Lionel of Antwerp and the Entail of Edward III
Transcript:
Lionel of Antwerp and the Entail of Edward III and Succession Law in England:
Welcome back. Before I start today I just want to say thank you to those who have taken the time to review this show on Apple podcast, it is one of the best ways to get the word out if you enjoy what I’m doing here. Please if you do have time take a moment and do so! Now, onto this week’s episode.
When I say ‘Duke of Clarence’ who thinks of drowning in a butt of wine? Be honest, a lot of you would say yes, because the First Duke of Clarence, Third Creation has pretty much used all the star-power a title can have. But, the first ever Duke of Clarence, his great-great grandfather is who I’ll be chatting about today. While he may not have had as much flair as George Lionel was not without interests. Lionel, like his brothers, was a vital part of their father governing his vast realms, but unlike his brothers, he wouldn’t live long into adulthood.
Lionel of Antwerp was born on the 29th of November 1338, in, not surprisingly, Antwerp, I told you it was a theme with Edward’s children (palace or city they were born in is included in the common names of all of his children). He was Edward III and Philippa’s third son, but his older brother, William, had passed away two years earlier. I have pronounced his name earlier as Lionel, but have since learned (via Kathryn Warner’s book, John of Gaunt) that it is pronounce Leonel, as she says ‘Leonel Messi, not Lionel Richie’. His name is an interesting choice, it wasn’t one that had been commonly used by any royal family at this point (and sadly wouldn’t catch on). According the Kathryn Warner it is a name his father used when participating in tournaments incognito, his nom de torni. Lionel is from Arthurian legend of course, and Edward III was fascinated by Arthur and his Round Table. His oldest brother, the Black Prince, was already eight when he was born and beginning his formal education. Lionel’s sisters were four and six and it would have been a lonely time if not for the birth of his younger brothers John and Edmund over the next three years. It is interesting how close in age the progenitors of almost every house in Europe were to each other. All three, but especially Lionel would have to live in the shadow of their older brother. None seemed to resent this though, and they were all loyal to their brother and (if they were alive at the time) his son.
Much like the Black Prince there isn’t a lot known of Lionel’s early life. It does seem that they time boys spent in their mother’s household as young children isn’t often recorded. I imagine, just like today, they played, ate, learned some manners, and just got to be children for their first years. In both 1345 and 1346 Lionel was appointed his father’s representative in England while Edward III was overseas.
Edward III had big plans for his second surviving son. In 1333, five years before Lionel was born William Donn de Burgh, 3rd Earl of Ulster was murdered, he had been the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and was only 20 at the time. This murder was, not surprisingly, a family argument. A year earlier William had starved his cousin to death. That cousin’s brother-in-law did the deed. What’s important about this little story, isn’t William, it’s his wife. Maud of Lancaster. Lancaster should be a name you recognise, her brother, Henry, is he of saving the Black Prince from a Spanish ship and almost reaching his before Poitier fame. She was a cousin to Edward III and upon her husband’s murder fled to England and his court with their daughter, Elizabeth de Burgh, who was 11 month’s old at the time. Elizabeth was Countess of Ulster in her own right, and an excellent marriage match for the son of a king. I am a bit surprised Edward didn’t arrange a marriage between his older son and Elizabeth, but maybe he was saving the Black Prince for an international marriage alliance (jokes on you Edward). Lionel though, was Edward’s son of choice for Elizabeth. Not only would this give his son the Earldom of Ulster, but it would make him an easy choice to govern Ireland on his father’s behalf. Maud had a great deal of input on the governors of Ireland while Lionel and Elizabeth were children, she had paid a great deal of attention during her short stay there before her husband’s murder and had cultivated friendships. The young couple were formally betrothed in August of 1342 (thought it could be considered a wedding since the couple would be raised together and there was no reason to expect their marriage not to happen). Lionel was referred to as the Earl of Ulster as early as 1347. The couple were married in 1352. Their only child, Philippa of Clarence was born in August of 1355. It is through Philippa that the Yorkist’s claim actually comes, but you should see by then end of this episode that those claims really make little difference in the Wars of the Roses.
