WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
John Lackland cover

John Lackland

Chapter 14: FOOTNOTES
By Kate Norgate
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

BiographiesHistory - BritishHistory - Medieval/Middle AgesHistory - Royalty

About This Book

A detailed chronological biography examines the life and reign of a medieval monarch, beginning with his birth and dynastic position and tracing his accumulation and loss of territorial titles, marriage alliances, and administrative initiatives. It follows mounting tensions with the papacy and with native magnates that culminate in open conflict, territorial decline, and political crisis. Using contemporary chronicles, legal records, maps, and notes, the work balances narrative events with analysis of character, policy, and the institutional pressures that shaped this contested reign.

FOOTNOTES:

  • [926] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 166 b.
  • [927] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 217.
  • [928] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 217.
  • [929] Ib. p. 218.
  • [930] “Ut fama refert,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 263.
  • [931] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 263–6.
  • [932] Ann. Waverl. a. 1214; “potestate sua non bene utens, iram baronum converti fecerat contra regem.”
  • [933] R. Coggeshall, p. 170.
  • [934] Articles of the Barons, 1215 cc. 39, 47.
  • [935] Ib. c. 8.
  • [936] Of the value to which these profits had risen some idea may be gathered from the fact that a proficuum of £336: 18: 8 was accounted for as due to the Treasury in 1205 by the sheriff of Staffordshire and Shropshire, of which two counties the united ferm was £413: 12: 4, Salt Archaeol. Soc. Publications, vol. ii. pp. 129, 133. It must, however, be added that this proficuum was reduced next year to £266: 13: 4, and went down further year by year, till in 1212 it was only about £155: 11s., ib. pp. 136, 138, 142, 145, 147, 151, 159. After that year the Pipe Rolls are in confusion till 1218.
  • [937] Art. Bar. c. 14.
  • [938] Ib. c. 28.
  • [939] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 214, 215.
  • [940] Art. Bar. c. 26.
  • [941] Ib. c. 30.
  • [942] Ib. c. 8.
  • [943] Ib. c. 13.
  • [944] Ib. c. 24.
  • [945] Art. Bar. c. 9.
  • [946] Ib. c. 10.
  • [947] Ib. c. 22.
  • [948] Ib. c. 1.
  • [949] Ib. c. 36.
  • [950] Ib. c. 4.
  • [951] Ib. c. 17.
  • [952] Ib. c. 3.
  • [953] Ib. c. 27.
  • [954] Ib. c. 5.
  • [955] Art. Bar. c. 15.
  • [956] Ib. cc. 34, 35.
  • [957] Ib. c. 31.
  • [958] Ib. c. 11.
  • [959] Ib. c. 23.
  • [960] Ib. c. 43.
  • [961] Ib. cc. 18, 20.
  • [962] Ib. c. 29.
  • [963] Ib. c. 33.
  • [964] Ib. c. 6.
  • [965] Ann. Waverl. a. 1213.
  • [966] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 300, 301.
  • [967] See Note II. at end.
  • [968] Charter of Henry I. cc. 2, 4, 1.
  • [969] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218.
  • [970] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 293, 294. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 170.
  • [971] Itin. a. 16.
  • [972] He was at Worcester December 25–27; Tewkesbury, 27, 28; Geddington, December 31, 1214; and at the New Temple in London January 7–15, 1215. Itin. a. 16.
  • [973] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 296. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218.
  • [974] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 120.
  • [975] R. Wendover, l.c.
  • [976] “Isti omnes conjurati Stephanum Cantuariensem archiepiscopum capitalem consentaneum habuerunt,” ib. p. 298.
  • [977] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218. It need scarcely be remarked that the charter contains not a word on the subject. The argument evidently was “whatever is not in the charter is contrary to it”; in other words, “omission is prohibition.” The fact that such an argument might be used on both sides was of course conveniently ignored.
  • [978] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 128.
  • [979] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 218.
  • [980] Rot. Pat. p. 130.
  • [981] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 187 b.
  • [982] Rot. Pat. p. 129.
  • [983] Ib. p. 130.
  • [984] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 120. See above, p. 182.
  • [985] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 127.
  • [986] Ib. p. 128.
  • [987] On February 2, according to R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 296; on Ash Wednesday (March 4), according to W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219, and Ann. Winton. a. 1215. This latter is the likelier date; if the fact had been known at Rome before the Pope’s letters were written, they would almost certainly have contained some reference to it.
  • [988] W. Coventry, l.c.
