I'm not so sure about this image of him. I remember reading somewhere that it was a copy of an actual portrait, perhaps I'm wrong. Due to Anya Seton's novel, and most others I've read that concerns Edward III and his family, the children have blue eyes, or "Plantagenet blue eyes" and since this portrait is lacking that I'm a little disappointed. That's not to say they actually had blue eyes but since blue eye colour is my favourite I wanted that to be true. I will have to be consoled by King Henry II who had blue eyes and was red haired to boot.
Getting back to it, and something I missed in my last post. John was created Duke of Lancaster in 1362 by his clever father, who also gave similar titles to his other sons. It was the first creation of an English Duke if I remember that correctly. John's younger brother, Edmund, was created Duke of York and this is where the families in the wars of the roses came from. The other titles were, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, John's immediate elder sibling, and Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, who was the youngest of the brood. I think Edward of Woodstock was also created Duke of Cornwall but since he was also Prince of Wales and Duke of Aquitaine I suppose it was a bit less important than those two.
So we left John in France where it seemed to be a lot of Guerrilla tactics, attacking towns, and small skirmishes with the French Army. All in all the only thing these years provided to do was prevent an apparent French invasion of England (that's from wikipedia and has a source but I'll take it with a pinch of salt). John would have been around 29-30 during these years and it was his first proper command so there must have been pressure, at least placed by himself if not by those around him, to have a glorious victory as his father and eldest brother had. Sadly it was not to be.
If you can't tell by now I know very little about the Duke's military campaigns because it just doesn't interest me that much but I will march on because there were many during his lifetime. In 1370 he was summoned to Aquitaine (or Gascony but I prefer the first name) to help his brothers Edward of Woodstock and Edmund of Langley defend England's territory there. By this time Edward of Woodstock was not in the best of health and after fighting off enemies as long as he could he gave up (because he was Duke of Aquitaine) and sailed back to England, leaving John in charge (Edmund of Langley was John's younger brother). Unfortunately Aquitaine was not in a good way, he struggled for a year to defend it against the French but subsequently also gave up and returned to England, but not before he found himself a wife.
_01.jpg) |
| Peter "the cruel" of Castile |
This is where John's reasons and mind become very interesting to think about. As the third son of Edward III he was in line to the throne, but as his two older brother's had children he got further and further away. When Gaunt became unpopular in later life people thought he wished the throne for himself but there has never been any evidence in any source that he ever had designs on the English throne. Yet, he went after the Castilian throne in right of his wife. He obviously wanted a throne but why did he go for Castile? I think it probably has to do with the relationship between Edward of Woodstock and John. As we all know the Prince of Wales had two sons by Joan of Kent, the younger of which, Richard of Bordeaux, became Richard II of England. I think it was the love John had for Prince Edward that he didn't go after the throne and supported his nephew when he ascended to the English throne. Gaunt could have taken England, he was the richest man at the time, is the 15th or 16th richest man in history, there is no way he could have failed, especially given the unpopularity Richard's reign quickly cultivated (even if it wasn't always, in the early years, directed at the boy king). Instead, John wanted the throne of Castile, by right of Constance.
And so began a bitter and ultimately fruitless campaign. Constance was taken back to England whilst Henri of Trastamara ruled in Castile. John claimed the hollow title of King of Castile in 1372. It wouldn't be until the late 1380s he actually tried to take the throne with an army but it ended in defeat.
Now, what Gaunt is perhaps most famous for. Katherine de Roet. Anya Seton's novel, and one by Anne O'Brien which I also attempted to read but couldn't. The latter novel was just too focused around their love story and it wasn't as believable or realistic as Katherine by Anya Seton. It did satisfy my lust for the time period though.Another book I read about her was by Alison Weir and I really enjoyed that one and would recommend it if you want to find out about the true story of Katherine de Roet.
Katherine was a daughter of a herald from Hainault, Paon de Roet, who probably had something to do with Queen Philippa. She had two sisters and a brother and I only know about her sisters and nothing about her brother, Walter. Elizabeth, who people assume is the eldest, was given as a nun to St Waudru's in Mons, and later became the Canoness. According to Weir this seemed to be a de Roet family tradition of giving a daughter to God as Katherine also did the same. Phillipa de Roet, better known as the wife of the famous writer Jeoffrey Chaucer, was the other sister. Who was older has been debated, some say Katherine was the eldest, others say Philippa; certainly in Anya Seton's novel Katherine is the younger one, not to say that is any kind of proof whatsoever.
