Katherine Swynford E-Book

Jeannette Lucraft

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 398

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Katherine Swynford – sexual temptress or powerful woman at the centre of the medieval court? This book unravels the many myths and legacies of this fascinating woman, to show her in a whole new light. Katherine was sister-in-law to Geoffrey Chaucer and governess to the daughters of Blanche of Lancaster and John of Gaunt. She also became John of Gaunt's mistress – a role that she maintained for 20 years – and had four illegitimate children by him, from one of whom Henry Tudor was descended. In a move surprising in the fourteenth century, John of Gaunt eventually married her, making her Duchess of Lancaster and stepmother to the future king, Henry Bolingbroke. But who was this extremely well-connected woman? In this fascinating book, Jeanette Lucraft treats Katherine as a missing person and reconstructs her and her times to uncover the mystery of the 'other woman' in John of Gaunt's life.

Leseprobe

The History of a

MEDIEVAL

MISTRESS

JEANNETTE LUCRAFT

First published in 2006This edition published in 2010

The History PressThe Mill, Brimscombe PortStroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QGwww.thehistorypress.co.uk

This ebook edition first published in 2006, 2010, 2011

All rights reserved© Jeannette Lucraft, 2006, 2010, 2011

The right of Jeannette Lucraft, to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law.Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 6828 0MOBI ISBN 978 0 7524 6829 7

Original typesetting by The History Press

To my darling Mike

Contents

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Introduction

1.    Katherine’s Life and Family

2.    The Historiography of Katherine Swynford

3.    Contemporary Opinion

4.    Katherine’s World

5.    Construction of Identity

6.    Saintly Appropriations

Epilogue

Notes

Bibliography

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the staff of the History Department at Huddersfield University, particularly Dr Tim Thornton, Dr Katherine Lewis and Dr Pat Cullum. I would also like to thank Dr Nicholas Bennett of Lincoln Cathedral for answering my queries on Katherine’s tomb.

Thanks and love must also go to my parents for all their support and encouragement, and to my wonderful husband, Mike, for his endless patience and unshakeable belief in me.

Abbreviations

CCR

Calendar of Close Rolls

CFR

Calendar of Fine Rolls

CPR

Calendar of Patent Rolls

DNB

Dictionary of National Biography

, ed. Sidney Lee (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1885–98)

JGR 1372–6

John of Gaunt’s Register 1372–1376

, ed. Sydney Armitage-Smith (London, 1911)

JGR 1379–83

John of Gaunt’s Register 1379–1383

, ed. Sydney Armitage-Smith (London, 1937)

Introduction

The prioress twisted around to look at her charge, and thought that Katherine would do Sheppey credit. The girl had grown beautiful. That fact the convent perhaps could not lay claim to, except that they had obviously fed her well; but her gentle manners, her daintiness in eating – these would please the Queen as much as Katherine’s education might startle her. Katherine could spin, embroider and brew simples, of course; she could sing plain chant with the nuns, and indeed had a pure golden voice so natural and rich that the novice-mistress frequently had to remind her to intone low through her nose, as was seemly. But more than that, Katherine could read both French and English because ‘Sir’ Osbert, the nuns’ priest, had taken the pains to teach her, averring that she was twice as quick to learn as any of the novices. He had also taught her a little astrology and the use of the abacus . . .1

This is the Katherine Swynford known to millions through Anya Seton’s novel, the medieval heroine waiting for her knight in shining armour, strengthened by some surprisingly modern female attributes of independence and self-reliance. But how close is the novel’s depiction to the real Katherine Swynford? Was she this heroine, skilful and intelligent, yet remaining very much the medieval feminine ideal, gentle, courteous and beautiful?

Goodman claims that ‘Katherine Swynford is one of the most famous, enigmatic and controversial of medieval women’.2 Enigmatic she certainly is. Goodman’s is the only work of any length that seeks to uncover the real Katherine, and then his work is limited to a pamphlet of about 6,000 words. Any other work on her is brief to say the least. Famous – yes, almost entirely because of Seton’s novel. First published in the 1950s, it still remains amazingly popular, still in print and appearing a respectable ninety-fifth in the BBC’s ‘Big Read’ initiative. Controversial – well, she was fodder for the medieval equivalent of the tabloid press, and the position of royal mistress is still one that courts controversy. Television channels, newspapers and Internet sites the world over discussed the recent marriage of Prince Charles and his long-term mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles, conducting opinion polls on the public perception of this ‘scarlet’ woman who so blatantly continued her relationship with the man she clearly loves in complete disregard for the fact that the public preferred his wife.

Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to be drawn between Katherine’s relationship with John of Gaunt and that of Charles and Camilla. Both are enduring relationships that, while not exactly conducted in secret, were not publicly recognised as ‘official’. Both couples were seen by some as flaunting their affairs in an undignified manner. The popularity of John, Duke of Lancaster, and Charles, Prince of Wales, has waxed and waned repeatedly, and the presence of Katherine and Camilla has affected the public perception of the two men. Charles’s first wife, Diana, was the archetypal blue-eyed blonde beauty much loved by the British public; so too was Gaunt’s first wife, Blanche. Both Charles and Diana, and John and Blanche, were viewed as golden couples; the popularity of both men was possibly at the highest during these marriages.

