Eleanor of Castile / Edward's fidelity
Michelle.Mu...@ccmail.team400.ie
commemorate each spot at which the coffin of his first wife, Eleanor of Castile,
rested on its way to burial.
However, I was wondering - was this an unusual gesture for the middle ages? Many
people have held this to be a great sign of affection by Edward I for his wife,
and I have not heard of any such action by another King. But would we be right
to judge it by modern standards as a great gesture by Edward, or was there a
precedent?
I believe I've heard before that the legend of Eleanor sucking the poison out of
Edward's wound in the Holy Land was false, but do we have any other evidence
that he held any unusual regard for Eleanor? Of course he married again after
her death, being a king with a bit of sense but only one son. And they were
married since Eleanor was very young, so they would have had time to develop a
real regard. Nevertheless, I'm just interested, as it seems we misinterpret
many medieval actions because we don't know the full context, and I wonder if
that might be the case in this instance.
Do we know of any/many illegitimate children of Edward I? If even his son,
Edward II (whom we can at least say was of "dubious" sexual orientation) had a
bastard, Adam, then surely Longshanks himself managed a couple here and there?
thanks,
Michelle
John Yohalem
--
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Opera depends on the happy fiction that feeling can be sustained over
impossibly long stretches of time." -- Joseph Kerman
Michelle.Murphy%EIH...@ccmail.team400.ie wrote in message
<01JAAGELH...@kira.team400.ie>...
There is no record of even an affair, much less a child, of Edward I with
anyone other than his wives. It was a notoriously happy marriage --
although, come to think of it, both his marriages were happy, and so was his
parents'. (Henry III never had an affair either.)
As for the crosses, we know of no other such procession, and it was
considered a remarkable event at the time. What more evidence do you want?
They were very expensive, very elaborately carved. (We have drawings of one
or two. None of the originals survive.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
John Carmi Parsons
*Eleanor of Castile: Queen and Society in Thirteenth-Century England*,
(1995) published by St Martin's Press in N. America and MacMillan in the
UK.
There were precedents for the Crosses. When Louis IX's body was brought
back to St Denis for burial following his death at Tunis in 1270, each
place wher the cortege stopped was marked by a monumental cross. None of
these survived the Revolution, but we have many medieval illustrations
and antiquarian sketches of them, and it's clear that they were the exact
blueprints for the Eleanor Crosses, both physically and inspirationally.
Single memorial crosses had been previously erected in England possibly as
far back as the reign of William the Conqueror--a cross in memory of his
wife Matilda is said to have been put up in London--and there was also a
single cross put up in memory of Henry III's widow Eleanor of Provence,
while Henry III had erected one to commemorate his cousin and friend the
earl of Surrey. But until Edward I put up the Eleanor Crosses, there had
never before been so many crosses in memory of one person in England.
The Acre legend is just that and nothing more. It first appears in an
Italian chronicle that was written in the 1320s. An English account
contemporary with the events at Acre, the work of Walter of Guisborough,
states merely that Eleanor had to be led weeping away from Edward's bed
before a daring surgeon cut the inflamed flesh away from the wound and
saved Edward's life--a much more believable story. There is, moreover, an
alternate version of the legend that says that it was Edward's friend and
ocusin, Otho de Grandison, who sucked the poison out of the wounds because
Otho supposedly led a charmed life and wasn't worried about the poison
killing him.
It was only in the late 16th century that the English antiquary William
Camden first publicized the Acre legend in England, where it doesn't seem
to have been known until then (at least, nobody refers to it before Camden
published *Britannia*). It was Camden who came up with the idea that Edward
meant the Crosses as a tribute to the wife who had selflessly risked her own
life to save his.
While Edward and Eleanor appear to have been respectful and faithful
spouses, we really don't know much about their intimate relationship (what
is on record is discussed in chapter 1 of my book). It has not been proved
that Edward was the father of John Botetourt, who is sometimes said to have
been his bastard son. The evidence is very slight and many problems with
it have been pointed out by various researchers (again see chapter one of
the book).
In other words, go out and buy the book, which is now available in
paperback.
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
one and possibly two others. The surviving crosses are at Hardingstone (just
outside Northampton), Geddington, and Waltham. The last has been very heavily
restored, particularly the upper portion, and the statues of Eleanor on the
Waltham cross were so badly deteriorated that they were removed some years ago
and are now kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (copies now
appear on the cross itself). The Geddington cross is the best-preserved of the
three. Fragments of the destroyed Chepe cross in London are kept in the
Guildhall Museum there, and what is alleged to be a portion of one of the
statues of the queen from the Lincoln cross is in the cathedral close in that
city--though the attribution is not beyond doubt.
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
What a charming post! I'll certainly get the book from Barnes and
Noble.
