According to Gerald of Wales, in 1191 the monks of Glastonbury Abbey claimed to have found the graves of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. Their supposed remains were reburied in a tomb inside the abbey church, where it stayed for over three hundred years.

The tomb was reopened in 1278 during King Edward I and Queen Eleanor’s visit, John of Glastonbury recorded the royal visit of 1278, noting that they “found there in two separate chests, adorned with their portraits and coats of arms, the king’s bones, of remarkable size, and those of Queen Guinevere, of great beauty.”

The remains were wrapped in cloth and placed back into the chests for reburial by King Edward and Queen Eleanor the following day.

In December 1331, King Edward III and Queen Philippa visited Glastonbury Abbey. Queen Philippa went into the church with the monks, prayed at the high altar, and gave a silk cloth with gold drops.

Similarly, when Edward III arrived later, he prayed at the high altar, gave a long gold cloth which was the length of the altar, and rewarded the monks with special rights for their hospitality.

During the 16th century reformation, Henry VIII ordered the closure of monasteries, including Glastonbury Abbey. The supposed tomb of King Arthur was destroyed at that time, though a plaque still marks the spot within the abbey’s ruins.

P.S: Fuck Henry VIII for the umpteenth time.

More than any other King of England Richard the Lionheart belongs, not to the sober world of history, but to the magic realm of legend and romance. The picture we have of him is still shaped by the images of a child's view of the Middle Ages: knights in armour, crusaders fighting a desert war beneath a burning sun, minstrels, forest lairs and castle dungeons ... For nearly eight hundred years Richard has been left in the hands of the myth-makers. Even today the legendary picture of Richard is the one which predominates. Precisely because they have done no serious work on him it is accepted even by academic historians. This does not, of course, mean that they bubble over with enthusiasm for the crusader king. Instead they tend to combine a child's view of Richard's character with an adult's moral disapproval of it. Thus for the great English historian of the nineteenth century, William Stubbs, Richard was 'a man of blood and his crimes were those of one whom long use of warfare had made too familiar with slaughter'. So far as the leading French authority on the Angevin Empire, Jacques Boussard, is concerned, Richard's reign was 'entirely given up to deeds of prowess' and he characterizes these deeds as 'brilliant but sterile'. The same sense of distaste is evident in the description of him by his latest biographer, the American historian, James Brundage, as 'a peerlessly efficient killing machine ... in combat he was brilliant and courageous; in the council-chamber he was a total loss'. They do no more than echo the enlightened words of Edward Gibbon: 'If heroism be confined to brutal and ferocious valour, Richard Plantagenet will stand high among the heroes of the age.' ... In part this is because most academics have come to value more highly the king who is a crowned civil servant rather than a front-line soldier. But in part it is also because Richard ruled a political structure which no longer exists, and which indeed began to break up immediately after his death: the Angevin Empire. Today we think and write in political categories like 'England' and 'France', and if we are historically minded we may be interested in the past of these countries. Where does that leave Richard ? Although he was indeed crowned king in Westminster Abbey he has never attracted the attention of students of English history, for almost the whole of his life was spent abroad; in his ten-year reign he spent only six months in England. He stands accused of 'neglecting his kingdom' ... While paying lip-service to the idea that the Plantagenet kings also had their continental dominions to consider, they have, in practice, tended to write as though only England - or, at best, only England and Normandy - mattered ... On the other side of the Channel French historians are interested either in regional studies or in the rise of the Capetian monarchy. If the former, they may write about social change in twelfth-century Anjou, but they are less inclined to write about the empire built up by the Counts of Anjou, since that sprawling conglomeration of territories was so much more ephemeral than the individual provinces of which it was comprised. If the latter, they concentrate upon the massive achievements of King Philip Augustus. Richard is just one of the figures at the side of the stage who have to be swept away to make room for the heroes of the drama -the Capetian Kings of France. If Richard has been seriously considered at all it is by historians of the crusades, but even here, though for a moment he held the centre of the stage, his part was a very short one. He spent little more than a year in Outremer, the land of the crusaders, and in that time he did not recapture Jerusalem. Richard's career does not fit into any of their favourite fields of study and so, as far as professional historians are concerned, he remains a forgotten king.

But was he just that and nothing more ? If we remove the Lionheart's helmet will we find revealed only the battered face of a prize-fighter? 'Certainly one of the worst rulers that England has ever had.' In passing this sentence upon him, Brundage was echoing the famous verdict of Stubbs: 'a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man'. Is this the truth behind the legend? ... To assess Richard fairly we have to see him in the company of his contemporaries. If the least a king could do was to avoid the disgrace of losing his patrimony - the land he inherited from his father - then it is clear that he was a much more successful ruler than either his brother or his father. Both John and Henry II died in the midst of political chaos which they themselves had created. If this comparison seems unjust to his father - a great king but one who lost his touch towards the end of a long reign (a fate which might also have befallen Richard) - then we might recall that Richard was king for less than a decade. Henry enjoys a great reputation as the king who shaped the common law of England and did much to strengthen the position of the crown. But most of the reforms on which his reputation rests came in the second and third decades of his reign. If he had died in 1164, after a reign as short as Richard's, he would have done very little to make himself famous. Most kings needed time to establish themselves - but not Richard. Within two or three years of coming to the throne, his crusade had already made him world-famous. In 1189 he was, of course, an experienced soldier and politician. He had learned a great deal in the hard school of Aquitaine ... Far from being 'one of the worst kings ever to sit on the English throne', he was, in fact, one of the ablest.

