| Nationality | Beauchamp, William de, ninth earl of Warwick (c. 1238–1298), magnate, was the eldest of eight children of William (III) de Beauchamp of Elmley, Worcestershire, and his wife Isabel, sister of William Mauduit, earl of Warwick.
Inheritance and early career
Beauchamp inherited the earldom from his uncle, William Mauduit, who died on 8 January 1268. He did homage for his uncle's lands on 9 February. According to the inquisitions on the latter's death, William de Beauchamp was then over thirty. He was thus a young man during the period of baronial reform. His father had been a royalist, and according to John Leland's Itinerary, the 'old lorde Beauchamp of Helmely' sent his sons to the battle of Evesham to help the king, 'and these Brether and their Band did a greate feate in vanquishing the Host of Montefort'. Whatever the truth of this, it is probable that the young William participated on the royalist side. He married Matilda, daughter of John fitz Geoffrey, some time between late 1261 (when her first husband, the minor Yorkshire baron, Gerard de Furnival, died) and his own accession to the earldom in January 1268. It cannot have been a particularly propitious marriage, for with two married brothers Matilda had little prospect of inheriting her father's estates. In the event she was to be one of her father's coheirs, bringing a quarter of his property to the Beauchamps in 1297. William (III) de Beauchamp and Peter de Montfort had made an arrangement to marry their respective eldest sons and daughters, which in August 1248 the king promised not to disturb should the parents die before the children came of age. The scheme must have fallen through, quite possibly for political reasons given their radically different stances during the reforms and the civil war that followed. William's father kept a tight rein on his resources so that William the younger was not particularly well endowed. The father had first bestowed upon the couple land to the value of £9 in Sheriffs Lench, Worcestershire, and then later gave them the manor of Letcombe Basset, Berkshire, in exchange. Before 1265 William (IV) de Beauchamp had acquired manors at Beoley and Yardley, partly from an indebted tenant.
His inheritance of the Warwick earldom must have greatly altered William (IV) de Beauchamp's horizons. In 1271 or 1272 he named his infant heir Guy de Beauchamp, after the legendary Guy of Warwick. Meanwhile, his father had died leaving him the Beauchamp estates, for which his homage was taken on 27 April 1269. From the Mauduits he inherited the office of chamberlain of the exchequer, while through his father he became hereditary sheriff of Worcestershire and hereditary pantler at royal coronations. He was probably quite high in royal favour, perhaps on account of his own actions during the period of civil war as well as his father's. For his 'laudable service' he was not only allowed to continue his father's arrangement of paying off the latter's debts to the exchequer at the rate of £10 per annum but also to pay off his relief at the same rate. Although he was pardoned of debts to the exchequer at various times during his life, he seems to have remained in permanent debt to the crown.
The resources directly deployed by the earls of Warwick were much depleted, in fact, during the thirteenth century, largely because of the longevity of their widows. It was a situation that continued into the time of William (IV) de Beauchamp, even if less severely than earlier in the century. Ela, daughter of William (I) de Longespée, and widow of Thomas, earl of Warwick (d. 1242), lived until 1298. She held as dower one-third of the property that had come to Earl Thomas on his father's death. Admittedly William (IV) had brought the Beauchamp resources to the earldom in 1268. However, these too were encumbered by dower. Angaret, his grandfather's second wife, held her dower until her death about 1280. It is not perhaps too surprising that William (IV) had to be coerced into assigning her full dower to his aunt, the widowed Countess Alice Mauduit in 1268, and although he was eventually able to negotiate with Ela Longespée for the recovery of some of her dower lands, it is none the less probably true to say that resource problems cast a shadow over the earl's involvement in national affairs.
Warwick did, however, participate in affairs of state. He was present at the council at Westminster on 12 November 1276, when the legal process against Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was recited and the decision was made to go to war, and he was present in parliament when Alexander III, king of Scots, did homage to Edward I at Michaelmas 1278.