Eleanor of Castile must be the ancestor of many of us here on
soc.genealogy medieval.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "... all stories, if continued far enough end in
death and he is no true story teller who would keep that from
you." --- Ernest Hemingway; (1899-1961) "To die soon or die late
matters nothing; to die badly or die well is the important point." ---
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 B.C. --- A.D. 65)
John Carmi Parsons <jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.3.95.990421...@chass.utoronto.ca...
David Mowbray
John Carmi Parsons <jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca> writes
>Actually, John, 3 of the original crosses survive, together with fragments of
>one and possibly two others. The surviving crosses are at Hardingstone (just
>outside Northampton), Geddington, and Waltham. The last has been very heavily
>restored, particularly the upper portion, and the statues of Eleanor on the
>Waltham cross were so badly deteriorated that they were removed some years ago
>and are now kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (copies now
>appear on the cross itself). The Geddington cross is the best-preserved of the
>three. Fragments of the destroyed Chepe cross in London are kept in the
>Guildhall Museum there, and what is alleged to be a portion of one of the
>statues of the queen from the Lincoln cross is in the cathedral close in that
>city--though the attribution is not beyond doubt.
>
>John Parsons
Are you aware of the Beaumond Cross in Newark, Notts.? At school we were
told this was one of the Eleanor Crosses, but I'm not saying our history
master had any proof :-)
Maybe it was just an assumption because Newark lies on the Great North
Road from London to Scotland.
David
--
David Mowbray | Mowbray One-Name Study (G.o.ONS 986). Also seeking |
Cheltenham, UK | HERBERT (GLS); TANK (UK) + SCHNEIDER in WUE/GER |
e-mail: da...@mowfam.freeserve.co.uk or mow...@one-name.org
web page: http://www.mowfam.freeserve.co.uk
mailing list: see web page for subscription to Mow...@onelist.com
ED MANN
>
> There is no record of even an affair, much less a child, of Edward I with
> anyone other than his wives.
Alison Weir lists, but calls "still subject to some doubt" Edward I's
parentage of John Botetourt.
See BRF:88.
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
Reedpcgen
Botetourt was son of Edward I has been discounted. It was an erased entry, not
part of the original record.
pcr
John Carmi Parsons
Edward I's expense do not refer to the cross at Newark. It has been
suggested that it might nonetheless be an Eleanor monument, possibly put
up at the expense of her close friend (and executor) Henry de Lacy, earl
of Lincoln. That would at least explain why the royal records do not show
any expenditure for it. The hypothesis is also attractive because it is
otherwise very difficult to explain the extraordinarily long space between
the town of Lincoln, where Eleanor's funeral procession started its way
south to Westminster, and the northernmost of the Crosses Edward I erected.
A stop at Newark at the end of the first day's travel would have been
congruent with the spacing of the other eleven crosses and, since Newark
was within the earl of Lincoln's estates, he might very well have offered
to put up a cross at his own expense, or asked the king for permission to
do so. There is, unfortunately, no proof of the attribution.
John Parsons
John Carmi Parsons
paternity in *Eleanor of Castile*. For reasons which defy interpretation,
Botetourt's name was written in among those of Edward I's children in a
genealogical vignette in one manuscript (and one manuscript only) of the
Hayles Abbey chronicle in the British Library. Whatever was originally
written where Botetourt's name appears was first erased, and his name
added over the erasure with the description "nothus" (bastard). But the
genealogical tables through this MS are highly suspect--Henry III is
credited with a daughter Matilda, for example, and King John is given a
son William, neither of whom is known from any other source.
That Botetourt was a royal bastard is counter-indicated by a number of
other points. As Noel Denholm-Young remarks (*History and Heraldry, 1254
to 1310*) we know the names of several of Botetourt's brothers, and he
bore the same arms as they did, allowing for the then-current practice of
differencing arms merely by changing tinctures. It is, however, an error
on Denholm-Young's part (perpetuated in Given-Wilson's *Royal Bastards of
England*) that Botetourt inherited the manor of Mendlesham in Suffolk; it
came to him by marriage. Given-Wilson in fact relegates Botetourt to his
"doubtful" category (p. 179).
Finally, we possess a roll of the letters dispatched by the future Edward
II in 1304-05. These were published in the 1940s by Hilda Johnstone, who
later wrote a brief biography of Edward II as prince of Wales (1944),
based in part on these letters. In several of the letters, young Edward
shows that he was aware of the kinship that existed between himself and
the descendants of the OOW children of his granduncle Richard of Cornwall;
these individuals are all clearly and explicitly called the prince's
cousins or kinsmen. A number of the letters are addressed directly to
John Botetourt, who was by 1304-05 a royal justice--but in none of these
letters does Edward give the slightest indication, either in the form of
address or in the letters' content, that Botetourt might have been his brother.
John Parsons
Henry Sutliff
Reedpcgen wrote:
CP XIV corrections make John Botetourte a son of Edward I rather than possibly a
son of Edward I. Does anyone know what justification the editors of CP XIV have
made in making this correction in light of the evidence suggested on this list for
this relationship being false?
