Introduction: 1316
  • "On the 5th of June, in 1316, Louis X of France (also Louis I of Navarre), commonly called 'the Hutin', departed from life, most likely as the result of drinking an excessive quantity of chilled wine after a vigorous game of tennis. It was the end of a brief and unhappy reign that had begun with scandal, misery and embarrassment. Louis X had attempted many things during his reign, and succeeded at exactly one, something that, in typical fashion, only became clear some months after his death.

    That one thing was, in theory, a simple matter, and yet Louis had either failed at or made a rather dismal attempt of it for the last decade, depending on who one asked. However, on the 15th of November, his success became definite. That one thing, of course, was securing the line of succession, a feat Louis and his second wife Clementia of Hungary had performed by bringing forth a male child that was indubitably his, feats his alleged daughter by his first wife Margaret of Burgundy, Joan, could obviously not boast of.

    As the young boy born a king was baptised and christened 'John', as his mother had wished, his uncle Phillip 'the Tall', Count of Poitiers must have looked on with a mix of resentment and satisfaction. Resentment because had John been a stillborn or a girl, he would have had an excellent chance at taking the throne himself. Satisfaction, because as Regent he was the most powerful man in the kingdom, having successfully elbowed his ambitious uncle Charles of Valois out of the way.

    How was Phillip to know that in a handful of years he would be dead, and his uncle would once again have clambered into power? And the boy he cast those perhaps envious glances at? John the Posthumous would live. Indeed there were many long hard years ahead for this man who would live and die a king for all the days of his life."

    --John I of France, Vol. 1; A King in His Cradle, Antony Oates (1978)

    ---
    Just a little something I've started up to keep myself busy. Enjoy.
     
    1317-20: France
  • 1317-1320: DIVERS SQUABBLES

    "The Count of Poitiers began his regency under numerous shadows. Perhaps the most severe was a rather patchy war, his brother's lackluster effort to bring Robert of Flanders to heel. The Hutin had waged a monumentally ineffectual campaign again Count Robert, one which had succeeded in nothing but wasting funds and turning the region near Flanders into an increasingly lawless no-man's land. Bringing this situation to some sort of a conclusion would dominate the early portion of Philip's regency.

    "But there were other problems to occupy his times--King Edward II of England continued to refuse to pay homage for his Gascon lands, maintaining the intransigent stance he had throughout Louis X's reign. Charles of Valois and Eudes of Burgundy both considered themselves robbed of their rightful position in the government, and deluged the Regent with countless complaints, debates on matters of precedence, and vague accusations of wrong-doing. While Eudes' complaints lessened with his marriage to Philip's eldest daughter[1], the Regent's uncle proved harder to satisfy.

    "Ironically, it was the first problem that proved the easiest to solve--despite their relative success, Flemish support for the war was waning, both from below and, to a more immediate effect, at the top. While Robert had spent his life in measured defiance of the French crown, his son and grandson, Louis the Elder and Younger of Nevers and Revel, were different men--French nobles with heavy (and growing) ties to Paris. And Robert himself was an old man, increasingly aware of his mortality. As the calls came to reach a peaceable arrangement with France, he listened to them, though his grandson's marriage to the Regent's second daughter, Margaret in 1320 doubtless played a role as well.[2]

    "Edward of England would prove more intractable, despite his arguably weaker hand. Even facing an ongoing war with Scotland that was going poorly, a situation in England itself that bordered on an undeclared civil war, and a constant sequence of embarassments that would include a one-eared man in Oxford claiming to be the true king of England[3], Edward refused to pay homage. His offered reasons for this would change constantly, ranging from claims of instability to matters of precedence--on several occasions, he would even suggest the homage be put off until John I reached his majority. Despite the risks of this approach, with its accompanying dangers of a confrontation with France, Edward kept it, possibly because it represented the only thing close to a success in his foreign policy. For now, he was able to escape any retribution simply because Philip was distracted by other business--poor harvests, regency disputes, the matter in Flanders, and in late 1320, something more severe...

    --John I of France, Vol. 1; A King in His Cradle, Antony Oates (1978)

    ---------------------
    [1] They were likewise married IOTL. While her status would be a little lower ITTL, the fact remains that young Joan happens to be a very tempting potential heiress even if she isn't a royal princess.

    [2] See above.

    [3] John Deydras, also known as John of Powderham was a clerk who claimed to have been the REAL Edward II, with the man who was going around being king being in reality some carter's child who had been swapped with him. In 1318, he started going around and challenging the King to single combat. This ended with his arrest, and execution, along with his cat, which he stated had given him the whole idea.

    Not making any of that up.
     
    1320-1: France
  • 1320-1: THE SHEPHERDS' CRUSADE, THE COWHERDS' CRUSADE, AND THE LEPERS' PLOT

    "...It was in the early spring, by most accounts, when a teenaged shepherd, one Stephen of Rouen, by most accounts[1], claimed to have been visited by the Virgin Mary who told him that God had called upon men to take up the cross and drive the Moors from Iberia. (Though some say Stephen was a defrocked priest, and some say he called upon men to deliver Jerusalem.) The message spread amongst the lower orders and the meanest of men, who gathered together and, spreading havoc wherever they did go, marched upon Paris, where they called upon the Count of Poitiers to meet with them. When he did not, they did rampage throughout the city, setting lose prisoners held the Grand Chatelet, killing Jews and Italians, and in all ways acting without restraint or law. Marching to the south, they made their way to Languedoc, persecuting Jews and any other who met with their ire along the way, and earning the ire and approbation of the Pope, who denounced them, and said they were no true crusaders. While much of the movement simply degenerated into bandits, waylaying travelers and performing other acts of violence, a small portion arrived in Aragon, where in the guise of offering their services to its king[2] they continued to pass their time with assaults upon the Jews, until the king was forced to attack them, forcing them to disperse. So ended the Shepherds' Crusade.

    "And yet the folly was not finished, for the Count of Poitiers declared that restitution was to be offered to the Jews for their suffering. In response to this, a cowherd, William the Lame, did proclaim that the Regent was an impious lord, a veritable Herod, in the service of the Devil. Once again the mean and vulgar gathered together and called their riots a crusade, stating they would free France from the wicked man who had made himself master, against all right and law, and then march to save the Holy City. They spent their time attacking the Jews, bishops, and agents of royal authority, so that the Count was forced to march to restore order throughout the kingdom. Falling upon the main body of them in Cahors, he crushed them utterly, and captured William the Lame, who was tried as a traitor and hanged...[3]

    "But the madness had not yet passed, for during this time, a great pestilence of flux came to pass where the Shepherds and Cowherds were practicing their folly, likely from the gathering of so many together and the wreckage they had left in their wake. But rather then recognize this, the people sought a sacrificial lamb, and lighted upon the lowest and meanest, the lepers, who they said were poisoning wells to spread the contagion. Capturing them, many of these poor people were tortured and made to confess to these imaginary crimes, which some did, stating they did them at the instigation of the Jews. Yet another wave of persecution swept through the south of France, and when the Count of Poitiers went to restore order, he himself became ill from the contagion, expiring near the end of the year...[4]"

    --From The Passions of Mobs, by John Roy (1845)

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] This name is more then we know IOTL, though as the later sections of this should make clear, this author isn't necessarily the most accurate of sources.

    [2] James II of Aragon, who responded in this fashion IOTL as well.

    [3] The above paragraph is a combination of later fantasies and accretions to the events of the year--while there were riots and further Jewish persecutions, ITTL as IOTL, there really was no "Cowherds' Crusade" movement to accompany them.

    [4] Philip died early in 1322 IOTL.
     
    Last edited:
    1320-2: England
  • 1320-2: “If I Be Cruel And Grow Tyrannous, Now Let Them Thank Themselves, And Rue Too Late.”

    "By now, the situation in England was reaching a breaking point. Edward II's new regime was falling apart in a worsening cycle of violence and reprisals, one which frequently wed old rivalries to the anti-Despenser cause, such as the Mortimers' raids on their lands. Edward's response to all this was to close ranks ever further on those who told him what he didn't want to hear. Queen Isabella was among those left on the outside. Accused--not with cause--of spying for France, and seen--again, not without cause--as dangerously sympathetic to the Lords Ordainers[1], Isabella found herself first isolated in the court, and then a virtual prisoner of the Despensers, as the situation rapidly degraded...