  • [989] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 297, 298; M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 585. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219, adds a bishop, Giles of Hereford. Giles, however, was there not as bishop, but as the avenger of his father, mother and brother—William, Maud, and the younger William de Braose.
  • [990] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219.
  • [991] Itin. a. 16.
  • [992] W. Coventry, l.c.
  • [993] Ib.
  • [994] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 298.
  • [995] Roger of Wendover, Walter of Coventry, and several other annalists absurdly say that in Easter week (April 19–26) John was at, or near, Oxford, where he was to have met the barons. John had not been at Oxford since the Tuesday before Easter, April 13; from the 16th to the 23rd he was in London; on the 23rd he went to Kingston, Reading and Alton, and thence on the 26th to Clarendon; Itin. a. 16. On the day he left London he granted a general safe-conduct to all persons who should come to him in the suite of or with letters patent from the archbishop (Rot. Pat. p. 134); none of the barons, however, seem to have availed themselves of this offer.
  • [996] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 299.
  • [997] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 219.
  • [998] R. Wendover, l.c.
  • [999] Cf. R. Wendover, l.c., and R. Coggeshall, p. 171.
  • [1000] Rot. Pat. p. 134 b.
  • [1001] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 198, 198 b: Rot. Pat. p. 135.
  • [1002] Rot. Pat. p. 135, 135 b.
  • [1003] On May 8 John announces that some horse and foot are coming over under Gerard of Gravelines; Rot. Pat. p. 141.
  • [1004] Ib. p. 135 (May 11).
  • [1005] May 7–9; Itin. a. 16.
  • [1006] Rot. Chart. p. 207.
  • [1007] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 299.
  • [1008] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 220.
  • [1009] Rot. Pat. p. 141.
  • [1010] Rot Chart. p. 209; Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 204.
  • [1011] Rot. Pat. p. 136 b.
  • [1012] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 299, 300; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 220; R. Coggeshall, p. 171; for date see Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 137 b.
  • [1013] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 300, 301.
  • [1014] Itin. a. 16, May 10–17.
  • [1015] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 147, 148. John was at Fremantle May 17–19; thence he went to Silchester, May 19; Winchester, 19, 20; Odiham, 21, 22; Windsor, 22, 23; Winchester again, 23; Itin. a. 16.
  • [1016] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 148, 149.
  • [1017] Rot. Pat. p. 138.
  • [1018] Ib. p. 138 b.
  • [1019] Rochester castle was restored to the archbishop after the “peace” in June. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 319.
  • [1020] Rot. Pat. p. 142.
  • [1021] Rot. Pat. p. 141 b.
  • [1022] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 129.
  • [1023] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 214.
  • [1024] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 220, 221. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 171.
  • [1025] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 301.
  • [1026] Itin. a. 17. The authentic details of John’s movements at this time are of some importance in view of Ralph of Coggeshall’s assertion (p. 172) that he was just then so overcome with terror “ut jam extra Windleshoram nusquam progredi auderet.”
  • [1027] Rot. Pat. pp. 142 b, 143.
  • [1028] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 301.
  • [1029] “In prato qui vocatur Runemad,” R. Coggeshall, p. 172.
  • [1030] Ib.
  • [1031] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 302.
  • [1032] Stubbs, Const. Hist. vol. i. p. 530.
  • [1033] Heading of Articles of the Barons: “Ista sunt capitula quae Barones petunt et Dominus Rex concedit.”
  • [1034] R. Coggeshall, p. 172. Cf. Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 96.
  • [1035] Rot. Pat. p. 143. The “die Veneris” which occurs three times in this writ is in each case an unquestionable, though unaccountable, error for “die Lunae.”
  • [1036] Art. Bar. c. 49.
  • [1037] Art. Bar. c. 49; Magna Charta, c. 61.
  • [1038] M. Charta, c. 63.
  • [1039] Ib. c. 61.
  • [1040] M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 611, “Ecce vigesimus quintus” [it should have been “sextus”] “rex in Anglia; ecce jam non rex, nec etiam regulus, sed regum opprobrium,” etc.
  • [1041] M. Charta, c. 61.
  • [1042] Ib. cc. 15, 16, 60.
  • [1043] The twenty-five were of course all “Northerners” in the political sense; see the list in M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 604.
  • [1044] The list of these thirty-eight is headed “Obsecutores et Observatores,” and ends thus: “Isti omnes juraverunt quod obsequerentur mandato viginti quinque baronum.” Another MS. adds: “Omnes isti juraverunt cogere si opus esset ipsos XXV barones ut rectificarent regem. Et etiam cogere ipsum si mutato animo forte recalcitraret,” M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. pp. 605, 606. Considering the whole context, I think there can be little doubt that “rectificare regem”—though an odd way of expressing it—really means here “to do right to the king.”