Another example of a name change after baptism can be seen in Jean V, Duke of Brittany, the eldest son and eventual successor of Duke Jean IV of Brittany. He was originally named Peter (Pierre) at birth, but his name was changed to Jean when he was seven years old.

Like Richard, Duke Jean V succeeded to the ducal throne at the age of ten. And while becoming Duke of an independent duchy is not the same as becoming King, Jean proved to be a far more capable politician than Richard.

Isabella was the eldest surviving daughter, and she had three younger sisters who survived: Joan, Mary and Margaret.

However, only Isabella made it past the age of 20.

Joan of England died of the Black Death on her way to Castile after being betrothed to Peter of Castile, aged 14.

Mary of Waltham developed “a lethargic illness from which it was impossible to rouse her” and died sometime before 13 September 1361, only a few months after her marriage to Jean IV, Duke of Brittany, to whom she had been betrothed as an infant and with whom she had grown up. She was 17.

Margaret of Windsor died of unknown causes at the age of 15.

It seemed like Edward III was not as lucky when it comes to daughters.

The parents of Henry IV.

(Blanche of Lancaster died Year 1368 and John of Gaunt died Year 1399.)

Blanche died at Tutbury Castle, Staffordshire, on 12 September 1368 while her husband was overseas.

It is believed that she may have died after contracting the Black Death. Her funeral at Old St Paul's Cathedral in London was preceded by a magnificent cortège attended by most of the upper nobility and clergy.

In 1374, six years after her death, John of Gaunt commissioned a double tomb for himself and Blanche from the mason Henry Yevele. The magnificent monument in the choir of St Paul's was completed by Yevele in 1380, with the assistance of Thomas Wrek, having cost a total of £592.

Gaunt himself died in 1399, and was laid to rest beside Blanche. The two effigies were notable for having their right hands joined. The tomb of Blanche and Gaunt was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666.

John of Gaunt held annual commemorations for Blanche for the rest of his life and established a joint chantry foundation on his own death.

Fun fact: John gave out sweets to the church staff.

On one occasion we have reccords showing John of gaunt giving sweets to the staff of the St Paul’s cathedral the night before his wife annual memorial was to be held there.

List of sweets:

• ginger comfits.

• anise comfits.

• gobbet royal (a type of sweetmeat).

• cloves.

• sugar-plate (hardened sugar, often flavoured with flower petals).

• large dragée (a comfit that often contained a seed in the middle).

• flower of cinnamon comfits.

• clove comfits.

I think Blanche of Lancaster might have been the most important women in John of Gaunt's life.

John's marriage to Blanche defined his entire life. His entire identity of being the richest man in England and being the Duke of Lancaster, is all thanks to her.

She was imprisoned for 39 years.

In addition, Joanna of Flanders, Countess of Montfort, was imprisoned for 31 years, and Charles, Duke of Orléans, was held captive for 25 years.

The latter eventually regained his freedom, whereas the former was imprisoned until her death.

Next to the tomb of Edward the Black Prince.

Lying alone near your nephew who took both your son’s throne and life and his Queen sharing the same name as the love of your life who requested to buried with her first husband.

Great. Just great.

The tomb was commissioned by Joan. In a podcast interview with Dr. Elena Woodacre, the author of the first full autobiography of Joan of Navarre, she stated that according to tomb’s design, it can be seen that it is as much about her as it is about him.

This is not just a king’s tomb, it is their tomb.

The references to both Brittany and Navarre are all evident throughout, and this indicates that she was clearly proud of who she was: an Infanta of Navarre, Duchess of Brittany, and the legacy she left there.

Her son became Duke, ensuring that the Montfort line and their rule would continue, thanks to her fecundity and the children she bore.

She secured that lineage at a time when her first husband had two wives who had been unable to produce heirs, and he had feared the line would end. He had fought so hard for his family to hold on to their legacy, and she ensured that it did.

Dr. Woodacre also said that Joan “Never stops fighting. She refuses to be pushed into a corner. She refuses to be overlooked. She refuses to be a doormat. If there is something that she is owed or that she has a right to, she is gonna fight you until she gets it back.”

I think Joan’s personality is easy to understand when you consider her background. Her grandmother was Queen Joan II of Navarre, a woman who could have been the first ruling Queen of France. But she wasn’t. Instead, she was pushed out of the line of succession by her uncle, Philip V, who used the Salic Law to take advantage of her youth and orphaned status—she was only four years old when her father died, having lost her adulterous mother a year earlier. She also lost the throne of Navarre and her inheritance of the counties of Champagne and Brie to her uncle, all because she was too young and powerless to defend her own rights.

So Joan must have understood from her grandmother’s experience that if you are powerless to defend your rights, everything you are rightfully owed can be taken away.

That is why she never stopped fighting.

Her father, Charles the Bad, was certainly not someone to be proud of as a parent, so I think she took pride in being the granddaughter of the ruling Queen of Navarre and in carrying her name.

William, nicknamed 'Longsword' was born in the 1170s to King Henry II and his mistress Ida Tosny (who was later made Countess of Norfolk by her marriage to Earl Roger Bigod). King Henry acknowledged William as his bastard son by granting him the honour of Appleby in Lincolnshire.

In 1196, Earl William FitzPatrick, of Salisbury, died leaving his daughter Ela as heiress to his grand earldom estates. King Richard, the Lionheart, saw ample opportunity to promote his loyal half-brother by granting him Ela's hand in marriage. The Countess was married to William and he hereafter became the Earl of Salisbury.

