King Edward I-Power, Prerogative and Conflict within the medieval Lordship of Glamorgan

The medieval lordship of Glamorgan was formed in 1093 when Norman baron and vassal of king William II (1056-1100) Robert Fitzhamon (d 1107) seized power from the last native Welsh ruler of Morganwg, Iestyn ap Gwrgant (d 1093), and divided out his new fiefdom amongst his retainers-the legendary 'twelve knights of Glamorgan'. The stronghold and administrative centre of the lord of Glamorgan was Cardiff castle, its Norman stone built keep after nearly 900 years is still a dominant feature of Cardiff's skyline. The impressive stronghold of the de Clare dynasty, Caerphilly castle, was one of the largest castles ever built in Britain. Caerphilly castle too still stands as a silent and evocative reminder of the power and ambition of the lords of Glamorgan.

(Sixteenth Century depiction of Robert Fitzhamon-founder of Glamorgan)

The medieval lordship of Glamorgan was one of the largest, wealthiest and perhaps the most important lordship within the Welsh marches. The lord of Glamorgan also simultaneously held the honour of Gloucester and other lordships within England making him one of the richest and most powerful men in Britain. A man who was close to the king and who was often engaged in affairs of national importance. 

(The Norman keep at Cardiff castle)

In the centuries after the initial conquest Glamorgan was gradually expanded by a series of aggressive military campaigns instigated by successive lords of Glamorgan. Conflict with the native Welsh rulers of Blaenau Glamorgan and beyond it seemed was an almost permanent feature of life in the march, and would be an issue that many of the lords of Glamorgan would have to address.

The marcher lordship of Glamorgan however owing to its unique foundation incorporated rights and privileges that made the lord of Glamorgan more powerful than the King’s English barons. Upon accession to the lordship of Glamorgan the new lord could enjoy almost complete autonomy from the English crown as the king’s writ did not apply in the march, the lord of Glamorgan did not even owe the king military service. 

The lord of Glamorgan could deal with all civil matters regarding his subjects within his own court. For example, in the year 1245 Richard Seward lord of Talyfan and Llanblethlian was outlawed by Richard de Clare (1222-1262) on account of his alleged alliance with Hywel ap Maredudd leader of Welsh resistance against the de Clare’s, and as a result had his estates confiscated by earl Richard. Seward felt that he had been unfairly treated and appealed directly to king Henry III (1207-1272) to intercede on his behalf, but there was little the king could do and Seward it seems lost all of his land holdings and possessions within Glamorgan.

(King Henry III)

The lord of Glamorgan did not need a royal license to construct castles. For example, a dispute between Gilbert de Clare, also known as Gilbert the Red, (1243-1295) and Llewellyn ap Gruffudd prince of Wales (1223-1282) in the early 1270's lead Gilbert to begin building a massive new castle at Caerphilly. This new construction was not appreciated by king Henry III who did not want to inflame further hostilities between prince Llewellyn and the ambitious earl Gilbert de Clare, both of whom were also embroiled in the second Barons War in England (1264-1267). Caerphilly castle was temporarily in royal control while a solution to the trouble was sought. Gilbert however had other ideas, and managed to regain his castle at Caerphilly by a simple rouse; the king was virtually powerless to take it back.

(Caerphilly castle)

Perhaps the most prized privilege enjoyed by the lords of Glamorgan was the right to wage private war. It was not just the native Welsh lords that the lord of Glamorgan would turn his ire to if he was aggrieved or felt a sense of entitlement, but on occasion his fellow marcher lords. For example, in the year 1222, earl Gilbert de Clare (1180-1230) mobilised a force of soldiers and began a siege of Dinas Powys castle seemingly over the issue of wardship, as the heir to the lordship of Dinas Powys was a minor at the time. The castle of Dinas Powys for reasons that are unclear was in the custody of William Marshal the younger earl of Pembroke (1190-1231) and Gilbert was quite within his rights to not only claim wardship of any given lordship within his territory, but to go to war to enforce his prerogative. It took the efforts of King Henry III to quell the violence and order William Marshal to give custody of the castle to Gilbert.

(Contemporary depiction of a medieval siege) 

These events show us just how powerful the lords of Glamorgan actually were and the lengths that they would go to to get what they wanted.

