The Minority of Henry the Third

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]

[941] Ann. Dunst., p. 84; cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 92. Orders to prepare for the Christmas court at Northampton were issued 9th and 10th December, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 578. The King left London at some date between 12th and 19th December, and was at Northampton on the 23rd; ib. pp. 579, 579 b.
[942] Ann. Dunst., p. 84.
[943] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 92.
[944] Cf. ib. and Quer. Falc., p. 262.
[945] Quer. Falc., l.c., “Favore” is surely a misprint or a clerical error for fervore.
[946] Ib. Cf. R. Wend.,vol. iv. p. 93, R. Coggeshall, pp. 203, 204, and Ann. Dunst., p. 84; this last gives the date, “quinto die Natalis Domini,” i.e., 29th December.
[947] Its commission to Bishop Peter on Louis’s withdrawal in 1217 (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 450) was evidently only a temporary measure.
[948] See Note VIII.
[949] Ib.
[950] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 71.
[951] On all these changes in the custody of castles see Note VIII.
[952] Quer. Falc., p. 262.
[953] R. Coggeshall, p. 204.
[954] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 496.
[955] Hugh of Windsor, custos of the Tower in November, 1224 (Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 8), and Thomas de Blundeville, custos in 1225 and 1226 (ib. a. 1225–1226 passim) were sub-wardens. Cf. ib. pp. 33 b, 83 b.
[956] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 430.
[957] Hubert was constable of Dover in October, 1225, Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 65.
[958] William Hardres appears as constable of Canterbury castle from Candlemas to Michaelmas 1225, ib. p. 46 b; obviously he was a sub-warden, but whether under Stephen or under Hubert there is nothing to show.
[959] Matthew Paris’s assertion “Instillatum quippe fuerat illis in auribus secreto quod si prompta voluntate ea [scil. castra] regi ilico resignassent, statim illis redderet resignata” (Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 261) may be taken for what his uncorroborated assertions are usually worth.
[960] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 83–84.
[961] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 84.
[962] See above, p. 81.
[963] The only authority for this demand for a confirmation of the Charter, Roger of Wendover, places it in 1223. Its true date, however, seems to be 1224. Roger says it took place “in London, on the octave of Epiphany,” i.e. on 13th January. But in 1223 the court, which had kept Christmas at Oxford (as he says), and thence gone into Wiltshire, Dorset, and Hampshire, did not return to London till 20th or 21st January (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 527–529). In 1224, on the other hand, the King was at Westminster from 8th January to 26th February (ib. pp. 580 b–586). Moreover, in January, 1223, there were, so far as can be seen, no circumstances likely to suggest such a demand; but in January, 1224, the suggestion would be obvious. I think that Roger has betrayed at once his own confusion, and how he fell into it, in the words which immediately follow his report of Henry’s reply: “Et rex protinus, habito super hoc consilio, misit literas suas ad singulos vicecomites regni, ut per milites duodecim vel legales homines uniuscujusque comitatus per sacramentum facerent inquiri quae fuerunt libertates in Anglia tempore regis Henrici avi sui, et factam inquisitionem apud Londonias mitterent ad regem in quindecim diebus post Pascham” (vol. iv. p. 84). It is clear that the inquisition here spoken of is that ordered on 30th January, 1223 (see above, p. 201), which Roger took to be an inquiry into the ancient liberties of England, instead of (as it really was) into those of the Crown. Thus mistaking its character, he further mistook it for a consequence of the demand for the Charter: a demand which (as I believe) it really preceded by nearly twelve months, and with which its connexion—so far as the two things were connected at all—was quite the reverse of that which Roger implies; the inquest into the royal privileges having been, in all likelihood, one of the provocations which led the barons to ask for a confirmation of their own rights.
[964] Quer. Falc., pp. 262, 263. Cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 89, which gives the names of the envoys, Robert Passelewe and Robert of Kent.
[965] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 543.
[966] We arrive at this date by comparing Quer. Falc., l.c., with Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 593 b, and vol. ii. p. 72 b; see below, footnote 1047.
[967] Quer. Falc., p. 263.
[968] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 225.
[969] See above, p. 175.
[970] He was ordered on 18th July, 1222, to give them up to the Archbishop; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 505 b.
[971] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 148 b.
[972] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 479 b.
[973] Ann. Dunst., p. 75; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 301, safe-conduct from 17th September to Christmas, 1221.
[974] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 527 b.