In November of 1355 Lionel, and his brother John, joined their father on campaign in France. It was a week-long chevauchee, and both young men were knighted at this time. I can find minimal details of what went on in his life after this and before his appointment as governor of Ireland in 1361. I do assume there is more information in an archive somewhere, but since his life was not nearly as interesting (or long) and any of his brothers’ there just hasn’t been a historian interested enough to dig through to find this information. It’s totally understandable, and Ireland is where his greatest impact was. Lionel did spend a bit of time away from Ireland after his appointment, for being there for such a short time his period as governor had a bit of an impact. In 1362 he was created Duke of Clarence. This was the third dukedom (after Cornwall and Lancaster) created. His younger brother John was created Duke of Lancaster, second creation, right after. The name, Clarence, actually derived from his wife’s title, de Clare. I do like that the title’s Edward bestowed on his second and third surviving sons were related to their wives. Lionel’s wife would die while they were in Ireland in 1363.
Now, Irish history is not something I’m very knowledgable on, sadly. The attempts by the English to eliminate Irish culture, language, and history through much of the 16th to 20th century has had a sad impact on those outside of Ireland because its history isn’t taught to nearly the level of other areas of Europe. While Lionel’s appointment as governor didn’t start these problems between the English and Irish it didn’t help. At the time the Irish weren’t seen as the greatest threat in Ireland to the English. No, the great threat was those English who had assimilated to the Irish way of life. Yes, English-Normans who had moved to Ireland, inter-married with the local population and had adopted local customs were the big scary thing of this time. Part of this is because those that assimilated were often from the lower classes, the workers on large estates, peasants that were brought over to farm, not the lords who owned the land. The lords felt threatened by their staff marrying locally, adopting local children, or taking on local names. Maybe they should have thought about that before they became absentee landlords in a country that didn’t want their ‘civilising’ (with big air quotes) influence, but no, it had to be those adapting to the local society that were wrong. Lionel went in with great plans to change this, to make the English be English again. His greatest, at least in his eyes, accomplishment was the Statute of Kilkenny in 1366. This Statute is an odd one. It, like many laws of the day had a lot of property and military provisions. The provisions though that are the most unsettling to modern ears are those attempting to force the assimilated English (who may have been the third generation of their family living in Ireland) to behave as though they were English living in England. Just for the fun of it a few of these acts are:
* forbidding the marriage between English and Irish (just so you’re aware, most immigrants were men, so this might not work out well).
banning the adoption or fostering of Irish children by English families.
English colonist were forced to learn English, even though they may have been living in an Irish-dominated area.
Irish sports were to be replaced with archery and other martial sports.
English were forced to dress in the English style.
Honestly, it’s a lot of xenophobic hogwash and thankfully, for a time at least, it failed. Due to the loss of population from the Plague, Edward III’s military focus on France, and Lionel’s early death there wasn’t much to support it. Lionel in general struggled in Ireland. The native Irish nobility fought him and the English lords were often absentee landlords and therefore not there to support him. After the Statute had passed he returned to England.
Upon his return to England he began looking for a new wife. Since he only had one child, and a girl, it wouldn’t be the worst idea to marry again, especially since his older brother only had two very young sons and his younger brother had only one son. Making sure there were males to succeed if anything should go wrong is prince’s main job other than war, right? Every royal family could do with a few more sons, it’s not like anything bad has ever come from that.
