Category Archives: Thirteenth Century

John de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey

Posted on by
1
Wikipedia

Surrey was appointed Viceroy of Scotland after the defeat of the Scots at Dunbar in 1296 but their association was of long standing. He had been earl since 1240 and was married, during his wardship to the Crown, to Alice de Lusignan, the half sister of Henry III. She died in 1256 having given birth to John’s heir – William.

About four years older than Edward he was raised with the royal family at Guildford Castle and in 1254 accompanied Edward to Spain to claim his bride, Eleanor of Castile. He was still part of Edward’s household in Gascony in 1260-1261. His guardian was Peter of Savoy who was the queen, Eleanor of Province’s uncle.

During the Second Barons’ War he was largely supportive of Prince Edward, except during the year 1262-1263 when he supported Simon de Montfort. Effectively both the barons and the Royalist knew that war was coming after the Provisions of Oxford broke down. In London, the barons were commanded by Simon de Montfort and the Earl of Gloucester.

In 1264 Surrey defended Rochester Castle which was besieged by the barons until it was relieved by Edward who then marched on Tonbridge Castle. Their next stop was Lewes, which was Surrey’s ancestral home. Following the Battle of Lewis which saw de Montfort and the barons victorious- the earl escaped to France via Pevensey – recognising that he would not be treated sympathetically by de Montfort.

In 1265 he landed at Pembroke with Edward’s uncle William de Valence, and Surrey’s brother-in-law. He immediately petitioned the barons for the return of his estates which had been granted, for the main, to the Earl of Gloucester – who was a cousin both of them being part of the extended Marshal family. De Montfort refused to return them – and Surrey took part in the Battle of Evesham on 4 August, 1265. he was at the Battle of Chesterfield the following year with Henry of Almaine.

He was, it appears, a man with a very bad temper – certainly not someone you would wish to cross. In 1268 he fell out with Alan de la Zouche and his son over properties in Northamptonshire. Encountering them at Westminster, in 1270, there was a fight that left Alan seriously injured, dying from them. In the aftermath, he took himself off to Reigate Castle which he intended to defend against the Crown. It was Henry of Almaine, and the self-same Earl of Gloucester, who persuaded him to submit and pay a fine rather than rebelling against the king.

In 1278 he had a falling out with Edward I who held a Parliament in Gloucester to identify lords who had impinged on royal rights of justice and to reclaim them for the Crown. Surrey was served with a writ of quo warranto – or by what warrant he held some of his rights – it is said that Surrey drew a rusty old sword exclaiming that it was his warrant since he’d arrived on English shores with William the Conqueror.

He held Wakefield and Conisborough under royal grant, fought agains the Welsh, and the Scots but was defeated by William Wallace at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297. Surrey had been reluctant to return to Scotland after 1296 and he now fled all the way back to York. Surrey’s initial interest in Scotland, aside from his long service to Edward I, was the fact that his daughter Isabel, by his second wife, was married to one of the prospective king’s of Scotland – John Baliol. After the defeat Surrey did return to Scotland the following year.

By that time his only son, William, had been killed in a tournament held in 1285 at Croydon. In time Surrey was succeeded by his grandson, another John, who had been an infant when his father died in 1285. The 7th Earl was still a minor when the 6th Earl died in 1304 and was buried at the Cluniac priory in Lewes. He was raised alongside the future Edward II and married to Joan of Bar – who was Edward I’s granddaughter. It wasn’t a happy marriage. The descriptions of the 7th earl are not flattering and he claimed to be pre contracted to Maud of Nerford.

The Savoyards, Lusignans and the Castilians

Posted on by
2
Eleanor of Castile from the Rochester Cathedral Priory Chronicle

Eleanor of Provence’s – who was Henry III’s wife – mother, Beatrice, came from Savoy. When Eleanor married Henry in 1236 her retinue contained a large number of her maternal relations (approximately 170) including her uncle, Peter of Savoy, and Boniface who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1244. About 70 of them settled in Britain. They were not popular with the barony because of the royal favour they garnered for themselves.

Henry’s marriage to Eleanor had been to establish political alliances to safeguard his control over the south of France (the remnants of Aquitaine and Gascony) but it also meant that Henry was able to appoint Eleanor’s relations to various posts in England so that they would be loyal to him. It also meant that his queen was able to secure a political faction that worked in her interests…if they knew what was good for them.