But, as much as the public wanted these relationships to be love matches, it is clear that in both cases the love match was with the mistress. Diana was eminently suitable to be a future queen, young, virginal, beautiful, from the right background – and it is perhaps not too cold-hearted to say that it was this suitability for position that was the leading attraction for Charles. Likewise with John and Blanche. Blanche too was young, undoubtedly a virgin, beautiful, from the right background, English in the extreme – and she just happened to bring a very attractive dowry in the form of the Lancastrian heritage. Whatever emotional feeling Gaunt had towards Blanche, the power that she brought him, a third son with little hope of securing power through the inheritance of the throne, was surely the leading attraction.

The parallel continues in the fact that both Diana and Blanche died tragically young. After the death of these women, the ‘illicit’ relationships became increasingly public, until both men felt able to marry their mistresses. Gaunt had reached the end of his political career, and therefore the scandal of the marriage could not harm him in any real sense. Charles, however, has his main career, that of king, still ahead of him. His decision to marry has more potential to harm than Gaunt’s marriage. Perhaps Gaunt showed more prudence in waiting, despite his obviously deep love for Katherine. And Katherine obviously understood that, for Gaunt, duty had to come first.

So Goodman’s claim is correct: Katherine is enigmatic, famous and controversial. But what else can be said about her? The aim of this book is to reveal more of the real Katherine Swynford. There are obstacles in the way, notably a lack of evidence for her life. Her will is frustratingly, and curiously, unavailable. The bequests made by Katherine’s contemporaries and peers fill the usual sources for medieval wills. A process of probate was undertaken, yet, mysteriously, Katherine’s will was never recorded. No personal letters or diaries remain for us to use to establish her personality. Her thoughts and feelings are not available. Her record as documented in the past is connected to her famous and powerful lover. In the vast documentary collection of the Lancastrian empire under John of Gaunt, glimpses of Katherine can be seen, as they can in the records of her Beaufort children with Gaunt, and the records of Gaunt’s son Henry IV. It is in this sense that any trace of Katherine is found in academic, historical publications. She is the appendage of other notables. Little credit is given to the idea that she was a real individual with her own life, and with the ability to control that life. In this book my hope is that the reader will indeed see Katherine as an individual, maybe one that is not too far removed from the romantic figure of Seton’s novel. Seton portrays Katherine as a strong character who desires to control her own destiny. I disagree with what that desired destiny was, but believe that this strong character with control of her life is more than just a fictional characterisation – that it is one that has actual factual root.

Of course, like so many others, my introduction to Katherine was through Seton. As a teenager I read the novel many times, dreaming of this medieval world of knights and their ladies, much as the youthful Katherine is also found dreaming.

Her eyes flew back to the royal table. Philippa, used to this sight, did not understand how like a summer dream it was, how impossible to believe that one was actually beholding them in their golds and scarlets, their ermines and coronets, their gauzy veils and jewels; the Plantagenets, a dozen or more of them, laughing, talking, eating, just like all the lesser folk along the side of the Hall.3

And as a teenager I fell in love with the story of Katherine and Gaunt. So is it therefore inevitable that I will find the real Katherine to be a positive, strong character? This is the danger of historical biography. Inevitably, one chooses a subject because of personal interest and motivations. Could then this personal interest, and subsequent desire to find that a person had particular qualities, lead to a distortion of the evidence to uphold a theory that really has no ground in fact?

In studying the lives of other people it is impossible to think of them objectively, as objects, or to pretend that they can be understood without imagination, participation, moral concern and therefore bias.4

In far too many ways the women whom medieval historians have to study are the imaginative constructions of men: the theoretical women of medical, philosophic, legal, and religious literature; the women seen as the property of masters, fathers, husbands; the women fantasised by poets, romances, preachers, hagiographers. And yet, historians, men and women alike, have no choice but to do that same sort of work: imagine the women of the past.5

But my process of imagining Katherine Swynford does not just cover the romantic issues of her relationship with Gaunt, or her character in the role of lover or mother. I am interested in her as a medieval woman and with what she can tell us about medieval society. Investigating Katherine leads to a multitude of questions. For instance, were mistresses an accepted part of royal or noble life? Did affairs such as Katherine and Gaunt’s offend the moral status quo at court or in the wider country? Was Katherine unique in her role? How do descriptions of her compare to those of other women in the royal household who occupied similar positions and had similar, perhaps dubious, reputations? How were her bastard children treated? What status and education did Katherine have to be accepted within the royal court prior to her involvement with Gaunt? What level of education could she have achieved? Perhaps the most interesting question is this: to what extent could a medieval woman control the way she was presented to, and perceived by, the wider world? In the twenty-first century we have such a strong sense of individualism, of personal identity, and of how this can be manipulated and spun to our own ends. Is this purely a modern phenomenon? Is it anachronistic to suggest that it was a phenomenon available to women in fourteenth-century English noble society? Could Katherine have controlled her identity, manipulated her public appearance to counter the controversy of her relationship? I believe she could. My imagining of Katherine goes far beyond the qualities that entranced Gaunt for a quarter of a century, beyond that of her as a mistress.

