The Battle of Chesterfield

Lecture at the Winding Wheel, Chesterfield on 30th March 2016

(This is a first attempt at putting my lecture notes into prose. A PowerPoint presentation accompanies the lecture, along with my references.
This text still contains elements of my lecture “style.” I may find time to work on it in the future.)

Peter Gray
Chesterfield, March 2016)

Thank you to Chesterfield Borough Council for the invitation to speak tonight as part of 750th Anniversary events.
First – some time on the 13th Century background and then account of the battle

I want to tell the story of “Why did King Henry III need to send his nephew at the head of an army to Chesterfield in May 1266?” There is so much to tell. My lecture notes, and references, are on the Chesterfield750 website.
It was all about power and control. The Second Barons’ War (1264 – 1267) = just one of a continuing sequence of occasions when mighty baronial families fought for power and control in England. Rebellions, and conflicts over who should rule, occurred in the reign of every English King from 1066 onwards and well into the early modern period.
You can think of the Revolt of the Earls against William I in 1075;
- William II’s (aka William Rufus) murder;
- the revolt of Barons against Henry I (led by Amaury of Montfort – de Montfort - there’s a name we’ll come back to);
- the Anarchy of the conflict between Stephen and Matilda the early 12th century;
- the revolts of the sons of Henry II in the middle of the 12th century;
- John intrigued against Richard the Lionheart and then was faced with the
- First Barons’ War in 1214. We’ll consider the Second Barons’ War in more detail tonight, but even then England wasn’t through with war over who should wield power and control. Wars of The Roses, anyone?
Part 1.1
Because with power and control comes wealth.
The political orthodoxy of the time was that the country should be ruled by a monarch. Divinely appointed, the king was seen as a necessary centre point. (1) Debate, argument, conflict was about kingship, not about the crown.
For example, in 1215, when King John had set his seal to Magna Carta, the Barons still expected him to remain on the throne. And when, subsequently, John so spectacularly failed to rule according to the Barons’ expectations, Prince Louis, son of the King of France, was offered the throne instead. (The Barons also considered offering the throne to the recently crowned king of Scotland, Alexander II (2) but Louis seemed a better prospect. Barons who had lost lands in France in the decade before hoped that they might be recovered if Louis took the crown.)
On May 21st 1216 Louis invaded England. 800 years ago - 150 years after Hastings. His invasion was nearly a repeat of 1066. (At one point Louis and the rebellious barons controlled London and half the country.) It was only John’s death in October 1216 that enabled the Barons, one by one, to switch sides and support Henry III, aged 9, the new king of England.
What mattered to the Barons was not so much who wore the crown but that somebody should.
The king, although he was head of a mighty family, needed to be the leader of a coalition of other magnates - a coalition of magnates which would benefit from the patronage of the monarch in receiving, titles, positions and land. If the king could not maintain that coalition, his position was in jeopardy. And that was what happened to Henry III in 1264-67.
Initially, because Henry was only nine, it fell to Ranulf, Earl of Chester and William Marshall to restore royal authority. (3) This was easier said than done. Remember, the rebellious nobles had invited Louis, Prince of France to invade and take the throne. Half of England was under their control. Half of England considered Louis the rightful ruler of the country.
But the rebel cause was doomed by John’s death. (Explain Matthew Paris_In a crucial battle at Lincoln, May 1217, William Marshall drove Louis’ forces away from their siege. There was fighting in the streets of the city – a description by another chronicler Roger Wendover (4) details “sparks and thunder from clashing metal and the sound of swords against helmets.”
There is, unfortunately, no such description of the Battle of Chesterfield but perhaps we can gain some insight as to what would happen 50 years later on the streets of this town.
The leader of the French forces was killed by a stroke which penetrated the eye slit of his helm, as shown in this illustration by Matthew Paris, and the French forces fled back to London. More barons turned to the King’s party and in August 1217, off the coast of Sandwich, royalist ships defeated a flotilla from France bringing much needed reinforcements for the French invaders. Louis was ready to sue for peace and he left England on the 29th September.
As there are no illustrations of the Battle of Chesterfield, I’ve included these last two pictures of 13th century combat to give an idea of what the fighting in Chesterfield might have been like. Battles at sea were like land battles – forget Hornblower, there were no broadsides; enemy ships would be grappled and then boarded. In the Battle of Sandwich the Royalist forces took advantage of the wind direction and fired pots of quicklime (see) which, upon breaking, released burning clouds blinding the French sailors and soldiers. (5) All four contemporary accounts of the battle mention this tactic.
On board a ship there was nowhere to retreat and naval battles were therefore bloodier than those on land.
The Treaty of Lambeth in September 1217 brought an end to Louis’ claim to the English Crown and also forced Alexander II of Scotland to withdraw his forces from the north. As an illustration of how close the Royalist cause had come to defeat in this war, it’s worth mentioning that in the previous September, in 1216, Alexander, King of Scotland, had marched his army all the way to Dover and back, to greet Prince Louis, without hindrance from the Royalist forces.
I’m dwelling on this, the First Barons’ War to give a context for Henry III’s reign. It began in war…
…and it was not until 1224, with the siege of Bedford, that royal authority was restored.
You can see the royal standard flying over the captured castle and the fate of the garrison.
One point to make from this siege that illuminates the context of the Battle of Chesterfield 40 years later, is that the occupier of Bedford was Falkes de Breaute. He had been the loyal commander of Lincoln Castle in 1217. And yet here he is, seven years later, a recusant – defying his liege lord in refusing to hand over the castle. He was particularly aggrieved because the recipient of the castle was to be William de Beauchamp, who had for a time been one of the rebellious barons against King John. Time and time again we will meet with nobles showing first loyalty to the king, and then opposing him. Including the combatants at Chesterfield.
After the siege, Bedford Castle was destroyed – and that’s not the only castle we’ll meet that is going to be demolished.
So, we’ve reached 1225, seven years into Henry’s reign – 40 years to go. Under pressure from Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury and several barons, Henry’s then regent, Hubert de Burgh, re-issued Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest. Over the channel, Gascony and Poitou had recently fallen to the French and many English barons still held lands across the channel.

