The Royal Bastards of Medieval England

by Chris Given-Wilson, Alice Curteis

This book examines the nature of the family in medieval society, and why illegitimacy, which was so much condemned in theory, was often ignored in practice. It examines the careers of notable bastards - in particular the use made of bastardy proceedings to bar the sons of Edward IV (the ill-fated Princes in the Tower) from the throne.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Biography, British Literature, Biography Memoir

258 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1984

Reviews

[Mercedes Rochelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be surprisingly diverting and helpful. The paper book cover shows that famous romantic painting of the two princes in the Tower by John Everett Millias, so I was half-expecting yet another repetition of arguments pro and con about Richard III’s involvement with their murder. In actuality, the princes are given a nod, but the true subjects of this book are shown sorely-needed attention as they are often glossed over in histories despite the fact that many of them were quite influential. For instance, I knew all about the Beauforts (John of Gaunt’s bastards who were later legitimized), but didn’t really give much credit to Henry VII’s great-grandfather, John Beaufort, as the head of the Tudor dynasty (on the maternal side). Without Beaufort's royal blood, Henry might not have dared an attempt at the throne. Other royal bastards, such as Geoffrey Plantagenet (son of Henry II), and Robert of Gloucester (son of Henry I), were key actors in major events and given their own chapters.

The structure of this book gives us an explanation of how important (or at times unimportant) legitimacy was viewed throughout the middle ages. An extremely long introduction gives a good overview of marriage, divorce, and the Catholic Church’s views throughout this period, which is more than helpful. Consider this: since the twelfth century, “the church was teaching not only that the consent of the man and the woman was the vital prerequisite for any marriage, but also that that consent of any other person—parent, lord or whatever—was unnecessary. Among the aristocracy and royalty, it is only in modern times that this idea has really gained acceptance: parentally arranged marriages have remained common among the upper classes right through to the twentieth century...Even for the elite, the doctrine of consent did have one crucial result: if a man and a woman did flout the wishes of their parents or guardians and get married, perhaps secretly, and if it was then proven in a church court that they had both consented to the marriage, the marriage remained valid in the eyes of the church…” I can’t help but think of the secret marriage between Joan, the Fair maid of Kent and Thomas Holland which fell into this category.

Especially in the early days after William the Bastard made his mark on history, bastards could fare just as well as their luckier brothers (short of inheritance). Geoffrey Plantagenet is the only son of Henry II that stuck with him all the way to the end, even when all his legitimate brothers rebelled. He ended up as Bishop of Lincoln (hotly contested), archbishop of York (also hotly contested) and chancellor of England, though when Henry II died his career took a downward spiral. He was in constant conflict with his brothers and died in exile, a bitter man. After Edward III’s time, illegitimacy began to take on more political overtones, and accusations got bantered about that could potentially add strength to the opposition party. Even Richard II was accused of being a bastard (because his mother’s secret marriage ruined her reputation). It was thought that Prince Edward, son of the unstable Henry VI, was the illegitimate son of Queen Margaret, which added fuel to the Wars of the Roses fire. George, Duke of Clarence was executed after accusing his brother Edward IV of being a bastard. And of course the Princes in the Tower were removed from the royal inheritance by their uncle Richard III. On the other hand, by the time of Henry VIII (whose father was stained by the curse of illegitimacy on both sides of his family) it looked like the pendulum might swing the other way; if Henry FitzRoy had lived past his teenaged years, it was commonly thought he might be declared heir. And in 1685, the popular son of Charles II, James Duke of Monmouth, made a serious grab at the crown, only to be defeated in battle at Sedgemoor and beheaded two days later. “He was the last royal bastard in England to entertain such ambitions. It is one of those perverse ironies of our history that neither Henry I, who fathered more bastards than any other English king, nor Charles II, who ran him a close second, was able to pass his crown to a legitimate son.” Nonetheless, it makes for great reading!

[Michael Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Royal promiscuity sometimes has political consequences, as demonstrated in 1483 when Richard, Duke of Gloucester and brother of the recently deceased Edward IV, had his royal nephews declared illegitimate. He acceded as Richard III, the "princes in the Tower" were never seen again, and the Plantagenet royal line ended two years later at Bosworth Field. Ironically, the victor there, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, was descended on one side from a legitimized bastard of one of Edward III’s sons and on the other from a Welsh clerk who had secretly married a former queen of England. It might be said that the crowning of Henry VII marked the low point of the concept of legitimacy in determining the succession to the throne of England. Medieval monarchs married not for love, of course, but for political reasons — to acquire territory or to cement alliances. Personal compatibility and mutual consent were irrelevant (with occasional exceptions, such as Edward IV’s secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, which outraged his advisors). The Church preached the indissolubility of the marriage bond but that didn’t carry much weight with the aristocracy and the monarch. So it’s not surprising that kings had mistresses. Sometimes these were casual liaisons, sometimes the relationship spanned many years and produced multiple offspring. Henry I had twenty illegitimate children whom he acknowledged, and three or four others have good claims. Adding in the unknowns who didn’t survive early infancy, a total of forty bastards by this one king is not impossible. (Even Charles II only managed sixteen.) The exceptions also are surprising: William the Conqueror, himself a bastard, was singled out by the chroniclers for the purity of his personal life. The authors examine in great detail the sort of women who became royal mistresses between the Conquest and Bosworth, what sort of future awaited their offspring, and why some of those children went to the headsman’s block for rebellion while others had distinguished military and diplomatic careers and founded noble lines of their own. Detailed lineages are supplied and discussed at length, which makes this a very useful source in an area not often covered in sufficient detail, as well as an intriguing study in its own right.