Henry Sutliff
John Carmi Parsons
No idea whatsoever why they changed it--and I'd sure like to know. JCP
Dcrdcr4
King Edward I, had a brother named Robert living in 1289. Reference: B. F.
Byerly, Records of the Wardrobe and Household, 1286-1289, pg. 258. Hope
this helps. Douglas Richardson
Reedpcgen
>> CP XIV corrections make John Botetourte a son of Edward I rather than
>possibly a
>> son of Edward I. Does anyone know what justification the editors of CP XIV
>have
>> made in making this correction in light of the evidence suggested on this
>list for
>> this relationship being false?
>
>No idea whatsoever why they changed it--and I'd sure like to know. JCP
>
>
Many of the corrections in CP XIV were sent by Brice Clagett and Neil Thompson
(and some therefore indirectly by me). The scope of the project was so vast
that it's my impression (upon discussing this with Neil, etc.), that it had not
been brought to Peter Hammond's attention before publication. Peter posted his
email address some time ago on this list, so it should be available through the
archives, should you want to ask directly.
pcr
Reedpcgen
for 'whose parentage is unknown' read 'bastard s. of Edward I' [Hailes Chron.,
in BM Cott. MS. Cleopatra, D III, f. 51, ex inform. A. R. Wagner]
So the information came from the Hailes Chronicle, which John has already
discussed. The information probably came from Wagner in note form before the
topic was examined by John and others in print.
pcr
David Mowbray
John Carmi Parsons <jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca> writes
>Edward I's expense do not refer to the cross at Newark. It has been
>suggested that it might nonetheless be an Eleanor monument, possibly put
>up at the expense of her close friend (and executor) Henry de Lacy, earl
>of Lincoln. That would at least explain why the royal records do not show
>any expenditure for it. The hypothesis is also attractive because it is
>otherwise very difficult to explain the extraordinarily long space between
>the town of Lincoln, where Eleanor's funeral procession started its way
>south to Westminster, and the northernmost of the Crosses Edward I erected.
>A stop at Newark at the end of the first day's travel would have been
>congruent with the spacing of the other eleven crosses and, since Newark
>was within the earl of Lincoln's estates, he might very well have offered
>to put up a cross at his own expense, or asked the king for permission to
>do so. There is, unfortunately, no proof of the attribution.
>
>John Parsons
Thanks for throwing light on my attempt to add information. Maybe I
should also have mentioned the cross in the market place at Grantham,
about which I have not heard any suggestions of its being an Eleanor
Cross, but nevertheless, I have always wondered if it is.
John Carmi Parsons
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, David Mowbray wrote:
> John Carmi Parsons <jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca> writes
>>The very copious records of expenses for the Eleanor Crosses erected at
>>Edward I's expense do not refer to the cross at Newark. It has been
>>suggested that it might nonetheless be an Eleanor monument, possibly put
>>up at the expense of her close friend (and executor) Henry de Lacy, earl
>>of Lincoln. That would at least explain why the royal records do not show
>>any expenditure for it. The hypothesis is also attractive because it is
>>otherwise very difficult to explain the extraordinarily long space between
>>the town of Lincoln, where Eleanor's funeral procession started its way
>>south to Westminster, and the northernmost of the Crosses Edward I erected.
>>A stop at Newark at the end of the first day's travel would have been
>>congruent with the spacing of the other eleven crosses and, since Newark
>>was within the earl of Lincoln's estates, he might very well have offered
>>to put up a cross at his own expense, or asked the king for permission to
>>do so. There is, unfortunately, no proof of the attribution.
> John,
> Thanks for throwing light on my attempt to add information. Maybe I
> should also have mentioned the cross in the market place at Grantham,
> about which I have not heard any suggestions of its being an Eleanor
> Cross, but nevertheless, I have always wondered if it is.
The original Eleanor Cross at Grantham was destroyed during the Civil War
(probably in 1645, certainly sometime before February 1647, when inquiry was
ordered into reports that the stone fragments had been pilfered by persons who
had used them for their own building purposes.
The exact location of the original Grantham Eleanor Cross stood is, remarkably
for one of these monuments, uncertain. The closest we can come to it is in a
letter from a local antiquary named Stukeley or Stukely to the earl of Oxford;
Stukely, who lived on the east side of St Peter's hill, indicated that the
original cross stood "before his door in a large area" (i.e., open place).
There is record of a market cross at Grantham as early as 1280, ten years
before Eleanor died. The present Market Cross there was erected in 1884 and
restored in 1910 to replace a 1779 original. Therefore it cannot be identical
to the lost Eleanor Cross, though some theorize that the Market Cross' very
substantial steps may be the original Eleanor Cross steps adapted to a new use.
Not impossible, but there's no way to prove it now.
John Parsons