How Significant Were Perceptions Of Marital Fidelity As An Aspect Of Kingship In The Thirteenth And Fourteenth Centuries?
By Jacob Deacon
It was not uncommon for monarchs of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to engage in extra-marital affairs. King John had several bastard children before 1200 and went on to keep several mistresses; Edward II fathered the illegitimate Adam FitzRoy and was rumoured to have been the lover of both Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger; Edward III towards the end of his marriage to Philippa of Hainault began an affair with Alice Perrers which produced several offspring; and Richard II was accused by Thomas Walsingham of having a sexual relationship with Robert De Vere.[1] Given the supposed importance of Christian principles throughout the Middle Ages, one may assume that martial fidelity was something that medieval kings failing to live up to this ideal would often be criticised for, yet this was rarely the case.
This paper, concentrating on the above mentioned monarchs, will argue that marital fidelity, whilst no means encouraged as a form of acceptable behaviour, was rarely used to criticise the kings of England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and played little part in perceptions of their rule. What did affect perceptions of kingship was when these affairs became more than infidelious liaisons and acquired the potential to undermine the political community. This often took the form in criticism of the king favouring his paramour above other members of the nobility who felt that they were perhaps more deserving of the king’s blessing, yet sometimes the target of the king’s affection was the root of the problem. Furthermore, in order to focus on perceptions of marital fidelity, this essay has focused on the writings of medieval chroniclers in favour of sources produced by monarchs. However, there are various problems with this area of study which must be mentioned before any analysis can occur. In dealing with perceptions of marital fidelity and royal affairs we are dealing `with a world of rumour`, where the only concrete evidence for an affair is often in the existence of illegitimate offspring.[2]
Evidence for the notion that marital fidelity was not significant as an aspect of kingship can be seen in the existence of several royal bastards across the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Out of the seven monarchs who ruled between 1200 and 1400 three of them fathered illegitimate children. However, this does not seem to have had an impact on perceptions of their kingship due to the fact that their bastard children were given little political power when compared to their legitimate offspring. There is no evidence that any of John’s bastards were ever summoned to court or given a position of power, although his daughter Joan was married to the Welsh prince Llywelyn ab Iorweth.[3] Adam fitzRoy, the son of Edward II, was tasked with accompanying his father on a Scottish campaign, who paid for him to be equipped accordingly, but this seems to be the extent of his Edward’s political affection for Adam.[4] Edward III’s illegitimate offspring likewise seem to have lived in a manner very similar to John’s bastards; John de Southeray was married to a member of the nobility but no further action seems to have been taken to increase his political status.[5]
There is of course, reasoning behind the decision of English monarchs to effectively politically side-line their illegitimate children. The twelfth century had seen individuals such as Geoffrey Plantagenet, a favoured son of Henry II, attempt to vie for the throne or other powerful secular offices; Richard I had to eventually force him to become ordained and take office as the Archbishop of York in order to quell his secular political aims.[6] However, once Richard was secure in his throne he seemed to have little problem in rewarding his half-brothers as William Longespée was made Count of Salisbury through marriage before John’s reign.[7] On the whole though, kings in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries seem to have learned from the example of Geoffrey in order to secure the inheritance of their legitimate children, ultimately preventing this aspect of royal infidelity from altering perceptions of their kingship.
In fact, perceptions of infidelity seem to play a much greater role in the work of modern historians as opposed to medieval chroniclers. Popular historians, such as Frank McLynn, have played up several aspects of royal infidelity and judged them by modern standards in order to persuade readers of the character of kings. John, for example, is characterised by McLynn as a `priapic satyr` who spent most of his money on his mistress and ran `a veritable harem of lemans, concubines and grandes horizontales`.[8] However, it is plausible that this is merely done by writers hoping to further demonize John; by highlighting these aspects of his personality which are seen as unmoral by modern standards it becomes easier to criticise him as king. Similarly, several historians across the twentieth and twenty first centuries have given considerable attention to Edward II’s supposed homosexuality and affairs with Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, whereas historians such as Mortimer have been quick to point out that medieval ideas of homosexuality were entirely different to modern understandings of the term and often had strong political connotations.[9] This later point can also be seen in the reign of Richard II. Although his rumoured relationship with Robert de Vere had no impact on his eventual dethronement, he was still accused of `sodomitical acts` by Henry Bolingbroke; however these were used to imply that Richard was unmanly and therefore unfit to rule his kingdom as opposed to being a judgement on the king’s private life. [10]
A further example of the dichotomy between medieval and modern attitudes towards infidelity can be seen in Edward III’s supposed rape of the Countess of Salisbury. Jean le Bel attests that through this act Edward `committed a great wrong`, but this appears to be due to the unwilling nature on the Countesses’ part as opposed to him being unfaithful to his wife.[11] Although le Bel describes how the king was `reproached by everyone` for his rape of the Countess, it is interesting to note how the infidelious aspect of the rape is never mentioned, further reinforcing notions that perceptions of marital fidelity were not an important part of perceptions of kingship in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.[12] What makes this example particularly interesting is the complete lack of evidence for it ever taking place; Froissart is the only chronicler to report this story, with Mortimer claiming that it was in fact a piece of propaganda invented by one of Edward’s enemies.[13] If this story then originally circulated through a desire to harm Edward’s reputation, it is interesting that his critics seemed to ignore how in his pursuit of the Countess he was being unfaithful to his wife.