So this book goes beyond a biography of one individual to investigate what the life of that individual can reveal about a society. I believe that the reading of primary sources such as the chronicles of Thomas Walsingham or Henry Knighton tells us not just something of the individual that they write about but also something of the writers themselves and their audience. As a teacher I am always conscious of the fact that history is not the events or people of the past. History is what has been recorded about the past, both at the moment of happening and after the passing of time. Investigating why certain issues were recorded, and by whom, and when, is as interesting and as revealing as the issue itself. The process of the historical writer is to attempt to engage with the past and the people of the past so as to build a more complete picture. I believe this process is made easier, and more accurate, if the reasons why recordings were made are uncovered. It is very easy to read Walsingham’s text on Katherine and state that that depiction must be what she was – and many have done so. But why did Walsingham state ‘facts’ that many others did not? What purpose did he have for writing what he did? Who were his audience and what would they have wished for and expected to read? Did he write about others in a similar way to Katherine? Who were these people? What was their link to Katherine? Walsingham and his peers were not writing personal letters or diaries. They wrote with the intention and knowledge that they were writing history. Their work needs to be approached with this in mind. To me, this is how history is done. History is not a modern phenomenon of writing about past facts to declare to others ‘this is what happened’. It is a way of reading and interpreting what others have written to establish why they thought as they did, and what these thoughts tell us about the people and societies of that time. It is in this way that I have approached my ‘biography’ of Katherine Swynford.

I start my quest by outlining the details of Katherine’s family and background as they are known, the biography of her as it emerges from the factual records of births, deaths, marriages, employment, landowning and so on, to provide the narrative of Katherine’s life. Then I investigate how Katherine has travelled through history to us today, how she has been viewed and written about in the intervening centuries.

These centuries of comment reflect what was written in her own time, the contemporary records of the chroniclers who recorded details of Katherine and other women in similar positions to her. There is much to explore in the terminology and form used by these medieval journalists in the descriptions of Katherine and her relationship with, and influence on, Gaunt.

This contemporary picture of her is then placed against the context of life in the medieval royal court. Much is known of the provision of education, the type of entertainment, the lifestyle of this arena, and within this knowledge can be found answers to some of the questions we have about Katherine’s life. I finish with an attempt to see Katherine as she wished to be seen – a difficult task without her will or other personal papers but one enlightened by her coat of arms. Saintly manifestations in the form of emblems and badges were of great importance and significance to medieval people and carried many meanings beyond that of mere religious devotion. Through these means, through the passage of this book, I hope a clear view of Katherine Swynford will become apparent.

CHAPTER 1

Katherine’s Life and Family

Katherine’s father, Gilles or Paon Roet, native of Roeulx near Mons in Hainaut, travelled to England in the entourage of Philippa, member of the ruling family of Hainaut and future bride of Edward III.1 Paon was possibly the son of Jean de Ruet (d. 1305), who was in turn son of Huon de Ruet, giving Katherine a Hainauter, rather than English, heritage.2 The year of Jean de Ruet’s death necessitates a birth date for Paon of, at the latest, the early years of the fourteenth century, making Paon middle-aged when he became a father to Katherine.

It would appear that Paon was not yet a knight when he made his journey to England with the future English queen, but on his arrival he impressed Edward III sufficiently in the art of chivalrous warfare to be appointed King of Arms for Guienne, possibly gaining this rank as early as 1334.3 Paon remained within the households of the King and Queen during his time in England, obviously a trusted member of their retinue, and is mentioned by Froissart in connection with Philippa’s famous plea for the burgesses of Calais in 1347:

Then she rose and had the six burgesses set on their feet and took away the ropes from their necks and led them with her to her hostel and had them clothed and set at dinner and made comfortable that day. And in the morning, she gave each six nobles and had them let out of the army by Monsieur Sanse d’Aubrecicourt and Monsieur Paon de Roet, as far as they could and until it seemed to the two knights that they would be out of danger; and at parting the knights commended them to God and returned to the army, and the burgesses went to St Omer.4

By 1350 Paon had left the services of the English court and returned to his native land of Hainaut. The reason for this is unknown. He appears in the Cartulaire des Comtes de Haynault several times between 1350 and 1352 as an official of Margaret, Empress of Bavaria, Countess of Hainaut and sister to Queen Philippa. The official scribes record his name as Gilles de Roet, Ruet or Rueth ‘dit’ Paon, Paonnet or Paunet. In 1351 he is designated as both ‘maistre vallet del hotel medame’ and ‘maistre chevalier de no hostel’.5