So… A council in January 1225 had approved a grant of £40,000 which was used to recruit an army. Crossed the channel - Gascony was retaken. In return for the baron’s support, the Charters – Magna Carta and The Charter of the Forest - were re-issued.
You all know about Magna Carta? 800th anniversary last year? Yes? These two documents laid out the nature of what kingship should be and guaranteed the liberties of the Church in England. And the expectation of the barons was, once again, that the king would rule “according to ancient customs and laws” which, in effect, would allow the barons control and power in their fiefdoms. Thus would the coalition of crown and nobility be maintained.
Things seemed to start well. In 1227 Henry attained his majority and began to rule in his own name. By 1230, he was sufficiently confident to take advantage of a revolt of French nobles against the young King Louis IX of France to invade France in an attempt to reclaim the lands “held of old.”
It was a disaster. A costly fiasco. No major battle was fought. A truce was arranged with the King of France to last until 1234 and Henry was back where he started.
The major result in England was the overthrow of Henry’s first minister Hubert de Burgh, his former regent. The new power behind the throne was Peter des Roches, Bishop of Westminster. des Roches had been Henry’s tutor in earlier years but had been outmanoeuvred by Hubert at the time of Henry’s accession. Now des Roches was in the ascendency.
Whereas Hubert was generally supported by English barons, des Roches drew his support from barons who were based in Poitou. And des Roches rapidly appointed his friends to powerful positions within Henry’s administration. Many of these were nobles from Poitou who were fleeing a French monarchy which continued to extend its influence.
Robert Bacon spoke out against the undue influence now held by the Poitevins. Richard Marshall, son of the William Marshall who had led the royalist force at the Battle of Lincoln, warned Henry of the discontent that was rising and that he was not ruling according to the Charters.