The Savoyards would later, in 1258 form an alliance with the barony, in opposition to Henry’s four Lusignan half-siblings from the Poitou region. It is perhaps not surprising that the king’s own relations were quick to find royal favour. Henry married his youngest half brother, William de Valence, to Joan de Munchensy who was an heiress of the Marshal family. He would gain the earldom of Pembroke through the match. However, unlike their Savoyard counterparts they made no attempt to assimilate into English society or culture.

The arrival of Eleanor of Castile and her retinue in 1255 suggested to the barons and the people of London that there would be yet more foreign interlopers at court looking for preferment. And it was true that Edward’s wife protected the Castilians who came to court. However, to counterbalance that, Eleanor’s influence bought with it Spanish cultural tastes, new administrative practices and more intellectual pursuits, not to mention – horrifying at the time- the use of carpet rather than rushes on the floor, brightly coloured candles and coloured glass. Her liking for the fruits from her home country was regarded as extravagant but I’d have to say that if I’d left Seville for the cold of English shores I might also want a more varied diet and a bright warm bedroom with carpet on the floor.

Cockerill, Sara. Eleanor of Castile.

Ebulo de Montibus –

Posted on by
Reply
Henry III being crowned

Ebulo was a younger son from Savoy, modern Switzerland, who came to make his fortune in England on the recommendation of Eleanor of Province’s uncle – Peter of Savoy. Or in other words he was one of the foreigners who arrived at the court of Henry III intent on making his fortune- The Savoyards who were Eleanor’s relations and the Lusignans who were Henry III’s relations were deeply resented by England barony because of the matches they made, the grants they received and the rewards they accrued.

Ebulo arrived in England in 1246. Two years later he became one of Henry III’s household knights and began to witness royal grants. In 1249 the king began to make him grants of land and of wardships. In 1254 he became part of Prince Edward’s household in Gascony and his ties to the prince were confirmed by various appointments back in England. In August 1256 he went to Ireland with Edward and witnessed various charters for the prince. It has been suggested that by then he was Edward’s Steward of the Household.

In 1258 baronial resentment reached breaking point and resulted in the provisions of Oxford. Ebulo was sent overseas with Peter of Savoy and in 1260 he represented the king when Louis IX of France arbitrated in the dispute between Henry, his sister (Eleanor) and her husband, Simon de Montfort, in the matter of Eleanor’s dower.

Later he would be subject to the barons’ wrath but in the short term he continued to hold important posts. His loyalty to the crown would earn him the stewardship of Windsor Castle.

He died in 1268.

‘A Vaudois servant of Henry III, Ebal II de Mont (Ebulo de
Montibus)’ (2017), available online at
https://www.academia.edu/31930999/A_Vaudois_servant_of_Henry_III_Ebal_II_de_Mont_Ebulo_de_Montibu
s?email_work_card=view-paper,

‘Three alien royal stewards in thirteenth-century England: the careers and
legacy of Mathias Bezill, Imbert Pugeys and Peter de Champvent’, in Thirteenth Century England X, ed. M.
Prestwich, R. Britnell, and R. Frame (Woodbridge, 2005), pp. 50-70.

People and Power part 4 – Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act of 1832

Posted on by
Reply

So I had a nice cup of tea and a think – this is the result!

Both Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act of 1832 were landmarks in the development of democracy. Both Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act did give more people a say in the decision making process. However, in the case of Magna Carta it was only the barons and the Church who benefited from the 63 clauses that sought to limit the king’s power. In the case of the Great Reform Act, it was the wealthy middle classes who benefitted – only 1 in 7 men received the vote after 1832. The working classes were excluded from the plebiscite.  

In both cases, the changes were a response to years of criticism about the way the system operated.  In the case of Magna Carta the barons had come to distrust King John who misused feudal dues such as scutage, the entry of heirs to their estates, and the remarriage of widows as well as other taxation to extort money from his barons, all of which is reflected in the clauses of the charter.  In addition he imprisoned  men or their families without trial and confiscated their land without redress to the law.  Infamously, in 1210 he imprisoned Matilda de Braose and her son and left them to starve to death in Corfe Castle when her husband William fell from power. Magna Carta sought to bring royal abuses to an end, limit the number of taxes levied and ensure that the barons had access to judgement according to the laws of the land administered by men qualified to be judges and juries of their equals.  New taxes were not to be levied unless they were agreed by the important men of the kingdom beforehand.  Clause 61 wanted to ensure that a council of 25 barons could monitor the king’s behaviour.  The charter limited royal power in some ways, brought greater freedom and justice the barons but it did not change the lives of the vast majority of England’s population who continued to labour in a feudal society. What it did was introduce the concept of ‘every man’ and ‘free men’ as well as the ideas of habeas corpus exemplified in clauses 39 and 40 of the charter and which are still enshrined in British law today.