    "Matters peaked in 1321, as a series of inheritance disputes (which saw the Despensers using their influence to insure things went their way) inflamed tempers beyond bearing. Early in the year, the Earl of Lancaster, the Earl of Hereford, and the Lords Mortimer met together to plot an attack on the Despenser lands in in Wales--Edward called for the lords to meet him, first in Gloucester and then in Bristol. Their refusal saw the the beginning of the rebellion...

    "Things progressed quickly, with the self-proclaimed "contrariants" seizing a great deal of territory in Wales, and soon threatening London. Efforts at negotiation stalled in mutual recriminations, accusations, and threats--the death of Queen Isabella[2] likewise produced a horde of angry rhetoric on both sides. In the end, it was only the efforts of the Earl of Pembroke that managed a truce between the two sides, with Edward agreeing to exile the Despensers. It was an imperfect truce at best, that saw both sides keeping their forces gathered, and as circumstances proved, it would not be a lasting one.

    "A small party of pilgrims sent by the King to Cantebury to say a mass for the late Queen's soul proved to be the catalyst[3]--stopping at contrariant-occupied Leeds Castle along the way, they were refused entry and turned away with violence. Support for the contrariants plummeted--Edward was able to besiege Leeds with a swelling army, and once it was taken, march towards Wales to deal with the Mortimers. Facing this and a peasant uprising, the pair surrendered, leaving only Hereford and Lancaster remaining of the ringleaders. Watching his cause disintegrate around him, Lancaster proceeded to dig himself deeper by making overtures to the Scots and the French.

    "The King crossed the Severn after the Battle of Burton Bridge, and engaged Lancaster's forces directly at Bouroughbridge, a confrontation where Lancaster was captured, and Hereford slain. In under a year, Edward had veered from near disaster to a total victory at home. For the first time in a long while, his power seemed secure..."

    --A Magnificent Counterfeit: the Life and Reign of Edward II of England, Jason Soames 1994

    --------------------------------
    [1] The Lord Ordainers was the name of the nobles and barons who'd rebelled against Edward's favoritism towards Piers Gaveston, amongst other things. The group had instituted what were supposed to be reforms to the government that would constrain Edward's powers. Said reforms fell apart, partially because Edward was still the king when you got down to it, and partially the Lord Ordainers tended to be out for themselves, and thus marvelously easy to play against each other.

    [2] This is is of course decades earlier than her OTL death. I will leave the cause a mystery but will note that OTL, she had her last child with Edward during this time.

    [3] IOTL, it was a pilgrimage by Isabella herself.
     
    1322-3: France
  • 1322-3: THE SECOND REGENCY BEGINS

    "If the question of who was to become the next regent of France was simply decided by proximity of blood then the answer would have been simple--Charles, Count of de la Marche would have taken the position. However, there were several problems standing in his way, most notably the fact that he was not in France when his brother perished, but in Cyprus, attempting to swear his sword to the service of the King of Armenia, having taken up the cross two years previously[1]... Indeed, it would be several months after the fact before Charles even learned of his brother's death and weeks after that before he was able to even get a ship back to France...

    "Of course, distance alone was not the only obstacle--there was also a matter of rank--while Charles possessed an appanage and title, he had never been formally recognized as a Peer of France. Arguably, this was a fairly negligible reason to keep him from the Regency, one a vigorous and skillful politician could have easily side-stepped. But that was another, more significant problem--the Count of de la Marche was not a vigorous, skillful politician. Instead, he was a rather notoriously earnest young man whose reputation suffered from being the husband to an acknowledged adulteress--one who, rather than conveniently dying in the manner of his elder brother the Hutin's wife, lived on in her imprisonment, and had in fact born a child to one of her jailers[2]. Things which had prevented the absent prince from gaining much in the way of champions during his absence...

    "Thus, the competition for the regency came down to two men, Charles of Valois, and Eudes of Burgundy. Valois could boast of closer relation to the young king, but Eudes maintained that he possessed the greater title and peerage as Duke of Burgundy, in contrast to Charles' peer rank as Count of Anjou[3]. However Eudes was a more blunt and aggressive man, more prone to alienating those he would need as allies--further, his sister Joan was married to Valois' son. In the end, he was bought off by being allowed to his administer the vast estates of his brother-in-law, the young Count of Poitiers[4], until the latter reached his majority. By the time the Count of de la Marche arrived, Valois was well-ensconced as Regent, leading the Count to leave after a few months of ineffectual plotting in return for further funding of his increasingly desperate crusading pretensions...

    "An ambitious man with an undeniable flair for the dramatic, Charles of Valois took power in a grand ceremony in Paris. He followed his assumption of power with another expulsion of France's Jews 'for the manifold deeds of wickedness with which they have troubled our land' as well as sundry arrests of Philip the Tall's ministers for corruption, even as he took steps to crush the rebelling nobles and revolting peasants that troubled his nephew's final year as Regent... By 1323, Charles of Valois was the undisputed master of France, an act he cemented by the marriage of his daughter Isabella[5] to the King... He was now not only John's Regent, but his father-in-law..."

    --John I of France, Vol. 1; A King in His Cradle, Antony Oates (1978)

    --------------------------------------------
    [1] For clarification, the Kingdom of Armenia talked about is what we could call Cilicia. More on this in our next installment, which will detail the Count's misadventures in the East in full.

    [2] Actually what happened OTL.

    [3] Charles of Valois had gotten the title by his marriage to his first wife. And then hung onto it after she passed.

    [4] IOTL, Philip V's son was dead by this point.

    [5] This would be his third daughter Isabella by his third wife, who IOTL married the Duke of Bourbon. Not his elder daughter Isabella by his first wife, who married the Prince of Brittany, and is presently dead. Or his other elder daughter Isabella by his second wife, who is a nun. This isn't half as bad as his two daughters named Joan, both of whom are alive, and married to very important men.
     
    Last edited:
    1319-23: The Holy Land
  • 1319-23: CHARLES OF DE LA MARCHE'S UNEXCELLENT ADVENTURE

    "Charles of de la Marche's efforts at an Armenian crusade began in personal disappointment--thwarted politically by his elder brother Philip at home, with a ruined farce of a marriage that he could not extract himself from, life in France seems to have become intolerable for him. A deeply, if conventionally pious man, it seems likely that he chose to cast personal misfortune as a sign from God, and like so many of his class, he turned to warfare in the Holy Land as a form of penitence. While there were numerous projects available for a prince who wished to fight for the Cross, Charles turned to one that seemed promising and tantalizingly near to Jerusalem--the Kingdom of Armenia, whose monarch, Oshin, was said to be considering union with the Church of Rome. With what we imagined was an excellent chance of serving as a French van who would be followed by the might of his nephew's kingdom, Charles set out for what he imagined was his grand place in history...

    "Even though he was heading to the East with only a few dozen men-at-arms, Charles' preparations took months. By the time of his arrival in Cyprus, King Oshin was dead, and his young son, Levon IV was king, under the regency of Oshin's brother-in-law, Oshin of Corycos[1]. Oshin of Corycos was not so friendly with Rome as his cousin had been--indeed, there were rumors he had poisoned the King for that very reason. The arrival of a French prince on his kingdom's metaphorical doorstep offering his sword to fight the Turk and Mahometan was thus less divine providence to his mind then a constant irritation. Oshin's rule was a tenuous thing, based both on a manipulation of his traditional status, and his willingness to placate more traditional elements of his besieged kingdom--allowing a French prince and his armed escort to ride around and fight Mamluks and Turks at will was an obvious danger to it. Thus, Charles wound up spending over a year in negotiations, getting nowhere, even as his men sat idle and soaked up his funds. At which point the news of his brother's death reached him...

    "Charles' return to France accomplished nothing, aside from raising tensions between France and England, and he returned to Cyprus with little more than a promise of funds. By the time he returned, most of the men he had gathered had left. His last few months were spent between pointless negotiations with the Armenian Regent, and desperate efforts to gather a new army, which seemed to have worn down his always fragile health. His death in the beginning of 1323--rumored to be another poisoning in some circles--saw him leave behind no children, simply his still imprisoned wife.[2] He was the last surviving child of Philip the Fair."

    --While the Savior Wept: Crusading in the 14th Century, by Barbara Morell, 1983
    --------------------------------------------------------
    [1] This was actually the state of affairs in Cilicia IOTL.

    [2] Charles survived to 1328 IOTL, outliving Blanche by two years, by some accounts.
     