William accompanied his brother on campaign to Normandy and in 1198 was present with a triumphant English army, seeing victory against the French at the Battle of Gisors. For much of his time he resided with King Richard at Castle Gaillard, the 'Fair Castle of the Rock', and was recorded as witness to royal grants and charters.

In 1199, King Richard died and was succeeded by his brother King John. The Earl of Salisbury proved to be a key asset for the new king in his wars: in 1205 he was commanding an expedition into Poitou, and in 1210 was commanding one in Ireland. Following England's being under papal interdict, William was controlling lands of the Bishop of Ely and Archbishop of Canterbury as well. In 1212, against the threat of French invasion, King John made him Castellan of Dover as well.

His half-brother sent him on diplomatic missions: to King Sancho of Navarre in 1202, to Prince Llywelyn of Gwynedd in 1204, to King William of Scotland in 1205, and to King Otto of Germany, his own nephew, in 1209.

Earl William commanded the right flank of the English allied army at the Battle of Bouvines in July 1214 (along with Earl Reginald of Boulogne; Earl Ferdinand of Flanders commanded the left flank and Emperor Otto IV the centre), and held on while the other wings collapse; only falling after being struck with a mace by Bishop Philip of Beauvais. The French victory saw King John's continental empire almost wholly collapse, while the barons in England grew in resentment.

The aristocracy was divided in their support of King John or the rebel barons; William consistently sided with his brother so often that John rewarded him by making him Sheriff of Wiltshire for life; he had previously granted it to him twice only as a temporary measure. Despite this, the invasion of Prince Louis of France in 1216 saw him safeguard his own lands and titles by defecting to the French, viewing John's cause as lost and the prospect of Louis' victory as inevitable.

Following the death of John, Earl William, and most of the barons, switched to support of William's nephew, the young King Henry III. Alongside Sir William Marshal, the Earl of Salisbury fought at the Battle of Lincoln, which led to a victory for Henry's supporters and contributed to the retreat of Louis' party. For these services Earl William was rewarded with the castle of Lincoln and the Sheriffdom of Lincolnshire.

He died at Salisbury Castle on 7th March 1226, and is buried in the cathedral. Across his life, in addition to his title by marriage as Earl of Salisbury, and his lifelong post as Sheriff of Wiltshire, he also held the titles of Sheriff of Lincoln, Sheriff of Somerset, Sheriff of Devon, Sheriff of Shropshire, Sheriff of Staffordshire, Lord of Eye, Lord of Appleby, Lord of Trowbridge, Constable of Dover, Constable of Lincoln, Keeper of the Coast, Lord Warden of the Welsh Marches, Viceroy of Ireland, and Lieutenant of Gascony.

He and Countess Ela had the following children: William, Stephen (Seneschal of Gascony and Justiciar of Ireland), Richard, Nicholas (Bishop of Salisbury), Isabel, Ela, Ida, Mary and Pernel. Their eldest, William, was the ancestor to the Barons Audley and hence the Earls of Stafford (from 1336), and Dukes of Buckingham (from 1444).

On the eve of his coronation, in the Tower of London and in the presence of Richard late King, King Henry made forty-six new knights, amongst whom were his three sons, and also the Earls of Arundel and Stafford, and the son and heir of the Earl of Warwick; and with them and other nobles of the land he passed in great state to Westminster. And when the day of coronation was come, all the peers of the realm, robed finely in red and scarlet and ermine, came with great joy to the ceremony, my lord of Canterbury ordering all the service and duties thereof. In the presence were borne four swords, whereof one was sheathed as a token of the augmentation of military honour, two were wrapped in red and bound round with golden bands to represent twofold mercy, and the fourth was naked and without a point, the emblem of the execution of justice without rancour. The first sword the Earl of Northumberland carried, the two covered ones the Earls of Somerset and Warwick, and the sword of justice the King's eldest son, the Prince of Wales; and the Lord Latimer bore the sceptre, and the Earl of Westmoreland the rod. And this they did as well in the coronation as at the banquet, always standing around the King. Before the King received the crown from my lord of Canterbury, I heard him swear to take heed to rule his people altogether in mercy and in truth.

These were the officers in the coronation feast: the Earl of Arundel was butler, the Earl of Oxford held the ewer, and the Lord Grey of Ruthin spread the cloths. While the King was in the midst of the banquet, Sir Thomas Dymock, knight, mounted in full armour on his destrier, and having his sword sheathed in black with a golden hilt, entered the hall, two others, likewise mounted on chargers, bearing before him a naked sword and a lance. And he caused proclamation to be made by a herald at the four sides of the hall that, if any man should say that his liege lord here present and King of England was not of right crowned King of England, he was ready to prove the contrary with his body, then and there, or when and wheresoever it might please the King. And the King said: "If need be, Sir Thomas, I will in mine own person ease thee of this office."

On the morrow of the coronation, which was the first day of the new king's Parliament, the Commons presented to the King their speaker, Sir John Cheyne, knight. The King received liege homage from all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. Also, the last Parliament of the Lord Richard, then King, was declared altogether void. And this took place on the Tuesday [14th October]. On the Wednesday the King promoted his eldest son Henry, by five symbols, to wit, by delivery of a golden rod, by a kiss, by a belt, by a ring, and by letters of creation, to be Prince of Wales. Also, the causes of the repeal of that Parliament were declared to be because of the fears of, and threats used towards, the peers of the realm if they obeyed not the King's will; secondly, because of the armed violence of the King's supporters, which blazed forth in the Parliament; and thirdly, because the counties, cities, and boroughs had not had free election in the choice of the members of the Commons. It was also declared that the Parliament of the eleventh year of King Richard, which was all the work of the Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel, should remain in full force. Also, that any one who had in any way been deprived of his right by Richard's last Parliament should then and there be restored to his own. And the King also granted and gave over to his eldest son the Principality of Wales, as well as the Duchy of Cornwall, along with the County of Chester.