 In the case of the Great Reform Act of 1832, there had been many years of criticism about the electoral system which was neither fair nor representative, a bill passed in 1831 by the House of Commons was rejected by the lords and the Tory prime minister, the Duke of Wellington. As a consequence there were riots across the country.  In some ways  the discontent and its longevity were a reminder of the discontent prior to the First Barons War and certainly an echo of fears experienced by Britain’s elite associated with the French Revolution of 1789. The Reform Act which became law a year after the riots sought to reform electoral abuses. It removed rotten boroughs, like Old Sarum, which only had a few voters but two MPS, increased the number of constituencies to reflect the change in population in places like Manchester and Birmingham which previously had no representation and extended the franchise to men who held land worth more than £10 a year. This included tenant farmers, small land holders and shopkeepers – so that more people had a say.

Like Magna Carta, the Reform Act was also significant for what did not change.  Only 1 in 7 men were allowed to vote because of the land holding qualification. Women were formally excluded as voters were now defined as being male. The vote was still not a secret which meant that men could still be intimidated or their votes brought (voting only became secret in 1872 with the passing of the Ballot Act).  Just as Magna Carta did not answer the needs of everyone and King John’s son, King Henry III, failed to abide by the charter leading to further resentment among the aristocracy and the Second Barons War, so the working classes were denied the franchise by the 1832 Reform Act. This led to further unrest and the growth of the Chartist movement during the late 1830s and more demands for reform.

Note for any G.C.S.E. students – plebiscite is a really good word for this unit of study – it means the direct vote of all the members of the electorate. Franchise – the right to vote.

Power and the People part 3 – still Magna Carta

Posted on by
1
Buchel, Charles A.; Herbert Beerbohm Tree (1852-1917), as King John in ‘King John’ by William Shakespeare; Theatre Collection; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/herbert-beerbohm-tree-18521917-as-king-john-in-king-john-by-william-shakespeare-30514

The dissatisfaction of the barons with King John led to the Magna Carta in 1215.  There are 63 clauses setting out what the king could and could not do.  Most of them are about regulating feudal customs, taxes and finances of one kind or another. 

There are four main provisions of Magna Carta that anyone doing G.C.S.E. History needs to know and its quite handy for everyone else rather than remembering 63 points – 1) church rights, 2) protection from illegal imprisonment, 3) swift justice for free men according to the laws of the land and 4) a limit to taxes and feudal dues ( or no making up new taxes without asking the important men in the kingdom first.)

Of the 63 clauses 4 are still enshrined in the law -clause 1, 13,  39 and 40.   The words ‘no one’ and ‘no free man’ gave the clauses a universal quality that did not apply at the time as the barons were only thinking of themselves- but by the 17th century they were very important indeed.  In effect Magana Carta was a treaty between the king and his people and it meant that the king was not above the law.

Clause 1:  The king was not to interfere in the Church.

Clause 13:  The City of London must be allowed to enjoy its liberties and customs without interference. The clause went on to grant all other cities, boroughs, ports and towns the same right to enjoy their liberties and customs.

Clause 39:  no free man could be arrested, imprisoned, disposed, outlawed or exiled until he was judged by a court according to the laws of the land by his equals – this establishes the principle of Habeas Corpus

Clause 40: No one was permitted to sell, delay or deny a man justice and no force was to be used against him until such time as he received a judgement according to the law.  This is about due process.

Clauses 7 and 8 are specifically about women’s rights – that’s wealthy women not the unwashed masses.

Clause 7:  Widows are not to be treated badly by their husband’s heirs – they are to receive their dower (one third of all their husbands estates at the time of marriage) and any jointures (property held by both husband and wife) without argument and they are allowed to stay in their husband’s home for 40 days before having to find somewhere else to live.

Clause 8: No forcing widows to marry against their wishes.

Clause 11: No impoverishing widows and orphans by making them pay their late husband/father’s debts.

For those of you who are feeling brave – in 2022 G.C.S.E. students were asked to explain two ways in which Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act of 1832 were similar. The question was worth 8 marks. And there’s something to ponder over a nice cup of tea! May be I’ll even have a stab at answering it next time.