In 1233 civil war (another forgotten war) erupted as Marshall allied himself with the Welsh leader, Llewellyn. After a number of skirmishes and several towns and castles changing hands, Marshall was killed and the revolt ebbed away.
From then on, Henry ruled without any of the major English nobility in positions of power. (6) It was during this period (1235) that Henry visited Chesterfield (7)
He filled the offices of state with close friends and, increasingly, relatives from abroad following his marriage to Eleanor of Provence in 1236. Aged 13 when she came to England for her marriage, she gave birth to her first son, the future Edward I only three years later. Eleanor’s relationship with Henry was at times troubled – to the extent that she favoured different factions within the court. And she seems to have antagonised the population of London by claiming back-payments of Queen’s-gold, by which she was entitled to one-tenth of all fines levied in London. In 1263 Eleanor was pelted with stones and insults as she made her way by river from the Tower to Windsor. Eleanor was, however, to be a staunch supporter of her husband during the Second Barons’ War, raising troops for him in France.
She outlived her husband by 19 years and when she died in 1292 was buried at Amesbury Abbey. However, the exact site of her burial is not known making her the only English queen without a marked grave.
During the 1240s and ‘50s Henry’s reign continued to be plagued by rivalry, factionalism and disgruntlement over the king’s policies; in 1245 a “scheme of reform,” known as the Paper Constitution, stipulated that a council to advise be set up. It would appoint both a chancellor and justiciar, and the king was to abide by Magna Carta, again!
By 1249 there were more Poitevins, Savoyards and Luisignans holding in office in England and Henry had done nothing to implement the reforms of 1245. In parliament, the lords refused to grant aid to the king and he complained they were trying to make a servant of him (8). Between 1232 and 1257 there were 30 parliaments, Henry petitioned for a tax at twelve of these and was successful only once.
Henry’s interventions in Europe were costly failures and in the early 1250s, his plans to make a crusade came to nothing.
In 1252 a revolt in Gascony required Henry’s personal intervention. In subsequent years Henry allocated much time and resources into an ill-fated quest to secure the Crown of Sicily for his second son, Edmund.
In 1258 matters came to a head and it can be said that at this point the Second Barons’ War began.
30 April 1258 a group of barons, led by Roger Bigod, the earl of Norfolk and hereditary marshal, marched to the Parliament being held in hall of the royal palace at Westminster and forced the king to initiate a programme of reform. (9)
This was a coup d’etat. Henry asked the Barons “Am I your prisoner?” They replied that he was not, but his power was gone. Under the Provisions of Oxford in June, with a crisis brewing on the Welsh Marches, Henry agreed to a Council of 24 nobles to “advise the king.” (10) This parliament at Oxford was overseen by one Peter de Montfort (no relation to the Simon de Montfort we’ll meet shortly) who can be described as the first Speaker of Parliament. Then in Westminster in July, Henry and Prince Edward his son agreed “that they would hold and observe whatever the aforesaid Barons should provide for the advantage and amendment of the realm.”
One of those barons was Simon de Montfort.
The following year Simon, with the support of Prince Edward (against his father!), pushed for more radical measures in the Provisions of Westminster, thus alienating some of the more moderate barons. Henry and Simon then travelled to Paris and Henry signed the Treaty of Paris whereby he formally renounced his claims to Normandy, Anjou and Poitou, retaining only Gascony.
On their return, in 1261, baronial support waned, the Pope absolved Henry of the oaths he had sworn to and de Montfort was put on trial. Henry purged his administration of the barons’ appointees and de Montfort left England for exile in France.
By 1263 (We’re nearly there – the final slide into war…) the Welsh were again threatening England’s western border, the pope changed his mind about the Provisions of Oxford and declared them legitimate and members of Prince Edward’s household, aided by Queen Eleanor(!), were intriguing with de Montfort for his return.
The two sides gathered their forces and at Lewes in 1264 the rebel barons defeated Henry’s army and captured both him and his son Edward, back on his father’s side by then. Henry was forced to pardon the rebels, reinstate the Provisions of Oxford leaving him “little more than a figurehead.” (11)
So no image of Simon, but here is his wife Eleanor. No less a person than the sister of Henry III. (12) Eleanor had been married, in 1224, at nine years old to William Marshall, aged 34, but he died 6 years later. At that point Eleanor, along with her governess Cecily Stanford, took “a vow of perpetual chastity.” This was because she wished to avoid another arranged marriage and would, she hoped, preserve her dowry in her possession – although the status of widows and their property in the 13th century was so complicated as to require as specific clause in Magna Carta.
However, she seems to have fallen in love with Simon and to have wanted children. And possibly to have his support in obtaining her dowry possessions, which still were in dispute.