Military service
Warwick was much employed by the crown in matters concerning Wales and the Welsh marches. He was appointed on a commission to inquire into the trespasses committed by Gilbert de Clare against Llywelyn, for example, on 16 October 1270. On 14 April 1274 he was empowered, with others, to hear and do justice with respect to 'mutual trespasses and raids' between the king and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and on 24 April to bring about a truce between Llywelyn and Humphrey (IV) de Bohun. He earned some distinction in his military career, not only in Wales but also on Edward I's early campaigns in Scotland. As part of the preparations for the first Welsh campaign he was made captain of Chester and Lancaster in November 1276. The main muster of the feudal host was ordered to take place at Worcester on 1 July 1277. In the meantime it was necessary to arrange for the protection of the marches, and the earl of Warwick's appointment should be seen in this light. As Edward was able to march forward to Flint during the next summer without fear of any flank attack, it is to be presumed that Warwick did his job well. He took part in the siege and capture of Dryslwyn, Carmarthenshire, during August and September 1287. In Scotland he was one of the leaders of the force which, under the earl of Surrey, defeated the Scots at Dunbar on 27 April 1296.
It was during the Welsh rising of 1294–5, however, that the earl of Warwick fought his most important engagement. While the king's forces assembled at Chester, Warwick's troops mustered at Montgomery and a third army under William de Valence was at Carmarthen. With the king effectively trapped at Conwy, Warwick was responsible for a major victory when on 5 March 1295 at Maes Moydog he crippled the forces of the Welsh leader Madog ap Llywelyn. Having moved his own troops from Montgomery to Oswestry, Warwick heard from his spies of the whereabouts of the Welsh leader, who had descended with his forces from Snowdonia. Warwick then took his troops on a night march to engage the Welsh on the following day. Madog's forces advanced to fight the English and suffered severe losses, over 600 according to chroniclers. Moreover, another 100 or so died in a secondary action which struck Madog's baggage train and effectively barred his retreat. Others were drowned. Apparently the English had both surprised the enemy and successfully carried through a pincer movement. The army that effected this victory was a small one, comprising about 119 horse and 2500 foot. However, the English losses appear to have been derisory, namely one squire and six infantrymen according to the Hagnaby chronicle. This might be thought to lend some support to the chronicler Nicholas Trivet's assertion that the English victory was due to the novel tactic of interspersing cavalry and archers, foreshadowing later tactics; but doubt has been cast on this version of the battle, given that the payroll for Warwick's army lists only thirteen crossbowmen and archers per se. Whatever the precise tactics employed, it looks as though Warwick possessed some skill as a commander. Three months later he achieved a further coup when he escorted the rebel Morgan ap Maredudd and his men to the king.
The payroll for Warwick's subsidiary army of 1294–5 survives in full, but the name of the earl does not appear on the roll. The earls clearly regarded it as beneath their dignity, and probably against their chivalric code, to serve for pay. For the 1282–3 campaign, and again in 1287, Warwick accepted prests or advances of cash but these seem to have been either the wages of the infantry or loans to assist in the general preparations for war. But pay was taken for the expedition that set out for Scotland late in 1297, possibly because it was a winter campaign. The king contracted with six magnates to serve for three months with a total of 500 horse in return for £7691 16s. 8d. The smallest retinue, with only 30 horse, was that of Warwick.
Warwick was only once in serious opposition to the crown. This was during what has been described as the 'near civil war' of 1297. As one of a mere handful of earls present in England during the crisis he was virtually obliged to take part. About 130 magnates were asked by the king to muster at London on 7 July. Before this gathering, however, many of the magnates, including Warwick, held a meeting at Montgomery. They decided that they could not serve the king overseas because they had spent so much already on his wars in Wales and Scotland, and because they were impoverished by the frequent taxes. According to the Evesham chronicle, the earl of Warwick was bribed into submission. He came to the king complaining of poverty. He was given 'a certain sum of money' and was promised more. His opposition to the king promptly ceased. In fact on 14 July he participated in the swearing of fealty to the king's son, Edward of Caernarfon. That the king was able to divide the opposition was due in some measure to Warwick's action. In fact, when mediation finally took place at Stratford, at the meeting at which the Remonstrances were drawn up, Warwick was among those acting for the king.