It is possible that Paon had a familial connection to the rulers of Hainaut. The younger brother of the last lord of Roeulx, descended from the counts of Hainaut, was Fastré de Ruet. This gentleman accompanied Sir John Beaumont in 1326 to assist the English against the Scots. Both Fastré and his brother Eustace died in the 1330s. It has been speculated that Paon was of a collateral line of this family, but whether this is so, or Paon was merely named after the town of his birth, remains unknown.6 It is nice though to believe that Katherine came from such a background, and the strong connection between the Roet family and the English throne does suggest that Katherine’s forebears had some noble breeding. What is known is that Paon’s last appearance in the records of Hainaut was in August 1352, and his death can be inferred to have followed soon after.7 A description of his monument in the old St Paul’s Cathedral can be found in Weaver’s Funeral Monuments, but this tomb dated from a time much removed from his death, as the inscription read: ‘Here lies Paganus Roet, Guyenne King of Arms, father of Catherine Duchess of Lancaster . . .’.8

Nothing is known of the woman or women whom Paon married, although it is possible to speculate that, given his time in the court of the English King and Queen, his wife or wives were of English origin. Nor is much known about his children. Evidence suggests that Paon had at least four children, all of whom had connections with either the English or the Hainaut court. Of these children it would appear that Elisabeth, or Isabelle as she also appears in the records, was Paon’s first child. She entered the nunnery of Sainte Wandru at Mons in 1349, the prebend being vacant because of the death of Beatrix de Wallaincourt. The record of this event in the Cartulaire des Comtes de Haynault recounts how Countess Margaret granted the prebend of the Chapter of Sainte Waudru to Elisabeth, daughter of Paon Roet.9 Elisabeth’s entrance into the monastic life in this year would suggest a birth date for her of c. 1335.10 The records of the convent show that she was still in residence there in May 1367, but she died the following year. An entry in the convent charters for 13 July 1368 records ‘letters for which Albert, duke of Bavaria accords Jeanne d’Ecaussines, daughter of Gilles, the prebend of the chapter of Sainte-Waudru, vacant on the death of Isabelle de Roet’.11

It is possible that Paon also had a son. The Black Prince’s Register records the activities of a Walter Roet, yeoman of the Prince of Wales. The Prince paid this yeoman 40s on 10 May 1355. Further accounts for both 1354 and 1355 show that the Prince had ordered letters to be sent to Stephen Maulyns, the provost of the church of Mons, with regard to £40 owed to the prince under a bond. These letters requested that Maulyns pay the £40 in equal share to two of his retainers, Sir Eustace d’Aubrecicourt and a Walter de Roe or Rude.12 Presumably this Walter was the same yeoman previously mentioned. It would also seem likely that Sir Eustace d’Aubrecicourt was the Monsieur Sanse d’Aubrecicourt who, along with Paon Roet, escorted the burgesses of Calais to safety. A speculative birth date for Walter would be the late 1330s.

Much more is known of Paon’s other children, Philippa and Katherine. Evidence for Philippa’s life has led historians to place her birth date as c. 1345–7. In 1357 ‘damoiselle’ Philippa Pan was in the household of Countess Elizabeth of Ulster, wife of Edward III’s third son, Lionel.13 The meaning of the name ‘Pan’ and why Philippa was called this is unclear. There have been many interpretations of it and how it determines the identity and familial connections of this figure, even suggestions that this designation discounts Philippa from being Katherine’s sister. ‘Pan’ was a shortened from of panetaria and could, therefore, signify that Philippa was mistress of the pantry. But this seems most unlikely bearing in mind the age that could be assumed of such an official and also because of the gifts made to Philippa Pan.14 However, Paon de Roet’s name was occasionally recorded in the form of Panneto and therefore Philippa Pan could be a shortening of ‘Philippa, daughter of Panneto’.15 This would seem a more likely scenario than that of a 10–12-year-old girl being mistress of the pantry. Furthermore, it is possible that Philippa’s role in the household was that of rokestere to Philippa of Eltham, daughter of the Countess of Ulster and Prince Lionel. A rokestere was a member of the small retinue provided to royal children at birth, and the position was normally held by a young girl, whose main task was cradle rocking.16

At some stage Philippa transferred to the household of the English Queen, possibly on the death of Elizabeth of Ulster in 1362; a grant to her in 1366 describes her as ‘domicelle’ of the Chamber of the Queen. At a similar time Philippa married the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, who had also been a member of Elizabeth of Ulster’s household. On the marriage of John of Gaunt to Constance of Castile, Philippa entered the household of Constance, the new Duchess of Lancaster. In the late 1370s she was resident in Lincolnshire, probably at the home of her sister Katherine, collecting her annuities within this county. Philippa was admitted to the fraternity of Lincoln Cathedral in 1386 but died shortly after. On 18 June 1387 annuities were paid to both her and her husband, but by 7 November the same year Chaucer was collecting his alone.17

