Isabella was aware of her peril and realized that she had not the resources to withstand a siege. Nor could she afford to wait for the earls and Sully to arrive, for the Scots were already closing in on Tynemouth. In this crisis, she had to rely on the expertise and bravery of her young household squires, who made strenuous efforts to make good the priory’s crumbling fortifications, then, when it became clear that they could never hold it against the invaders, commandeered a ship so that the Queen could escape by sea to a safer place farther south; later, she would reward them for these services.111 But for the present, she had to endure a hazardous voyage in violent tempests, suffering great hardships and discomfort and dodging hostile Flemish ships that were policing the North Sea on behalf of their allies, the Scots. Tragically, one of her ladies was drowned while at sea, and another died soon after disembarking.112 Four years later, Isabella was to blame Despenser publicly for what had happened, claiming that he had persuaded Edward to take flight and ignored the consequences for herself. But the accusation was hardly justified, because Despenser’s own wife had been at Tynemouth with her, and it was his men who were to have gone to relieve it. But at the time, shattered by her experiences and the realization that Edward had put his own safety, and that of his favorite, above hers, it was understandable that Isabella should have held Despenser responsible. And by 1326, she was ready to blame all her misfortunes on him.
Afterward, when the Queen had thankfully reached dry land at Scarborough, and was preparing to travel to York to rejoin her husband, the King’s messengers came to Isabella113 and informed her that, after Edward’s flight, Bruce had seized all his effects at Rievaulx and had then gone on to defeat soundly the royal forces at Byland, where he captured the Earl of Richmond.114
Apparently, the Queen’s patience snapped at this point.
Photo Insert 1
PHILIP IV OF FRANCE WITH HIS CHILDREN AND HIS BROTHER, CHARLES OF VALOIS
Isabella (third from left) was born into the most illustrious royal house in Europe.
JEANNE OF NAVARRE
Isabella’s mother was a dignified and pious woman who twice defended her own territories ith great vigor.
ISABELLA OF FRANCE
“One of the fairest ladies in the world” and “the fairest of the fair.”
ISABELLA’S FATHER AND BROTHERS
PHILIP IV
“He is neither a man nor a beast, but a statue.”
LOUIS X
He was a frivolous young man with little interest in government.
PHILIP V
He was another such as his father, handsome, intelligent, and ruthless.
CHARLES IV
A clever and subtle man, he could be severe to those who opposed him.
THE WEDDING OF EDWARD II AND ISABELLA OF FRANCE, 1308
Although Edward’s good looks cannot have failed to make a good impression on his young bride, it is unlikely that the marriage was consummated at this time.
EDWARD II
Edward did not personify contemporary ideals of kingship: he didn’t even seem to want to be king and cared little for his royal duties.
EDWARD II
Edward’s “excessive love” for Piers Gaveston “surpassed the love of women,” and he was accused by a contemporary of desiring “wicked and forbidden sex.”
ISABELLA OF FRANCE
“A most elegant lady, and a very beautiful woman.”
ISABELLA OF FRANCE
The Queen was “all that is prudent, amiable and feminine.”
ISABELLA OF FRANCE
Isabella proved herself to be a capable woman of above average ability and soon gained a reputation as a peacemaker.
MARGUERITE OF FRANCE
Isabella’s aunt was “good withouten lack,” yet her frequent absences from court deprived the young Isabella of the support she so badly needed.
CHARLES IV WELCOMES ISABELLA TO PARIS, 1325
“We will find some remedy for your condition,” Charles assured his desperate sister.
ISABELLA SAILS WITH HER INVASION FLEET TO ENGLAND, 1326
“God was merciful and helped them. He altered their course by a miracle.”
ISABELLA RIDES WITH ROGER MORTIMER TO OXFORD, 1326
Wherever the Queen went, “she found favour with all.”
ISABELLA ARRIVES AT BRISTOL, 1326
“When the people of the town saw that almost all England was on her side,” they “joyfully” opened their gates.
CHAPTER SIX
Then Let Her Live Abandoned and Forlorn
Until the autumn of 1322, there is no suggestion in any source that Isabella was anything but supportive of her husband, nor that he held her in anything other than high esteem. To every appearance, in the ten years following the death of Gaveston, theirs had been a strong and successful royal marriage. She had proved herself a loyal and devoted wife, and he had treated her with honor, respect, and generosity. Now all that was to change. Between 1 November 1322 and 18 September 1324, there is barely a mention of Isabella in the Chancery Rolls and the household accounts;1 she virtually ceased to exercise any patronage, and only a few minor gifts to her are recorded.2 Taken together, these are strong indications that she had fallen from favor. There can be little doubt that her indignation at her plight at Tynemouth had led to a falling-out between her and Edward.
More to the point, she must have given vent to her fury and resentment against the Younger Despenser, whose pernicious influence was gradually eroding her own power and had also, she was adamant, placed her in dire peril. Even discounting this, she naturally resented his hold over her husband, and if she knew that he was a rival in a more personal sense, there was even more reason for her jealousy. In the years when Edward had been emotionally and probably sexually involved with Gaveston, she had been a virtual child, too young to deal with the situation; now, however, she was a confident, beautiful woman of twenty-seven, the mother of four children, one of them the heir to the throne, and would not so meekly tolerate this insult to her position, or her femininity.
Later evidence suggests that Isabella’s revulsion was triggered by the knowledge that Despenser’s power over the King was rooted in a perverted sexual dominance.3 It may well be significant that she bore Edward no more children after 1321. Paul Doherty has pointed out that, in her later letters to the King, it is the Younger Hugh she singles out for bitter criticism, while making no mention of the Elder Despenser. Since it is clear that most of the political establishment regarded the latter as being almost as responsible as his son for the tyranny of these years, it is likely that Isabella’s hatred for the son was born of personal jealousy and resentment. She had no real quarrel with the Elder Despenser: he was not her rival in her husband’s bed, nor is there any evidence that he ever treated her vindictively. One chronicler states that he was in fact a worthy man who was led astray and ultimately destroyed by his devotion to his son. But he was deeply unpopular nevertheless.
Several writers have speculated that the rift between Edward and Isabella occurred so suddenly that there was perhaps another, more sinister reason for it. Later on, Isabella bitterly accused Despenser of being an “intruder” in her marriage and alienating the King’s affections from her: “Someone has come between my husband and myself, trying to break this bond.”4 This, of course, could either refer to Despenser’s attempts to poison the King’s mind against the Queen or be an allusion to a homosexual relationship between Edward and Despenser. But in February 1326, Isabella complained that Hugh had wished to dishonor her by every possible means,5 an assertion repeated in the accusations made against Despenser in November 13266 and by most chroniclers. In light of this, it has been suggested7 that the Queen was the victim of some sexual offense committed by Despenser. The words “by every possible means,” while they perhaps to a degree refer to Despenser’s vicious campaign to discredit Isabella, the disrespectful and injurious way in which he was to treat her, and his possible homosexual relationship with her husband, are
also suggestive of some serious sexual misconduct toward the Queen herself with the intent of humiliating and intimidating her. Had Hugh thrust himself into her marriage bed, with Edward’s connivance, or even raped her? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, considering his cruelty toward other women.
Edward responded to Isabella’s accusation by protesting, both to her and to her brother Charles IV, that “never, in the slightest instance, has evil been done to her by [Despenser]” and that “he could never perceive that Hugh, privately or openly, in word or deed or in countenance, did not behave himself on all points towards the Queen as he ought to have done to his lady.” Furthermore, he stressed, she had had no cause to allege that she had gone in fear of her life from Despenser.8 Clearly, Edward was blatantly twisting the truth, or his memory was very short.
There are other factors that possibly contributed toward Isabella’s anger with her husband. Foremost among them may have been pent-up exasperation and bitterness that had been mounting over the years when she had put up with his weaknesses, and fury that, having striven so dutifully to play her part as his wife and queen, sometimes in the face of extreme provocation, he was now prepared to supplant her with Despenser. It may be that she had long secretly despised him for failing to live up to the ideal of kingship personified by her father, Philip IV, and that any respect she had had for him had now been shattered.
The Chronographia Regum Francorum—never very reliable—asserts that Edward was involved at this time in an affair with his niece, Eleanor de Clare,9 as well as with her husband, Hugh,10 which would certainly have accounted for Isabella’s disillusionment. Not only did he correspond with Eleanor, but he had also given her some of the property confiscated from Lancastrian traitors after Boroughbridge, while Isabella received nothing.11 None of this, however, is proof of any sexual relationship between Edward and Eleanor, and it is probably merely evidence of an uncle’s affection for a favorite niece, albeit one whose husband was an enemy of the Queen.
Was Isabella also angry because she had learned that her husband was being promiscuous with lowborn men? In one of Edward’s chamber books of 1322, there is a record of substantial payments made by the King to Robin and Simon Hod, Wat Cowherd, Robin Dyer, and others for spending fourteen days in his company. Of course, they may have joined him in innocent pastimes such as digging ditches, but this is not mentioned, and the words “in his company” sound euphemistic, while the substantial sums paid to these men were perhaps hush money. And as they stayed for two weeks, the Queen would surely have got to hear of it.
Whatever the reason for this falling-out between the royal couple, Isabella had probably betrayed her true feelings, and Despenser—who had for some time regarded her as a threat to his own influence—was ready to capitalize on it. He now did everything in his power to create a serious rift between husband and wife. Froissart states that he “maliciously caused such discord between [them] that, for a long time, the King would neither remain in the Queen’s company, nor even see her at all.” On 23 December, Edward announced to his sheriffs and bailiffs that, after Christmas, which they were to spend together at York, the Queen would depart on an extended pilgrimage throughout England that would last for no less than nine months, until Michaelmas 1323; the royal officials were commanded to offer her every assistance on her journey.12 Since there is no evidence that Isabella ever went on such a pilgrimage, we may perhaps infer from this announcement either that Despenser had so effectively succeeded in poisoning Edward’s mind against her that he was ready to banish her from his side, as Froissart asserts, or that Isabella had angrily withdrawn from the King’s company; in either case, Edward would have had to come up with a diplomatic explanation for her absence.