Edward III and Lionel decided that a marriage for money wouldn’t be the worst thing and arranged a marriage to Violante Visconti, who was thirteen in 1366 (Lionel was 28). Violante was the daughter of Galeazzo Il Visconti, Lord of Milan and her father had plenty of money to offer the king of England in exchange for making his noble daughter royal. In May 1368 Lionel traveled to meet his now 15 year old bride in Milan. His father-in-law threw a massive wedding with not just amazing food, but gifts such as horses and armour between courses. Sadly, in October of the same year Lionel died. There are (on his Wikipedia page at least) suggestions that his father-in-law poisoned him, but after a huge wedding that would have cost a fortune it seems like a waste of a perfectly useful son-in-law and the loss of royal title for his daughter. Violante’s brother is accused of killing her third husband (yes, Violante had two further marriages before dying at the age of 32), so did he kill her first husband as well? We’ll never know, and Violante’s brother Gian was only 17 at the time of Lionel’s death, the likely theory is that Lionel died of food poisoning.
But, Lionel’s story isn’t just his. It’s also his daughter, Philippa’s. While she will be excluded from Edward III’s entail as I’ll discuss in a moment, it doesn’t mean her claims are without support. Edward I, Edward III’s grandfather had made sure to get this daughters recognised as his heirs after the death of their mother. Despite having had five sons with his first wife, only his youngest Edward of Caernarfon, the future Edward II, survived his mother. Edward I didn’t seem to have plans to remarry at first, he had been deeply in love with his first wife. So making sure his line could pass through his daughters, one of whom had a son by 1290, Edward I wrote his entail to include his daughters. And as you’ll all remember from the first series, Henry I’s heir was his daughter Matilda, and his line went through her to his grandson Henry II. Philippa of Clarence married the year after he father died, in 1369. Remember when I mentioned last season that Edward III was kind to Roger Mortimer’s heirs? Well, her husband was Edmund Mortimer, Roger’s great-grandson. She was 14, he was 17 (honestly one of the better age gaps I’ve seen in this period, other than the Black Prince of course). They would have four children, Roger, their oldest son is where the Yorkist claim receives seniority over the Lancastrian claim. Roger was three when Edward III died and excluded from the throne by Edward’s entail. I will be discussing this claim, in a later episode when discussing the rebellions that occurred throughout Richard II, Henry IV and Henry VI’s reigns. Remember, at the end of the day, those with swords don’t need to have the law quoted to them and each branch’s real claim to power was the power they held through warfare and support of the nobility. Even with that though I think it’s interesting to look at Edward III’s entail. It comes up a lot when reading about Richard II’s reign.
Before I get to Edward III’s entail I do want to answer the fundamental question of this show. Would Lionel have been a better king than the person who became king instead of him? In his case he was never really in the running to be king. He died far too young. I honestly think most people would have done a better job than Richard II (I think all of Edward III’s sons except Edmund would have done better, and who knows, Edmund may have done fine when pushed). I don’t think he’s the greatest of Edward’s sons (I’m still deciding between two and I’ll let you know who wins once I’m through them), but he’s not the worst (Edmund, that’s Edmund), at least when it comes to the things that a country needed in a leader at this time. Yes, I would love for humanity to hold itself to the highest standard and I think we can judge the past with our values and theirs, but we still have wars now. We’ve failed to respond properly to a global pandemic, yes, we have better medical care today, but there are plenty of people who ignore warnings just as much as they did back in this time. In Lionel’s lifetime his father, which was his country, needed him to try to stabilise Ireland, marry, have a few children, and lead men in battle if needed. He mostly did that and dying of food poisoning sucks, but it happens.
