Page:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu/147

 to his father’s earldoms on the death of the latter in October 1230. His first wife was Margaret, daughter of Hubert de Burgh, and after her death in 1237 he married Maud, daughter of John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, and passed his early years in tournaments and pilgrimages, taking for a time a secondary and undecided part in politics. He refused to help Henry III. on the French expedition of 1250, but was afterwards with the king at Paris; then he went on a diplomatic errand to Scotland, and was sent to Germany to work among the princes for the election of his stepfather, Richard, earl of Cornwall, as king of the Romans. About 1258 Gloucester took up his position as a leader of the barons in their resistance to the king, and he was prominent during the proceedings which followed the Mad Parliament at Oxford in 1258. In 1259, however, he quarrelled with Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester; the dispute, begun in England, was renewed in France and he was again in the confidence and company of the king. This attitude, too, was only temporary, and in 1261 Gloucester and Leicester were again working in concord. The earl died at his residence near Canterbury on the 15th of July 1262. A large landholder like his son and successor, Gilbert, Gloucester was the most powerful English baron of his time; he was avaricious and extravagant, but educated and able. He left several children in addition to Earl Gilbert.

GLOUCESTER, ROBERT, (d. 1147), was a natural son of Henry I. of England. He was born, before his father’s accession, at Caen in Normandy; but the exact date of his birth, and his mother’s name are unknown. He received from his father the hand of a wealthy heiress, Mabel of Gloucester, daughter of Robert Fitz Hamon, and with her the lordships of Gloucester and Glamorgan. About 1121 the earldom of Gloucester was created for his benefit. His rank and territorial influence made him the natural leader of the western baronage. Hence, at his father’s death, he was sedulously courted by the rival parties of his half-sister the empress Matilda and of Stephen. After some hesitation he declared for the latter, but tendered his homage upon strict conditions, the breach of which should be held to invalidate the contract. Robert afterwards alleged that he had merely feigned submission to Stephen with the object of secretly furthering his half-sister’s cause among the English barons. The truth appears to be that he was mortified at finding himself excluded from the inner councils of the king, and so resolved to sell his services elsewhere. Robert left England for Normandy in 1137, renewed his relations with the Angevin party, and in 1138 sent a formal defiance to the king. Returning to England in the following year, he raised the standard of rebellion in his own earldom with such success that the greater part of western England and the south Welsh marches were soon in the possession of the empress. By the battle of Lincoln (Feb. 2, 1141), in which Stephen was taken prisoner, the earl made good Matilda’s claim to the whole kingdom. He accompanied her triumphal progress to Winchester and London; but was unable to moderate the arrogance of her behaviour. Consequently she was soon expelled from London and deserted by the bishop Henry of Winchester who, as legate, controlled the policy of the English church. With Matilda the earl besieged the legate at Winchester, but was forced by the royalists to beat a hasty retreat, and in covering Matilda’s flight fell into the hands of the pursuers. So great was his importance that his party purchased his freedom by the release of Stephen. The earl renewed the struggle for the crown and continued it until his death (Oct. 31, 1147); but the personal unpopularity of Matilda, and the estrangement of the Church from her cause, made his efforts unavailing. His loyalty to a lost cause must be allowed to weigh in the scale against his earlier double-dealing. But he hardly deserves the extravagant praise which is lavished upon him by William of Malmesbury. The sympathies of the chronicler are too obviously influenced by the earl’s munificence towards literary men.

GLOUCESTER, THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, (1355–1397), seventh and youngest son of the English king Edward III., was born at Woodstock on the 7th of January 1355. Having married Eleanor (d. 1399), daughter and co-heiress of Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford, Essex and Northampton (d. 1373), Thomas obtained the office of constable of England, a position previously held by the Bohuns, and was made earl of Buckingham by his nephew, Richard II., at the coronation in July 1377. He took part in defending the English coasts against the attacks of the French and Castilians, after which he led an army through northern and central France, and besieged Nantes, which town, however, he failed to take.

Returning to England early in 1381, Buckingham found that his brother, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, had married his wife’s sister, Mary Bohun, to his own son, Henry, afterwards King Henry IV. The relations between the brothers, hitherto somewhat strained, were not improved by this proceeding, as Thomas, doubtless, was hoping to retain possession of Mary’s estates. Having taken some part in crushing the rising of the peasants in 1381, Buckingham became more friendly with Lancaster; and while marching with the king into Scotland in 1385 was created duke of Gloucester, a mark of favour, however, which did not prevent him from taking up an attitude of hostility to Richard. Lancaster having left the country, Gloucester placed himself at the head of the party which disliked the royal advisers, Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk and Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, whose recent elevation to the dignity of duke of Ireland had aroused profound discontent. The moment was propitious for interference, and supported by those who were indignant at the extravagance and incompetence, real or alleged, of the king, Gloucester was soon in a position of authority. He forced on the dismissal and impeachment of Suffolk; was a member of the commission appointed in 1386 to reform the kingdom and the royal household; and took up arms when Richard began proceedings against the commissioners. Having defeated Vere at Radcot in December 1387 the duke and his associates entered London to find the king powerless in their hands. Gloucester, who had previously threatened his uncle with deposition, was only restrained from taking this extreme step by the influence of his colleagues; but, as the leader of the “lords appellant” in the “Merciless Parliament,” which met in February 1388 and was packed with his supporters, he took a savage revenge upon his enemies, while not neglecting to add to his own possessions.

He was not seriously punished when Richard regained his power in May 1389, but he remained in the background, although employed occasionally on public business, and accompanying the king to Ireland in 1394. In 1396, however, uncle and nephew were again at variance. Gloucester disliked the peace with France and Richard’s second marriage with Isabella, daughter of King Charles VI.; other causes of difference were not wanting, and it has been asserted that the duke was plotting to seize the king. At all events Richard decided to arrest him. By refusing an invitation to dinner the duke frustrated the first attempt, but on the 11th of July 1397 he was arrested by the king himself at his residence, Pleshey castle in Essex. He was taken at once to Calais, and it is probable that he was murdered by order of the king on the 9th of September following. The facts seem to be as follows. At the beginning of September it was reported that he was dead. The rumour, probably a deliberate one, was false, and about the same time a justice, Sir William Rickhill (d. 1407), was sent to Calais with instructions dated the 17th of August to obtain a confession from Gloucester. On the 8th of September the duke confessed that he had been guilty of treason, and his death immediately followed this avowal. Unwilling to meet his parliament so soon after his uncle’s death, Richard’s purpose was doubtless to antedate this occurrence, and to foster the impression that the duke had died from natural causes in August. When parliament met in September he was declared guilty of treason and his estates forfeited. Gloucester had one son, Humphrey (c. 1381–1399), who died unmarried, and four daughters, the most notable of whom was Anne (c. 1380–1438), who was