  • [1045] Rot. Pat. p. 181.
  • [1046] M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 611.
  • [1047] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 159.
  • [1048] Rot. Pat. p. 180 b.
  • [1049] Ib. p. 143 b.
  • [1050] Ib. p. 144.
  • [1051] Ib. pp. 144 b, 145.
  • [1052] Ib. p. 144 b.
  • [1053] Ib. p. 145 b.
  • [1054] Itin. a. 17.
  • [1055] Hist. des Ducs, p. 151.
  • [1056] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 221; Rot. Claus. vol. i. pp. 215–18.
  • [1057] W. Coventry, l.c.
  • [1058] Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 89, 166.
  • [1059] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 225, sums up the earl’s position and character very suggestively: “In parte adversa erat Gaufridus de Maundevilla comes Essexae, quem rex cingulo militari donaverat, quique regi in XIX millibus marcarum obligatus erat pro comitissa Gloucestriae quondam uxore sua, quam iste nuper acceperat.” See above, p. 196. Geoffrey’s first wife had been a daughter of Robert Fitz-Walter; see Note I at end.
  • [1060] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 221; Ann. Dunst. a. 1215. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 319.
  • [1061] R. Wendover, l.c.
  • [1062] Ib.; R. Coggeshall, p. 172.
  • [1063] Itin. a. 17.
  • [1064] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 222.
  • [1065] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 321, 322.
  • [1066] W. Coventry, l.c.
  • [1067] Rot. Pat. p. 149.
  • [1068] Ib. p. 148.
  • [1069] Ib. p. 148 b.
  • [1070] Rot. Claus. vol. i. pp. 218, 218 b, 219, 219 b; Rot. Chart. pp. 210–13.
  • [1071] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 319.
  • [1072] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 320; where, however, the list of emissaries is obviously incorrect.
  • [1073] Rot. Pat. p. 153, 153 b.
  • [1074] R. Wendover, l.c.
  • [1075] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 152 b.
  • [1076] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 222.
  • [1077] R. Wendover, l.c.
  • [1078] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 222.
  • [1079] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 336–8; misplaced, as may be seen by comparing W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 223.
  • [1080] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 224. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 341.
  • [1081] Hist. des Ducs, p. 152.
  • [1082] John’s Itinerary, a. 17, is blank from August 22, when he was at Wareham, to August 28, when he appears at Sandwich. The Hist. des Ducs, p. 153, accounts for this blank by stating that he went by sea from Southampton to Dover (whither he did proceed on August 31 or September 1; Itin. l.c.). W. Coventry (vol. ii. p. 224) says the bishops who left Oxford on August 19 to seek him found him just embarked at Portsmouth, which comes to the same thing.
  • [1083] The absurdity of the reports given in R. Wendover (vol. iii. pp. 320, 321) and M. Paris (Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 160, 161) about John’s movements at this time was pointed out long ago by Dr. Lingard, Hist. England, vol. ii. p. 362.
  • [1084] Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville took Essex; Robert Fitz-Walter, Northamptonshire; Roger de Cresci, Norfolk and Suffolk; the earl of Winchester, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire; William of Aubigny, Lincolnshire; John de Lacy, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire; Robert de Ros, Northumberland. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 224.
  • [1085] Ib.
  • [1086] Ib. Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 153.
  • [1087] W. Coventry, l.c.
  • [1088] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 340. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 174, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 225.
  • [1089] Gir. Cambr. vol. i. p. 401.
  • [1090] W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 224, 225.
  • [1091] Rot. Pat. p. 154 b. This disposes of R. Coggeshall’s assertion (p. 174) that Stephen went “rege invito et ei minas intentante.”
  • [1092] Rot. Pat. p. 182.
  • [1093] Ib. p. 182 b(dateless).
  • [1094] See above, pp. 182 and 225.
  • [1095] In the “Articles of the Barons,” c. 49, this reservation-clause ran: “Rex faciet eos securos per cartas archiepiscopi et episcoporum et magistri Pandulfi quod nihil impetrabit a domino Papa,” etc. In the Charter, c. 61, “ab aliquo” was substituted for “a domino Papa,” and the security to be given by letters patent of Pandulf and the bishops was made to refer to the keeping of the Charter in general (ib. c. 62), instead of to that one particular point.
  • [1096] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 322–7.