So on 7th January 1238 Eleanor and Simon were married in secret, by Walter, a royal chaplain, and accompanied by… the King himself. At this time, Henry wished to maintain Simon’s support and so he gave his blessing to the union. Henry than gave permission to Simon to visit Rome to ask the Pope’s forgiveness for marrying a woman pledged to chastity. Simon received the dispensation required and returned in October. In March 1239 Eleanor gave birth to her first son at Kenilworth Castle. Henry rushed up from Woodstock to visit and gave his blessing for the boy to be named Henry. Clearly the de Montforts were well in with the King’s favour at this time.
But, now, 1264, Simon de Montfort was the power in the realm. You can find out all about his Parliament which for the first time included “commoners” “Father of Parliament” and… he began behaving in just the ways for which he’d criticised Henry.
He used his position to enrich himself and his sons. He lost support of many nobles, including the Earl of Gloucester. Gloucester it was who engineered the escape of Prince Edward in 1265,
and on the field of Evesham in August that year, Simon, and his son Henry, were killed. (13)
Robert of Gloucester described it as “a murder of Evesham, for battle it was none.” (14)
Henry launched into a period of revenge and in September at the Parliament in Winchester all those who had rebelled were disinherited, including the wives and widows (Remember the widows? Magna Carta? (15) And before anyone gets all “twenty-first century” about this, remember that even today, on your marriage certificate, it’s your father’s name that goes on, not your mothers’!)
Even though the rebellion was, in practice, over, there were still difficulties for Henry III. The Cinque Ports continued in their opposition – the Cinque Ports (16) Made peace with Henry III by April 1266 (17)
One of the other barons who had sided with Simon was Adam de Gurdon. He continued to cause trouble in his county of Hampshire – even imperilling the road from Windsor to London. Prince Edward decided to roust him out. On 20th May Edward stormed de Gurdon’s fort and went toe-to-toe with him in personal combat. de Gurdon’s resolution so impressed the Prince that his life was spared and he was sent as a prisoner to the Queen. The rest of de Gurdon’s men were hanged.
Was de Gurdon a rebel fighting for democracy? Was Simon? Within a few years de Gurdon had bought his lands back from the Crown and went on to serve Henry III and Edward as a loyal ally. the Oxford DNB suggests that de Gurdon’s life might have contributed to the growth of the legend of Robin Hood.
This action against de Gurdon was probably why Edward was not at Chesterfield. (18)
By the turn of the year, into 1266, HIII is more conciliatory, and is receiving his former enemies… Feb 11 at Westminster “Power to John de Rypariis and Richard Thany to receive into the king's safe conduct until Easter as well the disinherited as all others who in the disturbance had in the realm were against the king in any way in coming with them to the king treat of their peace with him and returning to their own parts, so that no bailiff of the king shall molest them. Power also to them to engage the services (serviciandi) of all those who at their summons are willing to attend with them to the preservation of the peace and other things contained in writs patent lately sent.” (19)
But there is still trouble abroad… Feb 10 HIII at Westminster - Patent Rolls “Appointment of Richard Thany the younger to defend the parts of Westminster, the counties of Essex and Hertford, as the king's enemies, especially in the former county, make congregations and conspiracies, and perpetrate assaults and invasions to the destruction of those parts : with mandate to all persons of those counties to be of counsel and aid to him.
The like of Henry de Alemannia to defend the parts of the counties of York, Nottingham, and Derby. Writ of aid for him directed to the sheriff of York, the commonalty of York, the sheriff of Nottingham and the commonalty of Nottingham, Peter de Brus, John de Baillol, Ralph son of Randolf, Henry de Percy, Robert de Nevill, John de Eyvill, Richard Eoliot, Thomas de Furnivall, Robert de Estotevill, Robert de Ripariis, John de Grey, the guardian of the archbishopric of York, Edmund the king's son, and Alesia de Lacy.” (20) LOOK, JOHN D’AYVILL IS ON THE KING’S SIDE…
Feb 22 HIII at Westminster – Patent Rolls – “Precept to the sheriff of ... . to cause proclamation to be made, in full county and also through all market-towns of his county that all who owe service of the army be personally with the king at Oxford three weeks after Easter with horses and arms, or if they cannot come personally send their service on that day, to go with the king against his enemies and rebels, the adherents of Simon de Monteforti, sometime earl of Leicester, the king's enemy and felon, and his party who hold out against the king in the castle of Kenillewurth and devastate the country.” (21)
John de Grey appointed Sherrif of Nottingham and Derby “to keep the peace” (d in March!, his son Ronald became sheriff) (22)
February 8th 1266 Patent Rolls – “Feb. 22. Precept to the sheriff of ... . to cause proclamation to be made Westminster, in full county and also through all market-towns of his county that all who owe service of the army be personally with the king at Oxford three weeks after Easter with horses and arms, or if they cannot come personally send their service on that day, to go with the king against his enemies and rebels, the adherents of Simon de Monteforti, sometime earl of Leicester, the king's enemy and felon, and his party who hold out against the king in the castle of Kenillewurth and devastate the country.” (23) The rebels at Kenilworth had sent back a messenger from the king minus one of his hands.