The power enjoyed by the lords of Glamorgan did not go unnoticed by the monarchy and after nearly two hundred years of near complete autonomy in the march and no doubt many a raised eyebrow in England, the lord of Glamorgan finally met his match in none other than king Edward I (1239-1307). King Edward I, also known as Longshanks, needs little introduction. King Edward's campaigns in Wales and Scotland show us just how brutal and efficient he could be if he wanted something badly enough and Edward had a very clear vision of Britain unified under his rule which did not include his barons waging private war. 

A series of events involving Gilbert de Clare the red earl of Gloucester and lord of Glamorgan, and Humphrey de Bohun (1249-1298) earl of Herford and lord of Brecon during the late thirteenth century, gradually drove Edward to curtail the power of both earls and exert royal authority over the marcher lords, something previous monarchs were unable or unwilling to do. There were quite a few sources of discontent between Gilbert and Humphrey, but the most contentious issue between the two  earls occurred in 1289 when Gilbert began building a castle at Morlais near Merthyr Tydfil on land claimed by Humphrey to be within the boundaries of his lordship.

(Gilbert de Clare The Red)

Edward was abroad at the time in Gascony and could not deal with the issue personally, but a commission consisting of some of the most powerful people in England including Queen Eleanor, the king's cousin the earl of Cornwall, who was regent of England while Edward was away, and the archbishop of Canterbury, assembled with a view to persuading Gilbert to desist from his actions, but they failed.

In the year 1290 earl Humphrey formally appealed to the king against earl Gilbert for trespass; however, Gilbert failed to turn up at the royal court. Edward promptly issued a proclamation forbidding private war. Gilbert's response was audacious. Gilbert sent his soldiers into Brecon with the de Clare banners unfurled and stole livestock and other possessions belonging to earl Humphrey.  Several of Humphrey's men were killed during the raid. This brazen act of defiance was a direct challenge to the king's authority and tells us a great deal about Gilbert's character and his sense of entitlement when it came to enforcing and expanding the interests of his lordship. Earl Gilbert it seems was not at all afraid to flout royal authority. 

(Brecon castle)

A second Brecon raid took place not long after in June when earl Gilbert was actually with king Edward at Westminster, and a third raid took place in November.

Earl Humphrey once again protested to the king. It seems however that earl Humphrey was prepared to drop the matter for the sake of marcher prerogative, but by now Edward was heartily fed up of Gilbert's increasing acts of defiance towards the crown and established a royal commission at Brecon in 1291 with a jury of 24 to hear evidence of raids and counter raids that took place in 1290. Earl Gilbert, predictably, and in another act of defiance didn't attend. 

A new royal commission was established at Abergavenny in October 1291, this time personally headed by the king. Both earls had no choice but to attend on this occasion, and although Gilbert vehemently protested, he was arrested along with earl Humphrey. Both earls were put on trail at Westminster in January 1292 where they had their estates declared forfeit for life. Both earls were then imprisoned afterwards.

(King Edward I)

King Edward however didn't intend to keep the earls in jail for too long or to permanently keep their estates, and their liberty and possessions were eventually restored to them, although they were both heavily fined. Earl Gilbert was fined 10,000 marks and earl Humphrey 1000 marks. Edward's actions were intended to show both earls that royal authority was supreme and that waging private war would no longer be tolerated.

For a time there was peace in the march, but in 1295 King Edward had further cause to take Glamorgan into royal custody, for earl Gilbert was planning to launch a military offensive against one Morgan ap Maredudd. Morgan was the leader of a short lived rebellion against Gilbert within Glamorgan, but by the time Gilbert was planning his campaign, Morgan had capitulated to king Edward and had declared himself the king's loyal subject. Gilbert further inflamed royal disfavor when he delayed surrendering the temporalities of the bishopric of Llandaff to John of Monmouth who had been elected to the see of Llandaff.

Edward once again decided to temporarily confiscate the earl's estates as a further reminder that the earl's actions would not be tolerated. Earl Gilbert's estates were restored to him in 1296, but shortly after Gilbert de Clare died with the prerogative of the marcher lord to wage private war dying with him.

Mark and Jonathan Lambert are archaeology graduates of Cardiff University and are published authors. They have been writing about and researching local history for the past 20 years and have a wealth of knowledge. All articles are original compositions - we hope you enjoy our content. Enquiries: hiddenglamorgan@outlook.com

©Jonathan and Mark Lambert 2018

The right of Jonathan and Mark Lambert to be identified as Authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted, reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic means, including social media, or mechanical, or by any other means including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the authors.