    1322-4: England, France, and the HRE
  • 1322-4: QUEEN'S PLAY IN THE GAME OF WAR

    "Edward's thwarting of his domestic foes brought little relief to England on the international scene--indeed, a few months after crushing Lancaster's forces so decisively at Bouroughbridge, he was engaged in yet another inconclusive campaign in Scotland, one that would claim the life of his natural son Adam Fitzroy[1]. Meanwhile, he continued to antagonize France, still refusing to pay homage for Gascony--indeed, the death of the Count of Poitiers and ascent of the Count of Valois lead to increased optimism in Edward's inner circle that a solution that would respect his royal dignity would be found. Charles of Valois after all, was a firm traditionalist who believed fully in the prerogatives of France's feudal lords--further, he was also a blood uncle to Edward's half-brothers. And finally, moreso than any other member of the French royal family--even including his nephew the Count of de la Marche who was at that very moment making his own sad attempt to fight for the Cross in the East--Charles of Valois felt the crusading fever that seemed to have been transmitted in the French royal blood since St. Louis. Edward felt--not without cause--that promises of aid against the Mahometan (and perhaps the Schismatics, considering Valois' other ambitions) in the near future would be most effective in getting the new Regent to sympathize with his view. And perhaps he was correct, for when the Count of de la Marche briefly arrived back from the East, and in between attempts to be named Regent, attempted to raise a furor over the death of his sister, Charles of Valois obligingly hushed him...

    "While we can never be sure what ultimately caused Edward's plans to fail, it is likely that another scheme of his played a significant part. For all his hopes to win the French over by negotiation and promises, the King also desired to keep them at bay with a system of continental alliance. Marriages and betrothals for his children with continental princes were part of this grand ambition. It would be his ultimately successful efforts to betroth his eldest son to a daughter of the Count of Hainaut that would open the door for an even greater match for himself. His efforts attracted the attention of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, himself looking for a bride amongst the Hainauts. A man, like Edward, in need of alliances, he felt certain he saw a highly profitable one here. And so, scrapping his previous plans for her[2], the Emperor's agents suggested that his daughter Mathilde's hand might be available--for the King of England himself. Edward jumped at the offer, and within months, young Mathilde was headed for England, his second child-bride, even younger than his first, and with an even more impressive gap of years...

    "Mathilde--or 'Maude' as she would swiftly become known as in England--was a very different bride then Isabella--quiet, docile, and unambitious--who quickly won her husband's rather paternal affection. The English public seems to have been less impressed--Edward's hasty remarriage put a lie to the rather extravagant claims of sorrow at Isabella's death he'd made during the Contrariant Uprising[3] and suggested that his enemies' accusations of murder might not be so baseless after all. But more than that, the marriage allied Edward with one of the most startling men in Europe, a man who had just finished a bloody war for the Imperial throne, and would follow it by beginning a lifelong quarrel with the Pope. Despite France's carefully maintained neutrality during the dispute, it had undeniably leaned towards Louis' Habsburg rival Frederick the Fair. All of Edward's vague promises to assist in recapturing Jerusalem at some point in the near future couldn't coax Charles of Valois out of the fears that an England allied with Louis IV produced. Indeed, it seems to have convinced the Regent that he was being played with. His response was to play back.

    "The complicated state of affairs in Gascony, with its frequently overlapping vassalages, gave Charles many chances to do this. On November 1323, a case involving the village of Saint-Sardos was decided in favor of a nearby priory, placing the village under the direct rule of the French King[4]. Nearly a year later, in late September 1324, a royal sergeant arrived in Saint-Sardos, and erected a stake with the royal arms to symbolize the change of authority. Local landowners, fearful that this would likely be the first step of turning Saint-Sardos into the base of a royal garrison, responded quickly--Saint-Sardos was raided that very night, and burned to the ground. The unfortunate sergeant was hanged from his own stake[5].

    "And so, after years of stalling, Edward found himself facing the very real prospect of war with France..."

    --A Magnificent Counterfeit: the Life and Reign of Edward II of England, Jason Soames 1994

    -------------------------------------------------
    [1] This is all from OTL.

    [2] IOTL, Mathilde married the young Margrave of Meissen.

    [3] IOTL, this is generally called the Despenser War. Or Wars.

    [4] This was decided in December 1322, IOTL.

    [5] This also all happened IOTL, albeit roughly a year earlier.
     
    1325-6: France
  • 1325-6: THE WAR OF SAINT-SARDOS

    "For France, the year began with a wedding. Charles d'Evereux, eldest son of Louis, Count of Evereux and heir to the lordship of Etampes, wed Marie of Luxembourg, sister to King John of Bohemia, in a lavish ceremony in Paris[1] meant to symbolize the power and wealth of the French throne. If this showed any thoughts about the upcoming conflict with England, it was contempt--a later (somewhat doubtful) story had the Regent stating that he considered the English little more than "an infestation of vermin". If this was his opinion then Edward gave him little reason to change it--the King's initial response to the sack of Saint-Sardos was to insist that he had had nothing to do with it. Ralph Bennett, the offending Seneschal of Gascony that the French believed to have met with prominent Gascon noble Raymond-Bernard of Monpezat, ringleader and architect of the sack shortly before it occurred, was recalled, and an embassy sent, lead by the King's youngest brother, Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent[2].

    "By all accounts, the embassy went poorly--England's claims and excuses were treated with skepticism, and the Regent's outstanding order to muster at the border of Aquitaine in June remained active. Edward seems to have hoped that his new father-in-law might spring to his aide, but Louis was preoccupied by the matter of his own excommunication, and settling affairs in Germany, and planning his own invasion of Italy as a response. As it became rapidly became clearer that the Emperor was not coming to England's aid, Kent appears to have handled matters by giving into the Regent's demands for the Lord of Monpezat. However, upon reaching Gascony, the young Earl seems to have changed his mind, and sent the French officials back empty-handed. It would be war.

    "In August, the French army invaded the duchy, the Count of Valois at its head. They found a land guarded by skeleton garrisons and underfunded troops. Within six weeks, France had almost completely occupied Gascony. The Earl of Kent had managed a few weeks of spirited resistance at La Reole, an underwhelming high point for English arms during the entire squalid mess[3]. The English, in between a rounds of apportioning blame amongst their commanders, considered various unlikely schemes of relief before woefully heading to the table. In France, celebrations of the rapid victory would be cut short, when late in December, Charles of Valois fell victim to a stroke. He would expire early in January[4], leaving the peace negotiations--and the Regency--to his eldest son, Philip..."

    --John I of France, Vol. 1; A King in His Cradle, Antony Oates (1978)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] IOTL, Marie would wed Charles IV of France. While this might be considered a step down, it should be remembered that Charles is a biggish wheel in France, and Marie's brother isn't even Emperor.

    [2] Edmund of Kent handled things IOTL as well. This was not the start of a glorious career.

    [3] This how the war ran IOTL. The Hundred Years War, it wasn't.

    [4] IOTL, Charles died in December of 1325.
     
    Last edited:
    1323-6: Flanders
  • 1323-1326: THE GOLDEN LION OF FLANDERS AND NEVERS

    "Louis Dampierre would succeed to the Counties of Nevers and Flanders in the course of a single year, following the deaths of his father and grandfather. Young, handsome, and above all a dedicated Francophile, he would come to rule in Flanders a land that had frequently seen itself as a realm apart from France--even an enemy to France. The results would be explosive.

    "In less than a year of Louis becoming Count of Flanders, revolts had started. Part of this was due to the exceptionally poor harvest that year, but another cause was the Count's severe raising of taxes in the cities, threatening the livelihood of the entire region. It was the first worrisome sign of Louis' great flaw as a ruler, an inability to understand the needs of the greatest province under his command. He would not even come to Flanders until the beginning of 1324, at which point the rebellion was well established, under the leadership of Willem de Deken, the mayor of Bruges, and formerly well-to-do smallholders like Jacques Peyte and Nicholas Zannekin. Lacking an army, Louis attemped negotiation, promising to deal with the rebels' complaints. A rough treaty was made, and the matter seemed to be resolving.

    "Then the very next year, Louis destroyed whatever good will remained by hamfistedly attempting to arrest six Bruges' burghers. The rebels took to arms again, managing to seize the Count himself. For the next six months, he was their captive, with Flanders under the rule of Louis' uncle Robert--by this time, almost wholly in the rebels' camp. For a brief time, with France preoccupied by matters with England, it truly looked as if victory was in the rebels' grasp.

    "Instead it all slipped away. England's swift defeat was followed by excommunication for the rebellious Flemings. While Charles of Valois' death kept him from bringing his plans to 'break this rabble lot' to fruition, his son's speedy ascent to the office of Regent kept the threat up. Louis was released shortly before Christmas, and following this, swore to forgive Bruges and the rebels. The ban was lifted. Another treaty was put in place, with both sides swearing to keep it.