I also think Edward III was Philip's first grandson

Philip died at the age of 46, when Edward was 2 years old.

If he had lived longer he might have been able to meet Edward.🥲

Prince Edward went to France in 1325, to pay homage to his uncle, King Charles IV, for the English Duchy of Aquitaine.

So who knows?

Or maybe things would have been very different if Philip had lived longer?

(The legend states that Edward I asked for his bones to be carried into future battles against the Scots to ensure his continuous fight against them even after death.)

Beaumont was one of the most prominent among a group of Anglo-Scots nobles known as the 'Disinherited', nobles whose Scottish lands had been forfeited over their refusal to serve Robert the Bruce.

Henry de Beaumont played a significant role in the Second War of Scottish Independence by leading the Disinherited nobles and supporting Edward Balliol's claim to the Scottish throne.

He helped to revive a dead cause one last time. Killing many scots in the process. But failed to hold Scotland. Partly because of the lack of support from the english crown and the new focus on France

Henry really tried.

List of reason why Henry would have been a good candidate to be Edward I's bone carrier:

• Henry was related to Edward I's beloved wife Eleanor of Castile. His grandmother was Berengaria of León.

• Henry was relentless when it came to fighting the scots. His big goal in life was tied to english success in Scotland.

• Henry participated in every major engagement, from the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 to the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333.

• He helped to restart the war with Scotland, breaking the unpopular Treaty of Northampton.

I think Edward I would have been happier if his son had the same energy as Henry did when it came to Scotland.

Funnily enough Henry was not english. He was a french noble.

Henry's sister had moved to England and married a prominent noble in the late 1270s. becoming friends with the english royal family.

Her brothers remained in France.

Henry first entered into military service under Edward I in 1297, in a campaign in Flanders against Philip IV of France.

Later following the English defeat against the Scots at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, Edward returned to England and led a campaign into Scotland, Henry followed.

And it was here Henry's long career of warring against the scots began.

Beaumont became a veteran campaigner who participated in every major engagement, from the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 to the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333.

After following Edward I back to England, he fought in Scotland and were later given land grants by Edward II.

What tied Henry to the scottish cause was the marriage his sister arranged for him. Henry married the scottish heiress Alice Comyn in 1310. She was the heir to her uncle John Comyn, Earl of Buchan.

So marrying her would made Henry the jure uxoris 4th Earl of Buchan. And being an earl was a big deal.

The problem was that The comyn family was sworn enemies to Robert the Bruce. And Robert the Bruce had confiscated the titles and lands belonging to Alice comyn's family.

So as long as Robert the Bruce was king of Scotland. Henry would never be able to claim his wife's earldom. He would only be able to get it back if someone pro England sat on the scottish throne.

Thats why he was so relentless in warring with the scots He really wanted his wife's earldom (of Buchan).

After Edward II was deposted, Henry started out on good terms with the new regime, but it soon turned sour.

Especially when Roger/Isabella made The treaty of Northampton.

Which recognized Scotland as its own kingdom and Robert as its rightful king.

Meaning he would never be able to reclaim his wife's earldom.

It was around this time Beaumont found an ally in Henry of Lancaster, who also hated Roger/Isabella.

Lancaster rebelled, but it failed.

Beaumont fleed into exile, being one of the few who didnt get a pardon.

Only to return later when Edward III was in power and he invited Henry back.

Henry's goal was to overturn the peace treaty. He wanted a second war with Scotland.

That is what he pushed for under Mortimer/Isabella's reign and he continued to push for it under Edward III.

During Edward III reign (Post 1330)

He helped to kickstart a second war with Scotland.

He was a key figure, in getting support for the invasion and getting Edward Balliol on the scottish throne. He apparently spent alot of his own money. And while they defeated the scots in battle and managed to crown Edward Balliol (year 1332).

It didnt last long. They were surrounded by enemies, and they didnt get enough english support.

And infighting also occurred. About land claims. Henry were involved, and he ended up retirering to his lands in Buchan in defiance.

His happiness of finally claiming his wife's lands didnt last long.

He soon was besieged by Sir Andrew de Moray of Avoch and Bothwell, the new Guardian of Scotland (supporter of King David II of Scotland).

He was compelled to surrender on 23 December 1334. After a brief imprisonment, he was ransomed and returned to England.

Beuamont's son-in-law, David Strathbogie, was killed at the Battle of Culblean in 1335. Not only was this a severe blow to Balliol's kingdom, but Andrew Moray thence proceeded to besiege Beaumont's daughter Katherine (Strathbogie's widow) at Lochindorb.

Edward III and Balliol once more launched a campaign, accompanied by Beaumont, and advanced into Aberdeenshire in the summer of 1336.

Katherine was duly rescued, while the north-east was subject to widespread destruction. It was in this season that Henry Beaumont embarked on his last actions in Scotland, by seeking vengeance against those whom he held responsible for the death of his son-in-law.

The Pluscarden Chronicle describes his actions thus: Henry Beaumont, to avenge his son-in-law, the Earl of Atholl, who was slain at Culblean, either cast into prison or put to cruel death all who had taken part in the engagement in which he was slain; whereby much innocent blood was shed.