Katherine married Ottes Swynford, or Hugh Swynford, kind of confused by the naming, but he was a knight from Lincolnshire. She had two or three children with him, one son and potentially two daughters, although the existence of Margaret Swynford, a nun, is disputed. The other daughter, Blanche, was John of Gaunt's Goddaughter and she was put into the ducal nursery with his two daughters by Blanche of Lancaster. Katherine was given the position of governess to his two children during the time Blanche was still alive. They did not begin their long lasting relationship until after she had died in 1369.
 |
| Probably a contemporary image of Katherine |
I'm not really sure when Hugh Swynford died but Katherine was unmarried by the time she began her relationship with John. It was some time after 1369 but before 1372, but as we all know John was away a lot in France and Aquitaine between these years. Weir gives some accurate dates so please read her book, it is much more informative than these posts which is mostly from memory and checked by Wikipedia.
If John was faithful to Blanche he was not so honest to Constance of Castile. The couple had a daughter and a son, but the son, John, died in infancy, and the daughter, Catherine (I chose a different spelling because Katherine had nothing to do with the naming of Catherine, as you can see it was a popular name) who later went onto become the Queen of Castile when she married King Henri III. I have no idea how Constance felt about Katherine. From what I've read in Weir's biography John was not discrete about his relationship with Katherine, perhaps at the beginning but that discretion didn't last long. The opening pages of Weir's book vividly paints a picture of John and Katherine out riding with him holding her horse's bridle, a sign that she was his. I feel sympathy for Constance even though both her fictional portrayals do nothing to evoke such a sentiment; in O'Brien's novel she is a bit of a spoiled child, the typical rightful wife who scorns the mistress. I don't blame O'Brien for doing this, Katherine is the main character and the reader would like her less because at the end of the day she is the 'other' woman. Seton's portrayal is a little less opposing but from what I can remember Constance features very little in the book at all.
How must it truly have felt for her? So far away from home in a foreign, very different country. Did she feel the same fervour that John did for the throne of Castile? Did the existence of Katherine truly hurt and bother her? It is wrong to look on medieval royalty as we look on ourselves in the 21st Century. These days extramarital affairs are scorned and looked down upon, everyone feels sympathy for the wife and loathing for the mistress, but that's because monogamy is a huge part of our culture, we are all taught to think, or know, that we deserve a faithful partner. This wasn't the case in the 14th century, or really any century until perhaps the 20th and even then it was a slow time in coming. As a royal woman, the daughter of a King, would she have been taught to accept that her husband would take a mistress and that she had no place or even right to question that, or to become irritated by it. Did she have a resigned acceptance that her future husband would take mistresses, but she would always be his proper wife? Constance was the daughter of a mistress so perhaps I'm delving too much into this.
On the other hand did she really ever care for John in that way at all? Was he just a means to an end which was the Castilian throne? Perhaps she genuinely didn't give a fig about Katherine's existence but I find that a little hard to believe. If she hated John, or truly never liked him, then fair enough, but John was fighting for her corner when few other people were, surely that breeds some kind of affection, if not mutual respect? There is no doubt they had that for each other, but did that mean Katherine's existence would have irked Constance, potentially not.
Oh dear, so much for John of Gaunt. His relationship with Katherine de Roet-Swynford lasted until his death and if you don't know by now he eventually married her. It's easy to get all mushy and romantic about this
"he loved her so much he defied all boundaries to marry her"
"that's true love, enduring time and social stigma."
As much as I want to believe that John only married Katherine because he loved her I seriously doubt, no, I don't believe, that was the only reason; I think a big part of it was, as does Weir, that their children were actually the reason. As most history buffs know illegitimate children were left out of inheritance unless specifically stated in the will. The children Gaunt had by Katherine, the well-known Beauforts, were all illegitimate. There were four in total:
John, Earl of Somerset, and the ancestor of the Tudor Kings.
 |
| The Beaufort Earls of Somerset coat of arms |
Thomas, Duke of Exeter
Joan, Countess of Westmorland.
*gasp* they have titles! Indeed, and probably as a result of their father's marriage and subsequent efforts to have them legitimised. Gaunt married Katherine in 1396 and sadly he died a mere three years later, but left Katherine to be the second lady in all of England; quite the rise for a mistress isn't it? She was respected by both Richard II and Henry IV, there was even affection with the latter as he his own mother had died when he was very young and Katherine must have been a comfort.
Getting back to Gaunt, poor man I've been so distracted by the women in his life I've forgotten all about him, and this is the reason I'm not a biographer, or a very good blogger; too easily distracted. He married Constance in 1371/1372 and had also began his relationship with Katherine. Gaunt was in France until 1374 when he was forced to return to England after his army had either died of dysentery or deserted. Edward of Woodstock was still ailing and now Edward III was also ill so Gaunt took a lot of responsibility of government on his shoulders. Unfortunately this also marked the start of his negatively spiraling popularity with the people of the nation.
 |
| Or the Peasant's revolt |