People and Power -part 2 – road to Magna Carta

Posted on by
Reply

Medieval society, in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, was based on the feudal system. The king, was essentially owned his kingdom. Society worked on the basis that the king gave land and privileges to his tenants in chief, whether they were barons or bishops, in return for their loyalty and service. The tenants-in-chief then provided their knights with land. At the bottom of the heap were the peasants, who came in two varieties – free and serf. They had to work for their lord of the manor as well as paying fines and fees.

So far, so good. Ideally a medieval king was supposed to win battles, ensure that the country was peaceful by maintaining order, have good relations with the Church and the Pope, put down rebellions and have a good working relationship with his barons. Unfortunately, King John succeeded King Henry II who expanded his empire and Richard the Lionheart who was an excellent warrior and commander. John, on the other hand, lost his father’s empire when the French invaded in 1204 , ran out of funds trying to win back his territories and caused the barons to rebel. In fact, John had such a poor reputation as a warrior that he was nicknamed ‘Softsword’

In no particular order:

John quarrelled with the pope over the appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and ultimately got himself, and as a consequence, his country excommunicated.

Chronologies were written by monastic foundations and as a consequence of John’s poor relationship with the Church he was rarely written about in a positive light.

Richard the Lionheart left the country in debt in order to pay for the crusades but John needed even more cash to pay for the soldiers, equipment and transport to try and win back his European lands.

The barons were not pleased to have lost their territories in Normandy, less pleased to have to pay feudal dues including scutage, or shield tax, to fund a military campaign to try and retake the lost territories and did not appreciate John being permanently in England looking more closely at what was happening within the realm. Ultimately they would present him with the Magna Carta, a charter composed of 63 points based on King Henry I’s coronation charter.

GCSE Students – its really important to know this bit!
King John not popular especially as he did not live up to the medieval model of a king – he lost Normandy and most of the Angevin Empire.
He levied too many taxes including scutage.
The barons raised an army and threatened to rebel.
They presented him with the Magna Carta, or Great Charter, that identified 63 rules that they wanted John to abide by.  
 Clause 61 stated that a council of 25 barons would be created to ensure that John abided by the agreement which he signed on 19th June 1215 at Runnymede.
The Magna Carta did not mean that everyone would have a say in running the country- only the most important barons.
John applied to the pope to have the agreement annulled. As a consequence, the Barons’ declared war and invited the French Prince Louis to be king instead. The First Barons War started.

William Wither – or William the angry..

Posted on by
1
Gisborough Priory, Wikimedia Commons

In December 1231 a band of masked men from Yorkshire calling themselves the Brotherhood attacked a group of foreign churchmen as they came out from a meeting at St. Albans. Most of the clergy fled back to the church but one Italian named Censius, wasn’t as fast as the others. He became a prisoner and he was not released until he had paid a ransom.

The masked men wanted to rid England of foreign holders of benefice. The problem had arisen since the papacy began to demand its annual taxes in full. Inevitably the masked men proved to be very popular with the English who shared gossip about foreign priests becoming wealthy on the back of English labour. It helped that the band carried letters which suggested that the Crown approved of what they were doing. The blame for all the foreigners was about to fall on the head of Henry III’s long term adviser Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent.

The Brotherhood grew. It turned out that Robert Tweng, from Yorkshire riding under the name William Wither was responsible for the first raids but it quickly became clear that any one in possession of a cloak and a mask was taking the opportunity to rob ecclesiastical types with Italian accents. They were robbed, their tithe barns emptied and life generally became rather uncomfortable. Some Italians went into hiding and others left the country. Papal messengers were held up and robbed.

The bishops held a council in February 1232 and excommunicated everyone connected with the attacks. Unexpectedly, they were ignored. Gregory IX was not amused and gave King Henry III and the Church in England a ticking off adding that any one caught should be sent to Rome.

Robert Tweng was identified, excommunicated and then packed off to Rome. The Pope, discovering that the knight’s actions were due to a church, to which he held the advowson, to an alien without his consent being granted office, absolved Tweng. Tweng had inherited the problem of Kirkleatham Church when he married Matilda de Autrey in 1222. Gisborough claimed the advowson as well and had managed to gain possession while Matilda’s uncle Sir William de Kylton was elderly and unwell. having taken the matter to the ecclesiastical court and got no where Tweng had taken matters into his own hands with the support of some very powerful northern families including the de Vescis and Percys. he is also thought to have had links with Henry’s younger brother Richard of Cornwall who afforded him support when the matter came to Henry III’s attention and the knight was sent off Rome with letters from the king.