As already mentioned, in order for infidelity to affect perceptions of kingship, the affair had to take on political significance in the eyes of the king’s subjects. Both Henry I and Henry II had been promiscuous, but for the most part this was without political repercussions.[14] Similarly no-one batted an eyelid in relation to John’s bastards but his pursuit of the female relatives of Eustace de Vesci and Robert fitzWalter gave both of them personal reasons to rise up against John later on his reign; Nicholas Vincent points out that `a king who dallied with the wives and daughters of his barons was likely to excite far more bitter resentment than a king who confined his extra-marital entertainments to low born courtesans`.[15] The reign of Edward II also highlights how whether an affair had political consequences or not was important to how the king was perceived; there is no evidence that Queen Isabella ever took steps against her illegitimate step-son Adam fitzRoy, yet was a staunch critic of Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger, who she saw as usurping her power.[16] Similarly, it was not until Alice Perrers began to control access to the aging Edward III that the nobility began to act against her.
Thus, when the king’s affair began to affect the political community, it was not uncommon for the nobility to take steps against the king, the most notable cases being perhaps the steps taken against the lovers of Edward II and Edward III. Geoffrey le Baker writes how at Edward II’s coronation Piers `outshone them all in the splendour of his dress and apparel, this inspiring general resentment and a wicked hatred of his person, in that he challenged prerogatives which pre-eminently belonged to the nobility alone`.[17] Arguably it was this belief that Piers was `eclipsing the glory of native Englishmen` that led the nobility to seek his downfall, as opposed to the affair between him and Edward.[18] This view is shared by the Vita Edwardi Secundi, which reports that `if Piers had behaved discreetly and humbly towards the great men of the land none of them would ever have opposed him`.[19] Both the conclusions of le Baker and the Vita would support the argument that perceptions of marital fidelity were not significant in perceptions of kingship; what seems to matter here is Edward’s blatant favouritism of Piers at the expense of other nobles. It seems entirely likely that if Edward had treated his nobility with greater respect or Piers had behaved more humbly then their relationship would not have been viewed so negatively by the aristocracy, or at the very least they would not have actively sought Piers’ death.
Very similar principles apply to Isabella’s later efforts against the Despensers. Hugh Despenser the Younger was appointed chamberlain the year after Piers’ death, and by 1320 he had `bewitched the King’s mind`.[20] It was not long until Isabella became ready `to commit any crime against him after he fixed and limited the amount of money she could spend`, and shortly after she left for France in 1324 began to plan her revenge on Edward.[21] Of interest here is that Isabella’s eventual affair with Mortimer is described as `unlawful`, whereas no ethical judgements are pronounced on the infidelity of medieval men.[22] However, it appears as if Isabella’s primary motive for acting against her husband was her envy of the growth of the Despensers’ power which came at the cost to her own, and it was this justification which won her the support of the nobility in seeking to depose Edward. Comparisons here can be sought with the actions of Simon de Montfort and his supporters, who acted against Henry III in order `to banish the disturbers of the peace from the country` despite there being no claims of Henry partaking in a licentious relationship.[23]
The potential for favouritism to be a concern of the nobility rather than fidelity continues in to the reign of Edward III. Mortimer argues that given Edward’s encouragement of a culture of `intense sexual excitement` at his court it was likely that he conducted several extramarital affairs, but it was not until his relationship with Alice Perrers that he began to face criticism for these `wanton sexual couplings`.[24] What alienated Edward’s magnates was not the originally infidelious nature of his relationship with Alice, but her ascendancy and domination of royal patronage.[25] With the ageing Edward devoid of public opinion it did not take long for Alice to become the most influential member of Edward’s inner circle, and his most important advisor.[26] Once she had ascended to this powerful position, which was unbecoming for a former lady-in-waiting, Edward’s nobles understandably became envious and sought her removal from this position and her banishment from the realm.[27] This once again reinforces arguments that whilst infidelity was not a primary cause for concern amongst the political community, royal favouritism had the potential to undermine the realm.