Those who had taken de Montfort’s side had now lost their power and control of their land and, of course, their incomes. Unless they surrendered themselves to the king’s justice, there was no option for them but to attempt to hold on to what they could.
Many of them resorted to violence and robbery and it is in this context that Henry, at Northampton in late April / early May 1266, would have seen the rebels gathering at Chesterfield.
Part 1.2
What was Chesterfield like? read Bestall or get Philip Riden back!
Why Chesterfield?
The leader of the rebels was Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby. He was not the lord of Chesterfield but his main stronghold was Duffield Castle.
Probably the third largest keep in the country. (The date of the castle’s destruction is not known. It maybe that it was destroyed by the Royalist forces moving north in pursuit of de Ferrers. More likely, it was pulled down after the battle.) (24)
Robert de Ferrers is not reported kindly. He seems to have held a grudge against Prince Edward. Robert was still a minor when his father died so he could not inherit his titles. These were given in guardianship to Prince Edward. They were then sold to the Queen, and de Ferrers only took control in 1260. “Of no-one was Edward more afraid” wrote Robert of Gloucester. (25)
The antagonism de Ferrers felt was compounded by a long running dispute over Peverel Castle.
Following Evesham, de Ferrers had been allowed to buy his lands back – unlike other “dispossessed.” The Crown must have felt that he was a person worth keeping on their side. But by the spring he was revolting again…
Duffield was where de Ferrers gathered his forces prior to moving north to meet with
Baldwin Wake. Chesterfield had been in his family’s hands since 1233. (26) Actually, at the time of the Battle it was out of his hands – he had been stripped of the title the previous Autumn and was probably in Chesterfield “making trouble” (27) Wake had been at Axeholm but had left there earlier in the year having been given “safe conduct” by the King. (28)
heading south from his base at Hood, near Thirsk in Yorkshire, was John d’Ayville. (As an aside, was he the “Robin Hood” of song and story? – see S40Local Magazine for an investigation into this possibility) (28) d’Ayville had been at Axeholm but had left there earlier in the year having been given “safe conduct” by the King. (29) But they’re chopping and changing all the time, out for what they can get… Torched Sheffield (30)
Henry Hastings – later went on to Kenilworth
And heading the Royalist force, Henry of Almain, King Henry’s nephew. (31) So we’ll give him the royal coat of arms. Henry was a major ally of Prince Edward who would become king in 1272. Henry had not been at Evesham and in February 1266 he had been sent into the north of England to keep the peace. (32)
John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey (later to fight William Wallace at Stirling) Jan 26 1266 , Patent Rolls, given £100 per year from “lands of the king’s enemies.” (33)
And what happened next…?
Now I must draw on an article by a Chesterfield antiquarian by the name of Samuel Pegge. (34) He summarised all the contemporary chronicles and presented his article to the Society of Antiquities on May 16th 1771. (copy in Ch library) Note the date! A man after my own heart. Regarding dates, the Battle of Chesterfield took place at Pentecost in 1266 and this year as well, Pentecost falls on 15th May!
de Ferrers moved north from Duffield Castle,
Baldwin Wake was already in Chesterfield,
John d’Ayville moved south from Yorkshire,
But… where was Henry of Almain?
The traditional idea is that he moved north to attack the rebels. In 1887 a lecture by William Bland Henry is described as moving from Tutbury towards Chesterfield. (35)
But there are no references to Henry of Almain being in Tutbury at this time. It’s true it was one of de Ferrers’ castles but it had been destroyed earlier, by Prince Edward, in 1264. I think there has been a confusion between this destruction and the events of May 1266.
I would like to suggest a different narrative…
Remember, in February he was ordered north to “defend parts of the counties of York, Nottingham and Derby”. The next mention of him is an entry in the Patent Roll for May 5th.
HIII at Northampton orders Henry of Almain and others to meet at Northampton to go against Kenilworth (“Mandate to Henry son of the king of Almain, John de Balliolo, Robert de Brus, Peter de Brns, Robert de Nevill, and the rest of the barons and knights with them in the north, to come with horses and arms and the whole service which they owe and their whole power to Northampton on the eve of the morrow of Holy Trinity, on which day the king purposes to set out, with the whole army which is with him at Northampton towards the castle of Kenilworth to attack his enemies and take that castle, as shall seem most expedient by their counsel and that of others.“) (36)
That is, Henry III sends a message from Northampton to Henry of Almain, somewhere in “the North,” to be back in Northampton ready for an attack on Kenilworth Castle on Holy Trinity Sunday, which is the first Sunday after Pentecost. Pentecost is Saturday 15th May. He has 10 days to be there, with “horses and arms and the whole service which they owe and their whole power”

