Read Online Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II by Paul Doherty - Free Book Online
Authors: Paul Doherty
Ads: Link
rings true. It also shows the depth and extent of Kent’s following. Men like William of Melton andStephen Gravesend would not have entered into such a conspiracy, taking oaths on the Bible, unless Kent had furnished proof. So what was this? Undoubtedly, some of the evidence mentioned above provided some proof, possibly reinforced with rumour and gossip from Berkeley Castle and the principality of Wales. But in the end Kent failed because, like Mortimer, he did not know where his half-brother truly was. At this point, Mortimer intervened: Kent had to be caught and shut up as quickly as possible. If he was looking for his half-brother, then why not bring the matter swiftly to an end and furnish him with a false lead?
Kent rose to the bait. He was lured to Corfe Castle and trapped. When he was arrested at Winchester, according to the
Brut Chronicle,
Mortimer confronted him.
Sir Edmund Earl of Kent, you shall understand . . . that ye be his [King Edward III’s] deadly enemy and traitor and also a common enemy unto this realm for you have been, many a day, working to deliver Sir Edward, some time King of England, your brother, who was put out of his rule by common assent of all the lords of England, in conspiracy against our Lord the King’s estates and also of his realm:
This same declaration was repeated when Kent was formally interrogated by the coroner of the King’s household. 4 Neither statement actually states that King Edward II was dead, only in that in trying to deliver him from prison, Kent had committed high treason. The repetition of the same passage in a chronicle, a direct quotation of the charges made against the Earl, only increases suspicion that Edward II was not actually dead. Queen Isabella, inparticular, was furious at Kent for putting her husband back in the centre of the political arena. She visited her son ‘and bade him with her blessing that he [Edward III] should be avenged upon him [Edmund Earl of Kent] as upon his deadly enemy’. She swore an oath ‘by her father’s soul’ that she would be avenged on Kent and refused the disgraced Earl both compassion and a fair trial: Kent was dragged out and executed, at the Queen’s express command, to silence him quickly and quietly. 5
Isabella and Mortimer did their level best to quell all rumours about Edward II’s possible survival. In doing so, they also pinpointed the real source of Kent’s story: – Dunheved’s assault on Berkeley Castle. John Walwayn was the clerk sent to Berkeley to clear up the chaos after the attack: Walwayn, by no coincidence, was also Isabella’s emissary to Pope John XXII to scotch Kent’s story. If Walwayn’s panic alerted historians over 660 years later, it must have had the same effect in the hurly-burly days of 1327. Did Kent discover this? And did Isabella send Walwayn to ‘purge’ his mistake before the Pope? 6
The Earl of Kent’s execution proved the last straw for the young Edward III. The
coup
which toppled Mortimer and Isabella in the autumn of 1330 at Nottingham Castle provided him with a heaven-sent opportunity to discover the truth about his father’s death. At this point Isabella may have been questioned; Mortimer and Beresford certainly would have been. The Marcher lord was held for at least a month, Beresford for two months, before execution was carried out. Mortimer was not allowed to speak at his trial in 1330. On the scaffold he expressed, or was forced to express, deep contrition at the way Kent had been trapped and executed. But was he reallyadmitting that Kent’s plot had been a tissue of lies, not really justifying his summary execution? Or was he openly proclaiming, in a highly ambiguous way, that Kent’s death was unjust, that the Earl had been executed for discovering the truth?
Edward III was certainly in no great hurry to arrest the others involved in his father’s death. Mortimer fell from power on 19 October 1330. Parliament did not pass sentence on Gurney and Ockle until 26
Kent rose to the bait. He was lured to Corfe Castle and trapped. When he was arrested at Winchester, according to the
Brut Chronicle,
Mortimer confronted him.
Sir Edmund Earl of Kent, you shall understand . . . that ye be his [King Edward III’s] deadly enemy and traitor and also a common enemy unto this realm for you have been, many a day, working to deliver Sir Edward, some time King of England, your brother, who was put out of his rule by common assent of all the lords of England, in conspiracy against our Lord the King’s estates and also of his realm:
This same declaration was repeated when Kent was formally interrogated by the coroner of the King’s household. 4 Neither statement actually states that King Edward II was dead, only in that in trying to deliver him from prison, Kent had committed high treason. The repetition of the same passage in a chronicle, a direct quotation of the charges made against the Earl, only increases suspicion that Edward II was not actually dead. Queen Isabella, inparticular, was furious at Kent for putting her husband back in the centre of the political arena. She visited her son ‘and bade him with her blessing that he [Edward III] should be avenged upon him [Edmund Earl of Kent] as upon his deadly enemy’. She swore an oath ‘by her father’s soul’ that she would be avenged on Kent and refused the disgraced Earl both compassion and a fair trial: Kent was dragged out and executed, at the Queen’s express command, to silence him quickly and quietly. 5
Isabella and Mortimer did their level best to quell all rumours about Edward II’s possible survival. In doing so, they also pinpointed the real source of Kent’s story: – Dunheved’s assault on Berkeley Castle. John Walwayn was the clerk sent to Berkeley to clear up the chaos after the attack: Walwayn, by no coincidence, was also Isabella’s emissary to Pope John XXII to scotch Kent’s story. If Walwayn’s panic alerted historians over 660 years later, it must have had the same effect in the hurly-burly days of 1327. Did Kent discover this? And did Isabella send Walwayn to ‘purge’ his mistake before the Pope? 6
The Earl of Kent’s execution proved the last straw for the young Edward III. The
coup
which toppled Mortimer and Isabella in the autumn of 1330 at Nottingham Castle provided him with a heaven-sent opportunity to discover the truth about his father’s death. At this point Isabella may have been questioned; Mortimer and Beresford certainly would have been. The Marcher lord was held for at least a month, Beresford for two months, before execution was carried out. Mortimer was not allowed to speak at his trial in 1330. On the scaffold he expressed, or was forced to express, deep contrition at the way Kent had been trapped and executed. But was he reallyadmitting that Kent’s plot had been a tissue of lies, not really justifying his summary execution? Or was he openly proclaiming, in a highly ambiguous way, that Kent’s death was unjust, that the Earl had been executed for discovering the truth?
Edward III was certainly in no great hurry to arrest the others involved in his father’s death. Mortimer fell from power on 19 October 1330. Parliament did not pass sentence on Gurney and Ockle until 26
Similar Books