Ultimately, one can see that despite the king’s marital fidelity playing no part in perceptions of his kingship, the impact of the king’s illicit romance often featured in criticisms of his reign. John’s seduction of several of his baron’s daughters gave many a personal reason to rise up in rebellion, whilst the behaviour of (or similar to) Edward III towards Alice Perrers, a political nobody, inflamed the anger of Edward’s aristocracy. Further evidence of perceptions being influenced more by the level of power given by the king to his companions than any sexual relationship can be seen in criticisms of Richard II and his treatment of Robert de Vere. In conclusion, although marital fidelity did not feature as a significant aspect of kingship in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the king’s behaviour towards his partners certainly did.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Henry Knighton, Knighton’s Chronicle, 1337-1396, trans. Martin G. H., (Oxford, 1995)
Jean le Bel, The True Chronicles of Jean le Bel, 1290-1360, trans. Bryant N., (Woodbridge, 2011)
Matthew Paris, English History from the year 1235 to 1273, Vol.3, trans. Giles J.A., (New York, 1968)
Thomas Walsingham, The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, trans. Preest D., (Woodbridge, 2005)
Vita Edwardi Secundi: The Life of Edward II, trans. Childs W.R., (Oxford, 2005)
Secondary Sources
Carpenter D., The Struggle for Mastery: Britain 1066-1284 (London, 2004)
Flori J., Richard the Lionheart: King and Knight, trans. Birrell J., (Edinburgh, 1999)
Galbraith V.H., `Good Kings and Bad Kings in Medieval English History`, History, 30, (1945), pp.119-32
Gillingham J., ‘John (1167–1216)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2010), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14841, accessed 19 March 2015)
Given-Wilson C., ‘Perrers , Alice (d. 1400/01)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21977, accessed 12 March 2015
Gransden A., Historical Writing in England, c.1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century, (London and New York, 1996)
Hilton L., Queen’s Consort: England’s Medieval Queens, (London, 2008)
Huneycutt L.L., `Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages`, Haskins Society Journal, 1, (1989), pp.61-71
McLynn F., Lionheart and Lackland; King Richard, King John and the Wars of Conquest, (London, 2007)
Mortimer I., `Sermons of Sodomy A Reconsideration of Edward II’s Sodomitical Reputation`, in The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives, ed. Dodd G. and Mason A., (Woodbridge, 2006), pp.48-57
Mortimer I., Edward III: The Perfect King, (London, 2008)
Ormrod W.M., Edward III, (New Haven and London, 2011)
Ormrod W.M.,, ‘Edward III (1312–1377)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8519, accessed 19 March 2015
Ormrod W.M., The Reign of Edward III, (New Haven and London, 1990)
Ormrod W.M., `The Sexualities of Edward II`, in The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives, ed. Dodd G. and Mason A., (Woodbridge, 2006), pp.22-47
Parsons J.C., Medieval Queenship, (Stroud, 2004)
Phillips J. R. S., Edward II (New Haven and London, 2010)
Rubin M., The Hollow Crown: A History of Britain in the Late Middle Ages (London, 2005)
Tuck A., ‘Richard II (1367–1400)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2009), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23499, accessed 14 March 2015
Vincent N., `Isabella of Angoulême: John’s Jezebel` in King John: New Interpretations, ed. Church S.D., (Woodbridge, 2003), pp.165-219
Warren W. L., King John (New Haven and London, 1997)
End Notes
[2] Vincent N., `Isabella of Angoulême: John’s Jezebel` in King John: New Interpretations, p.204
[3]Gillingham J., ‘John (1167–1216)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2010), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14841, accessed 19 March 2015)
[4] Phillips J. R. S., Edward II, p.428-9
[5] Ormrod W.M., Edward III, (New Haven and London, 2011), p.464
[6] Flori J., Richard the Lionheart: King and Knight, trans. Birrell J., (Edinburgh, 1999) p.80
[7]Gillingham J., ‘John (1167–1216)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2010), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14841, accessed 19 March 2015
[8] McLynn F., Lionheart and Lackland; King Richard, King John and the Wars of Conquest, (London, 2007), p.93; Ibid, p.289
[9] Mortimer I., `Sermons of Sodomy A Reconsideration of Edward II’s Sodomitical Reputation`, in The Reign of Edward II: New Perspectives, ed. Dodd G. and Mason A., (Woodbridge, 2006), pp.48-57, p.56
[10]Tuck A., ‘Richard II (1367–1400)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2009), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23499, accessed 14 March 2015
[11] Jean le Bel, The True Chronicles of Jean le Bel, 1290-1360, trans. Bryant N., (Woodbridge, 2011), p.154
[12] Ibid, p.156
[13] Mortimer I., Edward III: The Perfect King, (London, 2008), p.196
[14] Carpenter D., The Struggle for Mastery: Britain, 1066-1284, (London, 2004), p.285
[15] Vincent N., `Isabella of Angoulême: John’s Jezebel` in King John: New Interpretations, p.193
[16] Benz St. John L., Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in Fourteenth-Century England, (New York, 2012), p.27
[17] Geoffrey le Baker, The Chronicle of Geoffrey le Baker, trans. Preest D., (Woodbridge, 2012), p.4
[18] Ibid
[19] Vita Edwardi Secundi: The Life of Edward II, trans. Childs W.R., (Oxford, 2005) p.29
[20] Geoffrey le Baker, The Chronicle of Geoffrey le Baker, trans. Preest D, p.10
[21] Ibid, p.16-7
[22] Ibid, p.20
[23] Matthew Paris, English History from the year 1235 to 1273, Vol.3, trans. Giles J.A., (New York, 1968), p.334
[24] Mortimer I., Edward III: The Perfect King, p.360; Thomas Walsingham, The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, trans. Preest D., p.33
[25] Ormrod W.M., The Reign of Edward III, (New Haven and London, 1990) p.117
[26] Ibid, p.34
[27] Thomas Walsingham, The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham, trans. Preest D., p.26
How you can Follow Us!