The Brotherhood, their point made, stopped what they were doing and official investigations dropped. prominent men both in Church and State had either been involved personally or supported the brotherhood. It was a case of not opening a can of worms, turning over any rocks and definitely not disturbing any sleeping dogs. Only one man was going to get the blame and that was Hubert de Burgh, the king’s long term advisor if his political opponent Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester had his way.

Eleanor of Brittany – lifelong ward…guest…prisoner

Posted on by
Reply

Eleanor of Brittany was a grand daughter of King Henry II born in about 1184. She was the eldest child of Henry’s son Geoffrey and Constance, sure jure Countess of Brittany.  Geoffrey, who was older than his brother John, was killed during a tournament in Paris in August 1186.  His only son, Arthur, was a posthumous child. With the arrival of Arthur, Eleanor was no longer such a good catch as a bride because the duchy would pass to her brother. Her grandfather kept Eleanor in protective custody from the time she was two-years of age. King Philip II demanded that the girl should become his ward but Henry refused to consider the possibility. 

            With the death of Geoffrey, Richard became his niece’s guardian. The king offered her as a bride to Saladin’s brother when her aunt Joanna of Sicily refused. After Richard’s imprisonment on his way home from the 3rd Crusade by Duke Leopold of Austria she was betrothed to the duke’s son. The death of Leopold before she could be handed into his care meant that the betrothal was broken. There were other betrothal negotiations but none came to fruition. Then in 1199 Richard died unexpectedly. In 1201, Eleanor’s mother Constance, who had petitioned for her daughter’s return into her custody on several occasions, also died. 

            Arthur, Eleanor’s brother, had a good claim to the throne. He was, after all, the son of John’s elder brother but John was an adult who was not a pawn of the French in the way that Arthur became. In 1202 Arthur was captured after he laid siege to his grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine at Mirebeau. Arthur disappeared from the historical record during Easter 1203, believed to have been murdered by his uncle John in a drunken rage. Eleanor, who was in England, was a threat by association but bumping off his niece would be far too suspicious.

            Technically as an unmarried female she was John’s ward and she would remain his dependent for the rest of his life. If she was freed, permitted to rule as the duchess of Brittany and married then her husband would have had a claim to the throne – although after the experience with the Empress Matilda no one was keen on the idea of a female monarch. By keeping her in custody the possibility of civil war was removed as was any possibility of her taking an active political role. Even so, the possibility of a marriage was considered. A woman with legitimate royal blood was a useful bargaining chip. In 1208, John created her Countess of Richmond and permitted her to come to court by then her younger half-sister was Brittany’s duchess. She may also have accompanied her uncle on campaign in 1214 when John sought to regain at least part of his father’s empire.

Throughout it all Eleanor was treated as a royal kinsman, she had ladies, good food and royal robes but she was not free to come and go as she wished either in John’s life time or during the reign of his son King Henry III. By 1225 she had a small household and an allowance for almsgiving, but it did not represent the income from the earldom of Richmond and even worse Henry removed the title from her in order to bestow it elsewhere.  Over the years she was moved around the countryside. She stayed at Corfe in Dorset but travelled to Bowes and Burgh as well as Marlborough and Gloucester. It seems that her guards were changed regularly in order to prevent any escape plots being hatched.

She died at Bristol Castle in 1241 after 39 years as a prisoner having never plotted against a king of England.

Seabourne, Gwen, Imprisoning Medieval Women, (Ashgate Publishing, 2013)

Seabourne, Gwen, ‘Eleanor of Brittany and Her Treatment by King John and Henry III’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 51 (2007), 73–110

Blanche of Castile

Posted on by
1
Blanche of Castile

Eleanor, named after her mother, was the sixth child of King Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. She was born in about 1161 but in 1170 she was married to Alfonso VIII of Castile. The aim was to secure the border with Aquitaine. One of Eleanor’s daughters born in 1188 was named Blanche. Initially a sister of Blanche’s was betrothed to Philip II of France’s heir but the girls’ grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, decided that it was Blanche who would make a better queen of France.

In 1200, Blanche was escorted across the Pyrenees by her indomitable grandmother, the marriage being made to the benefit of King John of England and involving the dower of lordships held by the English Crown. There was only a year between the bride and groom.