So it seems to me that the muster in Chesterfield must have happened quite speedily. Did the rebels suddenly become aware of the King’s threat to Kenilworth Castle. Patent Rolls are not sealed shut, so they can be read by anyone who sees them. Did they gather in Chesterfield with a view to intercepting Henry of Almain on his way “south” to Northampton? Did de Ferrers hope that by uniting with John d’Ayville he would have a force large enough to delay and possibly destroy Henry of Almain? And was Chesterfield chosen as the rendezvous point because of Baldwin Wake’s presence there?
So, we have some sort of narrative, leading up to the approach of the Royalist forces to Chesterfield.

It seems though, that the rebels’ scouting was inefficient and so it was that Henry was able to surprise them.
According to the Annals of London Chronicle, the Prince (Henry of Almain) made such haste that he surprised the rebels in their quarters and killed the “greatest part,” took de Ferrers prisoner, dispersed the rest, with Wake and d’Ayville “hardly escaping.”
In the Chronicle of Thomas Wykes, the royalist attack was made with the use of covered wagons – did the attackers make their way towards the town, or even, into the town, in wagons and then jump out on the rebels? That would also fit in with the suggestion that the attack was a surprise.
Wykes goes on to say that many of the rebel leaders, including Baldwin Wake and Henry of Hastings, were hunting outside Chesterfield. Perhaps the royal force surprised those who were hunting and drove them off before assaulting the town itself?
John d’Ayville, it seems, (37) made a sortie from the town and burst through the attackers, and unhorsed Sir Gilbert Hansard before making off.
At this point the Royalist troop s would have entered Chesterfield where de Ferrers and his men stood at bay. Remember Roger Wendover’s description of the Battle of Lincoln…? “…sparks and thunder from clashing metal and the sound of swords against helmets.”
What would it have been like on the streets of Chesterfield that day? The Annals of London Chronicle says “they killed the soldiers and many others.” Thomas Wykes speaks of “countless people devoured by hostile swords.” In the Annals of Dunstable “there was a great slaughter.”
What would it have been like on the streets of Chesterfield that day? We don’t know. I find it impossible to imagine why someone would take a sharp piece of metal and stick it in someone else.
The royalist forces were victorious. Probably better trained and better led.

De Ferrers was captured. Robert of Gloucester, writing at about the time of the battle, explains that de Ferrers suffered from gout and had been through “blood letting” which was the standard “cure” for just about anything in those days. Thomas Wykes, who was probably writing only a few years later, comments that he was “ignobly taken.” I think that means without much of a fight. The reference to de Ferrers being betrayed by a woman comes in a chronicle written about 100 years later. He was “loaded with iron chains” – in other words, shackles, and sent to Windsor. A nice connection between the latin for iron “ferris” and de Ferrers.
Ford, in his 1839 History of Chesterfield, describes de Ferrers as the gallant, brave, young (27 years old) earl. But de Ferrers was a man of his time and, along with other barons, pursued a career largely aimed at his own aggrandisement.
How much was he, or even Simon de Montfort, motivated by ideals of “democracy” and of creating a different form of government is very hard to ascertain. I think his actions show that his own wealth and power came first. His decision to once again set himself against the crown sealed his fate, and he was the last Earl of Derby.

In the aftermath of the battle, there are references to all the major individuals involved. Robert de Ferrers was eventually allowed a small portion of his estates and lived out the rest of his years trying to regain the others. John D’Ayville and Baldwin Wake fled to the Isle of Axholme in Lincolnshire and continued their depredations before finally surrendering. Baldwin Wake was granted the lordship of Chesterfield again.
Other Montfortian rebels made their way to Kenilworth and in June 1266 Henry III surrounded the castle. A protracted siege ensued before finally, under the Dictum of Kenilworth, terms were agreed and the castle surrendered.
Henry of Almain joined Prince Edward on a crusade. During that time, Henry III died in 1272 and Edward returned home to take up the crown. Henry of Almain had not been so fortunate. In 1271, at Viterbo, in Italy, he was recognised by two of Simon de Montfort’s exiled sons – Guy and Simon.
Henry fled into the church and cried for mercy. “You had no mercy on my father and brothers” said Guy, even though Henry had not been at Evesham, and stabbed Henry to death. This murder shocked Europe; Guy and Henry died in exile; by Dante in his Inferno (early 14th Century) placed Guy in the seventh circle of Hell, a river of boiling blood.

And as for the citizens of Chesterfield, we come to the Men of Brampton reference.
On the last page of the Chesterfield Parish Register Book – vol. I 1558 – 1635, (Transcript published by Derbyshire Record Society in two volumes) is a memorandum, in Latin, written by Matthew Waddington, (Vicar of Chesterfield 1616-1638) which is a copy of writing set out by him, Matthew Waddington, on the wall of the parsonage house.
The memorandum is an attempt to explain MW’s views on the rights held by the vicarage, in particular relating to the dependent chapels of Brampton and Wingerworth. MW explains some of the duties of those chapels, and of the nearby inhabitants and what those chapels must deliver and pay to the vicar of Chesterfield.
In the Transcription of the Chesterfield Parish Register, 1558 - 1600 and 1601 – 1635, Philip Riden refers to the note at the end of the Register by Matthew Waddington.

“The inclusion of names of places from where the inhabitants were supposed to worship at Chesterfield (Parish Church), including the long-deserted hamlet of Langley, and not one of the chapelries, as well as a reference to the “Battle of Chesterfield” of 1266 and the shared responsibility between the hamlets for maintaining the wall of the burial ground, all point to a medieval origin for the document.”
(P Riden, intro to the Chesterfield Parish Register, 1601 – 1635)
Pegge produced, in 1771, “A succinct and authentic Narrative of the Battle of Chesterfield, A.D. 1266, in the Reign of King Henry III” which was read at the Society of Antiquities on May 16, 1771.
The memorandum includes this passage (quoted from Pegge):
Solebant etiam (Bramptonienses) facere partem suam murorum coemeterii (de Chesterfield), et tempora guerrae Domini Simonis de Monteforte, se recipiebant sub parte illa quam faciebant, nolentes alios permittere ibidem recipi.
and translated in the Derbyshire Record Society transcript as:
(the inhabitants of Brampton) were accustomed also to make their part of the walls of the burial-ground and in the time of the war of Lord Simon de Montfort they betook themselves to that part of the wall which they built, being unwilling to allow others to be admitted there.
Pegge clearly understands that this means during the Battle of Chesterfield. Would/Could this have been held in memory for over 350 years?
Did they go to fight? Simon de Montfort was Earl of Leicester; de Ferrers was Earl of Derby; Baldwin Wake had been Lord of Chesterfield. They must have recruited their troops from somewhere…
But I think they played no part in the battle, but stood by their investment, ready to defend it if necessary.
So, Waddington has transcribed text, possibly from an old document, sometime after 1616, onto the wall of the vicarage, and then copied it into the Parish register on 11th November 1634.
Could this incident have been held in memory for over 350 years?
I like to think that this unique feature of the Battle of Chesterfield was held in people’s memories for 350 years and was finally, in 1634, via a wall, committed to paper. Pegge found the reference and used it in his 1771 account and in 2003 an article in Reflection Magazine by Richard Bunting caught my eye. What a great idea for the men, women and children of, not just Brampton, but he whole Borough, to come together and stage a community event to mark the 750th Anniversary.
And that’s what the second part of the evening will be about.
Thank you.