[975] Cf. Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 183, 184, and Ann. Dunst., p. 85; the latter says he went after the Welsh war—i.e. in October or November—but we shall see that he must have gone some time before July.
[976] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 549 b.
[977] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 375, 5th June, 1223.
[978] Ib. p. 365.
[979] Ib. p. 374, 3rd June.
[980] Ib. p. 375, 5th June. This letter seems, however, not to have been despatched; the appointment is repeated on 10th September, 1224, and again on 12th May, 1225 (ib. pp. 470 and 526).
[981] Ib. p. 378, 18th July, 1223.
[982] Ib. p. 483.
[983] Ann. Dunst., p. 85.
[984] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 483.
[985] Contin. Gerv. Cant., vol. ii. p. 113. An order for Eleanor to be delivered into the Marshal’s custody had been issued on 5th February; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 426.
[986] Letters patent of 2nd May, 1224, announce the appointment of the Earl Marshal as Justiciar in Ireland, with power to receive all persons who shall come in within forty days after his arrival there; ib. pp. 437, 438.
[987] The Ann. Dunst., p. 86, say “octave of Pentecost,” but this is wrong; see above, p. 137.
[988] “Quod cepit occasione servicii nostri.”
[989] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 422. On Mausy see ib. pp. 356, 370, 379.
[990] On 22nd May, 1224, Mausy was in Hugh’s hands, ib. p. 440; in April, 1223, it seems to have been in Henry’s, ib. p. 370; to the date of its transfer we have no clue.
[991] Ib. pp. 431, 432, 27th March, 1224.
[992] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 592 b. The “truce” here mentioned may be either that between Henry and Louis, or that between Louis and Hugh. Louis had in September, 1223, made a truce with Hugh and one with Almeric of Thouars, both of which expired before May, 1224; Petit-Dutaillis, p. 233, note 2.
[993] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 593, 593 b, 595. This order for resumption of lands held by aliens is probably what the Bermondsey annalist means by his statement (a. 1224) “Hoc anno Henricus Rex tertius ordinavit et statuit edictum ut omnes alienigenae de regno expellerentur.”
[994] Ann. Dunst., p. 86; cf. Petit-Dutaillis, p. 235.
[995] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 484.
[996] Foedera, I. i. p. 172.
[997] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 235.
[998] Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[999] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 483, 484. The towns addressed are the Cinque Ports, Portsmouth, Shoreham, Southampton, Seaford, Poole, Exeter, Bristol, Dartmouth, Norwich, Yarmouth, Orford, Dunwich, Ipswich, Lynn, and Orwell.
[1000] “Centum milites et amplius et quamplures servientes,” says Hubert de Burgh, Responsiones, p. 66.
[1001] Ann. Dunst., p. 86; this writer makes the knights only sixty.
[1002] Responsiones, l.c.
[1003] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 599, 601, 602 b; in the last place “primo die Maii” seems to be a mistake for Junii.
[1004] Responsiones, p. 66.
[1005] Quer. Falc., p. 264.
[1006] This date is from Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 94. The Dunstable annalist, l.c., says “octavis Pentecostes”; but on that day—9th June, Trinity Sunday—the King was a long way from Northampton; royal letters are dated at Winchester on 8th and 10th June, at Wallingford on 13th and 15th June, and the court did not reach Northampton till the 16th; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 604 b, 605.
[1007] “Daturi nobis ibidem consilium et auxilium facturi ad defensionem terrae nostrae in Pictavia,” Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 224.
[1008] “Convenerunt ad colloquium in octavis Sanctae Trinitatis rex cum archiepiscopis,” &c., “de regni negotiis tractaturi; voluit enim rex uti consilio magnatum suorum de terris transmarinis, quas rex Francorum paulatim occupaverat,” R. Wend., l.c. “Dum rex cum clero et baronibus apud Norhampton de succursu Pictaviae tractaret,” Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[1009] “Cum autem Londoniis post illius simulatae pacis tractatum ordinatum fuisset ut apud Northamptoniam componeretur exercitus.” Quer. Falc., p. 264.
[1010] “Item de hoc respondeat [Hubertus] quod dum dominus rex fuit infra aetatem et subvenire debuit terrae Pictaviae, et exercitus suus proficisci deberet in Pictaviam, fecit ipse comes obsidere castrum Bedfordiae,” &c. Hubert in replying to this charge disclaims responsibility for the siege of Bedford, but appears to endorse the statement that “the King’s host” which went to that siege ought, or was intended or professedly intended, to have gone to Poitou; Responsiones, pp. 66, 67.