On 12 January 1323, when the King and Queen arrived back in London, Isabella took up residence in the Tower with Prince Edward and stayed there until 17 February or later.13 It is recorded that on 3 February, she dined with her ten-year-old son in the Tower.
Matters between the royal couple cannot have improved when, in February, Edward launched an attack on Louis de Beaumont, the Bishop of Durham. After Byland, Beaumont, despairing that the King would ever succeed in protecting his northern subjects, had attempted to negotiate a peace with Bruce. The King angrily reminded him of his promise to be “a stone wall against the Scots” and complained that the Bishop had not kept his word.14 Naturally, Despenser exploited this quarrel; he may even have fostered it, as a means of discrediting the Queen, who had secured Beaumont’s election. As a result, Henry de Beaumont and Isabella de Vesci, who had long been friends of both the King and the Queen, also lost Edward’s favor.
On 7 February, the Queen and Eleanor de Clare lent their weight to petitions submitted by John de Sadington.15 Ten days later, they both wrote letters to the acting Treasurer, Walter de Norwich, asking him to show all the favor he could in paying out the modest amount that the King had allocated for the sustenance of the imprisoned Lady Mortimer, to whom Isabella now referred as “our dear and well-beloved cousin.”16 The Queen was undoubtedly sympathetic to this lady’s plight, but she was aware that her own influence had been eroded and knew that, in enlisting the support of Despenser’s wife, she was ensuring that her plea stood a greater chance of success.17
It may be no more than a coincidence that these letters were written in the Tower, where Lady Mortimer’s husband and his uncle were incarcerated. It is highly unlikely that Isabella visited them during her stay: they had, after all, been convicted of treason against her husband. But it is possible that Roger had managed to get a message to the Queen, pleading with her to help his wife. Six months later, it became clear that he had won the sympathy of Gerard d“Alspaye, the Sub-Lieutenant of the Tower, a process that might not have happened overnight. In February, this man’s loyalty to the King may have been so far subverted that he agreed secretly to pass a plea to the Queen.
The outcome of the petitions of the Queen and Eleanor de Clare is unknown. Lady Mortimer remained in prison in Hampshire until April 1324, when she was moved to the royal castle of Skipton-in-Craven in Yorkshire, where she was permitted four female servants and a pittance of only one mark per day for her food and expenses.18
Between 7 February and 10 June, Isabella’s movements cannot be easily traced. Perhaps she did go on a private pilgrimage to various shrines. Certainly, she was maintaining a low profile, or being made to do so.
After a few months of the Despensers’ tyranny, people began to forget Lancaster’s treason and self-interest and remembered only that he had striven to mitigate royal oppression and misgovernment. Already, he was being venerated not only as a popular hero but as a martyr for English liberties and even as a saint.19 The cult of “Saint” Thomas quickly flourished among the credulous: his tomb at Pontefract became a place of pilgrimage, as did Saint Paul’s Cathedral, where attached to a pillar was a tablet that bore his effigy and commemorated the Ordinances he had made it his mission to enforce. Before long, there was talk of miracles taking place at his tomb—it was said that a dead child had been brought back to life and cripples made whole—and songs comparing him to Thomas à Becket and Simon de Montfort became widely popular. By 1325, Lancaster was being linked in the popular imagination to Saint George,20 and there were calls for his canonization.
Lancaster was proving almost as much of a threat in death as he had been in life. In some alarm, the King had the tablet removed and forbade the pilgrimages, placing a guard over Lancaster’s tomb to keep the people away, but many defied him and continued to flock to the priory at Pontefract and also to the denuded pillar in Saint Paul’s.21 In 1323, two thousand people, finding themselves barred from leaving offerings at the tomb, attacked the King’s guards and killed two of them.22 This is some measure of the strength of feeling against the Despenser-led government and a weak and vicious King.
On 3 March 1323, Andrew Harclay was executed for treason. Shaken and disgusted, like Beaumont, by what had happened at Byland, he had taken it upon himself to mak
e terms with the Scots, with a view to recognizing Bruce as their king, something that Edward would never countenance. But Harclay was more of a realist than the King—the Pope himself recognized Bruce’s sovereignty that year—and his crime had been committed in the interests of peace, for he was convinced that this long and grueling war could not be won; later it transpired that Queen Isabella herself held similar views. Harclay’s punishment was to suffer the full horrors of a traitor’s death, although he died protesting he was no traitor.23 Thereafter, Pembroke and Despenser were active in negotiating the thirteen-year truce with Bruce that was concluded on 30 May.24 There would be no more fighting for the rest of Edward’s reign.