In the end, however, Warwick did not accompany the king to Flanders, possibly because of illness. When the king summoned him on 17 September 1297 he expressed his pleasure that Warwick's condition had improved. He remained in England during the Flanders campaign as part of Prince Edward's council. Warwick seems to have remained active almost to the end of his life, and on 30 March 1298 he was ordered to be with the king at York at Whitsun to set out against the rebels in Scotland.
Religious affairs, death, and burial
In terms of his local power Warwick experienced some difficulty with Godfrey Giffard, bishop of Worcester, chiefly over their respective rights within the hundred of Oswaldslow. In religious matters Warwick favoured the friars. He was a benefactor of the Augustinian friary of Thelsford and he was buried with the Franciscans at Worcester. Like his father and grandfather before him he had been in contention with Worcester Cathedral priory. In the year 1276, according to the Worcester chronicle, he heard a rumour that his father's tomb had been opened and the body thrown out, and he therefore ordered the tomb to be opened so that he could check. The rumour was found to be false and Warwick was excommunicated. Two months later a dispute between Warwick and the prior was settled on payment of £100 to the earl. The prior agreed at this time to find one monk to say a daily mass for Warwick and his family in perpetuity at the altars of saints Philip and James.
Warwick became gravely ill at Elmley in early June 1298. According to the Worcester chronicle he made his will 'in the absence of all his friends' (Ann. mon., 4.537) and on the advice of Brother John of Olney, who caused him to change his mind so that instead of being buried in the cathedral church of Worcester he was buried with the friars. It is hard to believe the implication that this was a last-minute conversion to support the friars. He seems to have made his will the previous year, in fact, and the stipulations of the will show every sign of having been well considered. His body was to be buried in the choir of the Worcester Franciscans. If he died abroad he was to be buried in the nearest Franciscan house. His heart was to be buried wherever his wife chose to be buried. He set aside £200 for the funeral celebrations. The two horses that were to carry his armour in the funeral procession were to be given to the friars. Indeed, as the Worcester chronicle relates, the brethren
processed through the streets and squares of the city and made a show to the citizens, bearing the body as if carrying the spoils of war and so they buried him in a place which had not previously been used and where in winter time he could be said to be drowned rather than buried.
Ann. mon., 4.537
Warwick gave £100 to maintain two soldiers in the Holy Land. His bequests to individuals included a gold ring with a ruby in it to his son, Guy. His countess was to have all his silver vessels with his cross, which contained part of the True Cross, the vestments belonging to his chapel to make use of during her life, and the cup given to him by the bishop of Worcester. She was also to have all his horses and moveable goods in his manor of Sheffield. Horses were of vital importance to a military figure like Warwick, but it may be that Warwick had a particular interest in horses. On campaign in 1297 and 1298 the Beauchamps possessed a larger number of highly priced horses than any other family, one at 100 marks, three at 80, and two at 70, besides equally valuable remounts. All his other cups, jewels, and rings the countess was to distribute for the health of his soul as she saw fit. He gave 50 marks to his two daughters, nuns at the Gilbertine priory of Shouldham, and made bequests of the vestments, after his wife's death, to his private chapels; the best suit was to be passed on to Guy. There was, however, no bequest to the cathedral priory, despite the fact that the Beauchamps were its patrons. Warwick died on either 5 or 9 June 1298. His wife died three years later, on 16 or 18 April 1301. She was buried with him on 7 May. Again, according to the—no doubt jaundiced—Worcester chronicler this was done against her wishes, in that she had indicated during her lifetime that she wished to be buried elsewhere. Their son, Guy de Beauchamp, succeeded as earl of Warwick. According to Dugdale two other sons, Robert and John, had predeceased their father, the former dying in infancy, and there were at least three married daughters (Isabel, Maud, and Margaret) and possibly a fourth (Wenthlea), in addition to the two nuns. |