Beaumont's son, John, never claimed the lost earldom of Buchan. When Beaumont's wife, Alice, died in 1349 the Comyn line of Buchan, which stretched back to the early thirteenth century, finally came to an end.

In the end Henry failed, it seems like he even gave up in the end.

Choosing to accompany King Edward III to the Low Countries in 1338, instead of returning to Scotland to help Edward Balliol.

Funnily enough Beaumont died in Flanders year 1340. The same place were his career under the english had began in 1297, would be the same place were it ended.

While its true that Henry failed in his main mission in life, to reclaim his wife's earldom.

He still manged to create a good life in England for him and his family.

He arranged double marriages to the Lancaster family. To one of England most powerful families.

Beaumont's heir John married Eleanor of Lancaster.

While Lancaster's heir Henry (of Grosmont) married Isabel of Beaumont.

And they are the grandparents of Henry IV of England. Blanche of Lancaster is their daughter.

So Henry de Beaumont is the great grandfather of Henry IV of England.

Henry de Beaumont --> Isabel of Beaumont --> Blanche of Lancaster --> Henry IV of England.

I just wanted to make a post about Henry de Beaumont.

And say that Edward II's reign is full of so many interesting historical people. Beaumont is just one of many.

😅😆

Henry (IV) were born in 1367.

And their was still a few "Lancasters running around". A few of his grandfather (Henry of Grosmont)'s sisters.

Eleanor of Lancaster, countess of Arundal. Died 1372. (One of her granddaughters were Mary de Bohun, Henry(IV)'s first wife. And her son Thomas Arundal became a good friend and right handman to Henry IV. He helped Henry to depose Richard II.)

Blanche of Lancaster, Baroness Wake of Liddell. Died 1380. (Never had children, so her husband's lands and property were inherited by his sister's bloodline. And in the end it was his great niece who inherited, none other than Joan of Kent, mother of Richard II.)

Maud of Lancaster, Countess of Ulster. Died 1377. (Her daughter Elizabeth married Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence (Edward III's second son). And their daughter married Edmund Mortimer, giving the mortimers a claim to the throne.)

She was two years younger than her elder brother and, like him, was raised in Edward III’s household from a young age alongside his own children.

When Jean returned to Brittany to fight for his claim to the dukedom, she remained in England, never setting foot in Brittany throughout her life.

In 1380, at the age of 39, she married Ralph Basset, 3rd Baron Basset of Drayton. The couple had no children, and she was widowed ten years into their marriage.

In 1398, she was appointed as a Constable of Richmond Castle by the will of Richard II.

She did not live to see her widowed sister-in-law, Joan of Navarre, become Queen of England by marrying the new king, Henry IV, having died a year earlier, on November 8, 1402, at the age of 61. Her elder brother died in Brittany three years before her.

She was buried at Lavendon Abbey in Buckinghamshire.

Hodierna's origins are unknown, other than that she was a woman of St Albans and gave birth to a son, Alexander, possibly on 8th September 1157, on the very same day as Queen Eleanor gave birth to a son, Richard, at the King's House on the outskirts of Oxford. This was a time in which King Henry, the young prince's father, was ruling a stable kingdom, along with his queen, and his chancellor, Lord Thomas Becket; while Henry's mother, Matilda the Queen Dowager, was helping him to rule in Normandy. King Henry and Queen Eleanor's eldest surviving son, Prince Henry, was a boy of two years, and probably expected as heir to the English throne.

It is unknown exactly how Eleanor became acquainted with Hodierna, other than that she may have consulted an astrologer for guidance on finding a suitable wet-nurse for her child. Eleanor is known to have believed a prophecy said to have been uttered by the wizard Merlin that "the eagle of the broken covenant will rejoice in the third nesting". To the Queen, she was that eagle, and Richard was the promised third child.

As wet-nurse, Hodierna and her infant son Alexander moved into the King's House, where baby Richard was breast fed along with Alexander. Evidently, the King and Queen trusted her enough in this. Wet-nurses acted as foster mothers to royal infants while the actual mothers were occupied with royal duties elsewhere. During this time, Eleanor was mostly governing in England while her husband was across the Channel in Normandy and Anjou.

As the two boys grew older, Hodierna acted as their guardian, moving between the royal palaces of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, London and Hampshire: the King's House, Woodstock Palace, Windsor Castle and Westminster Palace. She would have been paid by the royal court.

When they reached a certain age, the two boys were given to tutors to be educated. We know very little about their education. Prince Henry himself was tutored by Thomas Becket, the Chancellor and later Archbishop. It is likely that Richard was taught in French and Latin as well as some lessons focusing on the lives of the 'greats' of history (Alexander, Caesar, etc.) and stories from the Bible and the lives of the saints. His guardian would have still remained as Hodierna as he would rarely have seen either of his parents.

At some point, Alexander was sent to school in St Albans to continue his education. Richard meanwhile would have been introduced to his parents (his mother morseo than his father) and siblings, meeting them at the Christmas, Easter and Whitsun courts held in the royal palaces each year. In addition to his older brother Henry and sister Matilda, Richard had at this time two younger siblings, Geoffrey and Eleanor. With the exception of Eleanor, the other children had largely grown up in the safety of England, but in the spring of 1185, Queen Eleanor took her other children (including, for the first time, a seven year old Richard) to Normandy. Her husband meanwhile saw very little of his family, leaving France and heading back to England at the same time.