In 1215, King John’s revolting barons offered the English throne to Louis because he was married to Henry II’s granddaughter – and who was going to turn down an entire realm? At one point two thirds of England’s barons recognised Louis as their king, he held London and one third of the country. In 1217 the tide turned in the aftermath of the Battle of Lincoln but Louis tried to regain the military imperative. It was Blanche who put the fleet together that would resupply her husband when Philip II of France refused to help. She gained cash from her father-in-law by threatening to offer her children as hostages. It was all to no avail. Following the Battle of Sandwich in the summer of 1217 Louis was forced to come to terms with King Henry III’s supporters and take himself home.

Philip died in 1223 but was followed three years later by Blanche’s husband. Louis IX was only 12 years old but unlike Henry III’s mother, Blanche had no intention of deserting her son and besides which Louis VIII left the regency in Blanche’s hands on his deathbed. She forced the French magnates to accept the young king and in the capacity of regent played both the military and diplomatic cards in a way that her grandmother would have applauded. In 1229 she forged the Treaty of Paris. She remained an influential political player throughout her life and in 1248 became regent of France for a second time when Louis went on the Seventh Crusade.

She died in 1252, perhaps to the relief of her daughter-in-law, Margaret of Province, who had a difficult relationship with Blanche who was jealous of any time that Louis spent with Margaret.

From the Countess of Aumale to the two wives of William Marshal the Younger – money, marriage and how to make the most of widowhood

Posted on by
1
Eleanor of England – youngest daughter of King John

Hawise, the suo jure Countess of Aumale was married to William de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex but she had something of a reputation during her life time according to Richard of Devizes as a woman ‘who is almost a man, lacking nothing virile except the virile organs.’ Despite that she was married off on Richard the Lionheart’s orders for a second time to William de Forz, her social inferior, who was one of the king’s naval commanders. The countess was not amused. She was even less amused when after de Forz’s death in 1195 she was required to take as her third husband Baldwin de Béthune who was a crusader and also Richard’s companion in captivity – he was well born but a third son. Baldwin would die in 1212 and Hawise took the opportunity of paying a fine of 5,000 marks in instalments to avoid marriage for a fourth time.

There were rumours that the countess was King John’s mistress and that her eldest son by William de Forz was in fact John’s own progeny. The rumour arose because when Hawise died the fine she owed the king was still not fully paid – a debt of 4,000 marks was carried forward to her heir- (remember a mark is 2/3’s of a pound so – £2667 in 1214 when she died and a whopping £4,000,000 or thereabouts now) but John forgave the new earl the debt, provided him with a wealthy bride of his own who he himself dowered and forgave Aumale for siding with the barons and the French – suggesting a degree of fondness with which King John did not habitually regard his aristocracy. And yes I have posted about Hawise and her son William before and she will turn up in the book on medieval royal mistresses being published by Pen and Sword in November. So why today?

Let us return to husband number three – Baldwin de Béthune – the imprisoned crusader and buddy of King Richard I. Friendship was clearly important because as a third son he would not reasonably have expected to marry someone as wealthy as Hawise who had possession of large chunks of Normandy (until John lost most of the duchy) as well as Holderness and Craven in Yorkshire. It helped that he had taken Richard’s place in prison and that he spent rather a lot of his own money paying the king’s ransom.

During the 1170s Baldwin served in the household of Henry II’s eldest son Henry The Young King. He made a lifelong friendship with another younger son struggling to make his own way in the world – William Marshal. Like Marshal as well as serving the Young King and Henry II, Baldwin offered loyal service to the Lionheart and King John – in 1200 he was one of the guarantor’s of peace between John and King Philip of France. He can be found signing royal grants in 1201 but, again, like William Marshal he found himself in less favour with the passage of time and withdrew to his wife’s lands. Unlike Marshal no one wrote a biography of his life soon after this death so he is less well known today than his old friend.

Baldwin and Hawise had a daughter named Alice and in 1203 Baldwin and Marshal arranged that their children should marry. William Marshal the Younger who was probably fostered by Marshal’s lifelong friend would marry Alice when she came of age and the two families would be tied by blood. Alice was not her mother’s heiress but she would inherit lands, including Wantage in Berkshire (currently Oxfordshire) which King Henry II and King Richard gave to her father. Unfortunately Alice died young and in 1224 William Marshal the Younger married King Henry III’s sister Eleanor who was born in 1215. Eleanor was nine at the time of the marriage and Marshal was thirty-four. He died in 1231 when Eleanor was nineteen but there were no children from the union. Soon afterwards Eleanor took a vow of chastity which meant that her brother wouldn’t be able to find another husband for her – unfortunately she fell in love several years later and the vow made things somewhat difficult for the couple.

Want to do calculations to update costs? Try the Bank of England’s inflation calculator.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator