.51 Moreover, he made it clear that he considered there tohave been a radical transformation of the established Gaelic kingshipat the point of Margaret’s marriage to Malcolm III. The chronicler wentfar beyond simply noting the prominence of Malcolm and Margaret’sdescendants as Scotland’s royal family, to suggest that the marriage fun-damentally altered the nature of the Scottish monarchy. On at leastthree occasions he emphasised the fact that the royal line descendedfrom Malcolm and Margaret combined ‘Scottis’ and Saxon blood.

The Saxonys and the Scottys bludeIn natyownys twa before than yhud [flowed].Bot the barnetyme off that get,That Malcolme had off Saynt Margret,Togyddyr drw full unyowneTo pas syne [thereafter] in successyowne.52

Wyntoun’s portrayal of the late medieval Scottish dynasty and realmas a ‘union’ of ‘Scots’ and Saxon blood paralleled the late medievalEnglish depiction of Matilda’s marriage to Henry I as an event thatallowed the legacy of Anglo-Saxon kingship to pass to the Anglo-Frenchdynasty established in 1066. Indeed, Wyntoun’s account of the demiseof the Anglo-Saxon dynasty in the eleventh century bears more thana passing similarity, both in detail and sentiment, to that providedby chroniclers such as Robert of Gloucester.53 Genealogies and pottedhistories of the Anglo-Saxon royal house to which Margaret was sup-posedly heir had clearly been of interest to the Scottish dynasty andat least some of their subjects since the eleventh century. Increasingly,Malcolm and Margaret were treated as dynastic founders, displacing ear-lier Gaelic monarchs, such as Cinéad Mac Aílpin, who had previouslybeen accorded that status.54 The sense that the reign of Malcolm III rep-resented a new start was evident in the way that the queen’s consortwas occasionally described as Malcolm ‘the first’, despite being the thirdking of Scots to bear the name.55 As important as the status of the royalline was the fact that many prominent Scottish families claimed that


Steve Boardman 123

their ancestors had first arrived in Scotland in the reign of Malcolmand Margaret as refugees from the wreck of Anglo-Saxon England.56

The determination of individual noble lineages to fix their origins inScotland in the late eleventh century was occasionally replicated in thehistorical claims of corporate bodies such as burghs. In 1439, for exam-ple, the burgesses of Tain in Easter Ross asserted that the burgh’s tradingprivileges rested on a gift made by Malcolm III.57

It would seem, then, that the historical injustices claimed to arise fromthe dispossession of the eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon elite were poten-tially as likely to animate thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Scots asthey were the English of England. Moreover, the idea of the ‘English’language and people emerging from a long period of unjust suppres-sion may have been at least as important in mobilising opposition tothe ‘tyranny’ of Plantagenet rule in Scotland, as it was in challeng-ing the internal order of the fourteenth-century English kingdom. Theimpact of Edward I’s acquisitive ‘colonial’ administration on the southof Scotland in the period 1296–1297 (and perhaps beyond) sparked arebellion that seems to have been provoked by precisely the issues ofarbitrary lordship and economic and social degradation that exercisedManning and Robert of Gloucester. It is also tempting to speculate thatGloucester’s view of the French tongue as an instrument of lordly repres-sion would have been resonant for many of the southern Scots whocame into contact with Edward’s Scottish government.58 One of Robertof Gloucester’s ‘English’ heroes, Simon deMontfort, earl of Leicester, cer-tainly excited some contemporary and retrospective interest in Scotland.Earl Simon was the leader of baronial opposition to Henry III untilkilled by royalist forces led by Henry’s son, the future Edward I, at thebattle of Evesham in August 1265. De Montfort’s supporters regardedthe dead earl as a man martyred for the baronial cause, and a miracle-working cult with a strong anti-monarchical flavour flourished, looselybased around Simon’s tomb at Evesham abbey, despite royal efforts tosuppress it.59 Monfortian propaganda also made its way into Scotland,for at some point in the late 1280s a quasi-hagiographic work outlin-ing de Montfort’s virtues, the Opusculum de Simone, was copied intothe monastic chronicle that was maintained at Melrose.60 The fact thatMontfort had died fighting against the ‘tyranny’ of the young EdwardI and his father may well have encouraged a connection in the mindsof some Scots between Earl Simon’s cause and their own struggle withthe mature king Edward in the 1290s. A strange episode first attested inBower’s Scotichronicon, but perhaps of earlier date, linked de Montfortquite explicitly with the military endeavours of the Scots in the early



fourteenth century. Bower recorded a tale which set out how, on theeve of the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, two ghostly men-at-armshad appeared to the monks of Glastonbury abbey. Eventually the twospirits had asserted that they were on their way to Bannockburn tofight for Robert Bruce’s army so that they could have ‘revenge for theunjust deaths of Sir Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, and his fol-lowers . . . at the battle of Evesham’.61 A similarly imaginative conflationof English baronial interests and Scottish military action was made byRobert I’s envoys at Anglo-Scottish peace negotiations held at Bamburghin 1321. Here the Scots explained away Scottish invasions of the north ofEngland in the thirteenth century by asserting that they were in defenceof the Scottish crown’s rights in England or at the invitation of Englishbarons facing the tyranny of the English crown.62 These attempts tolink the Scottish monarchy with the English baronial cause were clearlyopportunistic, if not mischievous, and can hardly be guaranteed torepresent genuine Scottish attitudes or aspirations in the period. It is,however, worth noting in passing that documents produced by RobertI’s notably slippery propaganda department which expressed a levelof common interest with the Welsh or Irish in their struggle with theEnglish crown have generally been treated with some seriousness.63 It islikewise striking that English baronial resistance to the regime of EdwardII 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 tohave involved the earl in prolonged negotiations with the Scots in theyear 1321–1322.64

The sense of the English of Scotland as a distinct and self-consciouslanguage and ethnic group within the Scottish polity had, it wouldseem, largely disappeared by the close of the thirteenth century. How-ever, if the evidence of the chronicle of Melrose is a reliable guide,acceptance of the idea of being Scots living in Scotland was still arelatively recent development in at least some areas of the south.It might have been expected that the strength of this identificationamongst the English-speaking communities of the region would havebeen severely tested by the opening of full-scale and sustained war-fare between England and Scotland. The understanding of the Scottishpast outlined in Wyntoun’s chronicle may indicate why many Scotsof English speech and descent felt able or compelled to defend theirScots-Saxon king and land. For Wyntoun, the long-running Anglo-Scottish conflict of the fourteenth century was not a war founded onthe inevitable clash of rival tongues and races, but a struggle over thesame issues that fired the social critiques of Manning and Robert of


Steve Boardman 125

Gloucester, namely tyranny and thraldom. It was surely more likelyto be these concerns and affiliations, rather than any identificationwith the kingdom’s deep and mysterious Gaelic or Pictish past, whichbrought the men of Ettrick Forest to the battlefield of Falkirk, or encour-aged the defenders of Berwick in 1296, unwisely as it turned out, tobait Edward I with English rhymes.65 What these men fought to protectwas the legacy, traditions and rights of their ancestors, the English ofScotland.

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 andConquest; Davies (ed.), British Isles.

4. The fullest and most coherent argument for the force and long-term signif-icance of this widespread ‘anglicisation’ is provided in Davies, First EnglishEmpire.

5. Davies, First English Empire, 19. See also Frame, ‘Conquest and Settlement’.6. Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era; Barrow, Kingship and Unity; Duncan, Scotland: TheMaking of the Kingdom.

7. For the inclusion of the ‘English’ in the address clauses of Scottish royalcharters, especially those dealing with lands south of Forth, and the eventualdisappearance 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, ‘Scotchingthe Brut’.

14. Chron. Bower (Watt), IX, 352–3; Vita Nobilissimi Defensoris Scotie WilelmiWallace 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 andcomprehensiveness 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 theearly Scottish kings Wyntoun asserted that he ‘Wes callit Heid Fyn in Scottislay/And in Inglis Heid Quhit that is to say’.



19. Chron. Wyntoun, III, 198–9. Translating the church name ‘Ara Celi’, Wyn-toun commented that ‘Bot in oure leid it is to say/The altare of hevin or Godverray’; Ibid., III, 354–5; Ibid., IV, 58–9, where one MS (Cottonian) describesthe language as ‘Inglis’ and the equivalent passage in the other MS used inthe edition (Wemyss) uses the phrase ‘oure tonge’; Ibid., IV, 176. On a coupleof occasions, Wyntoun also seems to have used ‘Scottis’ in the older senseas a description of Gaelic-speakers. Ibid., IV, 370–1. Alexander I, attacked atInvergowrie by ‘A company come of the Ylis men’ (Wemys), A multitude ofScottis men (Cottonian).The chronicler’s account of a great raid by high-land 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’. SeeGrant, ‘Aspects of National Consciousness’, at 77 for discussion of thefact that ‘fourteenth-century Scotland did not fit contemporary theorieswhich 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 marriagetreaty ‘blithnes wes that tyde/Baith Scottis and Inglis on ilk syde’; 98–9 ‘Forthai twa kingis bundin wes/Togidder in gret tendernes’.

25. For Edward as a tyrant Chron. Wyntoun, V, 96–7 The birth of Edward I ‘Inall 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 tyrannywas his treatment of English lords whose relatives and men had been killedon campaign in Wales. Ibid., V, 218–19, 286–7 ‘Nocht king, bot a cursittyrand’.

26. Although it should be noted that for the period 1330–1390 Wyntoun’s nar-rative 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 fromthe ‘Anonymous Chronicle’) of noblemen, towns and rural communitiesshifting between Scots or English identities by oath making or breaking, seeChron. Wyntoun, VI, 28–9, 98–9, 26–7 (William Bullock), 128–9 (David deBerclay), 136–7 (Teviotdale). 138–9 (Bullock), 144–5, 186, 194–7 (The Forestand 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); Chronicleof 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 gretbounte’. The late thirteenth-century Berne MS included a French version ofthe Leges inter Bretos et Scoti (alongside Latin and English versions) suggestingthat the language retained some significance in a legal context at that point.However, by the end of the fourteenth century, French had effectively dis-appeared as a legal language in Scotland. MacQueen, ‘Laws and Languages’.The coronation oaths of Alexander III in 1249 were apparently laid out bythe 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 ofFrench in this public ceremony continued in the fourteenth century. Forisolated examples of the use of French for legal purposes, see Laing Charters,no. 32 and RRS, V, no. 148 (both documents, perhaps significantly, issuedin Berwick); Ibid., no. 72 (an indenture between Robert I and Duncan, earlof 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 retainingagreement in French, perhaps using an Anglo-French exemplar. RegistrumHonoris 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, producedsometime in the fourteenth century or simply a product of Wyntoun’simagination.

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’, fordiscussion.

40. Turville-Petre, ‘Politics and Poetry’; Turville-Petre, ‘The “Nation” in EnglishWritings’; Turville-Petre, England the Nation.

41. Turville-Petre, England the Nation, ‘The English Kingdom and the NormanYoke’, 91–8; Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 181–2. In Manning’s treatment of theAnglo-French war of 1295 the chronicler asserted that ‘thraldom’ had firstbeen introduced into England by the Normans, and that the French nowprovided a similar threat for if their war was successful the English nationin the 1290s would experience an even more profound descent into slaveryand oppression.

42. Given-Wilson, Chronicles, 181.43. Ibid., 181–2.44. Quote from Davies, ‘Peoples of Britain and Ireland, IV’, 3. See also Turville-

Petre, 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 amongstthe ‘Disinherited’, lords whose claims to Scottish lordships had been wreckedby the Bruce ascendancy. Turville-Petre, ‘Politics and Poetry’, 8–13.



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 andretained only the English paraphrase.

48. Turville-Petre, England the Nation, 18–19, 93–4; Boardman, ‘Late MedievalScotland’, 61–2.

49. Although Wyntoun certainly regarded the fragmentary material he includedon early Scottish kings as relevant to the status of the kingdom in his owntime. For example, a passing reference to the rule of a Pictish king wasexplained as deriving from a source (probably a king list) that the chroniclerdescribed as one of ‘oure Scottis storyis’, Chron. Wyntoun, III, 340–1.

50. Chron. Wyntoun, II, 12–13, where the author explained that the seventhbook of the chronicle was to be concerned with ‘pe nobill generatioun/Andof the blessit gud lynnage/That come of pe marriage/Off Malcolme king ofScotland/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 estab-lish whether the sources for his narrative actually included earlier vernacularEnglish 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 Malcolmeoure 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 intoScotland, see Chron. Wyntoun, IV, 334–5, 337, flight of ‘Bischopis, erllis andbarownys’, 343; Boardman, ‘Late Medieval Scotland’, 68–72.

57. Acts of the Lords of the Isles, 43–5 (no. 28). The authenticity of the fifteenth-century original may be in doubt.

58. See Murison, ‘Linguistic relationships’, 77, for the point that after AlexanderIII’s death there was a proliferation of documents in French dealing withScottish affairs, presumably partly because of the involvement of Edward Iand his administrators in these negotiations. After 1296, of course, most ofthe humbling processes imposed on the Scots, such as the compilation ofthe Ragman Roll, would also have been conducted, or at least recorded, inFrench.

59. Valente, ‘Simon deMontfort’; 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 LittleJohn, figures emblematic of the struggle against social oppression, whom heclaimed 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 balladsrelating to Hood were well-known in fifteenth-century Scotland. Wyntoun,


Steve Boardman 129

on the other hand, seemed to locate the activities of Robin and Little Johnat a slightly later date, in the 1280s. Chron. Wyntoun, V, 136–7.

62. Linehan, ‘Fourteenth-Century History of Anglo-Scottish Relations’.63. The ‘Irish Remonstrance’ of 1317 and other documents proclaiming a

Scottish affinity with the native Irish or the Welsh as fellow victims ofEnglish oppression have been subject to some penetrating scholarly investi-gation and placed in a wider context of genuine political, cultural and socialinteraction. See especially Duffy, ‘Bruce Brothers’.

64. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 296–7, 301–3, 306–7, 312.65. Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, II, 234–7. Significantly perhaps, Wyntoun pre-

sented Edward I as giving the belated order for quarter to be extended to theinhabitants of Berwick in French. Chron. Wyntoun, V, 284–5.


9Policies, Priorities and Principles:The King, the Anglo-Irish andEnglish Justiciars in the FourteenthCenturyBeth Hartland

According to Sir John Davies, writing in 1612, there was no doubt thatthe kings of England from Henry II onwards had clear intentions regard-ing Ireland, for ‘ever since our nation had any footing in this Land, theState of England did earnestly desire, and did accordingly endeavourfrom time to time, to perfect the conquest of this kingdom’. All previ-ous kings had failed where King James was to succeed, however, because‘in every age there were found such impediments and defects in bothRealmes, as caused almost an impossibility, that thinges should havebin otherwise then they were’. In other words, all monarchs prior to the‘happy raigne’ of James I had been legitimately distracted from whatthey would otherwise have been sure to set about. Davies was not sim-ply engaged in composing a panegyric in honour of James, his book wasalso intended as a defence of the intentions of the monarchy against a‘vulgar Opinion’ abroad at the time that in previous reigns it had beenpurposefully intended to ‘continue that Realme in Barbarisme’.1 Daviesdid not describe these intentions of the kings of England as a policy, buthad that word been in usage in its modern sense in the early seventeenthcentury it seems fair to suggest that he would have done so.2 Davieshad a stall to set out, and in so doing he established the parameters ofdiscussion for all writers of Irish history who subsequently sought toexplain or excuse the failure of the ‘first conquest’, or to unearth evi-dence of those royal intentions to ‘perfect’ or complete it.3 Indeed, it isonly recently that historians have committed to print the notion thatthe perfection of the conquest was in fact never on the royal agendain the medieval period, and that a completion of the territorial con-quest 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 Englishlaw throughout the island was a precondition for a perfect conquestwhich could only occur when all people were subjects of the king hasalso influenced subsequent writings, with blame being apportioned forthe failure to see the importance of extending English law to the Irishand evidence of intentions to extend the English law being sought.5

We cannot trace back to Davies so directly the tendency for historiansof 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 suc-cesses were due to the ‘concurrence of many great Felicities’ in his reign,rather than a far-sightedness lacking in his forbears. If any were villainsin Davies’ work it was the Anglo-Irish who ‘broght forth diuers mis-chiefs, that did not only disable the English to finish the Conquest of allIreland, but did endaunger the losse of what was already gained’.6 It waslong ago noted by Orpen that ‘it has been the fashion, especially withwriters who have seldom a good word for English policy in Ireland, tobestow a considerable measure of praise upon the action of King Johnin that country’, and in the same vein Edward II and Richard II wouldundoubtedly have been most gratified by the prestige they enjoy in thehistoriography of the fourteenth-century lordship.7 In what follows itis my intention to review the ‘Irish policies’ of the fourteenth-centurykings of England with recourse neither to concepts of success and failurenor to images of heroism and villainy.8

It is a conceit of historians of medieval Ireland that the kings ofEngland had a consistent policy towards the lordship – not even themuch lauded Richard II was capable of this. This is not to charge theEnglish kings with disinterest in Ireland, but to challenge the capacityof any medieval king to pursue a consistent policy in the modernusage of that term. We do not have to stray beyond the bounds ofmedieval Irish historiography to find challenges to this capacity ofmedieval rulers; and even McFarlane hesitated from nominating whathe perceived as Edward I’s sustained attacks on the English earldomsa policy.9 As Professor Lydon has observed, ‘medieval policy was usu-ally a matter of expediency, and certainly so far as Anglo-Irish relationsare concerned it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the king andhis council in England made decisions on a purely ad hoc basis, withlittle regard for the future’.10 No English king could countenance theloss of his rights and possessions in Ireland: the country was part ofthe royal patrimony, and all medieval kings intended that it shouldso remain (with the exception perhaps of Richard II who may haveintended 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 nodoubt . . . about its place in the Plantagenet scheme of things’, and therewas no question of a medieval king carrying out an analysis to determinewhether England could afford to retain its outlying lands.12 Principleswere at stake, and the overriding principle which governed all relationsbetween the king and his Irish lordship – that the king of England waslord of Ireland – gave the Anglo-Irish the right to demand good lordshipfrom the king, as much as it allowed the king to exercise patronage andthe more demanding of his feudal prerogatives there.13 The repeatedpleading of the Anglo-Irish with Edward III allowed the king in 1357to blame the (apparent) misinformation he had received regarding thestate of the lordship from his ministers there for his previous lack ofaction and culminated in the expedition of Lionel of Ulster to Ireland.14

If we cannot expect medieval kings to have had consistent policiestowards Ireland, we may be on safer ground in deducing a royal policytowards the lordship when the royal attitude to Ireland formed part ofa more general approach to the wider dominions of the English king. Ithas, for example, been argued that Edward I, working in tandemwith hisjusticiar of Ireland, John Wogan, sought to expand the area of the lord-ship under ‘direct royal government . . .by what seems to have been adeliberate royal policy, showing itself in other of Edward’s dominions’.15

Under discussion here are the king’s acquisition of the lands of RalphPipard and Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, among others; as well as theincorporation of the former de Verdon franchise in Meath into countyDublin, and the shiring of the former de Vescy liberty of Kildare. Butit can be shown that the impetus behind the royal acquisition of theselands lay with the landholders in question, and that ‘there was no sys-tematic policy of destroying liberties’ in Ireland.16 There is, however,more consensus regarding Edward III’s intentions in betrothing his sec-ond eldest son to the heiress of the earldom of Ulster in 1342. MarkOrmrod has argued that following the crisis of 1341–1342 the kingpursued ‘a conscious dynastic strategy’ that formed ‘the very core of[his] . . .political program’ for the next 30 years.17 That the decision tofinally send Lionel to Ireland was part of a grander strategy is sup-ported by the fact that it was announced in parliament in England atthe same time as the king’s decision to send his eldest son, Edward, toGascony: both sons were to provide for ‘le bon governance’ of their respec-tive territories.18 Nevertheless, the fact that Lionel, following the deathof his wife, was to shake the dust of Ireland off his feet in preference forthe lure of Milan suggests that Edward III’s policy may have been moreabout 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 thefinite royal resources could be spared in the maintenance of the royalrights in Ireland, as indeed elsewhere. Robin Frame has argued that theexpedition of Lionel of Ulster to Ireland ushered in a new era in whichthe English crown was prepared to support the English administrationin Ireland, if only because the Anglo-Irish now regarded such financialsupport as their entitlement. In this argument expenditure on Ireland,in spite of financial difficulties, becomes something of a principle: ‘theEnglish government, like all organizations, was most comfortable doingwhat it had done before, even if it was expensive’.19 But had this prece-dent really crystallized so soon into a principle? Connolly has arguedthat ‘the attitude of the English council towards Irish financial involve-ment hardened’ between 1368 and 1375, ‘as its own difficulties andcommitments 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 beenprepared to fund William of Windsor’s expedition because of fear thatsouthern Ireland would prove a back door into England in this renewedphase of the war with France.21 Richard II’s expedition of 1394–1395seems to have sat in the tradition established by Lionel’s expedition of1361, and he was followed by a succession of English lieutenants whowere at least theoretically supported in their office from England. Inthe later fourteenth century the mentality that one more ‘troop surge’would solve the problem of the lordship was clearly the driving fac-tor behind the English investment in Ireland. The extent to whichRichard’s successors on the English throne, and the English commonsin parliament, were prepared to finance ‘the war in Ireland’ was to bevariable.22

Whether in receipt of sufficient financial support from England or not,English justiciars had to work with the Anglo-Irish population in orderto achieve their aims, and increasingly so as the fourteenth century pro-gressed and the revenues of the Irish exchequer declined. As early asthe justiciarship of John Wogan (1295–1308, 1309–1312), an attitudeof Realpolitik served him effectively in keeping smooth the feathers ofJohn fitz Thomas, later the first earl of Kildare, by repeatedly ignoringthe king’s commands that he cause fitz Thomas to give compensation tothe king’s cousin, Agnes de Valence.23 Fitz Thomas was crucial to Wogan



in keeping the peace in Leinster, certainly more so than an ‘absenteelandlady’, and he had already been cut down to size by Edward I in 1295over his dispute with Richard de Burgh, earl of Ulster.24 The king’s repre-sentatives still commanded respect during the reign of Edward II; Johnde Hothum, the king’s envoy to Ireland, was able to demand evidence ofthe loyalty of the Anglo-Irish magnates during the Bruce invasion, andin c.1355 Thomas de Rokeby (1349–1355, 1356–1357) earned the highaccolade of being requested to serve for a second term by the mayorand commonalty of the city of Cork.25 Unwise choices to act as justiciarwere not confined to the later part of the fourteenth century when the‘politicised’ Anglo-Irish community left the king in no doubt of theiropinions. The mud-slinging debacle that William de Vescy’s justiciar-ship (1290–1294) degenerated into must have given Edward I plentyof grounds for regret. Ralph Ufford (1344–1346) was similarly zealous(although his actions were more clearly in support of what he sup-posed to be the king’s interests), and he displayed a conspicuous lackof understanding of Anglo-Irish politics and society in the process.26 Inthe later fourteenth century, the Anglo-Irish would have complainedabout a justiciar such as John Wogan or Ralph Ufford on the grounds ofinsufficient status: Philip de Courtenay, for example, was not a popularchoice in the lordship; and it is clear that Richard II could not employthe policy of his great-great-grandfather and hope his choice would passwithout comment.27 The extent to which English justiciars could hopeto shape the lordship of Ireland in accordance with the king’s wishes –that it be profitable, well-governed and peaceful – was constrained bythe attitude of the Anglo-Irish community; the gap between the lord-ship in reality and the understanding of the situation in the minds ofEnglish councilors; and the pressures exerted on the lordship by theGaelic 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 neighbourhoodsin which councils and parliaments were held, should discuss impor-tant and difficult matters. The king wanted the input of the Anglo-Irishcommunity for, as Robin Frame has demonstrated, he preferred to workwith the grain of colonial society.28 It has also been shown that theAnglo-Irish had their finger on the pulse of English government at acritical point in Edward’s reign: their petitions to the king in 1360, at atime when the treaty of Brétigny was in the offing, were consummatein both their timing and vocabulary.29 But, of course, the Anglo-Irishdid not always get what they asked for, and we must not make the mis-take 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 tothe Anglo-Irish request in 1373 that William of Windsor should not bereappointed as justiciar – although this may have been, as the Englishcouncil contended, because no one else could be prevailed upon toassume the responsibility and expense – and when Edward did acqui-esce in the wishes of the Anglo-Irish it was because they accorded withhis own inclinations.30 Richard II, in contrast, was not so interested inworking with the grain of colonial society – indeed it has recently beenargued that his actions during the expedition of 1394–1395 worked dis-tinctly against the established order among the settler population in thelordship – and, as far as appointing lieutenants according to the per-son specifications favoured by the Anglo-Irish went, Richard was rathermaverick to say the least in his appointment of the seven-year-old earlof 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 1385must have planted a seed in Richard’s mind. The Anglo-Irish could seeno remedy against the imminent conquest of the lordship by the GaelicIrish ‘except the coming of the King, our lord, in his own person’.32

Opinions vary on the accuracy of this particular assessment of the situ-ation. James Lydon has argued that Richard’s expedition of 1394–1395was a military necessity; Robin Frame, on the other hand, has pointedout that ‘the condition of the lordship was not as critical as the king’ssubjects there claimed (and perhaps believed)’.33 It is this second view-point that I wish to briefly examine here. It can certainly be shownthat the Anglo-Irish community did not display consistency betweenwhat they requested in the person of a justiciar or lieutenant of Irelandand their opinion of this official when their requests were satisfied.34

Ralph Ufford was a case in point; and the general praise received bythe modestly endowed Thomas de Rokeby, for example, does not squarewith the 1360 request for ‘a good and sufficient captain, stuffed andenforced by men and treasure’.35 From 1360 onwards, each request foraid from England upped the ante: in 1341 the Anglo-Irish complainedthat ‘the third part and more of your land of Ireland which was con-quered in the time of your progenitors is now come into the hand ofyour Irish enemies and your English lieges are so impoverished thatthey 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 theymade their famous request for ‘d’un bone chiefteyn suffisant, estoffés etefforcéz 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 asjusticiar, if a royal prince were not available, they requested that the earlof March also be sent with a great army to defend his lands in Ulster; and



in 1385 the Anglo-Irish claimed that the state of the lordship requiredthe presence of the king, or at least ‘le plus graunt et plus foiable seigneurdengleterre’. Finally, in 1399, they asserted that ‘la terre est en peril de finaldestruction’.36 Undoubtedly the pressure being exerted on the colony bythe Gaelic Irish was increasing; Richard II’s reign began with the omi-nous news that it had been necessary to buy off Ó Briain [O’Brien] ofMunster who ‘meditates on making war on the lieges of the lord theking in the parts of Leinster’.37 But one can also imagine a scenario inwhich the Irish council did not wish to appear less needy than in pre-vious requests for aid, for fear of reducing the level of support grantedto them.Let us turn from speculation concerning the Anglo-Irish to specu-

lation concerning Richard II. One of the questions that has naturallyconcerned scholars (and chroniclers) has been why Richard went onan expedition to Ireland, and not only once, but twice.38 Historiansare now generally agreed that Richard did not depart from England in1394 with a fully-fledged plan to reinvent the official structures of thelordship, but are far from unanimous where his primary motivation isconcerned.39 What the theories put forward by historians generally dohave in common is the belief that Ireland was at the centre of Richard’spolicy. To argue thus is to support the view that Richard’s reign saw aradical departure from recent precedent not only in form (an expedi-tion headed by the king), but also from two centuries of royal attitudestowards the lordship. The theory put forward by Michael Bennett, how-ever, does not require such a royal volte-face, and should be considered apossibility for that very reason. Bennett suggests that Richard’s focus onIreland has to be seen in a wider context; and that this context was notjust as part of Richard’s perception of his ‘wider realm’ of Britain, but hisself-image as a ruler on the European stage – although whether Richardreally sought to live out The Verses of Gildas (which foretold ‘an out-standing career of success for ‘our King now ruling’ which would beginwith a successful expedition to Ireland undertaken after a grave crisis’)is another matter.40 Nigel Saul has argued that Richard’s experiences inIreland may have contributed to the development of his exalted viewsof his position as king. One can take this argument a step further: intaking the submissions of the Gaelic Irish Richard would have been wellaware that he was dealing with men who had their own pretensions toroyalty (even if of the ‘petty-kingship’ kind): he speaks of ‘those whocall themselves Kings and Captains of Munster and Connacht’ in oneof his letters back to England; and he was aware of the royal titles usedby Ó Néill [O’Neill] (‘prince of the Irish of Ulster’), Ó Briain (‘prince of


Beth Hartland 137

Thomond’) and Mac Murchadha [MacMurrough] (‘rex Lagenie’). Receiv-ing submissions from men who retained such aspirations to kingshipmay have influenced Richard’s development of his own more exaltednotions of regality.41

The similarities between Richard II’s ‘Irish policies’ and those of hisfourteenth-century forbears should not be underestimated. Despite SirJohn Davies’ assertions, these similarities were not concerned with theperfection of the conquest, but rather with some form of ‘restoration’of the lordship once such a need had become apparent. It would beanachronistic to expect any greater overlap in policy between thesekings, in the modern usage of the term. That efforts to achieve this‘restoration’ were at times inconsistent should not be surprising. Fromthe start of the lordship, kings of England had been forced to makedecisions relating to Ireland based on the conflicting and biased adviceof the Anglo-Irish and the Dublin government. Richard II did not cir-cumvent such biased influences by actually coming to Ireland. Hisknowledge of his lordship was first-hand, but in consequence he waseven more an audience for shrewd men, both Gaelic and Anglo-Irish,putting on an act for the king, than any of his fourteenth-centurypredecessors receiving petitions and reports at Westminster had been.

Notes

1. Davies, Discouerie, 3–4, 259. I would like to thank Dr KeithWaters for fieldingvarious questions on the topic of fourteenth-century Irish history, as well asreading 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 Walesand Scotland’, ‘the Barons warres’, ‘the warres of France’ and ‘DomestickContention for the Crowne’.

2. Davies uses ‘policy’ in the sense of ‘government’, namely ‘some statesmenthen in policy’ (Discouerie, 3).

3. See, for example, MacNeill, Phases of Irish History, 328–31; Curtis, History ofMedieval Ireland, 168, and chapter 13, 253ff.; Duffy, Ireland, 99; and for recentgeneral comment, Bhreathnach, ‘Medieval Irish History’, 261.

4. Frame, ‘English Political Culture’, 1; Phillips, ‘Edward II and Ireland’, 3 andpassim. Gerald of Wales was clearly of the opinion that the conquest oughtto be completed; Expugnatio Hibernica, 244–9. In the thirteenth century theconquest was carried forward by the settler population (see Duffy, Ireland,112–13). See Libelle of Englyshe Polycye, 39 for comments by the earl ofOrmond on how quickly the conquest could be completed.

5. Davies, Discouerie, 6; Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 159 argued thatEdward I’s policy should have aimed ‘to end the race-war by giving theGaelic chiefs legal status under the Crown, and confirming to the Irish “inter



anglicos” the benefits of royal law’. For attempts to extend English law tothe Irish, see Otway-Ruthven, ‘Select Documents’; Otway-Ruthven, ‘NativeIrish and English Law’; Murphy, ‘Status of the Native Irish’; Frame, ‘Immedi-ate Effect’. It may be asked whether all the Gaelic Irish would have acceptedEnglish law in the fourteenth century had there been no impediments toits assumption. Equally, despite its recent adoption into the mainstream ofstudies on Richard II (e.g., see Saul, Richard II, 282), it is far from clear that thesettlement with Gaelic Ireland envisaged by that king involved the extensionof English law throughout the island.

6. Davies, Discouerie, 150. See Crooks, ‘Factionalism’ 14–15 for a discussion ofDavies’ lasting influence on the topic of factionalism in Ireland. I am mostgrateful to Dr Crooks for allowingme access to a copy of his thesis in advanceof its appearance on the TCD library catalogue.

7. Orpen quoted in Duffy, ‘Historical Revisit’, 257. Frame, ‘England andIreland’, 17, noted how ‘elaborate royal policies towards the Lordship’ havebeen deduced from John’s journey to Ireland of 1185. Edward II is praisedfor holding regular parliaments in Ireland: Clarke, ‘Irish Parliaments’; seealsoWatt, ‘Negotiations’; Mortimer, ‘Lordship and Patronage’. For commentson the historiographical treatment of Richard II, see Frame, English Lord-ship in Ireland, 338. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 503, for contrastingcomments on Richard II and Henry IV.

8. In the period under discussion here, Edward I is traditionally cast in the roleof ‘villain’, namely ‘for an Irish historian . . .Edward I is the king who killedthe silver goose’: Dolley, ‘Anglo-Irish Monetary Policies’, 51.

9. Empey, ‘Settlement of the Kingdom of Limerick’, 17; Hays and Jones, ‘Pol-icy on the Run’. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 274. McFarlane, ‘HadEdward I a “Policy” ’, 147–9.

10. Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, 44–5. Harbison, ‘William of Windsor’, 139–40,describes royal policy on absenteeism as inconsistent and weak. Neither wasRichard II consistent in his approach to the issue. For an example of anexemption granted by him, see TNA SC 8/252/12573.

11. See Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English Crown’, 286.12. 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 Englishcrown would then have been forced either to divert to Ireland substantialresources which it could not afford, or, perhaps more likely, to give upthe struggle altogether’ does not accord with the energetic royal responseto the challenge of the Bruce invasion: infra, Dryburgh, ‘Roger Mortimerand the Governance of Ireland’. In 1308 Edward II had sent the Statute ofWinchester for observation in Ireland, taking ‘instant pains’ to achieve peacein the lordship ‘because we are hereto bound by the bond of an oath’: Statutesand Ordinances, 245.

13. For practical examples, see Hartland, ‘Household Knights’.14. Statutes and Ordinances, 408. Frame, English Lordship, 296 argues that

Edward ‘had the lordship on his conscience’ as a result of Anglo-Irishrepresentations. Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 265 made a similar argu-ment concerning Richard II.

15. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 212. Frame, ‘Dublin Govern-ment’, 124 argued that ‘by a curious paradox, the shiring of Kildare meant


Beth Hartland 139

less rather than more direct intervention in it by the government’ due toWogan having ‘practically farmed out the war there’ to prominent magnates.

16. For the acquisition of these lands by the crown, see Hartland, ‘Reasons forLeaving’; for royal ‘policy’ towards the liberties of Ireland see Prestwich,Edward I, 539–40 (quote at 540) and Hartland, ‘Liberties of Ireland’.

17. Ormrod, ‘Edward III and his Family’, 138.18. PROME, V, 192 for Lionel’s career in Ireland, see Connolly, ‘Lionel of Clarence

and Ireland’.19. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 296, 333–8, quote at 333.20. Connolly, ‘Financing of English Expeditions’, 118.21. Harbison, ‘William of Windsor’, vi–vii, 31–9.22. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 333–4; Cosgrove, ‘England and

Ireland’, 526.23. Fitz Thomas had seized her lands in Co. Kildare. For the dispute, see Ó

Cléirigh, ‘Absentee Landlady’.24. See, for example, CDI 1293–1301, no. 246.25. ‘Documents on the Early Stages of the Bruce Invasion’, 253–5; Otway-

Ruthven, ‘Ireland in the 1350s’, 53.26. Frame, ‘English Political Culture’, 8; Frame, ‘Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford’.27. Tuck, ‘Anglo-Irish Relations’, 20–4.28. Statutes and Ordinances, 408; Parliaments and Councils, xii. Frame, ‘Thomas

Rokeby’, 280.29. Connolly, ‘Lionel of Clarence and Ireland’, 10–18; Watt, ‘Anglo-Irish

Colony’, 367.30. Cf. Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland, 206; Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, 146–7.

Harbison, ‘William of Windsor’, 75–6, 116. For example, consider the1341–1342 crisis in Frame, ‘English Policies’.

31. Crooks, ‘Factionalism’, 61. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 142 empha-sizes how Richard ‘formed a policy that was distinctively royal rather thanAnglo-Irish in approach’ through his communications with his councilin England. As Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 316, says, thisappointment must have been met ‘with stupefied incredulity’ in Ireland.

32. Statutes and Ordinances, 485. Johnston, ‘Richard II and Ireland’, 32 arguesthat Richard began to take a more personal role in the governance of thelordship following the rejection of de Vere as duke of Ireland by the Englishgovernment.

33. Lydon, ‘Richard II’s Expeditions to Ireland’. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland,339. See also Frame, ‘Ireland’, 379 and Frame, ‘Thomas Rokeby’, 295.

34. Duffy, Ireland, 149–50 has commented on this phenomenon.35. Frame, ‘Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford’, 37. The translation is that provided by

Lydon, ‘Ireland and the English Crown’, 284.36. Watt, ‘Anglo-Irish Colony’, 367; Parliaments and Councils, 19, 21; Harbison,

‘William of Windsor’, 75–6; Statutes and Ordinances, 484.37. Statutes and Ordinances, 473 (quote); Parliaments and Councils, no. 57.38. 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 thatRichard’s second expedition was motivated by a desire to avenge the deathof Mortimer.



39. See, for example, Frame, Political Development, 215. Johnston, ‘Richard II andIreland’, passim traces the development of Richard’s plans.

40. Bennett, ‘Richard II and the Wider Realm’, quote at 202. It is generallyaccepted that Richard was interested in extending his dominion within, andconsolidating his position throughout, Britain and Ireland (Saul, Richard II,270, 292).

41. Saul, ‘Richard II and the Vocabulary of Kingship’, 865–7; Curtis, ‘Unpub-lished Letters’, 294; Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 211, 216.


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

In 1403–1404 the Irish chiefs of eastern Ulster rose out in war against thecolony there in association with the Scots of the Western Isles and wereeventually suppressed by the third earl of Ormond, justicar from Marchto October 1404. It is an incident that has not hitherto attracted muchattention. Otway-Ruthven has discussed it in connection with a laterletter sent from the Ulster colony to the fourth earl of Ormond, dated4 June 1420, when the inhabitants again found themselves in difficultyand exhorted the fourth earl to follow his father’s example and deliverthem from their present danger.1 A significant feature of this letter is itsemphatic allocation of blame for the colonists’ previous and current dif-ficulties to Aodh, son of Art Mág Aonghusa, [Magennis], king of Iveagh(Uí Eachach Uladh), south county Down, ‘son of perdition and enemyof Jesus Christ’, to quote some of its milder language, whereas HenryMarleburrough’s chronicle stresses instead the wickedness of Adam MacGiolla Muire [MacGilmore] of north Down, and his son Aodh, whowas eventually to be killed in 1408 in revenge for his misdeeds by theSavages, a leading family among the Ulster settlers. Paradoxically theSavages on this occasion fought as allies of Mág Aonghusa.2

The issue in 1420 may have been a relatively clear-cut confrontationbetween native Irish and English colonists. In 1425 the fourth earl ofOrmond was to allude to the existence of a sworn confederation amongthe Ulster chieftains, directed against the English king and the absenteeearl of Ulster.3 However, in October 1401 and again in August 1402 theIrish chancery rolls had referred to a less polarised grouping – ‘all theking’s rebels and enemies, Scots, Irish and English in Ulster’4 – and inview of the widespread opposition to the Lancastrian dynasty occurringelsewhere in the British Isles at this date, it seems worthwhile to look atthe episode in greater detail.

141


142 The Ulster Revolt of 1404

One question to ask is, against whom might English rebels in Ulsterhave been rebelling – against the king and the earl of Ulster, or againstthe king only? This is particularly relevant when, as was the case atthat time, the earl himself was a minor, and the earldom had beentaken into the king’s hands. The obvious parallel, discussed long ago byOrpen, happened in the late thirteenth century. Sir Henry de Mandevillehad been custos of the forfeited territory of Tweskard in north Antrimeven before King Henry III re-instated the earldom of Ulster in 1263and granted it to Walter de Burgh, lord of Connacht.5 De Burgh sub-sequently appointed Sir Henry as his seneschal of the liberty of Ulster,and later when Earl Walter died in 1271, leaving an underage heir, SirHenry seems to have been allowed initially to continue in his officeof seneschal of Ulster under the then justiciar of Ireland, Sir JamesAudley, as we find him rendering his account for the first year of theheir’s minority.6 The Irish chieftains, Aodh Buidhe Ó Néill [O’Neill]and Cúmhuighe Ó Catháin [O’Cahan/O’Kane], who would have beenaccustomed to render their tributes and military service under de Man-deville’s supervision, were brought to submit to James Audley, and weresent home with the usual ceremonial presents.7 In an unprecedentedmove, 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’sdower to the countess Emmeline de Burgh, thus keeping them out ofthe 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 nextjusticiar, Maurice fitz Gerald, was an old enemy of the de Burgh fam-ily. The strange assignment of chiefs’ homages and defensible castles tothe earl’s widow was made the subject of a royal enquiry, and a newseneschal of Ulster was appointed, Sir William FitzWarin, who immedi-ately questioned Sir Henry’s continuing administration of the territoryof Tweskard. The ex-seneschal, Sir Henry de Mandeville, brought his for-mer charges, the chiefs Aodh Buidhe Ó Néill and Cúmhuighe Ó Catháin,to accompany him on raids against the lands of FitzWarin and his sup-porters. FitzWarin had to leave Ulster in fear of his life, although SirHenry de Mandeville himself was killed in the course of the war. Theinteresting point of the whole episode is that when the young EarlRichard de Burgh came of age, he took the side of the de Mandevillefamily, appointed successively Sir Thomas de Mandeville and Williamde Mandeville as his seneschals of the liberty of Ulster, and pressed forcompensation to be paid for Sir Henry’s death.9 A great magnate likeEarl Richard, who spent much of his time in England and had closerconnections 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 partof Ulster, but the obedience and military service of the Irish chiefs there.Indeed it was the failure of Earl Richard’s grandson, Earl William deBurgh, to cultivate the loyalty of the de Mandevilles that led to his assas-sination 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 ineli-gible in future to hold office in the liberty of Ulster, particularly as thelater earls were no longer hibernicised de Burghs, but initially Lionel ofAntwerp, later duke of Clarence, in right of his marriage to Elizabeth deBurgh, and subsequently Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in right ofhis marriage to Lionel’s daughter and heiress, Philippa. Another promi-nent local family had to be found among the Ulster colonists to act asagents of the absentee earls, and the choice fell on the Savage familyof county Down. Sir Robert Savage held various offices in the libertyof Ulster between 1333 and his death in 1360, and won a high repu-tation as an effective military defender of the colony against the risingpower of Ó Néill of Tyrone (Tír Eoghain).11 His descendants do not, how-ever, seem to have enjoyed the same unquestioning confidence fromtheir 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) andlater John de Burgh of Camlin (May 1363–September 1366).12 Sir HenrySavage (d. 1383), who seems to have been head of his family in thegeneration following Sir Robert’s death and was regularly summonedto parliament by individual writ does not appear in the records as anoffice-holder in the liberty.13 There is, it must be admitted, a problemwith the survival of evidence – administrative records of the Ulster earl-dom disappear periodically from view as each heir came of age andthe escheator lost control of its administration. However, there mightbe some grounds for questioning, if not Henry Savage’s loyalty to theUlster colony, at least his judgement. The Dublin annalist holds Henryresponsible for the destruction of the Ulster colony by the Irish after SirRobert’s death because he is said to have advised his father not to spendmoney on building castles, but to rely on soldiers for his defence, cit-ing the adage ‘better a castle of bones than a castle of stones’.14 Evenmore strangely we are told that in the year of Sir Robert Savage’s death,his sons assisted the son of Muircheartach Riaganach Mág Aonghusato kill Art, the son of Giolla Riabhach Mág Aonghusa, in treachery.15

The leading son of Muircheartach RiaganachMág Aonghusa at this timewas Art na Madhmann (‘A. of the battle-routs’) Mág Aonghusa, who



ruled Iveagh thereafter. Art na Madhmann promptly allied himself withthe Great Ó Néill of Tyrone and ended by attacking the Ulster settle-ments. In 1373 the Justiciar Robert de Assheton came north with alarge army to pacify the marches. A treaty was drawn up between NiallMór, the Great Ó Néill, with his brother Toirdhealbhach, Mág Aonghusa,Mac Mathghamhna [MacMahon] and the Scottish galloglass comman-der Mac Domhnaill [MacDonald] (of Clann Alexander) on one side,and the magnates of Meath and Louth on the other, with a separatesection appended dealing with disputes between Mág Aonghusa andthe Ulster colonists.16 Yet the war continued. In 1374 Mág Aonghusakilled Jenkin Savage (incidentally praised in the Irish annals as a patronof éigse, or bardic poetry).17 Sir James de la Hyde, a knight of Meathand escheator of Ireland, was despatched that year to Ulster as rep-resentative of Edmund Mortimer’s interests there, but was killed in agreat battle at Downpatrick by ‘McGynouse and other Irish of Ulster,the king’s enemies’ according to the Anglo-Irish sources, while the Irishannals principally credit the Great Ó Néill with the victory. De Burghof Camlin, the former seneschal, was among those killed.18 In 1380 Artna Madhmann Mág Aonghusa defeated an alliance of the colonists andÓ hAnluain [O’Hanlon], chief of south Armagh.19

It is too often assumed that the later medieval absentee earls of Ulstertook little interest in their liberty there, because they drew little profitfrom it. However, there are signs that the Edmund Mortimer who diedin 1381, his son Roger, and his grandson Edmund were all seriouslyinterested in their claims to the enormous territorial jurisdiction oncewielded across half of Ireland by Earl Richard de Burgh, and were anx-ious to recover that power by force of arms, and that it was only thehistorical accident of their successive early deaths that prevented themfrom fulfilling this ambition. In 1379–1380, Edmund Mortimer, whenabout to come to Ireland as lieutenant of the king, caused a long descrip-tive catalogue of his ancestral charters to his lands in England andIreland to be drawn up, which included the old agreements of variousde Burgh earls with their Irish vassal kings.20 This might simply testifyto the thoroughness of his archivist, but when in May 1380 Mortimerarrived in Ireland, accompanied by a large armed retinue, he madehis headquarters at Downpatrick for at least two months. Many Irishchiefs from the districts where he had a hereditary claim to authoritycame in to submit: Ó Fearghail [O’Farrell], Ó Raghallaigh [O’Reilly], MacEochagáin [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 hAnluainof Armagh and Art na Madhmann Mág Aonghusa. All were completelytaken aback, according to the Irish annals, when Mág Aonghusa wasseized ‘by treachery in the house of the Mortimer’, and imprisoned inMortimer’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, itwas after this confrontational move that Mortimer brought his army ona raid far into western Tyrone, destroying church settlements at Clogher,Errigal-keeroge, Urney and Donaghmore, just inside the border of themodern county Donegal, a route hard to explain in terms of defence ofthe earldom’s Anglo-Irish settlers in Antrim and Down, but possibly tobe seen as a punishment for the ruler of west Tyrone, the younger sonof Ó Néill, the aptly named Henry ‘the Turbulent’ Ó Néill, and his allyÓ Domhnaill [O’Donnell] of Donegal, neither of whom are recorded ashaving joined in the submissions.22

Edmund Mortimer died suddenly 26 December 1381, leaving hisseven-year-old son Roger as heir, and the earldom of Ulster once againfaced a long minority, under the care of royal officials. During thisperiod we find Edmund Savage, apparently son of the former seneschalSir Robert Savage, holding the office of seneschal of the liberty of Ulsterunder successive regimes, including Robert de Vere’s spell as duke ofIreland. There are a number of allusions in the administrative recordsof the Anglo-Irish and English governments to Edmund Savage’s powerand excessively independent mode of governing the Ulster liberty. In1385 it was pointed out that when the king appointed Edmund Savageseneschal, he did not intend to empower him to grant charters of peaceto the king’s enemies or to present to churches in Ulster by colour ofhis office. In 1388 the justiciar of Ireland was ordered to draw up sep-arate letters patent appointing Edmund Savage as seneschal of Ulster,and Thomas Mercamston as constable of the royal castle of Carrick-fergus, and to order Edmund to deliver the castle into the keeping ofThomas Mercamston.23 In 1392 King Richard recorded his anger thatEdmund Savage, the seneschal, had despised his commands concerningthe ‘Black Priory’ of St Andrew in the Ards (an ‘alien’ foundation becausedaughter to a French house and thus forfeit to the king). Yet as late as1398 the seneschal continued to hold onto St Andrew in the Ards byforce of arms against the legitimate claims of John Colton, archbishopof Armagh, in defiance of a royal writ.24

Nevertheless the remote, beleaguered, liberty of Ulster could not dis-pense with the services of its most powerful resident magnate, and in1389 we are told that the king, ‘considering the great place Edmond



Savage, Steward of Ulster, holds in those parts, concedes to him thewardship and marriage of Elizabeth and Marjorie, daughters and heirsof 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 whoarranged her marriage at some time after 1396 and before 1400 to EoinMórMac Domhnaill, younger brother of Domhnall Mac Domhnaill, lordof the Isles. His kinsman Robert Savage had already contracted a mar-riage with Christiana, sister of Domhnall Mac Domhnaill, lord of theIsles, in 1388.25 This introduces the first question mark over seeing the1403–1404 revolt purely in terms of an anti-colonist movement, as sug-gested by the later letter to the fourth earl of Ormond in 1420. TheSavage family presumably hoped the Scots would prove powerful alliesin the Ulster colony’s struggle against reconquest by their Gaelic-Irishneighbours, so if the 1403–1404 rising was directed against the colonyas a whole, the involvement of the Scots on the Irish side is somewhatsurprising.A second ally against the attacks of the Irish was gained by the

re-recruitment of the Mag Uighilín [MacQuillan] family. In the earlyfourteenth century under Earl Richard de Burgh and his grandson EarlWilliam, indentures record successive members of that family as hered-itary constables of a mercenary troop in the service of the de Burghs.26

‘Seonacc MacUigilin’, recorded in the Irish annals as captain of a troopof 200 mercenaries in Connacht serving Sir William de Burgh of Mayoin 1310, appears identical with the Welsh-sounding ‘John Howelin’,listed among Sir William’s retinue on an expedition against the LeinsterIrish.27 In 1350, some 17 years after the assassination in 1333 of theyoung Earl William de Burgh by the de Mandevilles and Logans, fol-lowed by a mixed Irish and Anglo-Irish rebellion, the last constable tohave been employed by Earl William, Stephen or ‘Sleimne’ Mag Uighlín,joined forces with Aodh Reamhar Ó Néill, king of Tyrone, to attack thecolonists of Louth, and on his death in 1368 was described as ‘consta-ble of Ulster’, a title which subsequently passed to the chiefs of ClannAlexander Mac Domhnaill, the galloglass commanders who served NiallMór, the ‘Great O’Neill’, from 1365 onwards. By the late fourteenth cen-tury Jenkin or ‘Seinicín Mór’ Mag Uighilín was described as the ‘man’of the seneschal of Ulster, Edmund Savage, and his attacks were a thornin the side of both Magnus Ó Catháin, the local chief in Derry andMuircheartach Óg Mág Aonghusa, the Irish chieftain in south Down (ayounger brother of the ill-fated Art ‘na Madhmann’ Mág Aonghusa).28 Itwas 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 MagUighilín. The Irish genealogies tell us that Seinicín Mór was the first ofhis surname to rule as a territorial chieftain.29

Meanwhile the custom known as ‘the Bonaght [Ir. buannacht] ofUlster’, the prerogative once exercised by the de Burgh earls of billet-ing certain numbers of their mercenary troops [Ir. buannaidhe] on eachof the Ulster chiefs, had been usurped by Niall Mór Ó Néill ‘princeof the Irish of Ulster’. The documentary evidence for this usurpationcame in 1389 when Niall Óg, the eldest son of Niall Mór, was cap-tured by Edmund de Londres, constable of Greencastle, county Down,of Carlingford castle in county Louth, warden of the lordship of theCooley peninsula, and nominal constable of the earldom’s ‘Bonaght ofUlster’. The Anglo-Irish, and above all the supporters of Roger Mortimer,the underage heir to the earldom of Ulster, considered this capturea most important event for the future safety of the colony, but thenew justiciar, Sir John Stanley, released Niall Óg in February 1390, inexchange for a ransom and the handing-over of his eldest son, BrianÓg Ó Néill, and six other hostages. The Mortimer party were out-raged by this ‘idiotic release’ (foole deliverance) of the earldom’s chiefenemy and destroyer.30 Stanley became the subject of a commissionof enquiry in 1391 concerning the way he had conducted himself inoffice, with specific investigation of ‘the capture of Neel, the elder sonof Neel O Neel, the rebel Irish chief of Ulster, by whom, how andfor what ransom he was released, and whether to the king’s advan-tage or loss, and of the capture and release of all other Irish prisonersand rebels since the coming of John Stanley justiciary of Ireland’.31

Justification for the general indignation may be found in the con-temporary description of ‘the lordship and county of Ulster being sowasted by attacks from the Irish enemies of the king that very smallprofit can be had therefrom and the castle [of Carrickfergus] so des-titute that its capture and the loss of the adjacent country is muchto be feared.’32 In 1392 Niall Óg led the ‘nobles of the Province’ (aphrase apparently inclusive of Mág Aonghusa) to attack and defeat themen of Dundalk, killing Geoffrey White, who as one of the two keep-ers of the peace for county Louth was leading the defence, and wasalmost as prominent a leader of the local English as Edmund Savagehimself.33

As a consequence of his repeated raids on the English within the earl-dom, Niall Óg in 1392 held the son of the seneschal Edmund Savage, andother members of the Savage family as hostages, presumably to guaran-tee payment of ‘black-rent’, or regular instalments of protection-money.



In the spring of 1393, however, he handed over the Savages alongwith seven other hostages ‘of little or no value’ (as Mortimer wrote),in exchange for whom the king’s council in Ireland agreed to releasehis eldest son, Brian Óg O’Neill, ‘in contempt of the king, to the hurtof his said subjects and in peril of their utter ruin’. Roger Mortimercomplained indignantly to King Richard II that since his release NiallÓg, chieftain of the Irish of Ulster, had often forfeited his hostages bygoing on hosting with a great force of Irish and Scots to burn anddestroy both the lordship of Ulster and much of county Louth.34 InJune 1393 Mortimer, though not yet of full age, was granted controlof his Irish lands, and in July Niall Óg’s hostages were delivered intohis custody, because, ‘in the time of the earl’s nonage his lands weremuch wasted by the said [Niall] and [Brian Óg] and by their adher-ents and the king is aware that he would keep their hostages in themore careful custody because his lands were by them and their adher-ents wasted, and are like to be in time to come, if the said hostagesshould be set free’. Interestingly the hostages of Edmund Savage werenot to be returned to the seneschal, but to be kept by Mortimeralong with the other hostages handed over by Ó Néill, unless expressorder for their release was sent by the king under the great seal ofEngland.35

As the grandson of Prince Lionel, Roger Mortimer was a close kinsmanof the childless Richard II, and may even have been officially recognisedas heir to the throne in 1385. Perhaps King Richard hoped Mortimerand his supporters would become a more effective counter-weight tothe king’s opponents at court if only the young earl could reactivate thefinancial and military potential of his Irish lands.36 Mortimer’s ambi-tions were certainly taken seriously at the English court, and there seemsno doubt that like his father before him, Earl Roger yearned for a restora-tion of the authority that the de Burgh earls had once wielded over halfthe island of Ireland. Soon after his coming of age, Mortimer’s Welshbard, Iolo Goch, addressed a eulogy to him which included the advice:

Make haste and claim completelythe 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 killThe people of Ulster with every further blow.37


Katharine Simms 149

Repeatedly during the second half of the fourteenth century theEnglish government had tried to halt the decline of its colony in Irelandby sending, or in some cases only planning to send, heavily subsidisedmilitary expeditions led by prominent figures from the inner circles atcourt, such as Prince Lionel and William of Windsor. The last and great-est efforts of this policy were the two expeditions led by King Richard IIhimself in 1394–1395 and 1399. On the first of these interventions theking commanded an army that has been estimated at c.8000 or 10,000troops and was accompanied by Earl Roger Mortimer and other greatabsentee lords, hoping to restore extensive lands they could claim inIreland to English control and profitability.38 Richard landed at Water-ford on 2 October 1394 and organised a series of expeditions againstArt Mac Murchadha Cáomhánach [MacMurrough Kavanagh] and theIrish of Leinster. Meanwhile Mortimer went to his liberty of Trim inMeath, to reduce his Irish vassals there to obedience. Ó Fearghail ofLongford submitted at Trim and was well treated, but the Ó Raghallaighfamily of Cavan had to be persuaded by force. On 12 December 1394Seaán Ó Raghallaigh ‘chief of his nation’ submitted to Mortimer atKells, county Meath, and agreed to a series of conditions in an inden-ture which is now lost. Another expedition was sent against Philip MacMathghamhna, chief of the Monaghan area.39 In the spring of 1395one after another the Ulster chieftains came in to do homage to KingRichard, beginning with ‘the great O’Neill senior’ (‘le grand O Nel le pere’),NiallMórwho came to Richard at Drogheda on 20 January, followed overthe next two months by ‘his son the great O’Neill’ (‘le grand O Nel sonfitz’), Niall Óg, together with his Scottish constable SeánMac Domhnaill,two Uí Anluain of Armagh, Philip Rúadh Mac Mathghamhna with hisbrothers and his Scottish constable Mac Cába [MacCabe], MuircheartachÓg and Cú Uladh Mág Aonghusa of Iveagh in south Down and AdamMac Giolla Muire also of Down diocese.40

The Uí Néill displayed quite a marked difference in their attitudes tothe king on the one hand and the earl of March on the other, unsur-prisingly since it had been royal ministers during March’s minority whohad successively agreed to release both Niall Óg and his heir Brian Ógon 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 beenan ambiguity inherent in the terms of the indenture agreed with SirJohn Stanley in February 1390 as regards the overlordship of other UlsterIrish which led now to open dispute between Niall Mór and Mortimer,a dispute which King Richard offered to arbitrate at some future date.41



In advance of this arbitration (which never ultimately took place) NiallÓg 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 grantof the king’s predecessors to his forefathers, and afterwards made reluc-tant reference to ‘my lord, if you will have him so, the earl of Ulster andMarch’ (dominus si volueritis meus Comes Ultonie et Marchie), suggestingthat he had been unsuccessfully angling to be accepted as a tenant-in-chief of the English king, and a mesne lord between the king and theother Ulster chieftains.42 What is interesting about the other letters theking received from Ulster is that they were not unanimously supportiveof Ó Néill. Especially significant are the letters Richard received fromMuircheartach Óg Mág Aonghusa, lord of Iveagh in south Down. LikeÓ Néill, he was anxious for confirmation of his ancestral authority overthe other chieftains in Iveagh: Mac Artáin [MacCartan], Ó hAidíth, MacDuileacháin and Mac Duibhgheamhna, threatening outright rebellionif this was called into question, but he acknowledged that he owed the‘Bonaght of Ulster’ and other services to Mortimer as earl of Ulster, andcomplained bitterly of recent attacks on his territory by Ó Néill andhis followers from the Armagh side, followers who included Niall Óg’sbrother Cú Uladh Rúadh Ó Néill and Ó hAnluain, chief of Airthir, whilefrom county Down he was being assaulted by the seneschal of Ulster,Edmund Savage, and his employees, the sons of Mag Uighilín. Both setsof attacks had taken place after Niall Mór’s submission in January andthe proclamation of the king’s peace, and could well have been relatedto the dispute as to whether Ulster chiefs were to render immediate sub-jection to Mortimer, Edmund Savage’s master, or to be recognised asvassals of Ó Néill in the first place, paying their dues and services tothe earldom through him as ‘prince of the Irish of Ulster’. So severe wasthe threat to Mág Aonghusa and his followers from both sides, that hebrought all his herds, moveable goods and immediate followers withhim to the marches of Dundalk for protection before he dared leavethem to do homage to King Richard in person.43

To the dismay of Ó Néill, King Richard when departing in May 1395appointed the young Mortimer to govern Ireland as king’s lieutenant,having special responsibility for Ulster, Connacht and Meath. Neverthe-less, by negotiation and exhortatory letters the English king managed toensure the continuance of a precarious peace for one further year. Thenin 1396 Mortimer at the head of a force which included the earls ofOrmond 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 ArchbishopColton of Armagh felt conditions in mid-Ulster were peaceful enoughto allow him to conduct a metropolitan visitation in the vacant dio-cese of Derry.45 In 1398 Earl Roger Mortimer was killed by the insurgentUí Bhroin [O’Byrnes] of Wicklow. King Richard’s second expedition toIreland in 1399 to avenge his kinsman’s death was aborted by the newsthat the exiled Henry, duke of Lancaster, had invaded England in hisabsence and claimed the throne as Henry IV. Richard hastily returned toEngland and was deposed, dying in prison on 14 February 1400. Ó Néillprofited by this opportunity to assemble a great army and threaten thecolonists ‘to make war upon and to destroy the whole country unless hehave delivered to him his son and his cousins and other hostages thatare in the Castle of Dublin’.46

The death of Roger Mortimer meant that from 1398 responsibilityfor the earldom of Ulster had reverted once more to royal officials dur-ing the long minority of his seven-year-old son, Edmund Mortimer.The new Lancastrian dynasty did not have Richard’s apparent inter-est in promoting the Mortimer fortunes, seeing the family rather aspotential rivals for the throne. In December 1402, the young EdmundMortimer’s uncle and namesake declared his support for the revolt ofOwain Glyn Dwr in Wales with a view to placing his nephew on theEnglish throne if Richard II were truly dead, and in July 1403 the rebel-lion of the Percies of Northumberland upheld the Mortimer claim tobe Richard’s legitimate heirs.47 In Ulster the Savage family of countyDown was initially passed over for the office of seneschal by the newregime in favour of Sir Gilbert Halsale (appointed in May 1400) andSir Walter Bitterley (appointed in November 1402), each of whom wasempowered to act with full authority as deputy for the king’s lieu-tenant of Ireland within the liberty of Ulster. This may have reflecteddoubt of the previous office-holders’ loyalty to the new dynasty. Asmentioned at the outset of this chapter, in October 1401 and againin August 1402 the Irish chancery rolls refer to English rebels, in thephrase ‘all the king’s rebels and enemies, Scots, Irish and English inUlster’.48

The attacks of Scottish enemies on Ulster at this point fit into a largerpicture. The deposition of Richard II was followed by an invasion ofScotland by Henry IV in August 1400, and the year 1400 also saw a navalbattle take place in Strangford Lough between the Scots and the con-stable of Dublin Castle.49 Anglo-Scottish peace negotiations failed inOctober 1401, and from the winter of 1401–1402 the Scots court spon-sored a pretender, Thomas Ward, ‘the Mammet King’ (d. 1419), who was



alleged to be King Richard II, escaped from his prison at Pontefract. Thechronicler Andrew of Wyntoun claimed that Marjorie Bysset, heiress ofthe Glens, and former ward of Edmund Savage, who had met RichardII on his 1394–1395 visit to Ireland, identified the pretender as genuinewhen he first appeared at the court of the lord of the Isles.50 Never-theless on 5 July 1402 her husband Eoin Mór Mac Domhnaill, ‘lord ofthe Glynnys’, agreed by indenture to be liegeman to Henry IV, ren-dering 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 kingor his heirs.51 It is to be presumed that this slightly sinister provisoreferred merely to the royal custody of Ulster during the young earl’sminority. By 14 September 1402 war between Scotland and England haderupted once more and the Scots were severely defeated at the battleof Humbleton or Homildon Hill, although the victorious English com-mander, Henry Percy (Hotspur), son of the earl of Northumberland, wasshortly himself to be defeated and slain in rebellion against Henry IV atthe battle of Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403.52

Since the Percies’ rebellion supported young Edmund Mortimer’sdynastic claim, the fact that Mortimer’s earldom in eastern Ulster sawserious disturbances in 1403–1404 may not be wholly unconnected.In September 1402 while a parliament was being held in Dublin, SirJames, son of Geoffrey White, with Christopher White, Bartholomewde Verdon and Stephen Gernon had attacked and killed John Dowdall,sheriff of Louth, and either before or after this James White, we aretold, adhered to the king’s Irish enemies and rode against his lieges‘and robbed and burned them in the said county of Louth’.53 Thiswould not be the first time a group of Louth gentry had combinedto kill their sheriff, and it could have been the outcome of a localfeud, but it is interesting that as soon as Edmund Mortimer came ofage, Sir James White was appointed seneschal of Ulster and contin-ued in that position until after Mortimer’s death.54 It is not necessaryto suppose that Sir James White was part of a conspiracy to over-turn the authority of Henry IV in favour of a Mortimer claimant, buthe may have been so closely identified with the Mortimer interest asto find his career taking a downward turn at the time of the Lan-castrian succession, and have reacted violently to this frustration. Hiscomrade-in-arms, Stephen Gernon, had been replaced as constable ofGreencastle and Carlingford by John More in March 1401, thoughwhether this was a cause or a result of Gernon’s rebellious behaviouris not clear.55


Katharine Simms 153

Henry IV was already beset at home by rebellions in Wales and else-where. Fear lest Ireland become a base from which his enemies couldattack him led the king to dispatch one of his own sons, Prince Thomasof Lancaster, to govern the island as king’s lieutenant. Although thisprince held the title from 1401 to 1413, he was personally present inIreland only from November 1401 to November 1403 and from August1408 to March 1409. The prince was a mere 13 years old when hefirst took office, and his government was chronically under-funded. Theactual business of governing fell largely to his deputy lieutenant StephenScrope. When Scrope suddenly absented himself in February 1404 leav-ing no official substitute, the Irish great council elected James Butler,third earl of Ormond, as justiciar with an emphasis on his militaryresponsibilities, primarily in relation to Ulster.56

Irish and Anglo-Irish records combine to tell us that in 1403 the townof Carrickfergus was burned to the ground, that the seneschal of Ulster,Sir Walter Bitterly, ‘a right valiant knight’, was killed in battle, and thatin 1404

the Galls [Anglo-Irish] were driven from the whole province [ofUlaidh] and the North was burned, including lay and church prop-erty, and the monasteries – Downpatrick, Inis Draighin [?RamsIsland], and Coleraine – were despoiled and demolished by MacAonghusa [Magennis], Mac Giollamhuire [MacGilmore] and byScotsmen.57

Anglo-Irish records add the names of Ó hAnluain, chief of southArmagh, Mac Artáin, a vassal of Mág Aonghusa, and ‘McGion’, verypossibly the MacEoin Bisset, leader of the cadet kinsmen of the formerBisset lords of the Glens of Antrim. With the help of the third earl ofOrmond a remnant of the colonists were reinstated.58 In a reversal ofthe Lancastrian administration’s previous policies, in July 1403 JamesWhite was pardoned all treasons, including the murder of John Dowdall,sheriff of Louth, and he and his associates, Christopher White, StephenGernon and Bartholomew de Verdon, had their lands and possessionsrestored in January 1405.59 Meanwhile Edmund, son of Edmund Savage,was appointed seneschal of Ulster in January 1404, and Robert Whitebecame chancellor and treasurer of the liberty about the same date.In 1405 Edmund, son of Edmund Savage, was granted lands formerlyheld by his father, late seneschal of Ulster, because they were ‘wastedby the Irish and Scotch rebels and the king’s lieges have been removed



therefrom’.60 The reference to the Scots as ‘rebels’ rather than ‘enemies’suggests that the followers of the Mac Domhnaill lord of the Glens ofAntrim are intended.This return to reliance on local men and local methods seems to

have paid off. In December 1406 Primate Fleming of Armagh men-tioned that war had recently arisen between Aodh, son of Art MágAonghusa, and the sons of Cú Uladh Rúadh Ó Néill.61 The sons of CúUladh apparently supported the claims of Aodh’s cousin, a son of thelate chief Muircheartach Óg Mág Aonghusa. In 1407 they allied withanother of the recent rebels, Adam Mac Giolla Muire and drove AodhMág Aonghusa from his territory, forcing him to seek refuge with theSavages of Down. Together Mág Aonghusa and the Savages turned onhis pursuers, defeated them roundly and killed Adam Mac Giolla Muire,who with his son Aodh was chiefly blamed by the colonists for the worstexcesses of the recent uprising. The following year in 1408 we are toldthe Savage family killed Aodh, son of Adam Mac Giolla Muire, whilehe sought sanctuary in one of the churches of Carrickfergus that hehad previously desecrated. Thady Dowling’s account, elaborating thatof Marleburrough, saw Aodh’s death not only as divine punishmentfor having burned forty churches during the recent uprising, but asvengeance for his earlier cruel treatment of Patrick Savage, when hehad held him prisoner.62 With Aodh Mág Aonghusa re-established inthe kingship of Iveagh as an ally of the Savages, eastern Ulster seemsto have won a few precious years of peace. In 1410 James, son ofGeoffrey White, was licensed to foster his sons and daughters withMuircheartach, 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 themand enter relations of gossipred (god-parenthood) to the king’s profit.Then in 1414–1415 he was made seneschal of Ulster in successionto Patrick Savage (the report of whose death in 1404 may have beensomewhat exaggerated).63

It would seem that the events of 1403–1404 had as many layers asan onion. Clearly both Gaelic Irish and Anglo-Irish were well awareof the upheavals taking place in England. The contemporary frag-ment of annals compiled in Irish by Canon Augustine Mac Gráidhin[MacGrane] of Saints’ Island, Lough Ree, although enthusiastic aboutthe even-handed approach shown by King Richard II during his firstexpedition to Ireland in 1394–1395, sounds more critical in 1397, whenhe reported that King Richard had ruined his own father’s brother, theDuke of Lancaster, ‘to avenge the murder he had committed at theinstigation 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 toScotland for the same reason’, suggesting his information came througha Mortimer contact. In 1403 the canon notes ‘a great war among theEnglish, and the king defeated the faction opposed to him’, indicatingacceptance of the Lancastrian monarch’s title, and in 1405 he observesneutrally ‘a great war by the Scotsmen and the Welsh against theEnglish’.64

Eastern Ulster may well have felt more involved, given that the inter-mittent war between the Scots and the English had included a navalbattle off the Ulster coast, that the Scots king’s support for the claims ofthe false Richard II had been partly due to the assertions of MarjorieBysset, heiress of the Glens of Antrim, and that the Mac Domhnailllordship of the Glens was gradually bringing an influx of Scots ontothe Irish mainland. As vassals of the earls of March and Ulster, thecolonists would have known that there was talk of a Mortimer claimto the throne, which if successful might have led to their local prob-lems gaining somewhat higher priority on the agenda of the Anglo-Irishadministration. However, there were other more immediate develop-ments to concern them. One was the encroachment of the White familyfrom county Louth to take over the dominant position within theUlster colony previously enjoyed by the Savages of the Ards. Both theseAnglo-Irish families had alliances with the Irish enemies. The Savages’connection with the Mág Aonghusa chiefs seems to have been particu-larly long-standing, and it is interesting that Marleburrough’s chronicle,which indicates approval for the third earl of Ormond ‘whose death wasmuch lamented’ and sympathy with the sufferings of the Savage family,says nothing of the role of Mág Aonghusa in the uprising but demonisesMac Giolla Muire ‘that had caused forty churches to be destroyed, whowas never baptized, and therefore he was called Corbi’, whereas the letterwritten to the fourth earl of Ormond in 1420, during Sir James White’speriod of dominance, rants hysterically about the cruel perversity of thetyrant Mág Aonghusa as the sole cause of the colony’s troubles. In actualfact in 1420 a much wider federation of Ulster chiefs was beginning toform, in which Mág Aonghusa was only a minor player, and when thefourth earl of Ormond came north to deal with him, far from killing ordeposing him, he took his hostages and handed them over to the GreatÓ Néill.65

Another theme during this period is the rise of a sub-lordship of thesons of Cú-Uladh Ruadh O’Neill, who amassed lands in south Armagh atthe expense of the archbishop, and who tried to increase their politicalinfluence by interfering in the dynastic squabbles of the neighbouring



dynasty of Mág Aonghusa. Sir James White was clearly contemplatingalliance with this branch of the Uí Néill in 1410, and this associationmay have begun earlier, since he joined unnamed ‘Irish enemies’ inattacking the king’s subjects in Louth in 1402.66

If one asks who profited from the great uprising of the Ulster Irish in1403–1404 the answer would have to be the Savage family. The office ofseneschal, vacant by the slaying of Sir Walter Bitterly at the hands of therebels, was filled successively by Edmund, son of Edmund Savage, andPatrick Savage. At the close of the war the ‘lands, rents and services ofwhich Edmund his father was seized in the earldom, and which pertainto the king’ were granted for life to Edmund, son of Edmund Savage,‘because they have been wasted by the Irish and Scotch rebels and theking’s lieges have been removed from them’.67 The wording suggests thatthere may have been an intervening period in which the lands held byEdmund Savage senior had been repossessed by the king. Could thishave been the casus belli? There are some grounds for suspicion in thesubsequent alliance of Aodh Mág Aonghusa and the Savages in 1407,but there is no smoking gun.


157GenealogicalChart

Sir

Geo

ffrey

Whi

te o

f Car

lingf

ord

fl. 1

366

sl. b

y N

iall

Óg

O’N

eill

1392

Sir

Jam

es fi

tz G

eoffr

ey W

hite

fl. 1

402–

1448

sene

scha

l of U

lste

r 14

14, 1

417,

142

5, 1

426

Con

stab

le o

f Car

rickf

ergu

s 14

27

Lew

isC

hris

toph

erJo

hnP

atric

kS

en. o

fU

lste

r14

70 ?

Edm

und

Whi

teC

onst

. of

Gre

enca

stle

&C

arlin

gfor

d14

69

Sir

Hen

ryS

avag

efl.

136

0–83S

ir R

ober

t Sav

age,

Sen

esch

alof

Uls

ter

fl. 1

334–

1352

d. 1

360

Jenk

in S

avag

esl

. by

Mag

enni

s13

75 (

AU

)

Rai

bilin

(Li

itle

Ral

ph)

Sav

age

sl. b

y B

isse

ts13

83 (

AU

)R

ober

tS

avag

e m

.C

hris

tiana

Mac

Don

ald

1387

Sir

Edm

und

Sav

age,

Sen

esch

al o

f Uls

ter

fl. 1

385–

98

Sir

Edm

und

titz

Edm

und

Sav

age

Sen

. of U

lste

rfl.

140

4–5

Jani

co S

avag

eS

enes

chal

, 145

2–68

‘cap

tain

of h

is n

atio

n’

Pat

rick

Óg

Sav

age

Sen

esch

al o

f Uls

ter

fl. 1

470

expe

lled

from

offi

ceby

O’N

eill

and

the

Whi

tes

Pat

rick

Sav

age

Sen

.of

Uls

ter

befo

re 1

413

(sl.

1404

by

Ada

mM

acG

ilmor

e ?)

Ric

hard

Sav

age

sl. b

yA

dam

Mac

Gilm

ore

1404

(Ann

. Mar

lebu

rrou

gh)

Rob

ert S

avag

e fl

. 143

3–48

Ech

mili

d M

agen

nis

fl. 1

315

(Cal

Clo

se R

olls

p. 2

18)

Gill

a R

iab

ach

Mu

irch

erta

ch R

lag

anac

h M

agen

nis

sl. b

y br

othe

rs/k

in 1

349

(AF

M)

kg o

f U

lbh

Eat

hac

h (

lvea

gh

, co

. Do

wn

)

Mu

irch

erta

ch Ó

c, K

g.

sub.

to R

ic II

in 1

395

atta

cked

by

Edm

und

Sav

age

& C

úUla

d O

’Nei

ll se

para

tely

sl. 1

399

by k

in (

AF

M,A

LC)

Cú

Ula

d‘h

eir

to k

gshp

’su

b. to

Ric

IIsl

. by

Eng

lish

1396

(A

FM

)

Ru

aid

ri K

g.

sl. 1

401

by s

ons

of C

úU

lad

O’N

eill

& b

ybr

o. C

athb

arr

(AU

)R

uai

dri

Kg

1424

–6sl

. by

Bria

nM

agen

nis

Art

Kg

, fl.

1427

–14

49(C

al. S

way

ne, p

p.14

, 61;

Sub

. to

Ric

.D

uke

of Y

ork

1449

)

Aed

Hug

h,1s

t Vis

coun

t lve

agh

Cat

hb

arr

Aed

Kg

fl. 1

407–

1424

allie

d to

Sav

age

fam

ilyso

n of

Mui

rche

rtac

h,su

ppor

ted

by s

ons

ofC

ú U

lad

O’N

eill

in 1

407

(AF

M)

CúU

lad

‘hei

r to

the

lord

ship

of U

iE

chac

h’sl

. 145

3.

Art

na

Mad

man

n K

g 1

360-

impr

ison

ed 1

380,

d. 1

383

(AF

M)

sl 1

360

by s

ons

of S

avag

e &

son

of

Mui

rche

rtac

hR

iaga

nach

(A

FM

)

Art



Notes

1. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 344; see also a brief discussionby Crooks, ‘Factionalism’, 287. TNA SC 1/57/69. I am most grateful toDr Elizabeth Matthew, who supplied me with a transcript of this text, withadded 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, Admin-

istration 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 andtranslation 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’, inwhich he mistakenly argued that the Mag Uighilín family was a branch of


Katharine Simms 159

the de Mandevilles. MacFirbhisigh’s genealogy groups them with the Welshfamilies settled in Tirawley, county Mayo.

30. Rot. Pat. Hib., 138, nos. 43–5; 145, no. 140; AU, III, 20–1. On the ‘Bonaghtof Ulster’, see Simms, ‘Gaelic Warfare’, 108–10; Cal. Carew MSS, 1515–74,288–9; Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, 261.

31. CPR 1389–92, 404. Stanley was replaced in office that year by the bishop ofMeath – Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 322–3.

32. CPR 1389–92, 405.33. 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 insingle combat – Leabhar Cloinne Aodha Buidhe, 34. On the office of keeper ofthe peace, see Frame, ‘Judicial Powers’.

34. Roll of Proceedings, 191; Rot. Pat. Hib., 151, no. 19; CCR 1392–6, 157–8;Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, 261.

35. CCR 1392–6, 157–8.36. Bennett, Richard II, 22–3; See Tuck, Richard II, 171–2 for objections from

Arundel, Warwick and Northumberland to Mortimer receiving livery of hisinheritance.

37. 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 GreatO’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 in1417 – Original Letters, I, 59. The phrase presumably served to distinguish theleaders of the Tyrone Uí Néill from their less powerful relatives, the ClannAodha Buidhe Uí Néill in south Antrim.

38. Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, 150–77; Lydon, ‘Richard II’s Expeditions’, 142–3.39. Miscellaneous Irish Annals, 152–3; NAI, Lodge MS, 15.40. Curtis, Richard II, 58, 60, 68–9, 70, 97, 98, 103, 106; Anglo-Norman Let-

ters, 211.41. Curtis, Richard II, 131, 145. See above, n. 30.42. Curtis, Richard II, 135, 143.43. Ibid., pp. 88–90, 140–1, 176–9, 219–20.44. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 334–5; Johnston, ‘Interim Years’,

179–81; Miscellaneous Irish Annals, 156–7; AFM, IV, 746–7, note q.45. Acts of Archbishop Colton; ‘Metropolitan Visitation of the Diocese of Derry’;

Watt, ‘John Colton’, 204–11.46. 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 formost of their entries just before and after the year 1400, say under 1398 ‘theEnglish and Irish of the province of Ulster (O’Donnell only excepted) wentinto the house of O’Neill, and gave him hostages and submission’ (AFM,IV, 756–7).

47. 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 Northum-berland, was married to Elizabeth Mortimer, sister of the late Roger (d. 1398).

48. Rot. Pat. Hib., 157, nos. 71–2; 172, nos. 16, 21; NAI, Lodge MS, 215; Rot. Pat.Hib., 160, no. 8; 165, no. 207.

49. Barrell, Medieval Scotland, 148–9; ‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle’, 17.



50. Chron. Wyntoun, VI, 390; Morgan, ‘Henry IV’, 9–10; Kingston, Ulster and theIsles, 50 n. 100.

51. The text of Eoin Mór’s submission is recorded in London College of ArmsMS, William Lynch: Repertory of Irish Memoranda rolls, vol. 4, 33 (for whichreference I thank Kenneth Nicholls), and in NAI, J. F. Ferguson’s ‘Repertoryto the Memoranda Rolls’ ii (Hen. IV and Hen. V), 54 (for which referenceI 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 isnoticeable that neither the Uí Néill of Tyrone nor even those of Clann AodhaBuidhe in south Antrim are mentioned in connection with the disturbancesin eastern Ulster. They had their own preoccupations, with the death of NiallÓg 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 inmid-Ulster. See Simms, ‘Niall Garbh II’, 10–11.

58. Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 344; TNA SC 1/57/69; ‘LordChancellor 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.


11Henry V and the Proposal for anIrish CrusadeElizabeth Matthew

In the spring of 1421 a parliament of the English lordship of Irelandproposed that King Henry V should ask the pope to authorise acrusade in Ireland against the native, Gaelic Irish. The proposal wasabortive – there is no evidence that Ireland saw any resulting crusadingaction – and although there is no reason to doubt that the proposal wassent to England, no details have come to light of discussion of it, orreaction to it, there.1 It has aroused relatively little interest amongst his-torians of medieval Ireland, and apparently none amongst crusadingspecialists, who, of course, have a wealth of more promising, better-documented topics to research elsewhere. Yet, abortive as it was, thisproposal for an Irish crusade does raise some interesting questions. Thecontext seems unexpected, even improbable. Henry V, although out-standingly impressive as a soldier king, has little reputation as a crusader.He is probably better known for the report of his deathbed regret thathe had not led a crusade to Jerusalem, than for the interesting initiativethat he launched in May 1421 with Duke Philip the Good of Burgundyto sound out the diplomatic and military prospects for a new crusade tothe East through the two-year mission of Ghillebert de Lannoy to Russia,Constantinople, Rhodes, Jerusalem, Cairo, Crete and Venice.2 Irelandwas to attract some post-Reformation crusading activity in the latesixteenth century, but none of the obvious crusading targets – infidels,pagans or heretics – were present there in 1421, and although somehistorians have drawn parallels between the initial assertion of Englishroyal lordship with papal approval in the late twelfth century and cru-sading activity elsewhere, Ireland had never previously been an arenafor warfare of an explicitly crusading nature.3 What then promptedthis proposal, and what light does it shed on early fifteenth-centuryIreland, 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 closerexamination.The proposal for an Irish crusade was just one element of a lengthy

petition to Henry V from the ‘poor humble lieges’ who assembled inDublin for an eighteen-day session of parliament opening on 7 Aprilat the summons of his then lieutenant in Ireland, James Butler, fourthearl of Ormond.4 The first article of this petition presented an emphaticrestatement of a theme that had featured in several missives to Englandacross the previous seven decades: the king’s loyal subjects and land ofIreland, ravaged by Irish enemies and English rebels, were soon likelyto be entirely ruined and destroyed for ever.5 Earlier predictions ofimminent collapse had been crucial, initially, in prompting Edward III’s‘watershed’ decision to send his son Lionel of Antwerp to Ireland in1361 with significant military and financial backing from England, and,subsequently, in sustaining fluctuating, but continuing, English supportthereafter. There can be little doubt that the parliament of 1421 hadthese precedents firmly in mind. The nub of the statement of distress inthe petition’s first article was a plea for Henry V to visit Ireland in per-son: ‘Your said land has fallen so greatly into decline that [it] will neverhave relief . . .without your most sovereign andmost gracious presence.’6

In this ‘frontier’ area of the royal dominions, where, despite somepragmatic cross-cultural interaction, colonial and native polities hadnever been fully integrated, English rule certainly remained far less exten-sive and secure in 1421 than in its mid-thirteenth-century heyday.7

Private war, native and colonial, was endemic. Moreover, recent royalpolicies had engendered new and persistent factional tensions at theheart of the Dublin government. Ormond’s long-running feud with hispredecessor John Talbot, Lord Furnival (lieutenant 1414–1420) and thelatter’s brother, Richard, archbishop of Dublin, was to be a salient featureof politics in Ireland until the later 1440s.8 Under Ormond in the years1420–1422, the Dublin administration was making determined effortsto increase its reach and effectiveness at a time when financial supportfrom England had been significantly reduced; nevertheless, the returnsfrom subsidies granted by three other assemblies he held during thislieutenancy indicate that only eastern and southern Ireland was fullyresponsive to its financial demands.9 The problems within this area areillustrated by an incident that took place barely a week after the petitionwas sent to the king from the Dublin parliament of 1421. On 7 Maya 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 enu-merated a host of other concerns and grievances; 18 further articles hadraised issues ranging from the oppressions and extortions of John Talbotand the need for more competent exchequer officials to worries aboutabsentee lords, emigrating artisans and husbandmen, and piracy in theIrish Sea. The proposal for a crusade was made in Article 4. This alsospecified the grounds on which the petitioners thought a crusade mightbe 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 Irelandled by Richard II. It may be summarised as follows. At that time, the lead-ing provincial chiefs – Mac Murchadha [of Leinster], Ó Néill [of Tyrone],Ó Briain of Thomond, Ó Conchobhair Donn of Connacht – and vari-ous other Gaelic Irish had freely submitted to King Richard, becomingliegemen – lieges homes – of him, and his heirs as kings of England, forthemselves, their children, kin and people for ever. They had voluntarilybound themselves to keep their allegiance on pain of monetary forfeitsto the pope and his successors. The petitioners thought that the docu-ments recording this could be found in England, in the king’s treasury.Since then, these Irish had become disloyal and rebellious – dislieges etrebeux – attacking and destroying loyal subjects. King Henry was urgedto send letters to the pope, certifying and proclaiming all these circum-stances, in order to have a crusade – une croysorie – against the said Irishenemies for the relief and eternal peace of Ireland and the king’s loyalsubjects there, and the destruction of the said enemies, with the helpof God.11

This was a proposal for a crusade against Christians. There was nohint of accusations of doctrinal deviance such as that provided the basisfor the crusade launched against Christians in another part of Europein 1420, that against the Hussites in Bohemia.12 Nor was there anyattempt to resort to the schismatic justification that had underpinnedOwain Glyn Dwr’s abortive proposal for a Welsh, Clementist crusadeagainst Henry IV of England in 1406 and the earlier, English, Urbanist,crusading expeditions to Flanders and Castile in the 1380s.13 While aschismatic justification might still have been theoretically possible in1421, given the personal determination of Benedict XIII not to accepthis deposition at the Council of Constance in 1417, this was a less likelyscenario in the post-Schism era, particularly in an Irish context. Therehad been no sign of any division in papal obedience between the Englishand the Gaelic Irish when the native chiefs had made their submissionsto Richard II in the 1395.14 The grounds cited in favour of the proposed



Irish crusade in 1421 were entirely political, characterising the GaelicIrish as rebels against royal – and papal – authority.Brief published comments on the proposal to date have focused pri-

marily 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 tohim achieved, and of the fragility of his efforts. In discussing the con-tent of the petition of 1421 in the context of early fifteenth-centurypolitics, neither Edmund Curtis nor A. J. Otway-Ruthven mentionedthe crusade proposal at all.15 Otherwise it has been identified merelyas 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 herewith historians’ former neglect, or dismissal, of ‘political’ crusading else-where in medieval Europe. In the light of subsequent work, highlightingthe number, importance and contemporary acceptance of crusades else-where against Christians who were rebels rather than heretics, somefurther investigation of this proposal for an Irish crusade is surelydue.17 In this context, the construction of a case on broken promisesbecomes more significant. In the ‘genealogy’ of the ‘ “political” crusade’,attempts by eleventh-century churchmen to use armed force to enforcethe observance of peace-oaths, and popular enthusiasm for this, havebeen identified as crucial precedents.18 The proposal for an Irish cru-sade was not ‘impractical’ per se. Had it not proved abortive, possibly‘Ireland’s good fortune’ in being ‘Christian and unfashionable’ by com-parison with the lures, spiritual and modish, of late medieval crusadingin 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 onthe adoption and adaptation of the crusading ethos in late medievalChristendom’s frontier societies. Here the context was generally oneof religious, rather than political, difference.20 Moreover, its content,its timing and additional documentary evidence all suggest that it wasmore seriously considered than has previously been assumed.The proposal rather underplayed the number of the original submis-

sions to Richard II: there had been as many as 80. But in other respects itwas well informed. The submissions of 1395 had indeed included oathsof liege homage in the terms stated.21 While some had not mentionedmonetary 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 pledgedhuge forfeits of 20,000 marks each.23 The petitioners were on secureground too in suggesting that King Henry might find corroborative



evidence in his ‘treasury’ in England. The original notarial instrumentsin which the submissions had been recorded had been deposited inthe English chancery; copies had been entered on the memoranda rollof the king’s remembrancer in the English exchequer for the regnalyear of Richard’s expedition.24 In revisiting events a quarter-centuryold, hearsay seems to have been checked against memories, probablyagainst records remaining in Ireland too. The proposal did not sub-stantiate its charge that those who had submitted to Richard had sincebecome disloyal and rebellious. If the memories were sharp enough, thismight well have been perceived as dangerous ground: in large measure,the rapid resumption of hostilities in Ireland after 1395 had been dueto colonial provocation and failure to redress native grievances.25 Butfurther detail may simply have been thought unnecessary. The youngHenry himself, knighted in Ireland by Richard in 1399, had witnessedthe latter’s attempt to retrieve the situation by military force, curtailedby the news of the invasion of England that had led to his deposition.26

Henry’s brother, Thomas, had narrowly escaped death at native handsas lieutenant in Ireland in 1408, after Lancastrian efforts to secure newGaelic promises of allegiance had met with only limited, short-livedsuccess.27

With the benefit of hindsight, the proposal for an Irish crusade seemsill-timed. In April 1421 little opportunity remained for Henry, alreadyin the penultimate year of his short reign, to bring any major newinitiative in Ireland to effect, and he was likely to have been waryof one that required papal authorisation. Martin V was then increas-ing his pressure for the annulment of the fourteenth-century statuteslimiting papal rights in England. April 1421 saw his new collector,Simon de Teramo, addressing convocation at Canterbury, and the kinghimself, on the vexed question of papal provisions.28 Moreover, the earlypart of the month had brought Henry the wholly unexpected newsof the death of his brother, Thomas (since 1412 duke of Clarence), inbattle against Franco-Scottish forces on 22 March at Baugé, news thatensured the continuing concentration of Henry’s main attention – andremaining 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 sup-port had been so decisive in 1417 in securing the election of PopeMartin at the Council of Constance, the two men were probably per-ceived to be close allies.31 Moreover, it seems likely that the timingof the petition, indeed of the assembly too, had been prompted bydetermination to seize what would have appeared to be a particularly



propitious opportunity for approaching the king. On 1 February, afterthree and a half years abroad, Henry had returned to England fromParis via Rouen for the coronation of Queen Katherine. In May hewas due to preside over a parliament at Westminster.32 His successfulwar of conquest in France had been supported actively by men fromIreland, including Ormond himself, passively by wider interest amongstcolonists and natives.33 The circumstances in 1421 echoed those oftwo generations earlier, when the lordship of Ireland had petitionedsuccessfully for help from England in 1360 in the wake of EdwardIII’s ‘great peace’ with the French at Brétigny. This earlier petition hadbeen sent from a great council at Kilkenny held by Ormond’s grandfa-ther, a man still remembered and admired four decades after his deathin 1382.34

Additional evidence of what seems to be a further refinement of thecrusade proposal after the drafting of the fourth article of the petitionhas survived in an untitled, original document amongst the Cottonianmanuscripts in the British Library. After some previous uncertaintyabout its date, further investigation, identifying close links with mate-rial in the petition, suggested that it was a brief for the bearers of thepetition to the king.35 One side, interspersing earlier complaints againstan unnamed lieutenant, identifiable as John Talbot, with explanatoryannotations, seems likely to have been a copy or draft of an ‘instru-ment’, which the fifth clause of the petition of 1421 urged the kingto hear and inspect for information about alleged impropriety of con-duct on the part of the chancellor of Ireland, Lawrence Merbury, ata parliament in January 1417. Shorter notes on the dorse list a seriesof memoranda. Crucially, in the context of the petition’s proposal fora crusade, the second of these notes exhorts the reader to remember thefealty and allegiance that the Irish made to King Richard II ‘includedin your message’.36 It then offers the additional information that ‘allthe Irish princes of Ireland became liege subjects . . .of their free will’to Henry II in 1172. Citing ‘the book of Cambrensis’, the account ofthe English conquest of Ireland written by Gerald of Wales in the late1180s, it stresses, accurately and with the obvious intention of draw-ing a direct parallel with the submissions of 1395, that this source ‘doesnot say one word of any act of war that the same king [Henry] made inIreland’.37 Three succeeding notes seem equally pertinent to the cru-sade proposal outlined in the petition. These state that all Christianisles ‘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



threatened all those in Ireland contravening their allegiance to the kingof England with excommunication.38

The petition had presented the proposal that Henry V should ask thepope to proclaim a crusade separately from its opening plea for the kingto come to Ireland in person. But, in contrast to this, the dorsal memo-randa on the brief address these desiderata together, weaving elaboratedversions of the two strands of argument in the first and fourth articlesof the petition, into a single, forceful case for royal action. The firstnote, preceding the one discussing the submissions to Richard II andHenry II, is a reminder that the earl of Ormond had already stressedin a formal ‘message’, and in other ‘letters . . . to the king’s brothers andhis councillors and the earl of March’ how much the king’s presencewas wanted in ‘these parts’ of Ireland.39 Following the notes relating topapal authority over Ireland, further memoranda delve into legend toestablish 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 insert-ing a qualification about the preservation of the liberties of Ireland’sChurch, leaves no doubt of the purpose of this careful research: ‘There-fore, from first to last, the right of our lord the king to Irelandis good.’41

This was an approach well designed to appeal to a king whose ini-tial campaign in France in 1415 had been preceded and justified bynew, exhaustive investigation, across several centuries of past history,into the rights and lands he could claim there.42 Unfortunately, thememoranda are unattributed, nor do we know precisely how, or withwhom, the novel proposal for an Irish crusade originated. However,it is possible to make a few inferences about the roles of three menclosely associated with the genesis of the parliament’s petition to theking: Ormond, the presiding lieutenant; and the two envoys chosen togo to England, Sir Christopher Preston and Archbishop John Swayne ofArmagh.43

On taking office as lieutenant in 1420, Ormond had famously com-missioned a new English translation of the advice-manual for rulers, theSecreta secretorum, with illustrative detail from Irish history. This pre-sented in more ordered, polished form a justification of ‘oure kyngesright to the lordshupe of Irland’, similar in matter and conclusion tothat in the brief. There is at least a possibility that the original researchfor the latter was carried out by the translator, Dublin notary JamesYoung, at Ormond’s behest. But while the brief highlights Ormond’spersistence in lobbying for a royal expedition to Ireland, it makes no



mention of any personal desire on his part for a crusade.44 This evidenceseems significant in the light of the petition’s separation of the plea fora royal expedition from the proposal for a crusade, and of the orderingof 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 oldenough to have had childhood memories of Henry’s visit to Irelandin Richard II’s company in 1399, perhaps even of the Gaelic submis-sions to Richard in 1395, some of which his father, the third earl ofOrmond, had helped to negotiate.45 With his lands and connectionsin England, and his extensive service to the crown outside Ireland,the fourth earl will certainly have been aware of Henry’s personal rev-erence for Richard’s memory, his piety and interest in ecclesiasticalaffairs, perhaps of his crusading ambitions too.46 Probably in Englandwhen Henry and Sigismund sealed the treaty of Canterbury in August1416, Ormond might well have imagined that the example offeredby the emperor’s readiness to crusade within Europe in 1420 wouldcarry weight with his ally.47 And, in the light of the Dublin govern-ment’s straitened financial circumstances of 1421, a further, practicalconsideration of potential attraction to king and lieutenant was thata crusading initiative in Ireland might be expected to secure newsources of funds and manpower.48 Ormond, of course, had native alliesas well as enemies, could speak Irish, and was later, if not already,an enthusiastic patron of Gaelic culture.49 But it has been demon-strated that peaceful, pragmatic, political, cultural and trading links ineveryday life did not preclude crusading and holy warfare in frontierregions.50

Sir Christopher Preston of Gormanston, Meath, is now best knownfor his arrest in Ireland in 1418 in possession of a copy of theroyal coronation oath and a version of the political tract, the Modustenendi parliamentum.51 Although from a colonial family relatively shel-tered from frontier warfare and noted for its lack of contact with theGaelic 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 havebeen well aware of the context and aftermath of the submissions toRichard II of 1395. But he owed his gentry status in large measure tothe success of his father and grandfather as lawyers. It would scarcelybe surprising if the brief associated with the 1421 petition was preparedfor him, particularly in the light of its material relating to accusationsagainst the Talbot regime. He had been conspicuous as a leader of oppo-sition to it. But in this context it is also worth noting that this first part



of the brief was more extensive than the dorsal memoranda on royal andpapal authority over Ireland. It seems likely that the fifth article of thepetition was of greater interest to Preston than the notion or justificationof 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 asa clerk of illegitimate birth in the diocese of Kildare in May 1399,he too may have had some memories of Richard II in Ireland. How-ever, although he held various benefices in Ireland, he had pursueda career in papal service abroad at the courts of Boniface IX, Inno-cent VII, Gregory XII, Alexander V and John XXIII, then as a legaladviser at the Council of Constance, where he established links withthe German as well as the English nation. It was there that he wasappointed and consecrated as archbishop of Armagh by the newlyelected Martin V early in 1418. He was also a doctor of civil and canonlaw who claimed to have been rector of the University of Siena.53 Herewas a man likely to have had some grasp of the precedents for polit-ical crusades against Christians in Italy. He was also one unlikely tohave left Constance for his new duties as a metropolitan in Irelandwithout being informed of Martin V’s anxiety to restore papal rightsin the new reforming post-Schism era. Swayne might well have consid-ered that the crusade proposal offered a promising means of advancingthis cause and that of the further reform of the Irish church. He will alsohave been aware of the interest and enthusiasm for crusading venturesshown by Martin at Constance.54 He is also unlikely to have had muchdifficulty in gathering support within the parliament: we know that thelords and commons in the 1421 parliament were ‘troubled’ by exten-sive accusations of treasonable conduct from Bishop Geese of Lismoreand Waterford against Archbishop Ó hÉidigheáin of Cashel, who, heclaimed, ‘made very much of the Irish and . . . loved none of the Englishnation’.55

Recent work has stressed the sophistication and vibrancy of polit-ical culture in late medieval Ireland, particularly in relation to thecircumstances attending the arrest of Christopher Preston in 1418.56 Theproposal for a crusade in 1421 and the intricacy of the arguments assem-bled to press the case for royal attention are further evidence of this,testifying to some creative, lateral, historically minded thinking at whatmay have seemed, even if mistakenly, an opportune moment in Englishand European politics. It is also evidence of the continuing vigour andvariety of notions of crusading in late medieval Europe in the immediatepost-Schism era.



Appendix

The fourth article of the petition to Henry V from the parliamentof Ireland held at Dublin, April 142157

Item monstront a vostre dit tres hautisme roiale mageste vos ditzlieges que come al prymer venue de vostre tres noble predecessourle Roy Richard le seconde al dit terre58 plusours greyndrez Chieftaynsdirroises nacions cestassavoir McMorgho Oneel Obreene de TomondOconoghour de [Conaght]59 et autres diverses irrois soy humblementsubmysteront ove lour frank volunte demesne et deviendront liegeshommes a luy et ses heirs Royes dengleterre pour eaux lour enfauntznaciones et gentz pour toutz jours et a celle temps fieront leur homageliege et auxint pour la greindre seurte obligeront de bone voloir parplusours Instrumentz en diversez sommes appairs al nostre tressen-tisme pier le Pape et a sez successours pour fiermement garder lourdit liegeaunces lez queux Instrumentz demerent en vostre tresurie den-gleterre sicome vos ditez lieges supposont. Et depuys celle temps tanqeencea les dices personns ount devenuz dislieges et rebeux et degastont etdestruont vos dices lieges encontre la fourme suysdice; perount priontvos ditz lieges si plesir soit a vostre tres noble et tres graciouse seigneuriepour acerteyner et escrier a nostre dit tressentisme pier le Pape par voztres graciousez lettres toutz les materies et choses suisdites ove lour cir-cumstances queconqes pur une croysorie sur ceo aver sur les ditz irroisenemyes en relement et salvacione de mesme vostre terre et voz ditzlieges en ycelle et en perpetuelle destruccione dez dices enemyes ovelayde de dieu.

Notes

1. The text of the petition containing the proposal, with details of the envoyschosen to take it to England, and a record of its authorisation under theIrish 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 versionof this essay was contributed to ‘The Many Faces of Crusading’, a session atthe International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, July 2007. I amindebted to all those who discussed it on that occasion, including fellowcontributors Professor Malcolm Barber and Dr Rebecca Rist, also to ProfessorAnne Curry, Dr Margaret Harvey, Dr Katharine Simms and Dr Peter Crooksfor help and advice on various points.

2. Noted in Brut, II, 493; Chronicles of Engerrand de Monstrelet, I, 483; First EnglishLife of Henry V, 182; see also Stubbs, Constitutional History, III, 95; Wylie andWaugh, Reign of Henry the Fifth, III, 418; Allmand, Henry V, 174; ‘Survey ofEgypt and Syria’; Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, III, 117–18;



Van Elewyck, ‘Ghillebert de Lannoy’, 107–20; Vaughan, Philip the Good, 269;Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 303. For Henry’s hopes that success inFrance 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.

3. Notably Thomas Stukeley’s crusade of 1577–1578 (originally intended forIreland but diverted to North Africa), the crusading invasion of Irelandin 1579, and the granting of crusade indulgences to Aodh Ó Néill (sec-ond earl of Tyrone) in 1600: Silke, Kinsale, 83–4; Dudley Edwards, Ire-land in the Age of the Tudors, 139–44, 165–6; Tyerman, England and theCrusades, 353, 360–1; Housley, Later Crusades, 260; Ellis, Ireland in theAge 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.

4. Statutes and Ordinances, 562–85, quotation at 562. The opening date,duration and items of business of the parliament were recorded by a con-temporary chronicler: Bodleian, Laud Misc. 614, p. 100; Henry Marlborough,‘Chronicle of Ireland’, 222. For Ormond, who had been appointed inFebruary 1420, see Matthew, ‘Butler, James’.

5. Statutes and Ordinances, 562–3.6. 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 Expe-ditions’; Johnston, ‘Chief Governors’; Matthew, ‘Financing of the Lordshipof Ireland’. For pre-1421 predictions of imminent collapse, see Parliamentsand 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; OriginalLetters, I, 54–63.

7. Much has been written on this theme. For a recent, wide-ranging essay,see Frame, ‘Exporting State and Nation’. For studies of particular relevanceto fifteenth-century Ireland, see Empey and Simms, ‘Ordinances of theWhite 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’.

8. For the Talbot–Ormond feud, see Matthew, ‘Governing of the LancastrianLordship of Ireland’, Part II, esp. (for this early era of the feud and its linkswith 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 theIrish of Leinster, 116–20. For the wider context of later medieval factionalconflicts in Ireland, see Crooks, ‘Factions’.

9. Parliaments and Councils, xxiv–xl, 131–85; discussed in Matthew, ‘Financingof the Lordship of Ireland’, 98–101; Matthew, ‘Governing of the LancastrianLordship of Ireland’, 126–43.

10. Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, 223.11. A full text of this article of the petition is printed in the Appendix to this

chapter.12. Riley-Smith, Crusades, 274–5; Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, ch. 2.13. 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



Gaunt, 115–30; Wilks, ‘Roman Candle or Dammed Squib’; DeVries, ‘Reasonsfor the Bishop of Norwich’s Attack on Flanders’; Oliver, ‘Battling Bishops’.

14. Cross and Livingstone (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 184–5;for residual support for Benedict XIII in Scotland in the early 1420s, seeWatt, ‘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.

15. Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 53; D. Johnston, ‘Richard II and the Submissionsof Gaelic Ireland’, 20; Duffy, Ireland, 164; Curtis, History of Medieval Ireland,296; Otway-Ruthven, History of Medieval Ireland, 360–1.

16. Johnston, ‘Richard II and the Submissions of Gaelic Ireland’, 20; Cosgrove,Late Medieval Ireland, 30; Cosgrove, ‘Emergence of the Pale’, 545.

17. See particularly Housley, Italian Crusades, 3, 252–7; S. Lloyd, ‘ “PoliticalCrusades” in England’.

18. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, 21.19. Frame, ‘War and Peace’, quotations at 238, 239.20. N. Housley, ‘Frontier Societies’.21. 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 mynation, as also of his heirs, kings of England’; to ‘be faithful to the sameand his heirs for ever’; and to ‘be obedient to the laws, commands, andordinances of the same or any of them according to my power and thatof all mine’: Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 150 [Latin text at 58]. Niall MórÓ Néill swore allegiance ‘for me and my sons, my whole nation and kinand all my subjects’, promising that ‘both I and all the aforesaid, mysons, my whole nation and kin, and all my subjects will be faithful toyou 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 boththese formulae in the statement in the fourth article of the 1421 petitionthat the Irish ‘became liegemen to him [Richard] and his heirs, kings ofEngland, 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.

22. Seán Mac Domhnaill’s oath was typical of many in this respect, but in a fewcases 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 pledgedby 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.

23. Curtis, Richard II in Ireland, 66, 91, 157, 179 (Toirdhealbhach Ó ConchobhairDonn); 69, 159–60 (Niall Óg Ó Néill); 78, 167 (Art Mac MurchadhaCáemánach), 93–4, 181 (Brian Ó Briain); others pledging 20,000 marksincluded 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).

24. 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 GaelicIreland’, 1.



25. Johnston, ‘The Interim Years’, 175–95; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish ofLeinster, 111–12.

26. ‘French Metrical History’, 28–30, 299; D. Johnston, ‘Richard II’s Departurefrom 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 Irishof Leinster, 114–16.

28. See Harvey, ‘Martin V and Henry V’, 61–5; Harvey, England, Rome and thePapacy, 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 con-tingent of 500 directly from Ireland; Ormond also served at Pontoisein summer 1419; Prior Thomas and Earl Thomas fitz John of Desmonddied in France in 1419 and 1420: Brut, II, 387, 389–90; Historical Collec-tions 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 fromclergy and commons in Ulster appropriately describes the king as ‘mostvictorious’ a month after the initial agreement in France (5 May) of thepeace terms ratified (21 May) at Troyes: TNA SC 1/57/69; for Troyes,see Allmand, Henry V, 142–3. Evidence of native interest in Englishvictories 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 theoriginal cited above) appears in Lambeth Palace Library, Carew Ms. 608,ff. 66–8. The dating and content are discussed in Matthew, ‘Governing ofthe Lancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, pp. 148–51; see also Frame, ‘ExportingState and Nation’, 174.

36. ‘Item faite a remembrer q[ue] touchant la foialte [e]t legeaunce compris env[ot]re message q[ue] lez Irrois firent a Roy Richard s[e]c[on]de’: BL, CottonTitus 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 PrivyCouncil, II, 51; cf. Expugnatio Hibernica, 90–105. For detailed discussion ofHenry 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’swork.



39. The formal message may have been a reference to a petition from a parlia-ment held in 1416 by Archbishop Thomas Cranley of Dublin which hadnamed Ormond as its envoy to England: Proceedings and Ordinances of thePrivy Council, II, 50–1; College of Arms, London, Betham MSS: Repertory toRecords of the Exchequer, H.V–H.VI, 567.

40. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, II, 51–2; cf. ExpugnatioHibernica, 148–9.

41. ‘Ergo de primo ad ultimu[m] bone est le droit n[ot]re s[eignu]r le Roy al t[er]reDirland 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; Proceedingsand 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 Read-ing 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 pre-ceded the composition of the brief, but as Young was writing 1420–1422, thisseems uncertain: see Matthew, ‘Governing of the Lancastrian Lordship ofIreland’, 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, discussedabove.

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 Westminsteron Henry’s accession in 1413, and Henry’s piety, see McFarlane, LancastrianKings, 121–2, 128–9; Dockray, Henry V, 80–3, 220–4. For Ormond’s Englishlands and connections in his early career, see Matthew, ‘Governing of theLancastrian Lordship of Ireland’, 110–15, 592–5. Whether Ormond himselfhad shown any previous interest in crusading is uncertain, but in 1414 hehad 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 exal-tation 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 thatyear; as a famous account of Sigismund’s arrival at Dover in May derivesfrom Butler family material, Ormond may well have been a witness: Collegeof 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 Sigismundin England, see Allmand, Henry V, 104–9.

48. Crusading privileges in this respect, formalised in the thirteenth century, hadcertainly 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.



49. Simms, ‘Bards and Barons’, 186–8; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish ofLeinster, 116–20

50. Housley, ‘Frontier Societies’.51. For the Modus, see, Parliamentary Texts, 115–52; also Otway-Ruthven, ‘Back-

ground 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 andthe 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 theArrest of the Fifth Earl of Kildare’.

57. The text is from Statutes and Ordinances, 564, 566. Original abbreviationsreproduced there have been expanded; ‘u’ and ‘v’, ‘i’ and ‘j’, have been inter-changed 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 furthertranscript in NLI, MS 4 (Harris Collectanea, iv), ff. 219–22; a Latin summaryappears 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 BarbarousWildness . . .unto Civility’: Englandand ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625Steven G. Ellis

What lessons does the British Isles hold for us in regard to conceptsof Europe and the dynamics of centres and peripheries there? Ina European context, the English monarchy was itself peripheral geo-graphically and, in early Tudor times, also of comparatively modestresources. In the 1520s, for instance, the population of the Tudor ter-ritories as a whole numbered around 3 million, as opposed to a Frenchpopulation of 16 million and a Spanish one of seven and a half million.Likewise, Henry VIII’s ordinary revenues barely exceeded £100,000a year, compared with the £350,000 annually available to Francis Iand Charles V’s £560,000 annually in the 1540s. The kingdom ofEngland in particular could not be ignored, but in Henry VIII’s timethe main European theatre of war and competition was Italy and theMediterranean, not north-west Europe.1 Yet, as we shall see, the Englishmonarchy’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 theBritish Isles and also have obvious applications elsewhere. The first ofthese is the very obvious question of geography and land capability.Centre and periphery in a British context reflected the ability of anextensive and comparatively well-populated lowland zone of markettowns and agricultural villages to dominate the more sparsely populatedpastoral uplands to the north and west. Second, the British experiencewas also fundamentally shaped by the loss of what had been regardedas core territories in continental Europe (i.e., Normandy and Gascony),which in turn altered the dynamics of centre and periphery within thearchipelago. Finally, both English concepts of Europe and also Englishsenses of what was core and what was periphery were heavily influ-enced 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 undoubt-edly in the latter category and clearly in need of the benefits of Englishcivility, but other European nations whose customs also departed fromEnglish 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 Europeanhistory, it has not been attempted before in a British context. Thebasic answer, it appears, is that until very recently, the resolutely insu-lar, nation-based character of history-writing in the British Isles hastended to inhibit discussions about centre/periphery perspectives asmajor themes in the archipelago’s various historiographical traditions.2

The English are, in general, very conscious of the continuities of theirhistory – a tradition of monarchy, for example, from King Alfred inthe ninth century to the present Queen Elizabeth II, or the growth ofa democratic, parliamentary tradition. Invasions and occupations, rev-olutions and dictatorship were the fate of other, less favoured nations,particularly those of continental Europe, from which the English werehappily preserved by the geography of their island. Academic histo-ries of England broadly endorsed this emphasis on continuities andEnglish exceptionalism – a benign form of Sonderweg which preservedthe English from continental absolutism. Likewise, Irish national his-tory, notwithstanding repeated invasions and eight centuries of Englishoccupation, also stresses an overriding continuity – the heroic struggleof the Irish nation for freedom and self-determination against foreignoccupation and oppression.Of course all national histories focus diachronically on ‘the rise of

the nation’ and the contrasts and differences from other nations, thisbeing the nature of the genre. Yet there is a particular reason whynational histories of the British Isles have largely ignored the kind ofcentre/periphery perspective which have recently attracted attention ina 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 andthe English: it does mention Ireland, alone of the four nations. OnlyNorthern Ireland now remains part of the British state, but until 1922the whole of Ireland was included. The kingdom of England, however,ceased to exist as an autonomous entity in 1066, when it was absorbedinto a Norman empire. Since then, England has always been part ofa wider polity – whether in the later Middle Ages as a cross-channelempire stretching into what is now France, or later on as a British mul-tiple monarchy from which developed the present United Kingdom.


178 England and ‘the Celtic Fringe’, 1415–1625

English nationalist history has marginalized those territories such asIreland which lay beyond the historic boundaries of England and whichhave long been associated with England in the one state. Its definitionof English identity (the king’s subjects born and living in England) isalso a modern one which excludes those English communities outsideEngland – the product of medieval or early modern colonization andsettlement – which were not destined to remain English. Essentially,therefore, English national history is like a history of the centre withthe peripheries left out, or at least with the more problematic periph-eries, like Ireland, excluded. Similarly, Irish nationalist history focuseson the island of Ireland, ignoring Northern Ireland, as if Ireland wereone nation and state. In effect, the wider pattern of state formation inthe British Isles is divided up into four separate national stories centringon England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.3

In the last decade, some historians have attempted to counteract theobvious shortcomings of this kind of nationalist history by focusinginstead on interaction between the four historic nations in the contextof state formation, rather than nation-building. In this paradigm, nowknown as the New British History, the three nations of ‘the Celtic fringe’generally constitute the peripheries in a process of state formation bywhich the early modern British multiple monarchy was gradually trans-formed into the present United Kingdom. This approach has the decidedadvantage of explaining how the present British state developed. And itdoes at least highlight the fact that over the last millennium Englishand British kings have always governed other peoples and territoriesbesides England. Yet it is just as much of a grand narrative as tradi-tional nationalist history. It likewise culminates in the present, savethat the present is the state rather than the nation; and many of themain issues are equally prejudged by its substitution, as the context ofexplanation, of the British Isles for England or Ireland and of British forEnglish or Irish. For instance, the attempt to create a new supranationalBritish sense of identity to bind together the English, Irish, Scots andWelsh was not an issue until after 1603; nor did the English monarchyshow any sustained interest in consolidating its influence throughoutthe archipelago until long after the final collapse of the medieval Anglo-French empire in 1453. The New British perspective is a valuable counterto nationalist histories in that it tends to point up comparisons ratherthan contrasts between the four nations; but it really offers no explana-tion as to why the monarchy should wish to locate its administrativecapital so inaccessibly in the south-east corner of the emerging Britishstate.4


Steven G. Ellis 179

In order to make more sense of developments in the British Islesbefore modern times, we need to set aside this kind of present-centredgrand narrative and look more carefully at relations between centre andperiphery as they appeared at the time. That is, we need to ask whatthe aims and ambitions of contemporary English kings were and howthe king’s subjects in outlying parts responded to the crown’s demandson them. This chapter will focus on the period from the last phase ofAnglo-French rivalry known as the Hundred Years War (1337–1453) tothe 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. Thekingdom of England itself was the product of successive invasions andoccupations by Saxons, Vikings, and Normans; and subsequently themonarchy had expanded in the two centuries from c.1090 to conquerthe whole of Wales, most of Ireland and, briefly, southern Scotland. By1206, the old ancestral fiefs of the English crown in northern France hadbeen lost, but King John had inherited Gascony from his mother, andlater English kings poured considerable amounts of money and men –with very mixed results! – into recovering the lost fiefs, particularlyNormandy.5 Thus, throughout the later Middle Ages, the patrimony ofEnglish kings may be divided, on grounds of geography and strategicimportance, into three groups of territories. First, there was the coreterritory of lowland England, the area of the original Anglo-Saxonmonarchy of King Alfred. Second, there were the French possessions:their recovery and defence remained a high priority for English kingsinto the mid-sixteenth century. Finally, there were the conquest lord-ships to the north and west of lowland England in the British uplandzone – the far north of England and the fluctuating area of Englishrule in southern Scotland, the English lordship of Ireland with its fron-tier with Gaelic Ireland, and the principality and marches of Walesconquered by 1283.It was this third group of territories which formed what might be

described as the English periphery. Their relationship with the centrewas shaped in part by the character and ambitions of the monarchyitself. Late medieval English kings ruled what was in many ways a typi-cal European monarchy of the period – a land-based monarchy, of manymarches far from the seat of royal authority. There was an intensely gov-erned core region, lowland England, where the king normally residedand the bulk of the royal demesne was located, surrounded by moreremote, loosely controlled territories, often with exposed frontiersadministered through devolved power structures and marcher lords. The



English monarchy had considerable territorial and strategic interests incontinental Europe, and its territories there were intermittently threat-ened by the powerful French monarchy. The English periphery alsocomprised what were essentially marcher regions. At a time when, ingeneral, English society was becoming more peaceful and law-abiding,the king’s subjects of the marches faced near-continuous warfare, albeiton a much smaller scale than in France – against the Scots in north-ern England (from 1296), against shifting combinations of Gaelic chiefsin Ireland, and to a declining extent in the recently reduced but stillrestless Welsh marches. For instance, there was no formal peace signedbetween England and Scotland for almost 170 years between 1333 and1502, only periodic truces and temporary abstinences of war. Accord-ingly, English society in these regions was heavily militarized, frequentlytaking the form of marcher lineages. The classic examples were the bor-der surnames of the Anglo-Scottish frontier, and the English lineagesof the Leinster mountains. Likewise, from the late fourteenth century,the normal form of gentry residence in these marcher regions was thedefended tower-house; and long after the age of castle-building was overin England, marcher lords like Lord Dacre or the earl of Kildare contin-ued to erect new castles, such as Rockcliffe or Castledermot. Marcherlandowners traditionally kept small permanent retinues for defence,and their estate-management policies were geared more towards themaintenance of an extensive manraed (i.e., a battle-hardened tenantryavailable to the lord for defence) than towards extracting high rents.In short, these were societies of near-professional soldiers, geared tocontinuous war.6

In the circumstances, the major role and responsibilities of the Englishborderlands were the defence of the realm against enemies and rebels,but they also provided a useful recruiting ground for experiencedtroops to serve in the king’s armies abroad. For instance, the four mostnortherly counties of England were from the 1380s discharged from pay-ment of parliamentary taxation in return for border defence against theScots. Yet northern spears were also highly prized in other theatres ofwarfare, serving for instance in successive English expeditionary forcessent to Ireland in 1494, 1520, 1530, and 1534.7 Small cohorts of thesehighly experienced troops frequently formed the professional nucleusof English armies fighting in France: for instance, the 500 horse andfoot despatched in 1418 from Waterford in Ireland to serve Henry V atthe siege of Rouen in Normandy or – a late example – Henry VIII’s 600Irish 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 HenryVI to Paris for his coronation as king of France. Naturally, Salisbury’sretinue would have included many borderers, among them Sir HenryThrelkeld, a Cumberland knight, who engaged to serve with eight men-at-arms and 22 archers. Salisbury was back in France in 1436, when heagreed to serve under his brother-in-law, Richard, duke of York, with1300 men.9

This close tie between the English periphery and the major politicalissues as viewed from the centre spilled over from the Hundred YearsWar into the next phase of English history, the three decades of dynas-tic rivalry, intermittent civil war, and internal weakness known tohistorians as the Wars of the Roses. The outstanding English mili-tary commander in France was John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury (‘theEnglish Achilles’) killed in the final battle of the Hundred Years Warat Châtillon (or Castillon in Anglo-Norman French). Shrewsbury was aleading 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 theking’s heir apparent until 1453.10 When England descended into civilwar, it was Yorkist control of the English periphery which proved deci-sive in the war’s first phase (1459–1461), even though the Yorkist lordshad little support among the English peerage at large. York himself con-trolled Ireland, with the support of the two resident earls of Desmondand Kildare. He also had large estates in the Welsh marches where hisheir, the future King Edward IV, was a major figure in his own right.His brother-in-law, Salisbury, controlled the English west marches, andSalisbury’s son, Richard Neville, earl of Warwick (‘the Kingmaker’), wasgovernor of Calais. Throughout the Wars of the Roses, control of theEnglish borderlands with their ready supply of near-professional soldiersfrequently proved decisive in the fight for the throne. The marcher lordshad a disproportionate influence on developments.11

So long as the English monarchy harboured pretensions as a majorEuropean power, the English borderlands were valued as a source ofexperienced troops. When, in 1513, Henry VIII attempted to resumethe Hundred Years War against France, he again drew heavily on theborderers for his great army of 30,000 men. This included companies ofnorthern men under Lord Darcy, Welshmen under the earl of Worcester,and 500 Irishmen. Accordingly, Henry had to give orders ‘that no mangive 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 ofany other country whence soever he be of’.12 By that date, however,



the balance of power in Europe was utterly different from the situationfacing the Lancastrian kings a century before. The English c.1420 hadlong controlled the far larger duchy of Gascony in south-west Franceand had recently reconquered the duchy of Normandy, in addition tothe tiny strip of territory around Calais plus the Channel Isles whichwas the reality of Henry VIII’s claim to the French crown. And Francehad then included other independent duchies also since absorbed bythe French monarchy, notably Burgundy and Brittany whose rulershad offered the English intermittent support.13 To mount an effectivechallenge, Henry VIII now required the support of the Spanish kingand the Emperor Maximilian, whereas earlier the English and Frenchmonarchies had been much more evenly matched.14 For instance, hav-ing reconquered Normandy, Henry V had then forced the French toaccept the treaty of Troyes (1420). By its terms, the infant Prince Henrysucceeded to the French crown on the death of his maternal grandfa-ther, Charles VI, in October 1422: two months before, he had succeededhis father, Henry V, as king of England, so creating an Anglo-Frenchdual monarchy. Lancastrian France extended as far south as Paris until1436, plus Gascony; and the Lancastrian regime was forced to build upwhat was tantamount to a standing army in order to defend its Frenchpossessions from the Valois king.15

Until the final collapse of Lancastrian France in 1453, therefore, thestrategic interests and ambitions of late medieval English kings werefirmly focused on continental Europe. The defence of the northern fron-tier against the Scots was really only a sideshow which forced itself onthe king’s attention as a preliminary to French expeditions. The westernfrontier, in Ireland, caught the king’s attention even more intermit-tently: despite the gradual deterioration of the English position therebetween c.1300 and 1470, major military expeditions to Ireland weremounted only in the period 1361–1399, during the long period of truceand peace with France.16 Overall, therefore, England’s chief city and tra-ditional seat of government, London, was ideally situated for the rule ofthis multiple monarchy. Culturally, too, the French language retainedan official status: it remained a familiar language of the court, albeitspoken with an accent which Parisians found hard to understand, andin England and Ireland law pleadings and parliament rolls were stillwritten up in an archaic language known as law French.17 Knowingwhat came after, English historians have had little difficulty in dismiss-ing this Anglo-French multiple monarchy – and continental adventuresmore 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 ofking and court in binding these territories together. A more effectiveking than Henry VI – the feeblest in English history! – would certainlyhave gone much further in developing a standing army, a professionalbureaucracy, and an effective system of taxation to rule and defend hisFrench 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 fromthe Wars of the Roses. Throughout his reign, King Henry dreamedof emulating the great victories of Edward III and Henry V at Crécyand Agincourt. His three great wars against the French did result intemporary 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 con-quest of France – and meanwhile, both in culture and in administrativepractice, the English territories were developing on separate lines.18

English had, for instance, since ousted French in statutes and other offi-cial documents, even if Henry VIII could still on occasion write loveletters in French to Anne Boleyn.19 There were early indications in theEnglish borderlands of the later drive – culminating in the reforms of the1530s – to centralize monarchical authority in accordance with lowlandEnglish administrative norms.20 Thus, although Henry VIII’s bellicoseforeign policy and continental adventures – a reversal of his father’sfocus on internal reconstruction – helped to mask or even briefly reverseEngland’s declining influence in continental Europe, security consider-ations gradually forced the Tudors to attend more carefully to affairs onthe English periphery.In this context, the major development was the Reformation crisis,

which shifted the focus back to internal security and cast a very dif-ferent light on the borderers’ traditional lawlessness. Queen Elizabeth’saccession in 1558 saw the monarchy in an unprecedentedly weak posi-tion: the French bestrode the realm, with one foot in Scotland and theother in England’s last continental outpost, Calais, captured earlier thesame year; there were huge debts, and an empty treasury; and in order tosettle the vexed question of religion a reversal of Queen Mary’s Catholicpolicies in favour of some kind of royal supremacy seemed the leastbad option. Accordingly, Elizabeth abandoned Calais; manoeuvred tosecure a moderate religious settlement which fell just short of alien-ating the Protestant support on which she depended; and chiefly bygood luck secured a French withdrawal from Scotland. After this, with



one aberration (the Newhaven expedition of 1562–1563), she avoidedmajor European entanglements for 25 years until drawn into the Dutchrevolt against Spain. Indeed, the Spanish war of 1585–1604 was the onlyextended period of foreign war faced by the English monarchy for nearlytwo centuries from 1453.21

Thus the period from the 1530s until Elizabeth’s death in 1603 saw afundamental reshaping of relations between centre and periphery in theEnglish state – one which had been inherent in the loss of the French ter-ritories, but which was postponed first by civil war and then by HenryVIII’s ultimately unrealistic attempts to re-establish Henry V’s Anglo-French dual monarchy. At one level, the nature of this transformationwas highlighted by the exclusion of the marcher lords from any majorrole in national politics. A few magnates remained important for thegood rule of their own borderlands, like the earls of Kildare in earlyTudor Ireland, or the Lords Dacre in the early Tudor north. Neither hadany major estates elsewhere in the Tudor territories. Henry VIII’s leadingmilitary 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 therule of their own countries, notably the earl of Northumberland in1560.22 Almost the only exception to this trend was Thomas Butler, earlof Ormond, Elizabeth’s military commander in Ireland twice (thoughnever appointed governor), royal favourite in the mid-1560s, and even-tually earl marshal of England, but then Ormond was the queen’skinsman.23 Elizabeth in particular distrusted these marcher lords. Shewas fundamentally uncomfortable with major military exploits which,as a woman, she was less able to control, and so had little time for mil-itary men. It is a telling comment on Elizabeth’s changed priorities thatthe largest army despatched from England during her reign, the 17,300men commanded by the earl of Essex in 1599, was not only less thanhalf the size of Henry VIII’s last army royal of 1544, but was also destinedfor Ireland, not France or the Spanish Netherlands.24

In these circumstances, the borderers’ military skills were increasinglyseen by the Tudors in a much less positive light. For the most part,the Tudors lacked a standing army. Small garrisons were maintained inCalais (until its loss in 1558); also in Carlisle and Berwick-on-Tweed,England’s chief military outposts in the Anglo-Scottish marches; andfrom 1534 a small army, frequently 1500 men, was also stationed inIreland.25 Yet one reason why the extensive manraed of marcher lordslike the Percy earls of Northumberland evoked such suspicion was thepossibility 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 hadoccurred during the Wars of the Roses. When in autumn 1536 the dukeof 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 30,000men, ‘all the flower of the North’, and forced to negotiate.26 It is signifi-cant that by 1600 this very word manraed (which meant the men a lordcould call on in wartime for military service) was falling out of use: ‘tallfellows’ were now less in demand among the nobility. Instead, Englanddeveloped as a naval power, which further privileged the more urban-ized core territory at the expense of the borderlands.27 Tudor Irelanddid indeed contain some substantial port-towns: many had strong trad-ing links with English ports, although under Elizabeth the trade withCatholic Spain of the south-western seaports was increasingly viewedwith suspicion.28 Yet Wales and the north, being predominantly pastoralregions, had relatively few major seaports whose merchant shippingcould 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 asa distinct threat to royal authority. The state of the borders contrastedincreasingly with lowland England where strong government and thelong peace fostered a more settled society and resort to law over violenceand feud to settle disputes. Like magistrates all over Europe, Englishofficials believed that towns and tillage fostered a more civil society.They likewise thought in regard to the topographical divisions of theBritish Isles that this distinction was also a moral one – that wherethe land was uncultivated, as in the predominantly pastoral regionsof ‘the Celtic fringe’, so also did its inhabitants live in a more prim-itive, savage manner. As early as 1125, William of Malmesbury hadpioneered the characteristic English habit of describing the course ofEnglish history as the triumph of civilization over barbarism. Thus,Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) in the late twelfth century jus-tified English expansion into the Celtic periphery on the grounds of theneed to promote English civility (towns, tillage, and commerce) amongthose savage peoples living in idleness and brutality in their woodsand bogs.29

Yet, if the wild borderers were increasingly seen as a threat to goodrule, there was also a heightened optimism by the 1530s in Tudor offi-cial circles about the ability of English common law and administrativestructures to work a reformation of manners among these misguidedmen, reducing them to English civility. Hitherto, the arrangements forthe rule of the English territories had reflected what might be described



as a dual system of administration. The English realm itself was a con-quest lordship par excellence; and by the standards of late medievalmonarchy, England was certainly precocious in the centralization anduniformity of its administrative structures. The country was divided upinto shires or counties, for each of which the king appointed the samecombination of local officials headed by sheriffs, justices of the peace(JPs), escheators, and coroners, who each administered the same code oflaw, English common law, supervised by the king’s council and centrallaw courts sitting at Westminster. North and west of lowland England,however, this standard system of English government was supplementedandmodified by a quasi-military system based on feudal liberties admin-istering different systems of march law among mixed populations whereonly freeborn Englishmen could claim the ‘benefits’ of English law.These marcher institutions had originally been developed to defend thenorthern and western frontiers against ‘Scots enemies’, ‘mere Welsh’,and ‘wild Irish’ beyond – although by the 1530s the whole of Wales hadbeen under English rule for at least 250 years, and the marcher lordshipsthere were militarily obsolete.30

From the 1530s, therefore, the Tudor response to border lawlessnessand the problem of internal security sparked by the Reformation crisiswas to centralize their authority by reducing the feudal liberties to shireground and, in place of marcher lords like Kildare and Dacre, entrustingthe rule of these regions to courtiers or more reliable local gentry – SirWilliam 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] realmof England’; English became the language of government, Welsh lawand customs were abolished, the marcher lordships were shired, and thewhole region including the ‘mere Welsh’ were now governed solely byEnglish law and administrative structures.31

In Wales, these changes were increasingly effective because there wasno longer any military frontier to defend. Power had hitherto been toodecentralized with the existence of 130 separate marcher lordships ineastern Wales alone; and the Tudor dynasty had strong ties with Walesanyway, so that Tudor reform there could be cast as political libera-tion for the ‘mere Welsh’, hitherto threatened with the legal disabilitiesimposed by the so-called Lancastrian Penal Code (1401). Thus, the newstructures helped to stamp out disorders so that the Welsh appearedto become more civil.32 As Tudor rule was gradually extended into theGaelic parts of Ireland, the erstwhile Gaelic lordships were likewiseshired, 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 themore prominent among them were given English titles, with a personalseat in parliament, and sometimes appointed to the king’s council inIreland. Thus, the Mac Giolla Phádraig, chief of Ossory, became BarnabyFitzpatrick, baron of Upper Ossory, and Conn Bacach Ó Néill, chief ofTyrone, became earl of Tyrone under the so-called Surrender and Regrantstrategy of the early 1540s. Yet in Ireland this policy was much lesseffective because it did not address the underlying military problem pre-sented by the Anglo-Gaelic frontier. In fact, in some respects it made theproblem worse because, for instance, the extension of the English Paleinto the Gaelic midlands from 1547 simply moved the military fron-tier away from the Pale’s standing defences of dikes, peles and fortifiedbridges. Likewise, the exchange of Gaelic titles for English ones essen-tially created a new group of marcher lords among the erstwhile chiefs,not a Tudor service nobility or noblesse de robe, as Tudor officials hadhoped, because the new Irish peers had still to defend their titles andterritories both from internal rivals who had lost out through surrenderand regrant and also from external enemies not yet reconciled to thecrown.33

A similar strategy of moving the military frontier further northwardswas briefly tried (1547–1550) in regard to the Anglo-Scottish frontier, soas to create an English Pale in southern Scotland. Yet increased militarypressure on Scotland simply consolidated the ‘auld alliance’, driving theScots into the arms of the French. The English garrisons intruded toprotect ‘the assured Scots’ (the more anglophile, Protestant party) sim-ply proved an expensive liability when confronted by a larger Frencharmy and were withdrawn in 1550.34 Eventually, the advent of betterAnglo-Scottish relations from 1560 with the treaty of Edinburgh reducedthe problem of the borders to more manageable proportions. The warof 1557–1560 proved to be the last between the two nations beforethe Union of the Crowns in 1603, and thereafter the two Protestantregimes in London and Edinburgh collaborated to discipline the bordersurnames so that military defence was far less of a problem.35

In these circumstances, the traditional dynamics of centre and periph-ery within the English state was radically altered. From the 1540sonwards, Tudor foreign policy was essentially defensive: the effortsto centralize royal control over the borderlands reflected a growingfear that border lawlessness might otherwise encourage the Frenchor, later, the Spaniards to intervene. These fears became even moreacute as the Reformation crisis spawned an age of religious wars. TheElizabethan regime, in particular, saw itself as an embattled Protestant



minority surrounded by Catholic enemies, both home and abroad. Notonly could border violence and feuds encourage outside interventionby Catholic powers, but the borderers themselves were notoriouslybackward in religion.36 Beginning in the English north in 1536 (thePilgrimage of Grace), but much more clearly in the case of the rebel-lions of 1569–1570 (the Revolt of the Northern Earls, and in Ireland theFitzmaurice rebellion) movements of political dissent began to take onreligious forms. Essentially, these were provincial reactions to growingTudor centralization, but in each case the defence of regional auton-omy also involved the defence of the old religion. Thus, for much ofElizabeth’s reign, the demands of security and religion were closely inter-twined: until the Reformation began to take hold more generally in the1580s, Tudor officials looked out upon a region of towns and villageswhich were peaceful, law-abiding and Protestant, surrounded by turbu-lent borderlands which were violent, warlike, and papistical. And whenin Ireland in 1579–1580 landings by Spanish and Italian troops sparkedoff widespread Catholic risings in Munster and the English Pale, theworst fears of Elizabethan officials were realized.Underpinning this revised appreciation of relations between cen-

tre and periphery was the development of new forms of communityconsciousness in England. English identity had traditionally includedstrong ethnic and cultural dimensions: the English were the king’s sub-jects of English blood, born in the territories under the allegiance ofthe English crown, which included the Englishries of Ireland and Wales,not just those born in England. By the 1540s, however, large numbers ofmere Irish and mere Welsh had been granted the rights of English sub-jects, as a result of Tudor reform policies in these two countries, whileby then the most important exception to the increasing identification ofthe 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 influenceof humanism, the concept of the patria, the native country, graduallyousted older ethnic forms of community consciousness. Not only wasEngland set apart – in Saxton’s maps, for instance – from other Englishterritories, but Reformation England also acquired a divine mission: itwas the elect nation, sent by God to save the world from popery. Sim-ilarly, cultural norms were more narrowly defined: English civility wasprecisely the norms and values of God-fearing civil society as it devel-oped in lowland England. From the 1530s, therefore, Tudor reform inthe borderlands was not simply an instinctive reaction to heightened


Steven G. Ellis 189

fears among Tudor officials about security, it was a considered policyto reduce the wild men of the marches to peace and civility – a policywhich refashioned traditional English ideas about the march of historyas the triumph of civilization over savagery in a quite different con-text. Accordingly, the shiring of marcher or Gaelic lordships and feudalliberties, the extension of English common law in place of march law,and the increase of true religion and the English tongue had as theiroverriding 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 imperialismproved an abject failure. Quite apart from problems of frontier defencein Ireland and the north which it simply did not address, the policyfailed to take account of differences of geography and so of social struc-tures in these peripheral areas. For instance, the classic system of Englishlocal government, as it had developed in the fourteenth century, presup-posed a heavily manorialized society of towns and nucleated villages,and a diffuse pattern of landholding so as to provide a substantial poolof county and parish gentry to discharge the major offices of local gov-ernment. In short, it presupposed the same social conditions as existedin lowland England. Already under the early Tudors there were prob-lems in operating this system throughout the English north which, asa predominantly pastoral region of compact lordships and few towns,lacked the necessary pool of gentry to discharge the increasing adminis-trative burden placed on the unpaid and part-time justices of the peace.Similar problems were encountered in Wales when the marcher lord-ships were shired and peace commissions were introduced after 1536.Bishop Rowland Lee, president of the king’s council there, commentedsourly that there were ‘very few Welsh in Wales above Brecknock’ [theuplands] ‘who have £10’ in land [an English yeoman’s income] ‘andtheir discretion is less than their land’.37

In the event, though, English local government as applied to Walesdid curb the worst disorders, even though English officials constantlycomplained about the disorderly character of Welsh society. In Ireland,when English local government was extended to Gaelic regions as partand parcel of the Tudor conquest, it proved even less successful. Quiteapart from the different patterns of landholding in Gaelic Ireland, theGaelic aristocracy also lacked the necessary legal expertise to operate thesystem. Thus, the only way in which English local government couldinitially be made to work was by an increasing reliance on English armycaptains and settlers who were intruded as a new colonial elite in Gaelicsociety. Concurrently, the erstwhile Gaelic chiefs were encouraged to



adopt tillage and build stone houses as marks of civility. In practice,the settlers showed no great inclination to hand over power to Gaeliclandowners, and so English local government as it operated in largeparts of Ireland remained a colonial imposition without deep roots inGaelic society.The classic illustration of the workings of the English official mind in

regard to the Celtic fringe was the transplantation of the Grahams fromthe Anglo-Scottish borders to county Roscommon in Ireland in 1608.This was part of King James’s policy to turn the erstwhile Anglo-Scottishfrontier – and the troublesome border surnames there, of whom theGrahams were one – into what he called The Middle Shires, followingthe Union of the Crowns in 1603. The Graham surname inhabited theEnglish west marches immediately south of the frontier line. Officially,therefore, they were English subjects, although in practice a ‘naughtyand factious people’ who, notably in the so-called Busy Week follow-ing King James’s accession, supplemented the meagre living which theyscratched in the pastoral uplands by rustling cattle from the neigh-bouring lowlanders. Transplantation to Roscommon, therefore, seemednot 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 ofEnglish 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 astillage farmers in Ireland than they had in the Anglo-Scottish marchesand soon drew complaints from local officials that they were even moreadept at cattle rustling than the wild Irish. The idea that Englishmenwere ipso facto civil arable farmers was a serious mistake.38

Overall, therefore, the basis of power within the English state wasredrawn in the early modern period by a policy of administrative unifor-mity, monarchical centralization and cultural imperialism. This Tudorstrategy of state formation was far more radical than anything attemptedin continental Europe, aiming, as it did, to remodel social and admin-istrative structures, religious beliefs, even cultural norms and values soas 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 charac-ter of the British state down to the present. That this policy succeededas far as it did reflected in large measure the state’s peripheral location –off the north-west coast of continental Europe. After 1453, the Englishmonarchy no longer had to defend remote landed frontiers againstthe major continental powers. Indeed, the British multiple monarchy


Steven G. Ellis 191

created by the Anglo-Scottish dynastic union of 1603 had no landedfrontiers at all. In these circumstances, Tudor and Stuart monarchs hadless need to pursue continental strategies of Staatsbildung – developinga standing army, a professional bureaucracy, and a more effective sys-tem of taxation. Yet this distinctive strategy of sweeping anglicizationand centralization combined with weak, underdeveloped mechanismsfor central control could only work in the absence of serious Europeancompetition. Once the monarchy went to war again, as it did in the mid-seventeenth century, the inadequacies of the English Sonderweg werevery rapidly exposed.

Notes

1. Remarks based on Potter, ‘Foreign Policy’, 106–7, 111–14, except that I haveadjusted the figure for the Tudor population to allow for the other Tudorterritories. A draft of this paper was first presented at a conference on Writ-ing European Histories: Centres and Peripheries, sponsored by The DanishInstitute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of SouthernDenmark, Odense, in May 2002. I am grateful for the many commentsreceived 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 mod-

ern period, useful collections of essays from the New British perspectiveinclude Asch (ed.), Three Nations; Grant and Stringer (eds.), Uniting the King-dom?; Ellis and Barber (eds.), Conquest and Union; Bradshaw and Morrill(eds.), British Problem; Bradshaw and Roberts (eds.), British Consciousness andIdentity; 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, North-East England, 52–3. And for 1494, see the transfer for service in Ireland ofSir Richard Salkeld and Sir Henry Wyatt, both senior officials in the Carlislegarrison: 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 IrishKerne’.

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 ofFrance.



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 parlia-

ment continued to be written in French until 1489 (with English alongsidefrom 1485), and in the Irish parliament until 1493. Thereafter they were inEnglish: 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, ‘Languages1500–1800’, 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 (quota-

tion, 305); Bean, Estates of the Percy Family, 45–7, 129; James, Society, Politicsand 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 PublishedWritings 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 SecondaryWorks (Dublin, 1971), Studia Hibernica, 11 (1971), 184–6.

1972

∗ ‘The Justiciar and the Murder of the MacMurroughs in 1282’, Irish HistoricalStudies, 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-CenturyIreland’, 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 HistoricalReview, 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), DurhamUniversity 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 JocelynOtway-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.), TheEnglish 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.), ThirteenthCentury England I (Woodbridge, 1986), 158–67.



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 Anglo-Scottish History (Edinburgh, 1985) and K. J. Stringer (ed.), Essays on the Nobilityof 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 Societyon the Anglo-Gaelic Frontier’, in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), MedievalFrontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), 101–26.

∗ ‘England and Ireland, 1171–1399’, in M. Jones and M. Vale (eds.), England andHer 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: Inter-actions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1989), The Times HigherEducation Supplement, 901 (9 February 1990), 20.

Review: K. Simms, From Kings to Warlords: The Changing Political Structure of GaelicIreland 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.



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. Cossand 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 underOutside 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), TheTimes 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. [withT. B. Barry and K. Simms] (London, 1995), and the essay therein: ‘Two Kings inLeinster: The Crown and theMicMhurchadha 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 andLordship. Essays presented to G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1993), Scottish HistoricalReview, 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.



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 Irelandand 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 CentralMiddle 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. Rollasonand 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 fam-ily; Marshal, Richard, earl of Pembroke and lord of Leinster (d. 1234); ‘More



Irish than the Irish themselves’; Mortimer family; Mortimer, Roger, first earl ofMarch (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 DublinParliament 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 DublinConference 1997 (Woodbridge, 1998), History, 85 (2000), 122–3.

Review: B. Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular Responses to MedievalEuropean 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), EnglishHistorical Review, 115 (2000), 1269–70.

2001

‘Conquest and Settlement’, in B. Harvey (ed.), Short Oxford History of the BritishIsles: 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 (UniversityCollege Dublin), 13 (2002), 1–11.

Article in S. J. Connolly, Oxford Companion to Irish History, new edn. (Oxford,2002) [Desmond].



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

2003

‘Kingdoms and Dominions at Peace and War’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), Short OxfordHistory 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 forIrish 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 Dictionaryof National Biography (Oxford, 2004). [Bermingham, John de, earl of Louth(d. 1329); Burgh, Walter de, earl of Ulster (d. 1271); Burgh, William de, earlof Ulster (d. 1333); Butler, Edmund (d. 1321); Butler, James, first earl ofOrmond (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 fitzGerald (d. 1268); Fitzgerald, Maurice fitz Maurice (d. 1286); Fitzgerald, Mauricefitz Thomas, first earl of Desmond (d. 1356); Fitzgerald, Maurice fitz Thomas,fourth earl of Kildare (d. 1390); Fitzgerald, Thomas fitz John, second earlof 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. Scalesand 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 ofEngland 1200–1500 (Cambridge, 2006), 435–53.



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 Introductionby 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 andJ. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of ReesDavies (Oxford, 2007), 125–38.

Review: E. FitzPatrick, Royal Inauguration in Gaelic Ireland c.1100–1600: A Cul-tural 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 Britain1170–1450 (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 RollsFerguson – J. F. Ferguson’s ‘Repertory to the Memoranda rolls’KB 1 – Original Justiciary RollsKB 2 – Calendars of Justiciary RollsLodge – Lodge MS ‘Articles with Irish chiefs, Denizations etc.’ [1A 53 66]RC 7 – Record Commissioners’ Calendar of Plea rollsRC 8 – Record Commissioners’ Calendar of Memoranda Rolls

Dublin, NLI

MS 4, Harris CollectaneaMS 761, W. Betham, ‘Excerpta Rotulis Pipae Hiberniae’ ii

Dublin, Trinity College

MS. 1339Curtis Papers Box II.

London, BL

Additional MS. 6041Additonal MS. 31826Cotton Titus B xiCotton Vespasian F. vii

London, College of Arms

Betham MSS: Repertory to Records of the Exchequer, H.V–H.VIWilliam Lynch MS: Repertory of Irish Memoranda rolls

London, Lambeth Palace Library

Carew MS. 608

London, LI

MS. Hale 188 – Reports of CasesMS. Miscellaneous 87 – Reports of Cases

201


202 Works Cited

London, TNA

1. Chancery

C 47 – MiscellaneaC 61 – Gascon Rolls, 1253–1468C 65 – Parliament RollsC 241 – Certificates of Statute Merchant and Statute StapleSC 1 – Special Collections: Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery andExchequer

SC 8 – Special Collections: Ancient Petitions

2. Exchequer

E 101 – King’s Remembrancer: Accounts VariousE 159 – King’s Remembrancer: Memoranda RollsE 175 – Parliament and Council ProceedingsE 208 – King’s Remembrancer: Brevia Baronibus filesE 368 – Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer: Memoranda RollsE 401 – Exchequer of Receipt: Receipt Rolls and RegistersSC 6 – Special Collections: Ministers’ and Receivers’ AccountsSC 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 RollsJUST 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 ofExtraneous Documents. (Society of Antiquaries, London, MSS. 120, 121)

Oxford, Bodleian LibraryLaud Misc. 614

Primary printed sources

‘An Account of Military Expenditure in Leinster, 1308’, ed. P. Connolly, AnalectaHibernica, 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 forAdvanced Studies (Dublin, 1944).

Annála Ríoghachta Éireann: Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters fromthe 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 TextsSociety (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 andJ. 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 andJ. 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. MacNiocaill, 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 DubhaltachMacFirbhisigh, ed. N. Ó Muraíle, 5 vols. (Dublin 2004).

Henry Marlborough, ‘Chronicle of Ireland’, in M. Hanmer, E. Campion andE. Spenser, The Historie of Ireland (Dublin, 1633).

‘Henry Marleburrough’s Chronicle of Ireland’, ed. J. Ware, in Ancient IrishHistories, 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 PublicRecord 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 GeorgeWarner (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. Kervynde 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 andG. O. Sayles. IMC (Dublin, 1947).

Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews. Volume VI, ed. P. Brand. Jewish HistoricalSociety 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 projected8 (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 Supple-ment 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 TheGovernance 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 ofCo. 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 deLannoy’, ed. J. Webb, in Archaeologia, 21 (1827), 281–444.

Three Prose Versions of the Secreta Secretorum, I, ed. R. Steele. Early English TextsSociety. 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, Proceedingsof 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 DescriptiveCatalogue, 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 SuccessionCrisis, 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 NorthernEngland, 1000–1700 (Stroud, 1997).

Arbel, B. (ed.), Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean (London andPortland, 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 andBritish 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.), ScottishSociety 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 Neighboursin 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’, inT. 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: EssaysPresented 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 Muller, M. (eds.), Speculum Historiale: Geschichte imSpiegel 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 Fourteenthand 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 InstitutionalHistory (London, 1989).

Bjørn, C., Grant, A. and Stringer, K. J. (eds.), Nations, Nationalism and Patriotismin 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’, inS. 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 andR. J. Finlay (eds.), Scottish History: The Power of the Past (Edinburgh, 2002),65–71.

——, ‘ “Thar nobill eldrys gret bounte” ’ . Politics, History and Literature in theReigns of Robert II (1371–1390) and Robert III (1390–1406)’, in M. H. Brownand 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 of1394 and 1440’, IHS, 32 (2000–2001), 1–21.

Boutruche, R., La Crise D’Une Société: Seignurs et Paysans du Bordelais Pendant laGuerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1947).

Bradshaw, B. andMorrill, J. (eds.), The British Problem c.1534–1707: State Formationin the Atlantic Archipelago (Basingstoke, 1996).

Bradshaw, B. and Roberts, P. (eds.), British Consciousness and Identity: The Makingof Britain, 1533–1707 (Cambridge, 1998).

Brady, C., The Chief Governors: The Rise and Fall of Reform Government in TudorIreland, 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 LateMedieval Politics and Society (Stroud, 1995).

Brooke, D.,Wild Men and Holy Places: St Ninian, Whithorn and the Medieval Realmof Galloway (Edinburgh, 1994).

Broun, D., ‘Attitudes of Gall to Gaedhel in Scotland before John of Fordun’, inD. Broun andM. 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 Chron-icle 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?’ inG. 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 ofthe 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 andNew 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’, inS. 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 Four-teenth Century’, in A. King and M. Penman (eds.), England and Scotlandin the Fourteenth Century: New Perspectives (Woodbridge, 2007), 94–115.

——, ‘Scotland Tamed? Kings and Magnates in Late Medieval Scotland, a Reviewof 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 Matheson1912–62 (London, 1968).

Carpenter, C., ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’, Journal of BritishStudies, 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 inthe Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 125–41.

Castor, H., The King, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster: Public Authority andPrivate Power, 1399–1461 (Oxford, 2000).

Catto, J., ‘Written English: The Making of the Language 1370–1400’, Past andPresent, 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 Disintegra-tion 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 SocialHistory 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 MiddleAges (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.), Fourteenth-Century Studies, ed. L. S. Sunderland and M. McKisack (Oxford, 1937), 1–35.

Connolly, P., ‘The Financing of English Expeditions to Ireland, 1361–1376’, inJ. F. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour ofJocelyn 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, newseries, 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.), ANew History of Ireland II. Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987), 533–56.

——, ‘England and Ireland, 1399–1447’, in A. Cosgrove (ed.), A New History ofIreland 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 EarlyRenaissance 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 SirChristopher 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’. Unpub-lished 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 ChristianChurch (3rd edn, Oxford, 1997).

Crowder, C. M. D., ‘Henry V, Sigismund and the Council of Constance: A Re-examination’, 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 PenguinAtlas of British and Irish History (London, 2001).

Curry, A., Agincourt: A New History (Stroud, 2005).——, ‘The First English Standing Army?Military Organization in Lancastrian Nor-mandy’, 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.), FéilsgríbhinnEóin 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 RoyalIrish 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 HisMajesties Happie Raigne (London, 1612).

Davies, R. R. (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts andConnections (Edinburgh, 1988).

——, Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales, 1063–1415 (Oxford andCardiff, 1987).

——, Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland, Scotland andWales, 1100–1300 (Cambridge, 1990).

——, ‘The English State and the “Celtic” Peoples, 1100–1400’, Journal of HistoricalSociology, 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’, inR. 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 HistoricalSociology, 16 (2003), 280–98.

——, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. I: Identities’, TRHS, 6thseries, 4 (1994), 1–20.

——, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. IV: Language and HistoricalMythology’, TRHS, 6th series, 7 (1997), 1–24.

——, The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr (Oxford, 1995).——, ‘Richard II and the Principality of Chester’, in F. R. H. du Boulay andC. 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 (Gloucesterand 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 ofMedieval 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’, inJ. Rosenthal and C. Richmond (eds.), People, Politics and Community in the LaterMiddle 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. Doddand 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 inHonour 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 theLater Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 165–82.

——, ‘The Bruce Brothers and the Irish Sea World’, Cambridge Medieval CelticStudies, 21 (1991), 55–86.

——, ‘The Bruce Invasion of Ireland: A Revised Itinerary and Chronology’, inS. 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 inThirteenth-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 andScotland, 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 Isles1100–1500 (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 theSociety 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 Fallof Butler Feudal Power (Dublin, 2003).

Ellis, S. G., ‘A Crisis of the Aristocracy? Frontiers and Noble Power in theEarly 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 theSeventeenth Century (Dublin, 2002), 37–48.

——, ‘The English State and its Frontiers in the British Isles, 1300–1600’, inD. 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 andJ. Morrill (eds.), The Penguin Atlas of British and Irish History (London, 2001).

——, The Pale and the Far North: Government and Society in Two Early TudorBorderlands (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. Ellisand 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’, TheIrish 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 Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 1–25.

—— and Simms, K., ‘The Ordinances of the White Earl and the Problem of Coignin 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: Interactionsin 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-CenturyBristol’, in L. Clark (ed.), The Fifteenth Century VII: Conflicts, Consequences andthe Crown in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2007), 175–93.

——, Gross, A. and Lander, J. R. (eds.), Regionalism and Revision: The Crown and ItsProvinces in England, 1250–1650 (London, 1998).

Forde, S., Johnson, L. and Murray, A. V. (eds.), Concepts of National Identity in theMiddle Ages (Leeds, 1995).

Forte, S. L., ‘Simon of Boraston, O.P. Life and Writings’, Archivium FratrumPraedicatorum, vol. 22 (Rome, 1952), 321–45.

Frame, R., ‘Aristocracies and the Political Configuration of the British Isles’, inR. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 151–69. [Origi-nally 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.), Irelandand 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 ThirteenthCenturies: 1066–c.1280 (Oxford, 2001), 31–66.

——, ‘The Dublin Government and Gaelic Ireland 1272–1361: The Making ofWar 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 Britain1170–1450 (London, 1998), 15–30. [Originally published in M. Jones andM. Vale (eds.), England and Her Neighbours 1066–1453: Essays in Honour of PierreChaplais (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. [Originallypublished in EHR, 90 (1975), 748–77.]

——, ‘English Policies and Anglo-Irish Attitudes in the Crisis of 1341–1342’, inR. Frame (ed.), Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 113–29. [Origi-nally 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. Scalesand 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 Unaet 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. [Originallypublished 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 pub-lished in IHS, 18 (1972–1973), 223–30.]

——, ‘The Justiciarship of Ralph Ufford: Warfare and Politics in FourteenthCentury Ireland’, Studica Hibernica, 13 (1973), 7–47.

——, ‘Kingdoms and Dominions at Peace and War’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), TheFourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Oxford, 2003), 149–82.

——, ‘ “Les Engleys nées en Irlande”: The English Political Identity in MedievalIreland’, 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. Pryceand J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of ReesDavies (Oxford, 2007), 125–38.

——, ‘Military Service in the Lordship of Ireland, 1290–1360: Institutionsand Society on the Anglo-Gaelic Frontier’, in R. Frame (ed.), Ireland andBritain 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 andBritain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 171–90. [Originally published in A. Grantand 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, newedn., 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 publishedin 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 pub-lished 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 Historyof 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’. UnpublishedM.A. thesis, University College Dublin (1997).

Gillingham, J., The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity andPolitical 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 PoliticalCommunity (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-CenturyEurope (London, 1992).

——, ‘Kingship and Government’, in R. Griffiths (ed.), The Fourteenth and FifteenthCenturies (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 theEuropean 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 Lordsof the Isles and the Kingdom of Scotland’, in R. R. Davies (ed.), The BritishIsles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988),118–41.

——, ‘Scottish Foundations: Late Medieval Contributions’, in A. Grant andK. 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. Grantand 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 Aquitainein 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-IrishGovernment, 1414–47’, IHS, 2 (1940–1), 376–97.

Griffiths, R. A., ‘Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Cen-tury’, in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essaysin Memory of Rees Davies (Oxford, 2007), 211–25.

——, ‘The English Realm and Dominions and the King’s Other Subjectsin the Later Middle Ages’, in J. G. Rowe (ed.), Aspects of Late MedievalGovernment 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.), Kingand 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 ofEdward 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.LittThesis, 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 andNew 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 Landholdingin 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’, inS. 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 (Cam-bridge, 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 FirstConference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East andPresented 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 againstChristian 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 EnglishNobility, 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’, inT. 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 Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981),175–195.

——, ‘Richard II and Ireland, 1395–9’. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University ofDublin (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 SocialOrder 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.), Englandand 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 Honourof 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: ThePolitics 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 Londonand Dublin, 1380–1427’, in W. Scase, R. Copeland and D. Lawton (eds.), NewMedieval Literatures, I (Oxford, 1997), 59–83.

——, ‘Reformist Intellectual Culture in the English and Irish Civil Service: TheModus 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 ClannDomhnaill 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 aSpanish 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’, inP. Edbury (ed.), Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of theSociety 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.), HistoricalStudies 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 Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 43–61.

—— (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of JocelynOtway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981).

—— (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984).——, ‘The Impact of the Bruce Invasion, 1315–27’, in S. Duffy (ed.), Robertthe 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 of1297 (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 andA. 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 theLiberal Arts, 12 (1967), 5–22.

——, ‘Richard II’s Expeditions to Ireland’, Journal of the Royal Society of theAntiquaries 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 aNoble 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 SeventeenthCentury (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 andG. P. Stell (eds.), Galloway: Land and Lordship (Edinburgh, 1991), 131–43.

MacQueen, H., ‘Laws and Languages: Some Historical Notes fromScotland’, 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 JamesCampbell (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 inSixteenth-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’, inA. 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 ofJames 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 inTheir European Context (Dublin, 1996).

Merriman, M., The Rough Wooings: Mary Queen of Scots 1542–1551 (EastLinton, 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 andWales’, in H. Pryce and J. Watts (eds.), Power and Identityin 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 andG. 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 DublinAdministration 1324–47’. Unpublished M.Phil Thesis, University of Durham(1990).

Moynes, J., ‘The Prestons of Gormanston, c. 1300–1532: An Anglo-Irish GentryFamily’, 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 andLennox, c.1140–1365 (Dublin, 2005).

——, ‘Remembering the Past: Anglo-Scottish Border Law and Practice in the LaterMiddle Ages’, in C. Liddy and R. Britnell (eds.), North-East England in the LaterMiddle Ages (Woodbridge, 2005), 43–55.

——, Violence, Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later MiddleAges (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 andScotland, 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: Agnesde Valence’, in C. Meek and K. Simms (eds.), ‘The Fragility of HerSex’? Medieval Irishwomen in Their European Context (Dublin, 1996),101–18.

——, ‘The O’Connor Faly Lordship of Offaly, 1395–1513’, Proceedings of the RoyalIrish 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 MasculinityAdmired 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 Per-spective’, in J. R. Maddicott and D. M. Palliser (eds.), The Medieval State: EssaysPresented 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-SustainedGrowth: 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’, AnalectaHibernica, 29 (1980), 71–94.

——, ‘The Chief Governors of Medieval Ireland’, Journal of the Royal Society ofAntiquaries 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 ofthe 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 SoulesConspiracy of 1318–1320’, Innes Review, 50 (1999), 25–57.

Phillips, J. R. S., Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, 1307–24: Politics and Patronagein 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 JocelynOtway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 62–85.

——, ‘The Remonstrance Revisited: England and Ireland in the Early FourteenthCentury’, 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 OtherStories: Violence and Politics in Thirteenth- and Early Fourteenth-CenturyEngland’, 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 ModernHistory, 47 (1975), 601–28.

Pollard, A. J., ‘The Characteristics of the Fifteenth-Century North’, inJ. C. Appleby and P. Dalton (eds.), Government, Religion and Society in NorthernEngland, 1000–1700 (Stroud, 1997), 131–43.

——, ‘Introduction’, in C. Liddy and R. Britnell (eds.), North-East England in theLater Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2005), 1–12.

——, North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses: Lay Society, War andPolitics, 1450–1500 (Oxford, 1990).

—— (ed.), Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History (Gloucesterand 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 inthe 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. andWatts, J. (eds.), Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memoryof 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 theRoses’, 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 LaterMiddle 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 LaterMiddle 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 theJohn Rylands Library, 58 (1975–1976), 445–66.

Rowe, J. G. (ed.), Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society: Essays Presentedto J. R. Lander (Toronto, 1986).

Rowlands, E. I., ‘Iolo Goch’, in Celtic Studies: Essays in Memory of Angus Matheson1912–62, ed. J. Carney and D. Greene (London, 1968).

Ruddick, A., ‘Ethnic Identity and Political Language in the King of England’sDominions: A Fourteenth-Century Perspective’, in L. Clark (ed.), The FifteenthCentury VI: Identity and Insurgency in the Late Middle Ages (Woodbridge,2006), 15–31.

Russell, C., ‘John Bull’s Other Nations’, Times Literary Supplement, 12 March1993, 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’sIrish 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 itsPlace’, 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 ElizabethanWars (Liverpool, 1970).

Simms, K., ‘Bards and Barons: The Anglo-Irish Aristocracy and the Native Cul-ture’, 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, 12no. 1 (1977), 7–21.

Smith, B. (ed.), Britain and Ireland, 900–1300: Insular Responses to MedievalEuropean 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 Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997), 57–65.

——, ‘Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360: The Ebb Tide of the EnglishEmpire?’ 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 CountyLouth 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 Scandina-vian Seaborne Expansion and Settlement before 1300 (Leiden, 2007).

Smith, J. Beverley, ‘Gruffydd Llwyd and the Celtic Alliance, 1315–18’, Bulletin ofthe 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’, NorthernHistory, 13 (1977), 99–122.

Stafford, E. W. (ed.), Itinerary of Edward I, Part ii, 1291–1307, List and IndexSociety, 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: Alanson of Roland, Lord of Galloway and Constable of Scotland’, in A. Grantand 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 MedievalEuropean Change (Cambridge, 1999), 199–239.

——, The Reformed Church in Medieval Galloway and Cumbria (Whithorn, 2003).——, ‘Scottish Foundations: Thirteenth-century Perspectives’, in A. Grant andK. 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-BurgundianRegime 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 RoyalPresumption 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 Crownin 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 EdouardI de 1254 à 1307 (Geneva, 1972).

Tuck, J. A., ‘Anglo-Irish Relations, 1382–1393’, Proceedings of the Royal IrishAcademy, 69 (1970), C, 15–31.

——, Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973).Turville-Petre, T., England the Nation: Language, Literature and National Identity1290–1340 (Oxford, 1996).

——, ‘The “Nation” in English Writings in the Early Fourteenth Century’, inN. Rogers (ed.), England in the Fourteenth Century (Stamford, 1993), 128–39.

——, ‘Politics and Poetry in the Early Fourteenth Century: The Case of RobertManning’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. Muller (eds.), Speculum Historiale: Geschichte im Spiegelvon Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsdeutung (Freiburg and Munich, 1965),257–76.

Vale, M. G. A., English Gascony, 1399–1453: A Study of War, Government and Politicsduring 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 in13th Century England’, Journal of Medieval History, 21 (1995), 27–49.

Van Elewyck, E., ‘Ghillebert de Lannoy: Voyageur, Diplomate et Moraliste du XVesiècle’, 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 (EastLinton, 1998).

Watt, D. E. R., ‘The Papacy and Scotland in the Fifteenth Century’, inR. 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. Grantand 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 inthe Medieval Diocese of Armagh’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in MedievalIreland (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 inHonour 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’, inS. 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’, TheIrish 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 IrishAcademy, 40 (1932), C, 312–55.

Wormald, J., ‘Scotland: 1406–1513’, in C. T. Allmand (ed.), New CambridgeMedieval 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, 21treaty of, 22, 38, 42

Aberystwyth (Dyfed), see LlanbadarnFawr, castle

Adrian IV, pope (1154–59), 20, 166Adrian V, pope (d. 1276), see Fieschi,

Ottobuono, cardinal and papallegate

Agenais, 76Aird, Bill, 19Airthir (Armagh), 150Alan of Galloway (d. 1234), 55Albret, Amanieu, 79, 81Arnaud-Amanieu, 81Berard le Bret, 88Bernard 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), 166Alexander V, pope (1409–10), 169Alfonso (d. 1284), son of Edward I, 42Alfred, king of England, 177, 179Alice, first wife of John of

Fressingfield, 47, 48, 52Almaine, Henry, 87Amory, Roger (d. 1322), 92Anglesey, 22, 36Anglo-Saxon dynasty, 122, 123Angoulême, 76Angus, 126earl of, see Douglas, George, earl of

Angus (d. 1403?)Anjou, 23, 70Annals of Clonmacnoise, 145Annals of Ulster, 145Annan (Dumfries and Galloway), 56Annandale (Dumfries and Galloway),

57, 61, 64, 126Aquitaine, 20, 23, 24, 37–39, 69–72,

75–8, 80–3, 86

Arbroath, Declaration of, 63Ardscull (Kildare), 138Argentan, 41family of, 95

Arklow (Wicklow), 91Armagh, 144, 145, 149, 150, 153, 155archbishops of, see Colton, John;

Fleming, Nicholas; Swayne,John,

Armagnac, count of, 76Arundel, earl of, 100, 159, 171Assheton, Robert, justiciar of Ireland,

144Athlone (Westmeath), 44, 47, 105Athy, John, 94, 97Audley, Hugh, earl of Gloucester

(d. 1347), 92James, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1272),

142Avignon, 11, 39, 44Ayr, 58, 58, 60, 66

Badlesmere, Sir Bartholomew(d. 1322), 101

Balliol, family of, 55, 57, 58, 59, 62,63, 66, 119

Dervorguilla, see Dervorguilla, ladyof Galloway (d. 1290)

Edward, ‘king of Scotland’ (d. 1364),63, 64

Ingram, 59, 66John, see John, king of Scots

(1292–96)John, of Barnard Castle (d. 1268), 65

Bamburgh (Northumberland), 124Bannockburn (Stirling), 62, 91, 124Barbour, John (d. 1395), 81, 116Bardfield, William, 51Barnard Castle (co. Durham), 58Barron, Evan, 112Barrow, G. W. S., 112Barrow, river, 162

228


Index 229

Barry, family of, 95Basset, Philip, 41‘Batesgrange’ in Forth, (Carlow), 48Baugé, 165Béarn, Constance, daughter of Gaston,

87Beaumont, Henry (d. 1340), 62, 63,

127Bedford, John duke of, see John, duke

of Bedford (d. 1435)Benedict XIII, ‘pope’ (d. 1423), 163,

172Bennett, Michael, 19, 136Berclay, David, 126Berkshire, 106Bermingham, John, earl of Louth

(d. 1329), 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101,102 106

Meiler, son of Peter, 48Peter son of Meiler, 48Richard, lord of Athenry (d. 1322),

96Berwick-on-Tweed (Northumberland),

58, 97, 125, 127, 129, 184Betaghs, 101Beyton (Suffolk), 45Bicknor (Gloucestershire), 110Bicknor, (Kent), 110Bicknor, Alexander, archbishop of

Dublin (d. 1349), 101, 103–11John, 110

Bigod, Roger, earl of Norfolk (d. 1306),41, 132

‘Bilrath’, near Dysart (Westmeath), 48,51

Bitterley, Walter, seneschal of Ulster,151

Blind Harry, 115Black Death, 15Black Prince, see Edward, prince of

Wales (The Black Prince) (d. 1376)‘Black-rent’, 147Bohemia, 163Bohun, Humphrey, earl of Hereford

(d. 1361), 19Boleyn, Anne, 183‘le Boly’, Old Ross, (Wexford), 48Bonaght [buannacht], 147, 150Bonevill, John, 105

Boniface IX, pope (1389–1404), 169,172

Boraston [Burneston] (Salop), 24Boraston, Simon, OP, 20, 37, 41Bordeaux, 39, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 80Boulogne, 180, 183Bower, Walter, abbot of Inchcolm

(d. 1449), 114, 115, 116, 119, 124,128

‘Brecknock’, 189Brétigny, treaty of, 134, 166Brit, John, 108Britain, 10, 61, 68, 69, 71, 78, 83, 120,

136, 140, 177British Isles, 1–6, 7–19, 68–88, 89, 97,

120, 141, 176–92British Library, 166Brittany, duchy of, 182Broun, Dauvit, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121Brown, Elizabeth, 75The Bruce, 81, 116, 119Bruce, family of, 55, 57, 58, 63,

119, 127Edward, lord of Galloway, earl of

Carrick, ‘king of Ireland’(d. 1318), 89, 93, 94, 96, 99,134, 138

Robert, king of Scotland, seeRobert I, king of Scots(1306–29)

Robert, earl of Carrick (d. 1304), 58Brus, Robert (d. 1142), 57Builth (Powys), 22, 42Bullock, William, 126Burdeyn, Robert, 50Burgh, family of, 142, 144, 147, 148Elizabeth, see Elizabeth Burgh,

countess of Ulster (d. 1363)Emmeline, see Emmeline Burgh,

countess of Ulster (d. 1274)John, of Camlin, seneschal of Ulster,

143, 144Richard, 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 – continuedWalter, earl of Ulster and lord of

Connacht (d. 1271), 142William, earl of Ulster (d. 1333),

143, 146Sir William, of Mayo (d. 1324), 146

Burgundy, duchy of, 161, 182Burnell, Robert, chancellor of

England, bishop of Bath andWells (d. 1292), 42

Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk), 45‘Busy Week’, 190Butler, 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, earlmarshal of England (d. 1614),184

Thomas, prior of Kilmainham(d. 1419), 173

Bysset, Elizabeth daughter and co-heirof Hugh, 146

Hugh, lord of the Glens of Antrim,146

Marjorie, daughter and co-heir ofHugh, 146, 152, 155

Caerlaverock castle (Dumfries andGalloway), 59

Cairo, 161Calais, 12, 69, 73, 181, 182, 183, 184Cambridge University, 24Canterbury (Kent), 80, 165archbishop of, see Peckham, Johntreaty of, 1416, 168

Cantilupe, William, 41Carbury (Kildare), 92Cardigan, 22, 42Carew, family of, 95

Capetian dynasty, 70, 82Carlingford (Louth), castle and town

147, 152, 157Carlisle (Cumbria), 56, 58, 66, 100,

184, 191Carlow, 48Carpenter, Christine, 16Carrick, earldom of (Scotland), 58, 61see also Bruce, family of

Carrickfergus (Antrim), castle andtown, 97, 145, 147, 153, 154, 157

Cashel (Tipperary), 53archbishop of, see Ó hÉidigheáin

[O’Hedigan], RichardCouncil of, 173

Castile, 163Castledermot (Kildare), 180Castlekevin (Wicklow), 105Caunton, family of, 95Maurice, 95

Cavan, 149Channel Islands, 44, 49, 69, 72, 73,

75, 77, 182Charles IV, king of France (1322–28),

104Charles V, Emperor (1500–58), 183Charles VI, king of France

(1380–1422), 76, 182Châtillon (or Castillon), 181Chaworth, Payn, lord of Cydweli, 22,

42Chertsey, John, 46Cheshire, 11, 14, 15, 80Chester, 19, 21, 22, 41, 42, 71, 75, 80Childs, Wendy, 15Christiana, sister of Domhnall Mac

Domhnaill, lord of the Isles, 146,157

Christina of Galloway, countess ofAumale (d. 1246), 65

Chronica Gentis Scotorum, 121Cistercians, 56Clann Aodha Buidhe, 159, 160Clare, family, 92, 101Gilbert, earl of Gloucester (d. 1298),

42Richard (‘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), 11Clenafren, lineage of, 66Clifford, Roger, 22, 42Clogher (Tyrone), 145Clonmel (Tipperary), 10Clyn, John, OFM (d. 1349?), 14, 18,

93, 109, 111Cogan, family of, 95Coigners, Geoffrey, 101Coleraine (Derry), 153Colton, John, archbishop of Armagh

(1383–1404), 145, 150, 151Common Bench (Westminster), 44,

45, 46, 52Compton, Henry, 17Comyn family, earls of Buchan and

Menteith, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65Alexander, earl of Buchan (d. 1289),

40John, the elder, of Badenoch, 66John, Guardian of Scotland

(d. 1306), 57, 59, 62, 66Connacht, 11, 14, 47, 48, 96, 136,

142, 146, 150, 163Connor (Antrim), 100Constance, Council of, 163, 165, 169Constantinople, 161Cookley (Suffolk), 46Copyn, Richard, OFM, 105Cork, 95, 101, 134Cornwall, 15Cotgrave, Robert, 103, 104, 105, 106Courcy, family of, 95Courtenay, Philip (d. 1406), 134earls of Devon, 16

Cranley, Thomas, archbishop ofDublin (1397–1417), 174

Craon, Amaury, 78, 79Peter, 79, 80

Crécy, 183Cree, river, 60, 63Cressingham, Hugh (d. 1297), 44, 46Crete, 161Croft, Hugh, 93Crok (Munster), 110

Cruggleton castle (Dumfries andGalloway), 58, 67

Cumberland, 46, 56, 61, 62, 63, 181Curtis, Edmund, 164

Dacre, Lord, 180, 184, 186Dafydd ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales

(d. 1283), 22, 23 24, 42, 43Dafydd ap Llywelyn, prince of

Gwynedd (d. 1246), 21, 41Dale, Thomas, 143Dalton (or Kirkcudbright), Thomas,

bishop of Whithorn, 66Danet, Henry, master of the Temple,

105Darcy, Baldwin, 94John, justiciar of Ireland (d. 1347),

102Lord, 181

David I, king of Scots (1124–53), 58Davies, Sir John, 130, 131, 137, 138Davies, Sir Rees, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17,

113Dax, 80Dee, bridge, 60Derry, 146, 151Dervorguilla, lady of Galloway

(d. 1290) wife of John Balliol ofBarnard Castle, 59, 65

Desmond, earls of, 181see also Geraldines of Desmond

Desnes Ioan (Galloway), 56Despenser, Hugh, the younger

(d. 1326), 44, 50, 51Devon, 97earls of, see Courtenay, Philip

(d. 1406)Diserth, castle (Flintshire), 21, 41The ‘Disinherited’, 127Don, river, 185Donaghmore (Donegal), 145Douglas, George, earl of Angus

(d. 1403?), 116James, of Dalkeith (d. 1420),

127William, earl of Douglas (d. 1384),

117, 127Dowdall, John, sheriff of Louth

(d. 1402), 152, 153


232 Index

Dowling, Thady, 154Down, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149,

150, 151, 154, 157Downpatrick (Down), 144, 153Drogheda (Louth), 14, 149Dublin, 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, 47Dominican priory of, 106exchequer, 90, 93, 100, 103, 104,

107, 109, 110, 111parliament, 98, 162, 165, 170university, 108, 109

Duffy Seán, 8, 97Duiske (Graiguenamanagh), abbot

of, 48Dumfries, 58, 59, 62Greyfriars church at, 57sheriffdom of, 60

Dun, Thomas, 94, 101Dunamase (Laois), 91, 97Dunbar (East Lothian), 59, 66Dunbar, George, earl of March

(d. 1416x23), 118Duncan (MacDuff), earl of Fife

(d. 1353), 127Dundalk (Louth), 147, 148, 150Dungarvan (Waterford), 53Durham, 15, 19, 75Dutch revolt, 184Dysart, diocese of Meath, 51Dysart (Westmeath), 48Dysart O’Dea (Clare), 96

Earn, river, 115East Anglia, 10, 16, 45earl of, see Ralph, earl of East Anglia

(d. 1097x9)Easter Ross (Highland), 123Edinburgh, 81, 187Treaty of (1328), 2, 63Treaty of (1560), 187

Edmund Ironside, king of England(d. 1016), 121, 122

Edward the Confessor, king ofEngland (d. 1066), 121

Edward I, king of England, previouslythe 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 BlackPrince) (d. 1376), 71, 73, 76, 85,86

Eleanor of Aquitaine (d. 1204), 20, 39,69

Eliogarty (Tipperary), 89Elizabeth I, queen of England

(1558–1603), 183, 184, 185Elizabeth II, queen of England, 177Elizabeth Burgh, countess of Ulster

(d. 1363), wife of Lionel ofClarence, 143

Elizabeth Mortimer (d. 1417), wife ofHenry 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), 145Essex, earl of, 184Ettrick Forest (Borders), 125Europe, 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), 125Fennor (Tipperary), 48, 53Ferrers, family of, 62, 65Fergus, lord of Galloway, 55, 58, 60


Index 233

Fieschi, Ottobuono, cardinal andpapal legate (= Pope Adrian V)(d. 1276), 42

The Feths (Connacht), 96Fife, 115, 119earl of, see Duncan

Fitzmaurice rebellion, 188FitzWarin, William, seneschal of

Ulster, 142Flanders, 66, 163Fleet (Galloway), 60Fleet (London), 106, 107, 111Fleming, Nicholas, archbishop of