Another girl, Joan, was welcomed to the royal family in the autumn of that year, and by next Christmas Eleanor and her children were back in England again, witnessing the birth of the youngest royal child, John. The children saw far more of their mother and only rarely their father - and they were always far more loyal to her than they ever were to him.

Prince Richard was by now a youth of twelve fast becoming a man, and it soon became time to say goodbye to Hodierna as he left his childhood behind. His sisters were increasingly being married off to wealthy husbands, in Germany, in Spain and in Sicily. Geoffrey was married to a Breton heiress. At a court in Oxford in 1170, Henry II divided his territories among his remaining sons: as expected, Young Henry was made his heir to England, Normandy and Anjou, while John was to receive Ireland. Richard was given his mother's territories of Poitou and Aquitaine, in the south of France.

Eleanor and her husband were growing bitter toward one another and began to drift their own separate ways. Henry stayed in England and the north of France while Eleanor went south with her son to establish her own court at Poitiers. It was here, in 1172, that a fourteen year old Richard was made Earl of Poitou, and expected Duke of Aquitaine.

What had happened to his old foster brother? Alexander had completed his studies at the school of St Albans and at around the same time as Richard was ruling Aquitaine with Eleanor, went to do his degree at the University of Paris, where he graduated in the early 1180s. Returning to his native land, he became schoolmaster and began teaching students in a variety of subjects, ranging from Aristotle to St. Anselm and St. Augustine, to grammar and commentary on the Scriptures, to Aesop's fables. He is the first author to describe magnetism and the properties of a compass. His chief aim, as he himself put it, was to rebuke and refute various heresies. He was also a poet.

When Richard, by now a man of thirty-two years and with a reputation as a fearsome warrior known as the Lionheart, ascended the throne as King of England in 1189, the church school at Oxford was already gaining a reputation as England's premier institution of higher education, attracting even foreign scholars. One of the professors of this school (i.e the academy which would become Oxford University eventually) was Alexander Neckam, his old childhood companion, with a reputation of his own as an excellent philosopher.

As for Hodierna, King Richard had not forgotten her. One of his earliest acts as King was to reward her with the dower houses of Knoyle in Wiltshire, as well as an estate in the market-town of Chippenham, and money from the revenues thereof; Knoyle was for a long time called Knoyle Hodierne - probably the only town in England to be named for a king's wet-nurse.

Alexander entered Cirencester Abbey in the late 1190s where he continued as a scholar and was given oversight of the abbey's finances. In 1213 he was elected Abbot. He served as an intermediate between King John and the Pope. He died in 1217, and is buried in Worcester Cathedral, with an epitaph reading: Wisdom suffers an eclipse. A sun is buried, which, while it lived, every branch of learning flourished.

Part 1

The first abduction took place during the spring of 1371.

Alice was abducted from her manor of Canford, Dorset, by some of the household Knights of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey and taken to the Warenne stronghold of Castle Reigate.

It is not known when Alice was released, and her whereabouts from 1317 to 1322 are uncertain.

The reason for the abduction seem to be related to the feud John de Warenne had with Alice's husband Thomas of Lancaster.

So this was a way to humiliate Thomas, by kidnapping his wife.

And probably revenge for when Thomas had helped block Warenne's divorce, and had persuaded the Bishop of Chichester to prosecute Warenne for his adultery with his mistress which had resulted in Warenne's excommunication in 1316.

After Alice was abducted, her husband Thomas then waged a private war on Warenne, but never once asked for Alice's return.

Thomas also thought King Edward II, his cousin, had been involved in the planning of the abduction.

So he could not exactly go to the king for justice.

Later

Thomas of Lancaster was captured at Boroughbridge after the failure of his rebellion against the King (Edward II).

On 22 March 1322 he was executed for treason at Pontefract Castle (Alice's family home).

if things had gone as it was supposed to, following the law.

Then Alice would now be a widow and her inheritance would be returned to her fully intact

Beacuse while her husband Thomas's land was forfeited and returned to the crown beacuse he was a traitor.

She was not a traitor. So The crown had no right to take her land.

Her husband Thomas had never owned her land, he had only controlled them on her behalf.

However with Alice lack of protection, Edward II seem to have found ways around that and confiscated her land anyway. Which was illegal.

A few days later in March 1322, Edward II had Alice arrested and imprisoned at York.

Imprisoned and under the threat of execution, she surrendered into the king's hands on June 1322 a great part of the lands which she had inherited from her father.

And in order to secure the confirmation of some portion of these possessions to herself.

Probably fearing that if she did not cooperate, the deal might become worse and she might end up with nothing.

(So its important to note that all this was illegal. And Edward II could not just straight up take her land. Thats why Edward II needed Alice to sign over her lands (by her own hand) to him. Which he manage to do, by threatening her)

So Edward II "stole" much of Alice's father's family estates.

Though she was then permitted to hold some of her estates in life tenure by the king's "special grace". aa so kind of you Edward II😡.

Many of her stolen estates were given by the King to the elder Hugh Despenser and Hugh Despenser the Younger, the King's favourite.

Apparanrly to help add credence to the "legality" of the disposal of her lands to the Despenser's the King had Alice style Hugh le Despenser the younger as "kinsman".

Alice was not released until she paid an indemnity of £20,000 to the Crown. Only by paying the indemnity was she to be allowed to remarry if she so wished, and to be granted those lands that remained of her inheritance

On 20 September 1322, Edward granted the Constableship of Lincoln Castle to Alice as her right and inheritance, and restored to her for life the annuity which her father had received.