    "It would last just over a year.[1]"

    This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century,
    Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [1] And yes, this is all roughly OTL. Louis of Nevers truly was terrible at handling Flanders.
     
    Last edited:
    1326-7: England and France
  • 1326-7: ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING

    "In London, the effect of the short war was electric. The arms of England has been so utterly humiliated that none could recall the like--not even Bannockburn had seen so poor a showing. Edward raged against his brother's vanity and stupidity, which had provoked an out and out war even as Edward had tried to pour oil upon the waters with further peace offerings. The Lords and Commons raged against Hugh the Elder, claiming the Earl of Winchester[1] had neglected to send reinforcements that could have saved the Earl of Kent--Winchester raged back that he had had neither the money, the time, nor the spare men, especially for "so poor a cause". The matter of Scotland and Edward's "shameful truce" with Robert the Bruce[2] was brought up by various lords dispossessed of their Scottish lands--Edward insisted that it had been forced on him by treacherous followers and a lack of funds brought on by Parliament. Accounts of miracles circulated at the tombs of his late first wife, and Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, especially remarkable for the latter, who had hardly been a notably pious man in life[3]. Edward and the Despensers were held in such low regard 'dogs in the street were better thought of', Froissart would declare, years later--an attempt to kill the King and his favorites by necromancy was even recorded.

    "Any hopes of aid from the Emperor were gone--Louis would not expend political capital on a lost cause, especially when he was vulnerable in other matters. All that could be done was hope that the French would be relatively lenient in the peace. Fortunately, the Earl of Pembroke's previous suggestions that the King was now willing to pay homage had been listened to, though the man's unfortunate death the previous year during his mission[4] did not lend itself to a speedy resolution. After lengthy negotiations, a compromise was agreed upon--the Prince of Wales would be invested as Duke of Aquitaine, go to France and pay homage to King John, after which the restoration of England's Gascony possessions would be affected, save for the Agenais. It was, from Edward's point of view, a near total collapse. France not only recieved its wished for homage, but Gascony had been stripped of its most defensible frontier. And yet seeing as the possibility of losing it all hanged over his head, it was all he could do.

    "Edward, Prince of Wales, arrived in France in early 1327 to pay homage for his father, with instructions from his father to be certain to pay homage only, not to pledge fealty. It seemed a simple matter..."

    --A Magnificent Counterfeit: the Life and Reign of Edward II of England, Jason Soames 1994

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] Hugh the Elder was made Earl of Winchester in 1322, both IOTL and ITTL.

    [2] IOTL and ITTL, following the unraveling of his 1322 campaign, one of Edward's subordinates entered into unauthorized peace discussions with the Bruce. While said subordinate was executed when this was discovered, Edward did agree to a thirteen year truce. IOTL, it was ultimately not followed.

    [3] The Earl of Lancaster's astonishing cult is IOTL as well.

    [4] IOTL, he died in 1324, during the necessary diplomatic mission there. It was... an awkward situation.
     
    1326-7: France
  • 1326-7: PHILIP OF VALOIS TAKES THE HELM, AND DOESN'T

    "Historians have been unkind to Philip and his regency, largely at the prompting of his harshest contemporary critic--King John himself. 'A very poor fellow in most matters' sniffs John in one letter to his son-in-law... 'and utterly undeserving of the great trust that was vested in him.' 'It is no wonder that [[John of Valois]] is so unworthy a man, and so ruled by women, for his father was the same,' he notes in another one. 'I am very ill-served by my family, for those problems of mine that do not stem from my cousins, they stem from my brother, Philip of Valois, and his wretched son,' he supposedly said to Jean Froissart[1], a theme on which he later enlarged...

    " 'I hold that it is the greatest ill that has been done to this kingdom, that we had Gascony in the palms of our hands, and we returned all but a portion of it, all at the insistence of my brother, who trusted in the lying tongues and endless flattery of the English. It was a wicked and a wrongful thing he did then, and we have suffered for it, these past forty years.' So he said--or so Froissart has him say to the Duke of Normandy in one of the most-quoted passages in the Chronicles. Too many people take the King of France at his words. There was, after all, little chance that Philip, a powerful feudal magnate in his own right, would contribute to the utter defeat of one of his fellows even (or perhaps especially not) if that fellow was the King of England, anymore than his predecessors would have.

    "Indeed, Philip's handling of the peace negotiations of the War of Saint-Sardos were generally well-praised at the time, as was his finally settling certain money matters of the Queen Mother's that both his father and Philip of Poitiers had allowed to drag on. Where Philip the Tall and Charles of Valois had both had a worrying tendency to 'play the king', Philip of Valois was humble, considerate and thoughtful, a man who listened to the opinions of others--perhaps sometimes a bit too much.

    "It is most likely the source of John's disdain--aside from his notable troubles with Philip's son--was largely based on one incident, one of the most famed in history. In early 1327, Edward, Prince of Wales arrived to pay his homage as was agreed, in what was to be his first meeting with his cousin. The young Prince arrived to pay his homage bearing a sword and with a helmet upon his head[2]. While Philip prepared to ignore this breach of custom, John was livid, and demanded that Edward remove the offending items. The Prince refused. John then told Philip that he should order the Prince of Wales seized for this--Philips responded by declaring that he would not do this, because Edward was a prince, the son of a king, and John's own near kin, and if John were to make such orders when he grew to be a man for such petty reasons, he would lose honor in the eyes of all men. John sullenly went along with the Regent's response, and accepted Edward's homage, albeit with notably bad grace (which appears to have allowed the young Prince to escape the entire matter of fealty). However, it is clear from John's own words on various occasions, he never forgot this incident--the first notable occurrence to show John's famously imperious personality..."

    The Blood Royal: A History of the House of Valois,
    by Robert Gregory (1998)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] Famed historian, and incorrigible medieval gossip hound and celebrity hanger-on. Just imagine this version of him and John schmoozing over wine. It will cheer you up.

    [2] This is a major etiquette breach in these matters. And one that Edward did IOTL when he paid homage to Philip.
     
    1327-8: Flanders
  • 1327-8: THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING. AND THAT'S JUST THEIR TEETH! *RIM SHOT*

    "By early 1327, the Peace of Arques was fraying. Louis of Nevers, with typical subtlety, asked for the previously lifted ban to be reapplied, a wish that was granted--the result was the already declining good will towards his government all but collapsed. In an atmosphere of increasing violence, Louis retreated to Ghent, his last remaining stronghold in the region. For the next few months he indulged in desultory efforts to reach an accommodation, and equally desultory efforts to try and gather an army of his own. Neither went anywhere, as the rebels rearmed themselves.

    "In 1328, no longer convinced Ghent could hold against his foes, Louis rushed to Paris, and begged the Crown's aid in regaining control. Philip of Valois agreed to deal with 'these unreasoning brutes'[1], and set to work gathering an army. This proved to be an easy task--the prestige of the French Crown joined with the increasingly frightening social aspect of the rebellion worked to bring soldiers from across Europe. By June, an impressive force had been gathered, including many great lords, some of whom were not even French vassals. Louis was not among them. Young King John of France was, having insisted that he wished to see 'this great undertaking'--Philip reportedly had not been fond of this idea, but his brother, Charles of Alencon, and brother-in-law, Robert of Artois had supported this young monarch in this, and Philip ultimately agreed that it would be good for morale. The army was reportedly quite large, including by some accounts over two thousand knights.

    "The French attacked along the river Lys, forcing the Flemings, under the leadership of Nicholas Zannekin, to divide their forces along the line to prevent a crossing. After three days of inconclusive skirmishing, the French attempted to lure the rebels out by burning the countryside around Tournai. While initially failed, reportedly Zannekin, seeing many of the knights had taken off their armor due to the heat, launched an attack. It started well, killing the Duke of Lorraine and the Count of Boulogne[2], and wounding several other lords severely, but the counterattack destroyed the greater part of the rebel army. Meanwhile, another attack launched elsewhere was an outright failure--reportedly, King John, who witnessed the whole thing, to his dying day considered the French defense one of the most perfectly conducted military maneuvers he ever saw.

    "The Battle of Tournai[3] all but crushed the rebellion in a single blow--what few forces were left were mopped up in a handful of skirmishes apparently barely worth a mention. Defeat was overwhelming--Willem de Dekken was dragged back to Paris to be executed, along with the armor of French knights the Brugeois had kept on their city gate since the Battle of Courtrai[4]. Ypres was forced to demolish its churchbell,and all three principal cities in the rebellion lost their walls. The series of deprivations and humiliations would continue well after Louis of Nevers returned to Flanders, with land and property seized and granted to loyalists. The young Count now felt secure in his rule of the bothersome domain, even if he had done little to make it so himself, and prepared for what he was certain would be the long calm period of his rule....

    This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century,
    Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)

    ----------------------------------------------
    [1] Reportedly, Philip's actual words describing the rebels IOTL.

    [2] IOTL, only the Duke of Lorraine was killed, though the Count was severely wounded.

    [3] IOTL, a similar battle became known as the Battle of Cassel.

    [4] Courtrai, also called the Battle of the Golden Spurs, was one of the great humiliations of Philip IV's reign, and one of the few time a force of peasants defeated a force of knights in the Middle Ages.
     
    1327-8: England
  • 1327-8: MY IDIOT BROTHER

    "The Prince of Wales returned with the Bishop of Exeter[1] shortly after his contentious homage to his cousin. It was, by all accounts, a hurried trip--Stapledon claimed that the Earl of Kent had invited his nephew on a hunting trip after the homage, which young Edward had refused on his guardian's advice, and that the bishop himself had been trailed by men he suspected of being in the employ of Edward's enemies. And the Bishop had worse news--the loyalty of many of Edward's servants in France had been subverted. Many, including the Earl of Kent, were meeting with escaped Contriants, most notably the notorious Roger Mortimer of Wigmore[2]. Paris was, Stapledon declared, a wasp's nest of plots against England. It was, if anything, an understatement. Edward was reportedly made quite uneasy at this, especially at the involvement of his youngest brother. Edmund was charming, but pliable--Thomas, Earl of Norfolk[3] had on one occasion noted that Edmund had 'rather less wit than a sheep'. All of which made him a horribly plausible front for another uprising.

    "The bishop also brought more news of the treaty, and Edward was angered to discover that the Count of Valois had performed a bait and switch. While in theory his previous holdings in Aquitaine save the Agenais were restored, in practice, he had merely seen his holding of those territories presently in his possession confirmed. The remainder were to be returned over a period of time on the condition of his accepting numerous disputes in the Duchy decided in favor of the French throne, and paying a sizable sum on top of that[4]. Edward was furious, but there was, at the moment, little he could do. For now he accepted the treaty, albeit with rather bad grace. The response in London to the treaty--which as usual spread shockingly soon, as if it were being leaked--was more wailing and gnashing of teeth, and blaming of Edward for a situation he had done little to produce, and was in fact already working to rebalance.

    "The remainder of the year passed in fitful tension. Early in the next, the Prince of Wales married his long-time betrothed Philippa of Hainaut in London, an occurrence that was greatly celebrated[5]. As opposed to his father, the young prince was well-loved by the people of England, with his defiance before King John of France rapidly becoming a matter of national pride. Even Edward, who had toyed with ending the Hainaut match for a Castilian one[6], acknowledged Philippa to be 'most charming'. For awhile, it looked as if Edward might slip through his latest patch of disasters. And then two things happened in quick succession. Firstly, young Queen Maud became pregnant, an event the King insisted on noting with "plentiful celebration". Maud was still seen as a strange and alien queen by much of England, and so this was perhaps not as well taken as he'd imagine it would be. However, it was the second event that made it disastrous.

    "Late in May, Maud's father had a Spiritual Franciscan, Pietro Rainalducci, elected Pope in Rome, the latest move in the emperor's ongoing war against John XXII. Still excommunicated, Louis had inserted himself into the Spiritual Franciscans' own struggle with the irascible pontiff, who had responded to the orders' arguments by declaring that the principle of private property dated to the Garden of Eden before the fall of man[7]. Louis had called together a church council, which among other things, had declared the Pope a heretic and then folded the matter into his ongoing efforts in Italy. Rainalducci, an inspiring speaker and preacher, had, after crowning himself, taken the name Nicholas V and begun to assemble his own college of cardinals[8]. The first antipapacy of the Avignon period had begun.

    "News spread to England, where it quickly became rumored that Edward was going to join his father-in-law in the schism. This was not completely unjustified--Louis appears to have approached Edward on the matter, and Edward seems to have at least considered it. The outswell of public anger seem to have killed any such plans, and also convinced Edward to send his wife and younger children out of London to the north. And it was in this atmosphere that the Earl of Kent arrived in Cornwall at the head of a small band of men, accompanied by various Contrariants, among them Mortimer. Announcing his intentions to "restore order and the rule of law" to England, he promptly began a march on London, beginning the rising that would be named for him..."

    --A Magnificent Counterfeit: the Life and Reign of Edward II of England, Jason Soames 1994
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [1] Walter Stapledon, one of Edward II's few staunch loyalists.

    [2] This was the case during the aftershocks of the war IOTL as well, with the major change being that Isabelle was amongst Mortimer's faction. Oh, and of course, they had Prince Edward.

    [3] The middle brother of Edward I's vast brood. By most accounts, Thomas was quite a quarrelsome fellow.

    [4] This happened post-war IOTL as well. Edward was justifiably put out.

    [5] They were married around this time IOTL.

    [6] IOTL, Edward, after pursuing a Hainaut match for some time, switched to looking at a Castilian one, though this seems to have partially about causing trouble for Isabelle and her coup plans.

    [7] John XXII did this in response to the Spiritual Franciscans IOTL as well. The question was whether the Apostles owned their own clothes, and his answer was seen as a bit of... papal overreach, so to say. Medieval theological discussions tend to be both irritating and fascinating at the same time.

    [8] This entire antipapacy happened IOTL.
     
    Last edited:
    1328: England
  • 1328: O FORTUNA VELUT LUNA

    "The arrival of Kent at such a critical time was no coincidence--the English expatriates in France had received a steady stream of news and reports from relatives and sympathizers back in England, some of whom were at the very top levels of English government such as Adam Orleton, Bishop of Worcester[1]. As news of angry crowds, furious bishops, and Edward's clear panic and lack of resolve reached them, many felt now was the time to act. Later accounts would place Roger Mortimer at the head of this crowd, and while there is a certain neatness and convenience to this, it is probably true. Not all were so certain. Edmund of Kent himself was apparently nervous and doubtful from the outset a dangerous sign of the problems to come. But then, the Earl had always been a weak personality, easily lead by more forceful ones. Whatever objections he might have felt, they were easily quashed.

    "The exact port the rebels left from remains a mystery, as does the level of French involvement. More than a few sources place France's arch-schemer, Robert of Artois, at the center of things, though it is quite likely this is mere conjecture. What is certain is that the little party arrived in Cornwall, by all reports no larger than a hundred men, and began to march towards London, with Edmund declaring that he had come to "set England right again". By the time they reached the capital, his forces numbered in the thousands.

    "Edward's response to this was a muddle. In theory, his other brother, Thomas of Norfolk, was supposed to be gathering forces to prevent just this from happening. However, Norfolk proved either horribly inept at his job or treacherously unwilling to perform it[2]--no such army emerged. On reaching London, the rebels discovered that Edward had already fled along with his eldest son and the Despensers, leaving treasurer Walter Stapledon in control of the city. That poor man did not stay in control for very long, being overpowered by a mob and hanged shortly after the arrival of the rebel forces[3]. Kent entered the city to the celebration of the people. A week later, he would call together "lords and men of renown" to discuss the welfare of the kingdom. In the days that followed such important men as the Earls of Norfolk and Lancaster[4] would answer that call. All appeared to have gone astonishingly well for the rebels.

    "It would not last."

    This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] One of Edward's most outspoken foes, and one of our early sources for the homosexuality charge.

    [2] This was even more the case IOTL, where he joined forces with Mortimer and Isabelle shortly after their arrival.

    [3] This is how he died IOTL as well.

    [4] The latter, in case you are wondering, is Henry, 3rd Earl, brother to the late unfortunate Thomas. More on him later.
     
    Last edited:
    1328-9: England
  • 1328-9: SORS IMMANIS ET INANIS, ROTA TU VOLUBILIS STATUS MALUS...

    "As the rebels hunted for them, Edward and his party succeeded in confusing them largely through the simple measure of being confused themselves. On leaving London, Edward had planned for them to head en masse for Ireland to raise an army there. However shortly after leaving, the Prince of Wales successfully convinced his father to allow him and some of his closest companions (among them Gilbert Despenser, Hugh the Younger's second son) to go to Hainaut to get assistance from the Prince's father-in-law. Edward, by all later accounts searching desperately for anything that might constitute a solution, agreed to this, and then made for Wales with Hugh the Younger with the idea of getting passage to Ireland. At this point, he had yet another change of mind, and headed to Pontefract to be reunited with his young wife, leaving Hugh the Younger to head to Wales by himself. None of this was obvious to the rebels until afterwards, leaving them to chase a variety of leads to, initially, little effect. By the time they were aware that the King had headed north, he was already ensconced in Pontefract, while the Prince had reached Hainaut and immediately began recruiting a small army from veterans of the recent French campaign in Flanders.