Now legal chat time. Important to note that there is no complete, let me emphasise complete, surviving copy of Edward’s entail. It wasn’t published, supposedly because the contents would upset the commons (and some of the lords). Before I go into Edward III’s entail I need to give a tiny bit of history. Edward III had five surviving sons, Edward the Black Prince, Lionel of Antwerp, John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley, and Thomas of Woodstock. The Black Prince predeceased his father as you’ll remember from the last two episodes and his son Richard succeeded Edward III as Richard II. By the time the entail was written both of Edward III’s oldest surviving sons were dead. John of Gaunt, Edwards oldest living son at this point, was very unpopular and was listed as second in line in the entail. While everything I’ve read shows John to have been completely loyal to both the Black Prince and Richard it makes sense to worry about a powerful adult usurping the throne from a small child, see King John usurping Arthur of Brittany’s rights in 1199 and even Philip V’s usurpation of his neice, Joan II of Navarre from our last series. Especially when the powerful man was the son of the king and the child was only his grandson. Had this been the Old English period the Witan would have probably actually chosen John of Gaunt to be king since the they knew appointing children to rule was a bad idea in general. Richard II, as you may know, was eventually overthrown by John of Gaunt’s oldest surviving son, Henry Bolingbroke, as Henry IV in 1399. Under modern succession law he had usurped not only his king, but also his cousin, Philippa of Clarence’s, grandson Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (who was a small child). But that’s modern succession law and this was the 14th and 15th century. Since Henry IV was confirmed as king by parliament it doesn’t really matter what Edward’s entail said, but it would become an issue more than 50 years later when Henry IV’s grandson, Henry VI’s rule was challenged by a descendant of Philippa of Clarence, Richard, 3rd Duke of York.
So, what was in Edward’s entail, well, we don’t know the full reading of it. Until the late 1990s there wasn’t a copy of it, they had all been destroyed, most likely by Richard II, if any copies were found during Henrys IV, V, and VI’s reigns they would have been made public. If there were any remaining it’s likely the Edward IV would have destroyed them. Edward III chose not to share his entail with anyone outside of his family. John of Gaunt being listed as second in line seems to have been the reason to hide the entail. one of my goals in John of Gaunt’s coming episodes is to answer the question, ‘Why was John of Gaunt so unpopular?’ So, I will cover more on this portion then.
Michael Bennet, in his 1998 paper aptly titled ‘Edward III’s Entail and Succession to the Crown 1376-1471’ discussed not just the Edward III’s entail but also the major issues surrounding Henry IV’s usurpation and claims. I do recommend reading the full paper if you’re interested, but the first paragraph ends with a lovely scene. Having asked the judges to adjudicate on Richard, Duke of York’s claim to the crown through descent of Lionel of Antwerp, the judges state ‘that the matter was 'above the lawe and passed ther lernyng', the judges declared that the matter could be properly considered only by members of the royal family and the peerage. Basically a nice ‘go sort yourselves out’ to the royal family. Dr. Bennet then goes on to discuss the theories of inheritance that were put forth, is the throne of England private property? If yes, then the Duke of York has a good claim. However, much like Robert Curthose trying to claim the throne that his brother Henry I had already been anointed and crowned to, the issue of both the consecration of the king and the realm having accepted him as king stood in the Duke of York’s way. Yes, Richard II, the Black Prince’s only surviving son, and an anointed king had been overthrown by his cousin, but he was seen as a tyrant, he had taken said cousin’s just inheritance on a weak pretence (and kind of kidnapped said cousin’s son and heir), had one of his uncles killed, and exiled members of his court for trying to counsel him (which was not just their right but their duty). Overthrowing a tyrant has a long history in Western philosophy and political discourse and is usually respected (sorry Senate class of ’44 BC, you deserve better from History, but Mark Antony and Augustus really knew how to work the room and play propaganda). Richard Duke of York wasn’t trying to overthrow a tyrant, he was trying to overthrow a weak king, struggling with mental health issues that were not well understood in his day. An ineffective king is still the king.