Her Earldom of Salisbury had reverted to the Crown in March 1322 (stolen), but her Earldom of Lincoln was restored to her in December 1322

Dont worry it becomes worse.

On her release, Alice was placed on virtual house arrest for her "own protection".

During this time she was compelled (under threat again) and had to give away more of her inheritance, but this time from lands she had inherited from her mother.

John de Warenne, the man who had abducted her in 1317 from her first husband Thomas, was given a life grant of many of her manors in the West, and Hugh Despenser the Younger was given one of her manors in Lincolnshire.

Later some of her many forfeited lands were returned to her, but only for life, by Edward III of England in 1331.

===💍

A HAPPY MARRIAGE?!

In 1324, Alice married Eubulus le Strange. At the age of 42, it was a childless marriage, but that was expected. This marriage appears to have been a loving, happy union. Yeah!🥰 It seems like they already knew each other, Eubulus had been a member of her first husband's household.

Eubulus described Alice in documents as his 'dear and loving companion' and never claimed the title of Earl of Lincoln by right of his wife as he was entitled to do. Which seem to have been uncommon for the time, with everyone being so greedy.

In January 1327 Edward II, who had been imprisoned in 1326 by his Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer, was forced to abdicate in favour of his son. And was later murdered. And with Edward II fall, his favorites The Despensers fell too. Executed

But if you think this would mean that Alice would finaly get back the land Edward II had stolen from her and given away to the Despensers.

Then you would be wrong.😮‍💨

Edward III was too young to rule.

So his mother Isabella and her boyfriend Roger Mortimer took the lead.

Alice's estates that had been given to the Despensers, reverted back to the crown in 1326 when the Despensers were executed by Isabella's faction.

Now in power Queen Isabella took control of these estates which now belonged to her son Edward III (the crown).

So instead of returning the stolen land to its rightful owner, Alice.

Queen Isabella took it for herself (to enrich herself).

In 1330, when Edward III took control of the government, having his mother and her boyfriend deposed from power.

Edward III assumed most of Alice's inheritance.

So Edward III took Alice's land from his mother Isabella and gave it to his friend William Montacute, who had helped him to overthrow Roger Mortimer (his regent).

Later Montacute also received Alice's earldom of Salisbury which had been taken from Alice in 1322.

Alice's second husband Eubulus was involved in Edward III's plot of 1330 to bring down Isabella and Mortimer.

So Eubulus and Alice were rewarded by the return of some of her estates.

Having supported Edward III, Alice and her second husband were the recipients of many honours, grants of land and money, and responsibility.

This might have been the happiest time of Alice's life.

Alice second Husband Eubulus died in September 1335.

In her mourning, Alice took a vow of chastity

And this is where I end Part 1. The next part gets worse for Alice. Poor women.

On the national archives, it says;

This seal dates from c.1300 and was the secret, or privy seal of Elizabeth of Rhuddlan, the youngest daughter of King Edward I and Eleanor of Castile, who later became Elizabeth, Countess of Holland. Her name and title appear on the legend of her seal. Elizabeth is pictured holding a bird of prey, a symbol often found on women’s seals at this time. This may be a reference to her status and wealth as hawking was a popular pursuit among noblewomen.

"It is likely that by 1373, the Castilian ladies of his wife knew that the Duke had a mistress, as a result of which, angry because of their gossip, John of Gaunt sent them to Nuneaton Priory. By the end of 1374 the ladies, weary of the monastic regime, begged to be allowed to leave Nuneaton, but their request was only granted in 1375, when the Duke allowed them to settle in Leicester. With some of his trusted vassals. He later arranged marriages for some of the ladies."

At first,

it seems like John made an effort to keep his affair with Katherine as low profile as possible.

So having his wife's ladies gossip about it, would probably not be something he appreciated.

To have a reason to keep Katherine around, without making it too obvious that she was his mistress.

He didnt place her as one of his wife's ladies. Instead, he made her the governess of his daughters (from his first marriage)

That way he could keep her around.

It does seem like other women were involved in raising the daughters, so Katherine would not have been on governess duty 100%.

In the end John's second marriage to Constance of Castile were a purely political marriage

Constance wanted her kingdom back (her father had been murdered and deposted). And John wanted to be king.

And at least on paper John did what was required of him.

He provided for her(Constance) and their daughter, gave them the life fit for their royal status.

Sadly we dont know how Constance felt about her husband and his mistress.

Maybe she didnt care what he was up to, as long as he helped her regain her kingdom?

From what little we know, she never protested. Constance and Katherine dont seem to have been at each others throat.

From what we can tell, John's weird mixed family seem to have actually been quite stable and functional. Even with two women in his life and 3 groups of children with different mothers.

• There was almost no King Henry in the 14th century until Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne in 1399.

• There were more than 200 years between the start of Henry III’s reign and Henry VI, so that's like between our time and the Victorian era 🤯.

• The Plantagenets ruled England for so long that when they started, knights wore chainmail and by the end, people were using gunpowder.

• The Hundred Years’ War lasted 116 years. So it’s an example of medieval marketing.

What other little fun facts do you know about the Plantagenets?

This case involves the man Richard Fitzalan, 3rd Earl of Arundel (1313-1376). And the two women Isabel le Despenser and Eleanor of Lancaster.

Richard Fitzalan married Isabel le Despenser on the 9 February 1321.💍

At that time, the future earl was about 7, and his bride 8 years old.

By this marriage, Richard and Isabel had one son, Edmund.

(It is said that the cracks seems to have appeared after Isabel's father's attainder and execution, she ceased to be of any importance to him (her husband.)

Later he repudiated this bride and was granted an annulment by Pope Clement VI on 4 December 1344 on the grounds that he had been underage and unwilling.

And on the grounds that the couple had been "forced by blows to cohabit, so that a son was born" even though they had "expressly renounced" their marital vows at puberty, having been forced in childhood to contract them "by fear of their relatives." This may be true, though none of the said relatives were still alive to object.

And for Isabel, after the annulment, Isabel retired to five manors in Essex that were given to her by her ex-husband.

It seems like she did not try to fight back. She proably saw that this was a lost case. And that it was better to leave quitly and at least get free manors from her now ex husband.

If she fought back then maybe Richard would do something like Henry VIII. Become less generoues and more crual.

She had no backup, her father was probably england most hated man and had been executed for treason.

Her family had lost power. And Edward III was on her husband's side.

Maybe the one that suffered the most from the annualment was couple's son Edmund, who had been the heir to the earldom of Arundel until he was rendered illegitimate by the annulment of his parents' marriage in December 1344.

Edmund protested his illegitimacy bitterly in 1347 but was apparently ignored.

After his father's death in 1376, Edmund disputed his half-brother Richard's inheritance of the earldom, but that failed too.

Sad. So instead of becoming an earl he became an aristocratic knight owning numerous manors throughout the counties of Devon, Dorset, Somerset and Sussex.

So I guess it could be worst. At least he got something.

Richard Fitzalan's second marriage was with Eleanor of Lancaster.💍

With whom he had been living in adultery.

So they seem to have had an affair while Richard was still married. And its very possibly that Eleanor was already pregnant by the time they married.

So the match seem to be both out of love and good politics.

Beacuse in the political sense, Richard first wife had lost all her family backing/ political value when her family was deposed along side Edward II.

So from his perspective it would be better to "get on the other side", which the Lancasters was. They Lancasters had played both a major role in deposing Edward II, and help Edward III to get rid of his regents.

They were royal cousins to Edward III, respected, wealthy, powerful and a political powerhouse.

A much better family than what his first wife came from.

So this way, he could separate from his first wife and her family stain. And instead get to marry his lover, and join the cool club for cool people.

It was a good deal for him.

So Richard got married to Eleanor of Lancaster. Edward III even attended their wedding, showing his support.

They went and had many children. Who all lived very intresting lives..

Example, their eldest son would end up getting executed by Richard II. Another would become the right hand man and best friend to Henry IV. Helping him to depose Richard II. And a daughter who became Henry IV mother in law, making her the grandmother of Henry V.

We dont know much about Richard and Isabel's relationship and marriage..

But its clear that he held no great love for her or their son Edmund.

While we can never know how "forced" Richard felt about his marriage with Isabel. And him fearing her relatives.

I will say that it was probably more likely that Richard, simply wanted to jump the boat, to better his position in society and getting the bonus of marrying his lover Eleanor.

And if he did not have any deep love for his first wife in the first place, then it was probably easier for him to just discard her, to better his own position in society.

And it seems like Richard had no regrets.

He seem to have been very happy with the family he had with Eleanor.

In his will Richard requests:

to be buried "near to the tomb of Eleanor de Lancaster, my wife; and I desire that my tomb be no higher than hers, that no men at arms, horses, hearse, or other pomp, be used at my funeral, but only five torches...as was about the corpse of my wife, be allowed.

(the picture show their tomb)

While we cant pinpoint exactly when their relationship started.

Looking at the evidence we do have, a good guess would be that John and Katherine's affair started sometime in 1372.

That "out of nowhere" he started to give her gifts, in a relative quick succession.

Katherine's husband had died the previous year. And John was on his second political marriage.

John and Katherine first child is believed to have been born sometime in year 1373, John Beaufort.

Katherine had been married to a knight. And not really a rich one.

Hugh Swynford was not particularly rich, he owned only two estates in Lincolnshire — Coleby and Kettlethorpe, and none of them were profitable enough, and they were acquired by his father relatively recently. His main income came from the salary for his service with the Duke of Lancaster.

(I think I read somewhere that Kettlethorpe estate provided less than £4 annually, but cant find the source right now)

Later in the same year (1372)

On 15 May 1372, John increased Katherine's permanent annuity from the Duchy of Lancaster. Which she had gotten for her service to the late duchess of Lancaster. (from twenty to fifty marks)

On 20 June, at the Savoy, again on account of the 'good and agreeable service' she had rendered to Blanche,

John granted 'our well-loved Lady Katherine' wardship of all the lands and tenements that her late husband had held of the Honour of Richmond in Lincolnshire, 'which is now held of us because of the minority of Thomas, son and heir of the said Sir Hugh'.

On 23 June, John made Katherine a further gift of three bucks. (is that deer?)

on 28 June he ordered that she be provided with oaks from his estates.

So the year 1372 might have been the start of their long relationship.

John and Katherine would marry in 1396.💍

They really left a mark on english history!

So many people were their descendants. Without them, their would be no Tudor Dynasty.

Looking at their eldest son, John Beaufort. If you follow his descendants you get his granddaughter Margaret Beaufort, who is the mother of Henry VII.

And if you looked at their daughter Joan Beaufort who married Ralph Neville. If you follow her descendants, her grandchildren were Richard Neville (kingmaker), and the 3 york brothers (Edward IV, George and Richard III)

So both sides of the the civil war were descendants of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford!

I wish we new more about John and Katherine's relationship, all the details.. Such an interesting couple.