Postscript
This postscript contains documentary evidence of what happened to some of those mentioned in the text above and how Henry III continued to restore royal authority after the Battle of Chesterfield.
May 18th HIII at Northampton – Patent Rolls – “Whereas S. de Monteforti (the younger – my emphasis) and his accomplices, the -king's enemies, with a multitude of armed men whom they are collecting in the parts of France, propose to enter and disturb the realm and move fresh war and subvert the state of the realm, the king commands the bailiffs and barons of the port of [blank] on their fealty, homage and love to keep their ports by day and night as well by sea as by land, lest by their landing danger should threaten the realm, and to behave in this as faithfully as they have hitherto done to the king and his ancestors.” (38)
May 22nd HIII at Northampton – Patent Rolls – “To the constable of the castle of Donington. Whereas by the forfeiture of Robert de Ferrariis the king has taken into his hands the honour of Derbiis and the castles and lands of the said Robert and his committed the same to Adam de Gesemuth to keep during pleasure and Adam has need of the castle of Donington for the defence of those parts ; the king commands the said constable to deliver it to him to keep at the king's will. Commitment to the said Adam of the said honour, castles and lands, as above; so that he answer for the issues thereof at the king's mandate.” (39)
AND… “To the tenants of the honour of Derby and of the castles and lands of Robert de Ferrariis. The king thanks them for having left the ways of levity of the said Robert and given their adherence to himself and his first-born son, commanding them to be intendant to Adarn de Gesemuth to whom the king has committed, during pleasure, the said honour, castles and lands which the king took into his hands by the forfeiture of the said Robert.” (40)
May 24th (40) – “Whereas Robert de Ferrariis is bound to Stephen de Eddeworth in £50 which he ought to have paid to him in the terms of Easter and Whitsunday last, as appears by inspection of the rolls of the Chancery, and the lands of the said Robert are in the king's hands by his forfeiture ; the king, for the indemnity of the said Stephen grants that the said £50 be levied from the issues of the said lands and delivered to him.”

Following the battle, Robert de Ferrers was disinherited and would have to pay £52,000 to regain his estates…
May 29 (40) – “Safe conduct, for fifteen days from the morrow of the octaves of the Holy Trinity, for Baldwin Wake, coming to the king's court with his proper household to treat of his peace, and that they may come the more securely the king has given power to Walter de Burgo, earl of Ulvestern, Warm de Bassingburn and Robert de Stotevill of Aton, or one of them, to bring him to him.
From June – December Siege of Kenilworth; ending in the Dictum of Kenilworth http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/dictum-of-kenilworth/
June 13 – Patent Rolls – HIII at Northampton “Admission into the king's peace of Thomas (Should this be Robert? – I can find no other reference to Thomas de Ferrers) de Ferrariis, as Adam Northampton, de Gesemuth of the county of Northumberland and William de Mongornery of the county of Derby have mainperned in the king's court before the king for his good behaviour ; and grant that he may stand securely in the realm notwithstanding any trespass against the king or Edward his son, or other lieges in the time of the war lately arisen in the realm/ provided that if he have incurred the penalty of disherison or ransom or other penalty for such trespass, he shall bear it, without danger of perpetual prison, life or limb. And the king wills that if he obtain any lands or goods hereafter, he and his heirs shall incur no loss therein by occasion of the said trespasses” (41)