    "Hugh the Younger's journey proved less productive--turned back by bad weather, he was apprehended in Cardiff by his brother-in-law, and longtime rival Hugh de Audley[1], who was among the first to join the rising. Audley, who seems to have joined the zealousness of a convert with the jealousy of a slighted lover[2], had Hugh hanged then and there, proclaiming that 'it was right and proper that so odious a man should die forwith', following which he had the body dismembered, the pieces fed to hounds, and the head sent first to Winchester[3] and then to London 'so all may know and rejoice that he is dead'. Shortly thereafter, Roger Mortimer captured Bristol where the Earl of Winchester had attempted to maintain a loyalist garrison for a later counterattack. The Earl and his eldest grandson were among those captured. Marched back, the the pair reportedly had the misfortune to see the head of the man they knew as 'son' and 'father' respectively being displayed in Winchester. Reportedly Mortimer haughtily declared 'see now what has become of all your pomp'. The Despensers' response was to weep bitterly, appearing so wretched, Froissart wrote, 'that even those who had hated them now pitied them'. It was enough to provoke more than a few second thoughts amongst the rebellion's sympathisers.

    "And the new regime was giving people more reasons to question it. When the Earl of Kent had called the so-called Great Council together, its stated purpose was to discuss England's welfare and 'set the nation at right again'. Edmund was a simple man, and likely meant what he said. However it rapidly became clear that Kent's puppet-masters were following their own radical agenda with Bishop Orleton increasingly leading the assembly to the subject of deposition. Even worse, loyalists besides the Despensers were being caught in the net--Edmund Fitzalan, the Earl of Arundel, and his son Richard[4] were both apprehended by their old enemy Lord Cherleton and brought to London, and serious plans were made to attaint them as traitors. When the Archbishop of York[5] asked bluntly how a man loyal to his king could be a traitor, Bishop Charleton[6] shouted at him to remain silent and remember what happened to Walter Stapledon. The clear threat of violence aimed at noblemen and clergy was disheartening--Henry Wryneck[7] reportedly noted that it was becoming clear that the rebels wished them to exchange "a bad ruler for a worse one". As opposed to his young cousin, the Earl of Lancaster was no fool. Neither was Edmund's elder brother Thomas of Norfolk. They had gone along with the rebellion when it appeared to be in their interests, quite possibly earlier then they later admitted, but now it seemed likely to turn on them.

    "Meanwhile, King Edward remained in Pontefract with his wife and remaining children, despite efforts to capture him. An attempt to raise a small force to besiege the castle ended when an army of Scots started massing on the border[8]--afterwards, the new regime simply did not have the loyalty of the northern Border lords to allow such a force. Throughout it all he remained a rather unpleasant ghost at the feast for the rebels. With their authority in danger of unraveling completely, Orleton and Mortimer appeared to have decided to force the issue. The Bishop regaled the assembled lords with a list of Edward's crimes and stated, bluntly, that the only hope the kingdom would have for peace would be to see him deposed. The Archbishop of York, once again the unwanted voice of protest, asked who it was that Orleton wished to see crowned in Edward's place. What happened next proved to be one of the turning points of the rebellion. The Bishop of Worcester paused, looked over the crowd--and then simply stopped his speech. He then called some of his supporters to him, whispered some instructions, and attempted to move on as if he had not heard the question. As people tried to understand this strange behavior, they realized that the Earls of Lancaster, Norfolk and Kent were no longer in attendance.

    "This was the beginning of the end for the rebellion. A few days later, it became known that the Prince of Wales had landed at the mouth of the Orwell[9] with a small force of his own, which, mirroring his uncle's earlier actions, swelled as he marched into the country. What little confidence remained in the 'Great Council' died when it was learned that Oliver Ingham, the King's new Seneschal in Aquitaine had overrun Saintoge and from there invested a few fortresses in the Agenais[10]--to which Mortimer had it seemed sent his word of promise to the Regent that once matters were settled, all would be returned, and fine paid[11]. Indeed, Mortimer had even rather embarrassingly served with the Count of Valois in the previous invasion of Aquitaine. The lord's protestations of English loyalty were starting to ring very hollow. Mortimer responded all this by fleeing, something other outspoken rebels such as Orleton and the Charletons ultimately followed his example in. By the time the Prince arrived in London, the rebel government that had held it for the last few months had collapsed. While the former ringleaders remained holed up in their own little strongholds, the Earl of Kent's Rising was finished..."

    This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] Audley and Despenser were both husbands to de Clare sisters, making them joint heirs in the property of the Earldom of Gloucester, and their children grandchildren of Edward I. Needless to say, there were property disputes.

    [2] Audley was a former favorite of Edward II. In fact his wife was Piers Gaveston's widow. Enjoy the medieval creepiness.

    [3] This is modeled after the OTL death of his father, Hugh the Elder. IOTL, Hugh the Younger was hanged, reportedly from a ladder, and then dismembered, and by some reports, castrated, while still conscious. MORE medieval creepiness.

    [4] IOTL, Edmund was executed during Isabella's invasion. Richard was later exiled by the new regime, though he made a comeback.

    [5] William Melton, another dedicated Edward II supporter.

    [6] Thomas Charleton, Bishop of Hereford, and brother to the Lord Cherleton. Yes, their peerage title is a misspelling of their name. Deal with it.

    [7] Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster again. Reportedly, this nickname was from a medical condition. While Lancaster's skill as a politician are debatable, his skills as a survivor are not--he survived multiple regime changes during Edward II and III's reigns, frequently while plotting against said regimes.

    [8] This will be explained in a later installment, though it should be noted Robert Bruce managed one last invasion of England during the coup IOTL.

    [9] Prince Edward has managed to mimic his mother's point of arrival IOTL.

    [10] Astonishingly enough, this happened IOTL.

    [11] And yes, this was exactly what Isabella and Mortimer did in response. "New boss, old boss" time.
     
    Last edited:
    1328-31: Scotland
  • 1328-31: SCOTS WHA HAE

    "As he entered into the final year of his life, Robert the Bruce could look back at an astonishing wave of successes. He had seen the Scottish cause revive from near-collapse, had driven Edward II's armies from Scotland, been acknowledged as king by the Papacy and most other states, save England, had revived the Auld Alliance with the Treaty of Corbeil[1], and perhaps most satisfying, had seen his excommunication and the interdict of Scotland lifted[2]. Three things marred this--the horrific disease that was killing him[3], the ongoing war with England, presently only paused by a truce[4], and the extreme youth of his heir, John, the only surviving boy of twins[5]. Each of these problems by itself would have proven a threat. Together, they would nearly lead to the undoing of all of Robert's hard work.

    "Robert watched the growing chaos in England with a hungry eye, for he thought he perceived a chance to bring Edward to the table and finally force a formal recognition of the Scottish Kingdom[6]. Troops were even gathered at the border, when Robert's ailment flared up and sent the entire plan to the wayside. As it became obvious that this attack would likely prove fatal, Robert threw his remaining energies into ensuring his son would see a clean transfer of power. His longtime supporter and nephew, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray would be named Guardian of Scotland, an able prop for his young son[7]. With his legacy in this world as secure as he could make it, Robert went to work on the next, giving various legacies to religious houses to pray for his soul, most notably for his failure to take up the cross and fight the Saracen. Indeed, Robert made a special bequest on this matter--his heart was to be removed and taken on an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre, following which it would be interred in Melrose Abbey. Alas, for Robert, the projected Crusade in the Holy Land never materialized, and so his heart would have to settle for being taken along a Castilian expedition against Granada.[8] And so it was in 1329, on the 5th of June, Robert the Bruce passed away.

    "Young John would be proclaimed King of Scots immediately on his father's death, though his coronation at Scone would wait until late in 1331. A debate arose on whether his regnal name should be changed[9], but ultimately it was decided that "the second John shall make up for the first" and so he became John II of Scotland. Alas for the young monarch, enemies were already gathering. And, most worryingly of all, they were not all English."

    --From Crowned Upon the Stone; the Story of Scotland, by Gyth Gythson (1998)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] Signed OTL and TTL in 1326.

    [2] This occurred in 1328, though papal recognition was a sign that it was on its way.

    [3] Commonly reported as leprosy, though in truth, it is something of a mystery.

    [4] IOTL, he would die with a treaty with England. That Edward III would proceed to tear up and stomp on.

    [5] IOTL, John died, and his brother David lived.

    [6] IOTL, he took the chance of Isabella's invasion to do just that. One embarrassing campaign later, and the Mortimer government was signing a treaty. Despite having criticized Edward II for his handling of Scotland.

    [7] Guardian of Scotland was the official title for a Regent. Moray was indeed named to the post at Robert's death IOTL as well.

    [8] This is all OTL. Even the campaign in Granada.

    [9] A similar debate IOTL saw Robert II Stewart's eldest son change his name from "John" to "Robert"
     
    Last edited:
    1329-30: England and France
  • 1329-30: THE PANTHER'S GRANDSON

    "In early May of 1329, the besieged Charletons, who had presumed too much that they were riding an ascending wave, surrendered at Powis Castle. They followed the Baron La Zouche of Mortimer[1], who had turned over his kinsman for a pardon after some almost summary resistance. This was the end of the last tattered remnants of what later generations would call the Earl of Kent's Rising. Ironically, Edmund of Kent was among the first to surrender, begging his nephew for forgiveness even before the Prince had arrived in London, an act he would formally repeat before Parliament. Other men would not be so lucky--the Bishop of Worcester would be captured along the road to Canterbury, where he had planned to beg for sanctuary, while Hugh de Audley was stabbed to death in Hastings, reportedly by a former manservant of Hugh the Younger's.

    "The men they had persecuted did not on the whole fare much better. While the Fitzalans would be there at Powis, leading troops against the Charletons who had lead troops against them earlier, the Earl of Winchester came out of the Tower a shattered man--he would die before the year was out. His eldest grandson and successor would recover in time, but it is clear that the young man was badly scarred by his ordeal, largely ceding political leadership of his sizable clan to his younger brother Gilbert. There were, on both sides, countless cases like this, men and women who had suffered for one cause or the other, and ultimately lost heavily. The true victors were those men like Thomas of Norfolk and Henry of Lancaster who had quietly positioned themselves outside the struggle, hedging their bets and enjoying the substantial winnings in the political situation that came about after.

    "For much changed, in the aftermath, even if it did not officially. The barons had showed their power by not acting far better than they ever had by acting, and now there were those close to the throne who realized that. Gilbert Despenser reportedly told Prince Edward as they sailed towards the Prince's father-in-law that if he did not claim his inheritance soon, 'another would claim it for himself, and he would not be a friends to either of us.' If he did say this, he doubtless echoed what the Prince was thinking. And so, after landing, the Prince sent out feelers to the great men who, if they had not quite sided with Mortimer, had been willing to listen to him. Deals were made; promises were given; arrangements were prepared. And so, when Parliament met to deal with the outcome of the late rebellion, much of what happened was a stage-managed performance to publicly cement what had been privately determined.

    "It began with King Edward's speech to the Lords, where he acknowledged that he had made many errors and had been grievously misled by 'flatterers'. The king's actions in the dying days of the rebellion remain mysterious--he may have been intentionally isolated by his son, or he may have simply been in the middle of a psychic collapse, and thus incapable of responding to the political changes going on around him. What is certain that by the time of his speech, Edward had been informed of the coming new order, and he appears to have accepted it. While much of the speech appears to have been empty platitudes, in its ending, Edward declared his son Great Steward of England[2], essentially granting the rule of the kingdom to the Prince of Wales. With this done, the Prince came forth and delivered the sentences on the rebels.

    "Only a few of those who'd rebelled, most of whom had joined early and stayed well to the end, suffered significant losses--for the rest it was simply the loss of some property, coupled frequently with a fine. The Charletons and the Mortimers were the families most significantly impacted, and of the pair, the Charletons would eventually recover. The Mortimers however, were ruined in England--while the family would regain some of what they had lost, the future for the clan lay across a narrow sea in Ireland. Roger Mortimer would not be among them--that tumultuous man would be executed for treason. The only reasons the Bishops of Worcester and Hereford did not join him immediately is that the Prince felt obligated to discuss the matter with the Pope. He rather shortly defrocked the pair and excommunicated Orleton to boot, who would go to his grave outside the Church[3]. Pope John may not have been a great friend of the English, but there were lines he did not like seeing bishops stepping over--at least, if they failed afterwards....

    "Indeed, what is most remarkable about the Prince's quiet coup is how little it was remarked on by outsiders. Even Edward II's father-in-law, the Emperor Louis seems to have adjusted swiftly to the new status quo. While later commentators would speak of it as "a wonder" for most, the King's long-standing history of incompetence seems to have convinced most that what had occurred was simply inevitable. ...Among the Prince's new regime's first problems was the open sore of Gascony. For all that his monarchical brother-in-law would later accuse him of lackness, Philp of Valois had responded to Ingham's campaign by sending his brother the Count of Alencon to the region with troops. There, Alencon had marched with his force into the Agenais, engaging the English forces in a game of cat and mouse and expelling the new garrisons where he found them[4]. A new war between England and France seemed on the verge of breaking out. What kept it was the simple fact that neither party was truly in a position pursue it. Edward had a new government to cement into place, while Philip was dealing with the beginnings of the reemergent Artois feud that would come to dominate Frankish politics for a decade (and in truth, far longer)[5]. Further he had, like his father before him, been bitten by the crusading bug, a desire that required a quiet England to fulfill.

    "Despite this the negotiations dragged for quite some time, as both parties hid behind excuses and attacked the other. Philip, who had seemed so dismissive of the Prince's disrespectful homage now declared that it threatened his continued status as Duke of Gascony--the Prince of Wales disparaged portions of the treaty, claiming they were illicit, and swore that his troops had merely been dealing with bandits. Ultimately, a quiet arrangement was made that left England with its gains in Saintoge by paying a modest fee, while leaving the rest of Gascony in French hands[6]. The resulting arrangement was something neither side wished to draw attention to--and plenty would occur to keep their respective peoples distracted. For now, Prince Edward arrived again in France to pay a more formal homage, and enjoyed himself with a brisk tournament in honor of King John's reaching his majority. The Prince would be the tourney's ultimate victor[7]."

    --From This Terrible Majesty (Vol. 1): Prince and Steward by Augusta Lyme (1978)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] IOTL, the Baron would marry Hugh Despenser the Younger's widow by abducting her. This is not the last time I'll be writing something like this, by the way.

    [2] IOTL, the Earl of Lancaster got this office of state after Isabella's invasion. He kept it after Isabella's government fell.

    [3] This is a significantly nastier death then the man received OTL, but then failing at revolutions is never good for your health.

    [4] IOTL, Alencon was sent to the region after Edward's coup removed Mortimer's government, and captured Saintes.

    [5] More on this in our next installment.

    [6] This is slightly better for England than OTL. But only slightly--Gascony has lost a lot of territory and is much harder to defend.

    [7] Interestingly, Edward likewise was a victor at a tournament held after his second homage to Philip VI IOTL. He really was quite good at them.
     
    1328-30: France
  • 1328-30: A VERY LONG INHERITANCE SUIT

    "The sudden death of Clementia of Hungary[1] is often cited as a turning point in the early Johanine monarchy, and it is tempting to see it so. After all, what young man would not be profoundly affected by the death of his mother? And yet we are in fact trapped here by the conventions of medieval histories--children, even kings, seem to rarely attract the notice of those chroniclers, and so we see much of their activity through a veil. John rarely rates a mention in much of the contemporary references, save as little more than a glorified prop of the French court. And John himself, that man who made so free with his confidences and opinions as to actually serve as a source of embarrassment in later generations, seems to have been utterly conventional in this manner--he speaks little of his childhood, and then always in vague generalities and platitudes.

    "His mother likewise labors under this cloud--nothing John says of her gives any hint of a genuine emotional attachment, or for that matter, even an opinion. We must judge by his actions, and again, little we see here is exceptional. Clementia was extravagantly mourned, as demanded by convention, and either the King or the Regent. In later years, John regularly had masses held for her, frequently in extravagant amounts, which would be noteworthy if not for his habit of doing likewise for most of his other departed friends and relations. The only noteworthy thing we can eke out is his mother's famous bequest of her jewels to him[2] on the condition that they never be given to John's wife, something the accounts of the court tells us the king went along with. Much has been written about this, most of it speculation, and much of that foolish. We do not know if Clementia's reasons for this were personal, political, both, or neither, and as for John, he seems to have thought little enough about the affair as to have never mentioned it, leaving us to speculate as to his motives as well...

    "...If a turning point was reached in these years, it was due to the simple fact that John was becoming a young man, and thus increasingly playing a personal role in royal affairs. This was to be seen prior to Clementia's death, in the end of the Flemming matter, and the Prince of Wales' homage, and hints of it in the early stages of one of the great affairs of John's reign, the so-called Artois feud.

    "The origins of the feud--or at least, the proximate trouble that so many other personal squabbles would attach themselves to--lay in a somewhat irregular inheritance. When Robert II, Count of Artois, died in 1302, he left a young grandson the future Robert III, the only male offspring of his late son. He also left a daughter, Mahaut, who swiftly claimed the County on the basis of proximity of blood[3]. As a child, Robert's ability to contest this was limited--as a grown man, it would be limitless. For most of his adult life, Robert would scheme, plot, and occasionally fight to regain what he saw as his proper inheritance, frequently with an enthusiasm that outpaced his competence. Robert would suffer during the Count of Poitiers' regency, and flourish during the regencies of both Counts of Valois, having married one of Charles' daughters and tied himself to that sizable clan. But despite his hopes, both Charles and Philip never put themselves wholly behind him in the matter. After all, Robert may have been Philip's brother-in-law, but so was Eudes, Duke of Burgundy--and Eudes' case, it was because his sister was Philip's beloved wife. And so first Charles and then Philip managed to placate both sides with vague promises, and the occasional gift and favor.

    "The situation could not maintain itself indefinitely. By 1328, Mahaut was no longer the formidable countess she had been, but a dying old woman. Robert's pressing for another look into the inheritance succeeded in bringing the estate under royal custody until the matter was settled. The death of Mahaut followed swiftly by that of her only surviving child and heir, Joan, Countess-Dowager of Poitiers and Countess-Palatine of Burgundy left the inheritance between Robert, and the young Philip, Count of Poitiers, the King's cousin, and by most reckonings, his heir[4]..."

    --John I of France, Vol. 1; A King in His Cradle, Antony Oates (1978)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] Clementia died at this point IOTL as well.

    [2] Louis gave Clementia an enormous amount of jewels during their marriage, something we know thanks to the incredibly detailed inventory of them that was made after her death.

    [3] The Artois case is a good example of the various quirks of medieval inheritance.

    [4] Mahaut and Joan died within a year of each other IOTL as well, though there, Joan's heir was her eldest daughter, Joan, Duchess of Burgundy.
     
    Last edited:
    1329-30: France
  • 1329-30: VERY SUPERSTITIOUS, THE DEVIL'S ON HIS WAY

    "By the end of the 1320s, the France political scene was heaving under powerful factions, each advancing their own private interests above the state. The Regent, Philip of Valois, proved ineffectual at preventing this, and frequently putty in the hands of such individuals as Robert of Artois, Jean de Marigny[1], and his own wife Joan of Burgundy. Indeed, the Regent was soon preoccupied by a string of personal tragedies, the death of numerous children that trimmed his swelling brood into nothing more than two sons. Valois turned to religion and mysticism in response, holding elaborate masses and consulting with astrologers and fortunetellers.

    "He was not alone in this. When, over twenty years later, the Affair of the Horoscopes was being brought before tribunals, the list of clients would include many of the most prominet nobles in the court, one reason for the scandal's persistance. It was an age of superstition and fear, an age where men saw God as a spirit to be appeased more than a beloved creator.

    "It was in this atmosphere that the Regent began to approach the Pope about another crusade. John was wary--Charles of Valois' efforts had generally amounted to nothing more than an attempt to gouge money from the French clergy--something which might have derailed the entire effort if something had not happened to make the Count of Valois hopeful. In 1329, Levon IV of Armenia came of age, and in a bloody purge, executed the regent, Oshin of Korikos, his brother Constantine, his daughter Alice--who was Levon's wife--and ushered in a new, pro-Western government[2]. While Philip doubtless could not help be somewhat worried by the sudden destruction of a man whose situation so resembled his own, the siren call of a friendly Armenia remained for those who dreamed of a free Jerusalem, and so, like his cousin Charles of de la Marche, he found himself in the exhausting and ultimately pointless discussions with the kingdom.

    "Discussions that distracted him from threats closer to home..."

    --While the Savior Wept: Crusading in the 14th Century, by Barbara Morell, 1983
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] Brother of Enguerrand de Marigny, Philip IV's famed Chamberlain, and one of the great political survivors of medieval France.

    [2] This happened IOTL. Armenian Cilicia was a... terrifying place at times.
     
    1330: France
  • 1330: AN ISSUE OF THE MAJORITY

    "And so it was on the feast of Saint Stephen, the King of France did meet with his kin and his lords, to celebrate both that Saint's blessed martyrdom, and his own reaching of the age of majority. And many great lords and ladies were there with King John and his good lady--Philip of Valois, who had been Regent of France and his wife, Joan of Burgundy; the Count of Valois' brother, Charles of Alencon; Philip, Count of Evereux and his wife, Joan of France, the King's half-sister[1]; Eudes, Duke of Burgundy, and his wife, Joan of Poitiers, as well as her brother Philip, Count of Burgundy[2], who was the King's close cousin; Robert of Artois, Count of Beaumont, and his wife; Edward, King of England, and his wife, Queen Philippa[3]; John, King of Bohemia[4], and his son, Charles, who Pope John {XXIII} would crown King of the Romans in later years[5]; Charles, Count of Etampes[6]; Louis, Count of Clermont, who was the Grand Chamberlain, and Raoul of Brienne, Count of Eu, who was Constable, and many other great and noble lords beyond count....[7]

    "And then King John did speak, and say it was meet and good that he stood now a man and would begin rule in his own right, and that he wished to reward all who had done him good service in the years of his childhood. And first he did call the Regent to him, and declared that as Philip of Valois had done him so many good turns, and so many worthy things, it was only fitting he be honored greatly. And so he did name Philip of Valois Duke of Anjou[8] and Grand Master of France[9], honors that the former Regent so greatly that he did weep in joy and proclaimed that John did hold his service not merely from duty, but from the brotherly affection that Philip did hold in him.

    "With this done, the King called his cousin, the Count of Burgundy, and granted to him the title Duke of Berry, and assured him of his love and affection. And then he did call for the Count of Alencon, who was made a Peer of France, and named a Marshal for his brave acts in Flanders and Gascony. The Count of Clermont was made Duke of Bourbon[10], and the Counts of Evereux and Etampes were made peers, and many great honors were done, when the King did call on Robert of Artois. And then when the Count of Beaumont stood before him, the King proclaimed he was greatly honored to restore to Robert the lands of his grandfather, and proclaimed him Count of Artois[11].

    "And the Count of Burgundy did rise, full wroth, and declared that his cousin had done him great wrong, robbing him of the lands of his grandmother, saying "How expect you me to swallow this wrong, me your kinsman? For am I not your heir?" And King John did say, "So some say, but this I know not. Indeed, I do deny it." And from that day on, the Count of Burgundy knew the King loved him not. And their cousin, the King of England saw this as well..."

    --from The Chronicles of Jean Froissart, Vol. 1, John Tremain translation (1845)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    [1] IOTL, the King and Queen of Navarre at this time.
    [2] He's also Count of Poitiers, but as the County of Burgundy is a Count-Palatinate in the Empire, it's the higher title.
    [3] Froissart is getting his facts muddled--Edward was only Prince of Wales, and his wife Philippa was not present.
    [4] John was a frequent guest at Paris OTL, and would never miss an event like this. IOTL, he was fighting for the Teutonic Knights against the Poles around this time, demonstrating his talent for picking losers.
    [5] IOTL, Emperor Charles IV, who was crowned by Pope Clement VI in circumstances we will deal with later. Just as we will reveal the identity of the mysterious John XXIII in the near future.
    [6] As Jean Froissart has failed to note, Philip of Evereux's elder brother.
    [7] I'm skipping a lengthy description of the courses of the feast. Be thankful.
    [8] IOTL, Philip himself created this title for his second son.
    [9] One of the Great Offices of France. This is a real plum for Philip, and a sign that for all he will come to bitch about him, John was fonder of the man then he would later come to admit.
    [10] IOTL, he received this title in 1327, along with the County of de la Marche, in exchange for giving up the County of Clermont.
    [11] IOTL, of course, Robert's efforts ended in disaster and exile for himself. So, he's had a lucky break here.
     
    Last edited:
    Top