[Elia Princess of Starfall · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Middle Ages are a complex and fascinating era; a historical period awash with violence, bloodshed, religious zeal, duplicitous politics, the gradual rebirth of art, crusader and kingly war alongside strict hierarchies of power, class and gender. Even today the Middle Ages continues to enthrall the general public and, of course, those of us interested in history. Game of Thrones, The Last Kingdom and Medici: Masters of Florence - the Middle Ages has taken over TV, historical fiction and popular culture as well and this has translated into increased interest of all things medieval.

I will now move onto a matter that is, without a doubt, one of the more intriguing and sensationalized aspects of the Middle Ages - royal illegitimacy and how it was perceived socially, morally, politically and culturally by a diverse and complicated society

In the Middle Ages, royal bastards could be found throughout the kingly courts of Europe and were neither an embarrassment nor a disgrace (expect probably to the wives of royalty) to the royal family and to medieval society. The general distaste and scandal that supposedly swirled royal bastards and how they came into being only reared its ugly head in the nineteenth century (because of Queen Victoria's snobbery towards the sexual antics of her unmarried uncles) and has since coloured our beliefs in how royal bastards were treated and viewed by medieval culture and society ( the treatment of bastards in G. R. R. M's A Song of Ice and Fire is anachronistic and rather melodramatic). Despite popular beliefs, royal bastards were not mistreated, discriminated, rejected or spurned by any class of society. It was, in fact, a boon and an incredible social and political advantage to be the bastard of royalty or the nobility.



Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis's detailed and highly interesting book on royal bastards of medieval England is divided into three distinct and diligently researched sections regarding how marriage, illegitimacy and sex were intertwined, who were the royal bastards, how they were influential in politics and society and their overall importance to the English royal family from 1066-1485. Carefully researched, insightful and written in somber and precise manner, Royal Bastards tells the tale of how royal infidelity and illegitimacy neither suffered from stigma or were frowned upon by medieval society; instead kings such as Henry I and II allowed their bastard children to enter into great positions of power, status and wealth with little or no moral indignation from the Catholic Church or general populace.

Throughout the book, the authors continue to stress that a king or nobleman was expected to have mistresses and natural children; indeed it was often a matter of surprise and shock for a man of nobility to remain faithful to his wife in what was usually an arranged marriage. Fidelity in marriage was requested solely from royal or noble women; men were simply not expected to adhere to their marriage vows and it was a matter of bemusement if they did. One noted example was William the Bastard/ Conqueror who was justly famous for his faithfulness to his wife Matilda of Flanders. However, many kings and noblemen regularly indulged themselves with beautiful and charismatic mistresses and naturally produced a bevy of bastards who were often indulged or rewarded in life due to their father's benevolence.

Bastards were neither hidden away or shunted to one side throughout the Middle Ages; they were valued and influential members of the royal family or the aristocracy. Robert of Gloucester was the bastard son of King Henry I and an influential Earl and supporter of his half-sister Empress Matilda. William Longspree was the bastard son of King Henry II and the Earl of Salisbury who consistently supported his erstwhile half-brother King John. If bastards were so morally reprehensible or regnant to medieval sensibilities then they would not have been allowed to gain political or social prestige in any aspect and the Church would have condemned their presence more viciously and publicly if they were truly so offended (many bishops, priests and Popes had mistresses and natural children). In short, bastards were not the social outcasts that TV and historical fiction have alleged them to be; such portrayals are the work of fiction that fails to take into account the complexity and ambiguities of medieval society.



Royal bastards were prominent throughout the Middle Ages in the English royal family. The most prolific breeders of bastard children were the Kings Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Edward III, Edward IV and Richard III. Only the barest details are often recorded about a King's mistress and the children that resulted from such relationships. This was often due to a lack of knowledge regarding the affair or a certain careful reticence about divulging the King's private life on a public basis. Most kings of England treated their bastards with generosity and often indulged them more so than their own legitimate offspring. Kings were not ashamed to say that they had been unfaithful to their wives and had fathered children out of wedlock. There was no shame for a man to be unfaithful or to have bastard children. Rather the modern day opinion that bastards were scorned or reviled by medieval society is anachronistic and is used by authors as a tool for melodrama or angst.

In conclusion, Royal Bastards of Medieval England is a well-written, diligently researched and thoughtful book on the who the royal bastards were, how they were treated by their royal fathers and medieval society and their overall importance to medieval England in its social and political spheres. An all round excellent book that is both scholarly and accessible, Royal Bastards achieves its goal of showing that royal bastardy was neither disliked or hated and instead royal bastards could hope to achieve great prominence in whatever career path they chose to pursue (within reason). A book I would heartily recommend to any interested in the medieval past.

[Randy Ladenheim-Gil · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really worthwhile book, though at times it can be tedious (for example, I don't particularly care about two of the bastards who had long chapters devoted to them, but I was fascinated by Arthur Plantagenet, he of the Lisle Letters and the uncle of Henry VIII. That chapter was fascinating, and he was someone I knew nothing about). It's unfortunate that the bastards of whom a lot is known were the ones I found boring, and the ones I'd love to know more about are hardly known at all. This book was written 35 years ago, which makes me wonder whether more research has been done in the meanwhile. The family charts are great, though I understand some readers find them boring. That's a big part of the reason I'm there!

[Gina · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. I highly recommend it to ALL British history lovers.