Armagh (1404–16), 154Fochart (Louth), 89, 94, 97Fordun, John (d. c.1384), 14, 121Forfar (Angus), 62Forth (Carlow), 48Forth (Scotland), 114, 125Forz, William de, earl of Aumale

(d. 1260), 65Fouage, 74, 76Foukeston (Dublin), 94Frame, Robin, 1–6, 7, 8, 65, 69, 83, 89,

113, 133, 134, 135, 191France, 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), 45Fressingfield, John, 44–54John, clerk, ?son of John of

Fressingfield, 49, 50, 51, 52Walter son of Seman, 45

Frodsham (Cheshire), 80Froissart, Jean (d. 1404), 117, 118Fulborne, Stephen, justiciar of Ireland,

bishop of Waterford, archbishopof Tuam (d. 1288), 4

Galloglass, 144, 146Galloway, 15, 55–67, 126Gannoc (Degannwy), castle, 21, 41Gascony (Guyenne), 5, 44, 49, 68–88,

132, 176, 179, 182Gaveston, Piers, earl of Cornwall

(d. 1312), 81, 88, 91, 92, 108, 109

Geese, John, bishop of Waterford andLismore (d. 1425), 169

Geoffrey of Monmouth, 21, 24, 38, 41Geoffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou,

39Gerald of Wales, 137, 166, 167, 173,

185Geraldines of DesmondMaurice fitz Thomas, earl of

Desmond (d. 1356), 10, 11, 14,16, 99, 101

Thomas fitz John, earl of Desmond(d. 1420), 173

Geraldines of OffalyJohn fitz Thomas, lord of Offaly,

earl of Kildare (d. 1316), 92,133

Maurice fitz Gerald, justiciar ofIreland (d. 1257), 142

Thomas fitz John, earl of Kildare(d. 1328), 98, 101

Gernon, Stephen, constable ofGreencastle and Carlingford, 152,153

Gesta Annalia, 121Giffard, John, 22, 42Giraldus Cambrensis, see Gerald of

WalesGisleham, William, 46Glastonbury abbey (Somerset), 124Glenkens (Dumfries and Galloway), 59Glentrool (Dumfries and Galloway), 58Gloucester, 106Statute of, 98

Glyn Dwr, Owain (d. c.1416), 10, 11,14, 151, 163

‘Glynsely’ (? Leinster), 94Graham, family, 190Grant, Sandy, 7Gray, Sir Thomas (d. 1369), 81Great Schism, 66, 163, 169Great Yarmouth (Norfolk), 49Greencastle (Down), 147, 152, 157Gregory XII, pope (1406–17), 169Gruffydd Llwyd (d. 1335), 91Gwynedd, dynasty of, 10, 21

Halesworth (Suffolk), 45, 46Haliwerfolc, 19


234 Index

Halsale, Gilbert, seneschal of Ulster,151

Hand, Geoffrey, 96Harbison, Sheila, 133Harriss, Gerald, 16Harvey, Barbara, 7Haverford (Pembrokeshire), 90Havering (Essex), 104Hawarden (Flintshire), 22, 42Haye, Walter de la, 48Helen of Galloway, countess of

Winchester, 65Henry I, king of England (1100–35),

58, 121, 122Henry II, king of England (1154–89),

21, 23, 126, 130, 166, 167Henry III, king of England (1216–72),

21, 41, 75, 120, 123, 142Henry 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), 42Hereford, earls of, see Bohun,

Humphrey; RogerHertford, earl of, 184Higden, Ranulf (d. 1364), 13, 15Highlands, Highlanders (Scottish), 9,

14, 19Historia Aurea, 81Holycross abbey (Tipperary), 174Holyrood abbey (Edinburgh), 116Homildon Hill or Humbleton, battle

of, 152Horncastle (Lincs.), 87Hothum, John, bishop of Ely

(1316–37), 103, 104, 106, 109,134

Hovel, Alan, 46Hundred Years War, 69, 179, 181Huntingdon, 87Hussites, 163Hyde, James de la, 144

Ideshale, Richard, 94, 101Inchcolm (Fife), 114Ingham, Sir Oliver (d. 1344), 73Inglewood forest (Cumbria), 62Innocent III, pope (1198–1216), 38Innocent IV, pope (1243–54), 21, 31,

38Innocent VII, pope (1404–06), 169Invergowrie (Perthshire), 126Iolo Goch (d. 1397), 148Irish Sea, 61, 91, 92, 94, 108, 163Isabel, daughter of Edward III, 80Isabella, queen of England, 104Isle of Man, 9, 11, 56, 61, 62, 66, 94Isles, bishop of Man and the, seeMan

and the Isles, bishops oflords of the, 61, 146, 152, see also

Mac Domhnaillsee alsoWestern Isles

Islip, Walter, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,111

Italy, 169, 176Iveagh (Down), 141, 144, 149, 150,

154

James, king of Aragon, 104James VI and I, king of Scotland and

England (1603–25), 130, 131Jerusalem, 161Jews, 47Joan, wife of John of Fressingfield, 48,

49, 51Joan Joinville, countess of March

(d. 1356), 91John, king of England (1199–1216),

21, 22, 38, 56, 131, 173, 179John, king of Scots (1292–96), 56, 59,

65, 66John XXIII, ‘pope’ (1400–15), 169John, duke of Bedford (d. 1435), 12, 17John fitz Geoffrey, justiciar of Ireland

(d. 1258), 41John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster

(d. 1399), 71, 76John of Ross, 62Joinville, Geoffrey (d. 1314), 91

Katherine of Valois, queen of England,1420–22 (d. 1437), 166


Index 235

Katherine, wife of William ofBardfield, 51

Kells (Meath), 92, 93, 94, 97, 100, 149Kent, 53, 110Kerne, 1, 180Kilbarry (Waterford), 110Kilcolgan (Galway), 110Kildare, 48, 93, 111, 132, 138, 139diocese of, 169

Kildare, earls, earldom of, 91, 96 150,180, 181, 184, 186

see also Geraldines of OffalyKilkenny, 14, 92, 93, 166King’s Bench, 46Kintyre (Argyll), 102Kirkcudbright castle (Dumfries and

Galloway), 58, 60, 65Knocdoe (Galway), 14Knockgraffon castle (Tipperary), 48

Lacy family, of Meath, 93, 94, 101Hugh, 93Walter, lord of Rathwire, 93

Lancashire, 11, 46Langtoft, Peter (d. c.1305), 69de Lannoy, Ghillibert, 161Laois, 91, 97, 162Latimer, William, Lord Latimer

(d. 1381), 135Latin, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 127Laudabiliter, 20, 23, 27, 28, 38Lea (Laois), 162Leake, peace of, 1318, 96Lee, Rowland, bishop of Coventry and

Lichfield (1534–43), 189Legenda Aurea, 119Legends of the Saints, 119Leinster, 11, 14, 41, 91, 92, 94, 101,

134, 136, 146, 149, 163, 180Lenfant, Walter, 48Lennox, 16Leulinghem, treaty of, 1393, 119Levota, wife of Walter son of Seman of

Fressingfield, 45, 46, 52Libaud, Peter, 81Libelle of Englysh Polycye, 12, 137Liddy, Christian, 19Limerick, 10Lincoln, 87

Linlithgow (West Lothian), 81Lionel of Antwerp, earl of Ulster, duke

of Clarence (d. 1368), 71, 85, 132,133, 139, 143, 148, 149, 162

Lithuania, 164Little John, 128, 129Livingston (West Lothian), 81Llanbadarn Fawr [Aberystwyth],

castle, 22, 42Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, prince of Wales

(d. 1282), 21, 22, 41, 42Loch Ryan, 62Logan, family, 143, 146London, 22, 24, 32, 36, 37, 42, 45, 49,

50, 53, 80, 81, 106, 107, 108, 111,182, 184, 187

Londres, Edmund, constable ofGreencastle and Carlingford, 147

Longford, 94, 149Lothian, 112, 114archdeaconry of, 116

Loughborough, Richard, 50Louis VII, king of France (1137–80), 39Louth, 92, 97, 99, 144, 146, 148, 152,

155, 156earl of, see Bermingham, John

Lucy, Anthony, justiciar of Ireland(d. 1343), 100

Ludham, Robert, 47Lydon, James, 2, 131, 135Lymbergh, Adam, 73Lynn (Westmeath), 48, 49Lyon, first Council of (1245), 20, 21,

23, 41second Council of (1274), 22

Mac Aílpin, Cinéad, king of Alba, 122Mac Artáin [MacCartan], 150, 153Mac Cába [MacCabe], constable of

Mac Mathghamhna, 149McCan, Donald, 62Mac Carthaigh, Cormac, 172Diarmuid, 95Domhnall, 172Domnall ‘Carbragh’, 95Tadhg, 172

McCulloch, family of, 63


236 Index

Mac Domhnaill [MacDonald], (ofClann Alexander), 144, 146

lords of the Glens of Antrim, 154,155

Domhnall, lord of the Isles, 146Eoin Mór, 146, 152Seán, constable of Ó Néill, 172

McDowell, Dungal, 62, 63MacDuff, 115Mac Duibhgheamhna, 150Mac Duileacháin, 150Mac Eochagáin [MacGeoghegan], 144Mac Giolla Muire [MacGilmore],

Adam, 141, 149, 153, 154, 155Aodh son of Adam, 154

Mac Giolla Phádraig, Barnaby, chief ofOssory (= Barnaby Fitzpatrick,baron of Upper Ossory), 187

‘McGion’ (? the MacEoin Bisset), 153Mac Gráidhin [MacGrane], Canon

Augustine, of Saints’ Island,Lough Ree, 154

Mac Mathghamhna, 144Philip Rúadh, 149

Mac Murchadha, 163Diarmait, king of Leinster, 41

Mac Murchadha Cáomhánach[MacMurrough Kavanagh], ArtMór, 137, 149, 172

Mág Aonghusa, family of, 141, 144,147, 153, 155, 156

Aodh son of Art, king of Iveagh (UíEachach 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, 157Muircheartach (d. 1349), 143, 157Muircheartach Óg (d. 1399), 146,

150, 154, 157, 172Mag Uighilín [MacQuillin], family of,

146, 147, 158Of Kintyre, 102Jenkin, or ‘Seinicín Mór’, 146‘Seonacc’ (‘John Howelin’), 146Stephen 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 ManMan and the Isles, bishops of, 66Manchester, John, 105, 106Mandeville family, 142, 143, 146, 159Sir Henry, custos of Tweskard and

seneschal of Ulster, 142Thomas, seneschal of Ulster, 142William, seneschal of Ulster, 142

Manning, Robert, of Bourne, 120, 121,123, 124, 127

Manraed, 180, 184, 185March, Scottish, 92, 180, 181, 184,

186, 190March, Welsh, 2, 15, 16, 19, 21, 179,

180, 181, 186, 189earls of, see Dunbar; Mortimer

Maredudd ap Gruffudd (d. 1297), 42Margaret, queen of Scotland (d. 1093),

114, 116, 121, 122, 123Margaret of Anjou, queen of England,

1445–61 (d. 1482), 14Marlborough, Statute of, 98Martin V, pope (1417–31), 165, 169Mary I, queen of England (1553–58),

183Matilda, queen of England (d. 1118),

121, 122Matthew Paris (d. 1259), 38, 41Maurice fitz Gerald, justiciar of

Ireland, see Geraldines of OffalyMaurice fitz Thomas, first earl of

Desmond, see Geraldines ofDesmond

Maximilian, Emperor (1508–19), 182Meath, 11, 14, 47, 48, 91, 93, 97, 99,

132, 144, 149, 150, 168diocese, 51, 159

Mediterranean, 176Melrose (Borders), 114Chronicle of, 113, 123, 124

Mendham (Suffolk), 45, 52Merbury, Lawrence, 166Mercamston, Thomas, constable of

Carrickfergus castle, 145


Index 237

Mercenary families, 1, 9, 13, 146, 147see also kerne; gallowglass

Merton, Statute of, 98Mettingham, John, chief justice of the

Common Bench (d. 1301), 46Middle Shires, 190Middlesex, 52, 106Milan, 132Milford Haven (Pembrokeshire), 10,

11Modus tenendi parliamentum, 168, 175Monaghan, 149Montfort, Simon, earl of Leicester

(d. 1265), 21, 114, 120, 123, 124,128

Montgomery, treaty of, 1267, 37, 38,42

More, John, constable of Greencastleand Carlingford, 152

Mortimer, Edmund (d. 1304), 22, 42Edmund (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), 92Thomas, 155

Mullingar (Westmeath), 48Munster, 11, 14, 89, 90, 91, 98, 136,

188Mutford, John, 49

Nassyngton (Lincs.), 87Neville, family, 16Richard, earl of Salisbury (d. 1460),

180Richard, earl of Warwick (d. 1471),

12, 181Newhaven (Sussex), 184Nicholson, Ranald, 112Nidaros (Trondheim), diocese of, 66Ninian, St, 61, 67Nith, river (Galloway), 56, 57, 59, 60

Norfolk, 50, 53duke of, 184earl of, see Bigod, Roger

Normandy, 12, 23, 69, 70, 77, 176,179, 180, 182

Normans, 127, 179Northampton, earl of, seeWaltheofNorthern Earls, revolt of, 188Northern Ireland, 177, 178Northumberland, earl of, 184see also Percy family

Norway, 9, 56, 66Norwich (Norfolk), 45diocese of, 15, 41

Norwich, Walter, 50

Ó hAidíth, 150Ó hAnluain [O’Hanlon], Uí Anluain

144, 145, 149 150, 153Ó Briain of Thomond, 136, 163Brian, 172Donnchadh, 89Muirchertach, 89Toirdhealbhach, of Arra, 172

Ó Broin [O’Byrne], Uí Bhroin, 91, 94,151, 168

Gerald, 172Ó Catháin [O’Kane], Uí Chatháin, 143Cúmhuighe, 142Magnus, 146

Ó Catharnaigh, (O’Kearney), ‘the Fox’,144

Ó Cearbhaill, Donnchad, 95Ó Conchobhair, Cathal, 96Ó Conchobhair Donn, 163Toirdhealbhach, 172

Ó Diomsaigh [O’Dempsey], UíDhiomsaigh, 91

Ó Domhnaill [O’Donnell], 145Ó hÉidigheáin [O’Hedigan], Richard,

archbishop of Cashel, 169Ó Fearghail [O’Farrell], 144, 149Seán, 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, 171Aodh Buidhe, 142Aodh Reamhar, king of Tyrone, 146Brian Óg, son of Niall Óg, 147, 148,

149, 160Conn Bacach, chief of Tyrone, earl

of Tyrone, 187Cú Uladh Rúadh, 150, 154Domnall, king of Tyrone, 96Henry ‘the Turbulent’, 145Muircheartach son of Cú Ulad

RúadhNiall Mór, ‘the Great’, 144, 147, 148,

149, 150, 151, 172Niall Óg, son of Niall Mór, ‘the

Great’, 147, 149, 155 160, 172Toirdhealbhach, 144

Ó Raghallaigh [O’Reilly], 144, 149Seaán, 149

Ó Tuathail [O’Toole], Uí Thuathail, 91Offaly, 92, 93Old Ross (Wexford), 48, 50Opusculum de Simone, 123Orderic Vitalis, 2Original Chronicle, 115, 119, 121Orkney, 9, 56Orleans, university of, 118Ormond, earls and earldom of, 99, 137See also Butler

Ormrod, Mark, 15, 132Orpen, G. H., 131, 142Ossory, 187diocese of, 109

Oesterwik, Cornelius, OP, 20Otway-Ruthven, A. J., 2, 90, 141, 164Owain ap Gruffudd (d. 1282), 42Owain ap Thomas ap Rhodri [Owain

Lawgoch] (d. 1378), 10Oxford, 106earl of, see Vere, Robertuniversity, 15, 20, 24, 104

Pale, English, in Ireland, 187, 188in Scotland, 187

Pandulph, papal legate in England(1215–21) and bishop of Norwich(1222–26), 41

Paris, 70, 77, 79, 166, 181, 182treaty of, 23, 38, 70university of, 118

Parliament, 98See also Dublin; Shrewsbury

Peckham, John, archbishop ofCanterbury (1279–92), 22, 42

Pembroke, David, 53earl of, see Clare; Valence

Percy family, 151, 184Henry, 59, 63, 66Henry (‘Hotspur’) (d. 1403), 152,

159Henry, earl of Northumberland

(d. 1408), 10, 16Perigueux, 49Philip VI, king of France (1328–50), 80Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy

(d. 1467), 161Philip of Valois, see Philip VI, king of

FrancePhilippa, countess of March (d. 1378),

143Picts, 125Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536, 188Piltown (Kilkenny), 13Pipard, Ralph, 132Pitchford, Ralph, 48Le Poer, Arnold, 93, 101John son of Benedict, 95John son of John, 95Richard, 95Roger, 95

Poitou, county of, 69, 70count of, seeWilliam X

Pollard, Tony, 15Pontefract, 152Ponthieu, county of, 69Pontoise, 173Power, Daniel, 18Powick, William, 41Preston, Sir Christopher, of

Gormanston, 167, 168, 169Prussia, 164

Quincy, Roger de, earl of Winchester,constable of Scotland (d. 1264),58, 65


Index 239

Ragman Roll, 128Ralph, earl of East Anglia (d. 1097x9),

10Rathlin Island, 97, 102Rathwire (Meath), 93Reformation, 161, 183, 186, 187, 188The ‘Remonstrance’, 96Retford, Robert, 45Retford, Thomas, rector of Beyton by

Bury St Edmunds, 45Rhinns and Machars, the (Scotland),

60Rhodes, 161Rhodri ap Gruffudd, 42Rhuddlan (Denbyshire), 22, 42, 43Statute of, 1284, 23Rhys ap Maelgwn, 42Rhys ap Maredudd (d. 1292), 23Richard 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, 8Rindown (Roscommon), 44, 47, 105Robert I, king of Scots (1306–29), 57,

61, 62, 63, 64, 81, 89, 91, 99Robert of Torigni (d. 1186), 38Robin Hood, 128Roche, family of, 95David son of Alexander, 95George, 53

Rockcliffe (Cumberland), 180Roger, earl of Hereford (d. 1087), 10Rokeby, Thomas, justiciar of Ireland

(d. 1357), 4, 134, 135Roscommon, 44, 47, 105, 190Rouen, 166, 173, 180Rous, John, 23Rushen castle (Isle of Man), 62‘Rughhaghe’ in Cookley (Suffolk), 46Russel, Walter, 103Russell, Conrad, 68Russia, 161

St Andrew, ‘black priory’ of, Ards (co.Down), 145

St Andrews, bishop of, 116, 127St Mary’s, Salisbury, 79St Peter’s, York, 79St Ruf, 39Saint-Sardos, 73, 79, 104St Serfs (Fife), Andrew of Wyntoun,

prior of, 115Salisbury, earl of, see Neville, RichardSalkeld, Sir Richard, 191Saul, Nigel, 136Savage, family of, 141, 143, 146, 148,

151, 154, 155, 156Edmund, seneschal of Ulster, 145,

146, 147, 150, 152, 156, 157,158

Edmund son of Edmund, seneschalof Ulster, 147, 153, 156, 157

Sir Henry (d. 1383), 143, 157Jenkin (d. 1375), 144, 157Patrick, 154, 156, 157Sir Robert, seneschal of Ulster

(d. 1360), 143, 157Robert, 146, 157

Saxons, 21, 179Saxton, maps, 188Scalacronica, 81Schism, see Great SchismScotichronicon, 114, 123Scotland, 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 alsoMarch, ScottishScrope, Stephen, justiciar of Ireland

(d. 1408), 153Secreta secratorum, 167Shetland, 9, 56Shrewsbury (Salop), 21, 22, 42battle of, 1403, 152earl of, see Talbot, Johnparliament at, 1283, 24, 43

Shropshire, 24, 94, 106Siena, University of, 169Sigismund, Emperor (1411–37), 168,

174Sil Muiredaig (Connacht), 96Skeffington, Sir William (d. 1535), 186


240 Index

Slane (Meath), 93Slievemargy (Laois), 98Snowdonia, 14, 22Solway Firth, 55–67Somerset, 16Soules, Sir William de (d. 1320/1), 63,

67Spain, 184, 185Spanish Netherlands, 184Staffordshire, 106Stanley, John, justiciar of Ireland

(d. 1414), 147, 149, 159Stephen, king of England (1135–54),

11Stewart, dynasty of, 13, 16Strangford Lough, 151Strathbogie, David, earl of Angus

(d. 1335), 117Strathmiglo, Thomas, 116Stukeley, Thomas, 171Suffolk, 45, 46, 48, 50, 53duke of, 184

Surrender and Regrant, 187Surrey, 53earl of, seeWarenne, John

Sussex, 16Swayne, John, archbishop of Armagh,

1418–39 (d. 1439x42), 167, 169Sweetheart abbey (Dumfries and

Galloway), 67

Tain, burgh of, 123Talbot, John, lord Furnival, earl of

Shrewsbury (d. 1453), 162, 163,166, 168, 171, 181

Richard, archbishop of Dublin, 162Templars, 24, 49, 104, 105, 106, 107,

108, 111See also Danet, Henry, master of the

TempleTeramo, Simon, 165Teviotdale (Borders), 117, 126Thomas, earl of Lancaster (d. 1322),

96, 104, 124Thomas of Lancaster, duke of Clarence

(d. 1421), 153, 154Thomas son of Alan of Galloway, 55,

58, 59, 66Thomas son of David, 48

Thomond, 89, 137, 163lord of, see Clare, familysee also Ó Briain of Thomond

Thornbury, Walter, 105Thornton, Tim, 8Threlkeld, Sir Henry, 181Tickhill (Yorks.), 80, 87Tipperary, 10, 44, 48, 49, 174Tirawley (Mayo), 159Touraine, 70Tournai, 183Tower house, 13, 180Tralee (Kerry), 11Trent, river, 11Trim (Meath), 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 144,

145, 149Trinity College Dublin, 1, 2Tripartite Indenture, 10, 11, 12Troyes, treaty of, 173, 182Tubber (Meath), 94Turnberry (Ayrshire), 60, 66Turpilton, Hugh, 90, 94, 101Tweed, river, 55, 58Tweskard, 142, 146Tyrone (Tír Eoghain), 145see 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), 94Ui Maine, (Connacht) 96Ullman, Walter, 20, 22Ulster, 11, 14, 61, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97,

98, 135, 141–60, 173earl of, see Burgh, family of; Lionel

of AntwerpUmfraville, Ingram, 66United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland, 177Urlingford (Kilkenny), 48Urney (Donegal), 145Urr, river (Galloway), 56, 60, 66Usk, Adam (d. 1430), 14

Vairement, Richard, 144Valence, Agnes, 133Aymer, earl of Pembroke and lord of

Wexford (d. 1324), 92, 101


Index 241

Venice, 161Verdon, Bartholomew, 152, 153Nicholas, 93, 132Vere, Robert, earl of Oxford (d. 1331),

45Robert, duke of Ireland (d. 1392), 11,

131, 139, 145Verses of Gildas, 136Vescy, William, justiciar of Ireland

(d. 1297), 132, 134Vienne, Jean de (d. 1396), 117Vikings, 179Vita Edwardi Secundi, 81Vivian, 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, WelshWallace, 115Walpole (Norfolk), 80Walsh, family of, 95Waltheof, earl of Northampton

(d. 1076), 10Ward, Thomas, ‘the Mammet King’

(d. 1419), 151Warenne, John de, earl of Surrey,

lieutenant of Scotland (d. 1347),59

Wark-on-Tweed, 127Wars of Independence, 56, 112Wars of the Roses, 13, 16, 181, 183,

185Warwick, earl of, see Neville, familyWaterford, 29, 30, 95, 149, 180bishop of, see Geese, John, bishop of

Waterford and Lismore(d. 1425)

Wells (Somerset), 87Welsh Act of Union, 186Welshpool (Powys), 14Western Isles, 9, 16, 56, 97, 141Westminster, 44, 45, 67, 69, 73, 82,

103, 104, 107, 108, 137, 166, 174,186

Statute of, 98

Wharton, Sir Thomas (d. 1568), 186Whatton, Robert, 105White, family, 155Christopher, 152, 153Geoffrey, of Carlingford (d. 1366),

157, 159Sir Geoffrey, keeper of the peace, co.

Louth (d. 1392), 147, 152Sir James son of Geoffrey, 152, 153,

154, 155, 156Robert, chancellor and treasurer of

Ulster, 153Whithorn, bishop and diocese of, 60,

63, 66Wicklow, 91, 94, 151Wigmore (Heref.), 90Wigtown (Dumfries and Galloway),

58, 60, 65William I (the Conqueror), king of

England (1066–89), 10, 24, 128William, king of Scots (1165–1214), 58William X, duke of Aquitaine and

count of Poitou (d. 1137), 20, 39William of Malmesbury, 185Winchester, 41earl of, see Quincy, RogerStatute 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, 181Wyatt, Sir Henry, 191Wyntoun, Andrew, prior of St Serfs,

Fife (d. c. 1422), 112–29, 152

York, archdiocese of, 60, 64, 66duke of, see Richard, duke of York

(d. 1460)parliament at, 67treaty of, 55, 56

Yorkshire, 46Youghal (Cork), 89, 90Young, James (d. 1434), 167, 174Ystrad Tywi (South Wales), 22, 42

Zouche, family of, 62, 63, 65