Further on in his paper Dr. Bennet discusses the actual discovery of the entail, within the Cotton Collection in the British Library. Parts were destroyed by fire, but 35 lines are readable. Ultraviolet light is needed to read what hasn’t been completely destroyed. Now, I haven’t found the actual 35 lines of text fully transcribed. If anyone can find a copy please send it to me, I would love to share it on social media and to read it myself. The entail was likely written between mid-year 1376 and early 1377. It was written after the Black Prince’s death. There is an anecdote that the Black Prince called his father and John of Gaunt to his bedside to make them swear to uphold his son, the future Richard II’s rights and inheritance. I will be going through John of Gaunt’s life in the next three episodes, so I’ll cover more of his claims then. Edward III, like any good king, was concerned with succession. He knew that he would be leaving the kingdom in a minority and that protecting his grandson (Richard) and his people would be paramount. The entail appears to be in tails male, which would remove Philippa of Ulster and her descendants, making the descendants of John of Gaunt senior to anyone other than Richard II. Now, all of this sounds little hypocritical, after all, Edward III’s claim to France was based on his descent through a woman (just wait until I talk about the War of Bretton Succession). I think, that like his uncle, Philip V, he knew that minorities were difficult enough without squabbles of who would come next. In addition, there had not been a queen regnant, so the likely next leader through Philippa’s line was her young son, Roger Mortimer, who was three. From a practical perspective choosing John of Gaunt was better. He was an adult, healthy, a proven military leader, and had a son already who was the same age as Richard II. And it appears that Edward III, rightly, trusted John of Gaunt to protect Richard II’s interests. While the people of England may not have trusted him his father and brother did. Edward also had two other living sons, Edmund of Langley and Thomas of Woodstock. Edmund had a son and Thomas was only 21, both better options in Edward’s eyes than his granddaughter, yes, it’s unfair, but he didn’t live in a better world, he lived in the one he had. While his grandfather, Edward I had entailed that his daughters could rule after his son, it was never tested. The last time female succession had been tested was Matilda, please see her three episodes to hear how that went. Edward III was practical man in many ways and it would take England a long time still before a queen regnant would be accepted.
While discussing Edward III’s entail is fascinating (well, if you like legal documents, which I do), what actual impact does it have on succession. In truth, very little and yet somehow a great deal. By not publicising that John of Gaunt was Richard II’s heir and excluding Richard’s uncles from the governing counsel Edward III set up minimal oversight of Richard II by those who should have been closest to him. Richard began listening to counsellors who were not respected by the powerful in his kingdom, he played mind games with his family about the succession, and caused a great deal of instability. He declared himself of age in 1389 at the age of 22. From this point he would have been allowed to make his own will and control succession. At various times he put forward his uncle, Edmund of Langley, his cousin, Edmund Mortimer, the grandson of Philippa of Ulster who was all of seven years old. This instability and lack of consultation in succession planning did not help Richard’s kingship in any way. In 1399, not long after the death of John of Gaunt, Richard’s cousin and John’s son, Henry Bolingbroke would overthrow Richard and be crowned Henry IV, the first Lancastrian king. While Edward III had done a lot to try and stabilise succession it took one agent of chaos (his heir, Richard) to undo his good work. Had Richard II declared Henry Bolingbroke his heir, allowed Henry to inherit his father’s lands and titles, and listened to his own family history may have played out differently. It would have made the Wars of the Roses less likely because a clear line of succession would have been established. Richard would have probably lived longer because his cousin wouldn’t have been left with a me or him option. As you’ll remember from Isabella of France’s episodes, the house of Lancaster had not been supportive of the crown throughout Edward II’s reign, but Henry of Lancaster was one of Edward III’s greatest supporters and friends. John of Gaunt had kept Lancaster loyal to the crown, it was only when the crown turned on Lancaster that this loyalty was lost (and not even by John, he hoped to convince his nephew to lift his son’s banishment). I will get into this period further in the next three episodes, but I felt it was important to discuss here.
Before I go thank you to my newest patron Mark (and his wife Cindy) thank you. You have known me since I was a child and always been so supportive of my dreams and it’s wonderful to have both of you listening. I will be taking the next two weeks off. My parents and one of my sisters are visiting from the US for the first time since early 2020. They’ve not met my sons who are only 22 months old and I need to make sure everyone is entertained. I’ll be writing new episodes, but I won’t have time to record for the first weeks of their visit. I’m sure you will all understand. My goal in two weeks time is to release the first John of Gaunt episode and the special episode about Edward III for patrons. As always I’ll be on social media when I have time and I love hearing from each of you. Please get any questions you have in and I’ll prepare a Q and A episode at the end of this series. See you in two weeks!