Katherine Swynford is the most famous of Paon’s four children. The birth of Katherine is conventionally dated to c. 1350, making her the youngest known child of Paon. Her place of birth is unknown but was most likely somewhere in England, probably London, given the connections between her father and the royal court. There is a strong possibility, however, that Katherine was born earlier than 1348, making her the older sister to Philippa, and her birthplace was almost definitely England. In Thomas Speght’s seventeenth-century work on Chaucer, Philippa is recorded as ‘altera filiarum’, which can be translated to mean either ‘the other daughter’ or ‘the second of two daughters’.18 I believe that from this and other evidence, most notably the date by which Katherine was married to her first husband and the age at which she had her youngest child, Katherine was probably older than Philippa, with a birth date of c. 1345, while Philippa was born c. 1347.

It is from the writings of Froissart that the details of Katherine’s early life are known. The chronicler tells us that she grew up within the English court, joining the household of Blanche of Lancaster after the marriage of the wealthy heiress to John of Gaunt in 1359.19 It is possible that Paon Roet, Katherine’s father, on his departure from England early in the 1350s, entrusted the care of his daughters to Queen Philippa.20 The English Queen was known for her willingness to care for the children of those in her service. Almost all the letters of Philippa that are extant were written on behalf of others.21 If Paon was a favourite in the King’s retinue, then it would seem highly likely that the Queen’s good and kind nature would have led her to place his daughters in suitable positions. Within the royal court Katherine would have had a favoured upbringing, surrounded by the luxurious lifestyles of English noble society. While she may not have been privy to all these luxuries herself, this lifestyle would undoubtedly have had an influence on her. The Lancastrian household was especially known for sharing its privileges with those of lower ranks, particularly in the education of children. Katherine would have learnt to read, sew, play and appreciate music and dance, and undergone religious instruction alongside the children of lords and dukes. Desirable manners and social skills would also have been learnt alongside these children.

The earliest entry that confirms Katherine’s activities is found in the public records for the year 1365. In this year she is mentioned in the records of Bishop Buckingham of Lincoln as Katherine Swynford, ‘ancille’, or servant, of the Duchess of Lancaster. This entry holds twofold interest. First, it provides early evidence of Katherine’s piety. Her appearance in the records marks the granting of permission by Buckingham for Katherine to hear mass in a private ceremony.22 It was more usual at this time for people to go to the local church to hear mass. This grant followed an increasing fashion among the gentry for mass to be celebrated privately within a household chapel. Secondly, the reference to her as Swynford indicates that at this time she was already married to Hugh Swynford, retainer of the Duke of Lancaster. This match was most likely made during the years 1363–5.

For Katherine to be married by 1365 strongly suggests that the conventional birth date for her of 1350 is too late. This date would have made her 15 at the oldest when she married. It is something of a misconception that medieval people married young. On the Continent, there are records of medieval couples who were married in their teens. This can be explained by their notion of the extended family. Recently married couples were expected to live with, and to be partly supported by, their parents. In England, however, couples were much more independent and set up home on their own. To do so they had to have financial means and so were generally in their early twenties before marrying. The only exceptions were those of the highest ranks who married for political motives and gains. Here there were marriages among younger people, but Katherine and her first husband do not fall into this social rank. Moreover, Katherine was governess of the Duke and Duchess of Lancaster’s children by 1366–70. Surely a girl under 20 years of age would not have been given this responsible position? Furthermore, the youngest of Katherine’s own children was born in 1379. Given Katherine’s proven fecundity, it seems odd that she had no further children if she was only 29 in 1379. If she was 34, however, having no further children does not seem quite so unusual.

After her marriage to Hugh, Katherine will presumably have spent some time living at the manors of her husband in Lincolnshire. The descriptions of the Colby and Kettlethorpe manors in the Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem on Hugh’s inheritance in 1362 suggest that the living here would have been noticeably plainer than Katherine had become accustomed to at court. Furthermore, from the same entry, these would appear to have been Hugh’s only landholdings. The land at Colby is described as ‘hard, stony and uncultivated because of its barrenness’, and, of the manor itself, ‘the dovecot and windmill are said to be in ruins’. Kettlethorpe fares little better, with the meadows described as being ‘overflowed by the waters of the Trent in ordinary years’.23 The high probability of flooding at Kettlethorpe during the second half of the fourteenth century was due to its location near the confluence of the Fossdyke and the River Trent. During the 1300s there were regular complaints about the silting-up of the Fossdyke, including one in 1365, in which year Katherine can be presumed to have been in residence at Kettlethorpe:

Commission to Philip de Lymburg, William de Skipwyth, Adam de Lymbergh, Illard de Usflet, Robert de Moston and Walter de Poynton, on complaint by the citizens of Lincoln for themselves and the merchants of York, Nottingham and Kyngeston upon Hull as well as for other merchants elsewhere, by petition in the next Parliament, that a dyke called ‘Fosdyke’ from the water of Trente to the city of Lincoln by which ships and boats with merchandise and victuals used to pass to and from Lincoln is so obstructed by some of those parts having lands, meadows and pastures on both sides of it who in summertime drive their cattle over it to their feedings, as well as by an usual growth of grass and the rising of the sand in it that there is now no passage by it, to survey the dyke, to find by inquisition in the county of Lincoln the names of those who are bound to cleane and repair the same, to compel these by amercements and other means to do this and to hear and determine the whole matter.24

Katherine’s request to Bishop Buckingham for permission to have private mass could indeed have been linked to the isolation she experienced, cut off in this remote and flooded part of Lincolnshire. However, curiously, there is no evidence that Katherine attempted to clear the dyke to prevent further flooding. In 1375 she was one of the landowners named as responsible for maintaining the dyke by a commission reporting into the condition of the waterway, but there are no records to suggest that any action was taken in response to the commission’s findings.25 This is odd, given how badly her land, and therefore her income, were affected by this flooding.

Colby and Kettlethorpe were recent acquisitions of the Swynford family. Colby was in the hands of Katherine’s father-in-law Thomas Swynford only by 1345 and Kettlethorpe as late as 1356. In the early 1340s Thomas was a member of the commission of the peace for Bedfordshire, in 1345 he was sheriff of Buckingham and in 1345–7 was escheator for Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. After his acquisition of Kettlethorpe Thomas was a member of various commissions of the peace in Lincolnshire, implying that he made his new manor his home.26

Little is known of Katherine’s marriage to Hugh Swynford. Whether the marriage was formed through mutual love and respect or whether it was simply deemed a suitable match for these two members of the household and retinue of the Duke and Duchess of Lancaster is unknown. Anya Seton in her novel depicts Katherine as marrying against her will, a simple girl fresh from a convent upbringing who dreams of marrying a handsome knight but instead is forced into marrying someone she loathes. Hugh is described as ugly and lacking in personality but with a vast love for Katherine. Katherine, seeing that her sister, the Duchess of Lancaster and the Queen all agree to the marriage, feels unable to say no. But would this have been the reality? It is easy to believe that the fictional Katherine, naive and anxious to please, could easily have had her hand forced. But the real Katherine, used to the ways of court, educated within noble society – surely this young woman would have had a choice over her marriage partner? She was retained to the Duke and Duchess of Lancaster and therefore subject to their wishes. If they had wanted her to marry Hugh, she might have felt obliged to agree, whatever her personal view on the matter. But the Lancasters were known for caring for their retinue, and Katherine was someone held in such regard that only a few years after her marriage she was made governess to the ducal children. It seems strange, therefore, that Katherine was forced into an unwanted marriage. Hugh Swynford also seems a strange choice for the Duke and Duchess to have picked as the husband of their future governess. The description of his land suggests that his income was dependent on his Lancastrian grants; the yield from his landholdings was surely slight. The fact that his father had recently acquired the lands also suggests that Hugh’s family and background were not of high estate. The most likely scenario therefore seems to be that Katherine wished to marry Hugh. She may already have developed feelings for Gaunt, but no doubt she believed him beyond her reach. Hugh, on the other hand, was within reach, was a knight and a landholder, however meagre, and was presumably someone for whom she had feelings. Indeed, Hugh may have been someone with whom she had a pre-marriage dalliance, and it could have been the discovery that she was pregnant that made Katherine agree to marry him.

Hugh and Katherine had at least two children during their marriage. The date of their son, Thomas’s, birth is stated as 21 September 1368 in his proof of age and in the inquisition after his father’s death.27 It is not clear from the available records whether his sister, Blanche, was older or younger than Thomas. Indeed, it is possible to argue in favour of both scenarios. Goodman believes that Blanche was older, born c. 1366 and named for the Duchess of Lancaster. It is known that Gaunt was godparent to Katherine’s daughter, and it is therefore highly probable that, if this child was indeed born before the death of the Duchess, Gaunt’s wife stood godmother to Blanche. However, Given-Wilson argues to the contrary and believes that Blanche was the younger of the two Swynford children, born c. 1370. If this was the case, then it would seem likely that the child was still named for the Duchess but this time in honour of her memory.28

There is no clear evidence as to which theory is correct, and they are both plausible arguments. For Gaunt to stand godfather to the child of one of his retainers was indeed an honour and would suggest that Katherine had already reached the high rank of governess to the Duke’s daughters. Therefore, to argue that Thomas was the eldest would seem most circumspect. Yet it is possible that Blanche Swynford was part of the ducal household by 1369, in which case she would indisputably be older than Thomas.29 Either way, for Katherine to be appointed to the position of governess was a high honour in itself. Whether Gaunt’s role as godparent came before or after the granting of this position, it is obvious that either Hugh or Katherine had gained favour in the eyes of the Duke sometime during the 1360s for the couple to receive such high honours from Gaunt.

As with the date of the birth of her daughter, it is unclear precisely when Katherine became governess to Philippa and Elizabeth of Lancaster. It is most likely to have been in the period 1366–70. Marie Bruce has argued that the Duchess of Lancaster herself was responsible for the appointment of Katherine, but there is unfortunately no evidence from the Duchess’s household to suggest this.30 Both Lewis Radford and Keith Dockray state that, on the death of Blanche in 1368–9, Katherine took charge of the ducal household. This suggests that she was already governess by this time, but, again, this is no more than supposition.31 As will be seen in a later chapter, Katherine did possess the necessary skills to run a noble household successfully, and excelled in the role of organiser. If Katherine did take on such a role after the death of Blanche, this surely would support the theory that it was Blanche herself who had been responsible for Katherine’s rise in the Lancastrian household. For Katherine to be chosen as someone capable of running the household after Blanche’s death, she must have had important responsibilities during Blanche’s lifetime, indicating the high esteem with which Blanche viewed Katherine. But the documents available for this period do not provide any exact evidence surrounding Katherine’s appointment and role in the ducal household, and the details seemed destined to remain a mystery.

Two years after the death of the Duchess Katherine was a widow. Hugh died on 13 November 1371 while fighting in Aquitaine under Gaunt’s command, leaving Katherine with the estates that they had held in jointure during his life.32 This provision of jointure for Katherine will have allowed her a deal of financial independence, although it is debatable how much financial security would have been afforded her from the manors of Colby and Kettlethorpe. However, along with the salary she will have received for her role as governess, it would seem likely that, financially at least, Katherine was reasonably secure.

Indeed, these finances were revised in Katherine’s favour from the spring of 1372. At this time the regularity of her appearances in the records of John of Gaunt as receiver of grants and gifts increases. Historians have traditionally dated the commencement of the liaison between the Duke and Katherine to this time because of the nature of these grants and gifts. Sydney Armitage-Smith comments that before 1372 ‘the Duke’s gifts and grants to Katherine are no greater than might have been made to any other member of his household; immediately after they begin to become significant’.33

Evidence from other sources confirms this date of spring 1372 as the start of the couple’s relationship. Gaunt was not in England from July 1370 to November 1371 because of the war in Aquitaine, negating any argument for an earlier commencement of the affair. The couple themselves stated in their request to the Pope in 1396 for confirmation of their marriage that the liaison did not begin until after the deaths of both Blanche and Hugh.34 It is highly unlikely that the couple would have lied in a document of such significance; the condemnation that would have faced them, in both life and death, would surely have led them to refrain from such an action. It would, therefore, appear that Gaunt acquired a mistress at the same time as he acquired his second wife, Constance, heir to the throne of Castile and of pivotal importance to Gaunt’s political ambitions. It is difficult to ascertain when Constance became aware of Katherine’s presence, or indeed to ascertain her feelings towards her husband’s illicit liaison. Katherine was the messenger assigned to tell Edward III of the birth of the daughter of Constance and Gaunt, and was paid 20 marks for this errand, but Constance was at Hertford when she gave birth. Katherine was clearly in London with Gaunt. This daughter of the Castilian queen was also named Katherine, perhaps suggesting an interesting aspect of the relationship between wife and mistress.35

Katherine appears regularly in Gaunt’s registers during the 1370s, described as ‘nostre tres chere et bien amee’.36 By 1375 it would appear that their affair was public knowledge. The accounts of William Ferour, Mayor of Leicester, record an expense of 16s in 1375–6 for wine – incidentally ‘drunk by the bearers of the same’ – sent to the lady Katherine Swynford, mistress of the Duke of Lancaster. The same accounts show that by 1377–9 Katherine was being approached as a channel of patronage. Expenses were claimed for

a horse, price £3 6s 8d given to the lady Katherine Swynford. And for a pan of iron £2 0s 6d given to the said Katherine for expediting the business touching the tenement of Stretton, and for other business for which a certain lord besought the aforesaid Katherine with good effect for the said business and besought so successfully that the aforesaid town was pardoned the lending of silver to the king in the year.37

In the autumn of 1379 Gaunt was staying at Katherine’s Kettlethorpe manor, evidenced by entries in his registers dated 15–16 November. However, just twenty months later, in the aftermath of the Peasants’ Revolt, the chronicles report that the couple had parted.38 Katherine’s appearance in the registers certainly changes at this time. On 6 March 1381 Katherine was presented with what Goodman has described as ‘a highly personal and cosily domestic gift’: ‘and to Herman, goldsmith, for a silver chafing pan with three feet and a handle for Dame Kateryne de Swynneford, £40’.39 But just six months later it would appear that Katherine was being paid off. At this time she was granted the generous sum of 200 marks a year for life for her good service as governess. Furthermore, John of Gaunt’s register includes a ‘quit claim’, a lengthy and legally couched document, for February 1382, which released Katherine, the former governess of Philippa and Elizabeth, and any of her future heirs from having any claim on Gaunt or his heirs, or for Gaunt and his heirs to have any claim on Katherine.40 These entries would suggest that the chronicles were correct and that the couple did indeed part during the latter half of 1381. But evidence from the 1380s contradicts this: it would appear that Katherine was very much part of the Lancaster family unit. In 1383 Katherine spent some of her income from Gaunt on improving her Kettlethorpe manor, enclosing 300 acres of her manor lands and woods as parkland, an action that remained in force until 1810. This may indicate that for some periods during the 1380s Katherine was on her own manor, but, as with the 1370s, this did not necessitate a break from Gaunt. Katherine can be seen to have been very much in contact with the Duke, returning some of her income to Gaunt as a loan. In 1386–7 Gaunt ordered the part payment of 500 marks, lent to him by Katherine ‘in his great necessity’.41

During the lifetime of Constance, and in particular during the period 1386–9, when Gaunt was in Castile furthering his claims to the Castilian Crown, Katherine can be found as a member of the household of Mary de Bohun, wife of Gaunt’s son Henry of Bolingbroke, the future Henry IV. Gaunt obviously wished his mistress to live in the comfort to which she had become accustomed, and where better to place one’s mistress when politics have to take priority than the household of one’s son. Here, safety and wellbeing would surely be provided for her. The chamber and wardrobe accounts of Mary for the year 1387 provide evidence of Katherine’s presence, with details recorded of Christmas gifts for Katherine of white and silk brocade and furs of pure minever.42 It is extremely likely that during Katherine’s time in this household she would have been in contact with Gaunt. Katherine also made regular appearances at court. From 1387 robes were issued to her annually for the feast of St George.43 There may have been an initial break in relations in the early 1380s, with Katherine retiring to live at her Kettlethorpe manor, but the evidence is clear: by the mid-1380s the lovers were again in close contact.

However, life during this decade was not all smooth sailing for Katherine. In 1384 her house at Grantham in the county of Lincolnshire was broken into, her goods stolen and her servants assaulted.44 But this county held strong ties for Katherine. She lived in the city of Lincoln for some time, renting the chancery of Lincoln Cathedral in the Minster Yard in 1386–7 and 1391–2.45 Again, the Lancasters did not forget her during her stays here. The Duchy of Lancaster Records for 14 May 1391–14 May 1392-show ‘one diamond in a gold ring to dnē K. Swynford’ and ‘four baldekyn of white damask given to the countess of Derby and dnē Kath’ Swynford (78/4d per piece)’. Presumably these were New Year gifts from either Henry of Bolingbroke or Gaunt himself. In addition, Gaunt’s household attendance roll for either March or November 1391 includes the entry ‘Dame Katherine Swynford, 12d per day.’ Also listed in attendance with her are ‘Monsieur de Derby, 4d per day’ and her four Beaufort children with Gaunt, each with 6d per day.46

Gaunt’s second wife and key to his, ultimately failed, political dreams died on 25 March 1394. The last few years of Constance’s life were spent at Leicester Castle, while her husband lived openly in London with his mistress.47 Nearly two years after her death, on 14 January 1396, John of Gaunt and Katherine married in Lincoln Cathedral. Twenty-four years after she had first become intimately involved with Gaunt, Katherine was Duchess of Lancaster and for a time first lady of England. The new duchess played a leading role in this same year in the ceremonies that surrounded the marriage of Richard II and his young French bride Isabella, entertaining the new queen in both London and Calais.48

Shortly after her marriage to Gaunt, Katherine became a member of the Coventry Guild of the Holy Trinity, St Mary, St John the Baptist and St Katherine.49 Katherine’s piety was also expressed through her continued links to Lincoln and its cathedral church. The Calendar of Patent Rolls for 17 September 1398 records the following entry:

Licence for the king’s uncle John, duke of Lancaster, to found a chantry of two chaplains in the cathedral church of Lincoln, and to grant to them the advowson of Somercotes St Peter’s co. Lincoln, in perpetuity, and for them to appropriate the same in mortmain, to celebrate divine service in the said cathedral church for the good estate of the duke and Katherine his wife.50

The couple also donated to the cathedral many gifts adorned with their insignia.51

After only three years of marriage Katherine was again a widow, and, on Gaunt’s death, returned to Lincolnshire once more. In 1400–1 Katherine was tenant of The Priory, Minster Yard, Lincoln, and in 1403 was living in a house belonging to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln Cathedral, usually occupied by one of the canons. Presumably these two properties were the same.52

It has been suggested that Katherine may have remarried after the death of Gaunt. In Blomefield’s work on the county of Norfolk he notes how Katherine held the town of Aylesham for life as part of her bequest from Gaunt. However, Blomefield records another account in which, during the same period, the town of Aylesham was held by ‘Katherine, wife of John Leeches’.53 Rye states that this third marriage by Katherine was possible, as ‘the family of Leche or Leaches was a good one and armigerous, and held under the duchy of Lancaster’.54