[1011] On 30th January Brian de Lisle was threatened with pains and penalties if he did not at once hand over Knaresborough (as he had been told on 30th December to do) to the Archbishop of York (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 425); and on 13th March Pandulf was urged to delay no longer the delivery (also ordered on 30th December) of Bristol (ib. p. 429). As nothing more is heard about either of these fortresses, we may conclude that both custodians obeyed.
[1012] M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. pp. 170, 171.
[1013] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 298 b, 378 b; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 90.
[1014] Pat. Rolls, p. 145.
[1015] Ib. p. 427.
[1016] Ib. p. 430.
[1017] Ib.
[1018] For the relationship between Falkes and William there is abundant evidence. For Nicolas “frater Falkesii” see Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 197, Pat. Rolls Joh. p. 155 (1215), 183 b (1216); for Colin, Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 155, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 195 (1215), 515 b (1222), Pat. Rolls Hen. III, vol. i. p. 458 (1224); for Avice “soror Willelmi de Brealte,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 595 b (1224). Gilbert (ib. p. 246, a. 1216, &c.), John (ib. pp. 617, a. 1224, and p. 642), and Henry (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 461, a. 1224), may have been brothers or more remote kinsmen.
[1019] Hist. Ducs, p. 173; M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 88, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 131; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; R. Coggeshall, p. 204.
[1020] “Rex Johannes habuit quendam servum probum et audacem,” R. Coggeshall, l.c.
[1021] Hist. Ducs and M. Paris, ll.cc.
[1022] R. Coggeshall, l.c. Unluckily this tale, which sounds so characteristic of its hero, rests on unknown authority, being an interpolation in Ralf’s text, and we have no means of judging whether it is derived from contemporary report, or is merely the invention of some imaginative etymologist. The French form of the name is Falkes, Faukes, or Fauques, variously Latinized as Falkesius or Falcasius, sometimes as Falco. It seems to have been a variant of Fulk, Fouques, Fulco, and more probably connected with falco than with falx.
[1023] M. Paris, Hist. Angl., l.c. Cf. Chron. Lanercost, a. 1224: “Faukes re et nomine.”
[1024] “Chil Foukes ot este povres sergans au roi; fius fu a un chevalier de Normendie, de soignant; mais puis siervi il tant le roi et tant cru ses afaires que il fu puis uns des riches homes d’Engletiere; petis fu de cors, mais moult fu vaillans.” Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[1025] “Pro meritis a patria sua fugitivus,” says Matthew Paris of Falkes (Hist. Angl., vol. iii. p. 226). The word meritis, though used sarcastically, may be true literally; the “merit” may have been that of loyalty.
[1026] “Regis aedituus et minister, ipsi in clientela militans,” ib. vol. ii. p. 131.
[1027] Cf. the case of Peter de Maulay, above, footnote 371.
[1028] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 68 b.
[1029] “Faukes serviens domini regis,” l.c.
[1030] “Rex Johannes ... in militem sublimavit.” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1031] He was ordered to deliver them to a new constable, the Earl Marshal, in January, 1214; Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 109 b.
[1032] See ib. pp. 100–199 b passim, and Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 119 b, 120 b, 122.
[1033] See above, footnote 1024.
[1034] “Virga furoris Domini,” M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 131.
[1035] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 19; R. Coggeshall, p. 205; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1036] See above, footnote 1031.
[1037] “Senescallus regis,” Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 190, 191 b, 192 b, March, 1215. This office was shared among several persons; another senescallus regis at this time was William de Cantelupe (ib. p. 192), who had held the office for many years. Falkes seems to have been also a seneschal or steward of the household of Henry III; see Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 350, 350 b, and Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 226, where Henry in June or July, 1224, speaks of “officii maximi quod habuit [Falcatius] in curia nostra.”
[1038] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 214, &c.
[1039] R. Coggeshall, p. 204. It is at this time, in 1215, that Nicolas, Colin, Gilbert, and John de Bréauté first appear (see above, footnote 1018). Nicolas and Colin were clerks. William, “vadlettus noster”—i.e. a page or young squire of the king—had received in July, 1212, a grant of land in Leicestershire previously held by “his uncle, William de Oville,” “ad se sustentandum in servicio nostro quamdiu nobis placuerit,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 120.
[1040] See above, pp. 223, 224.
[1041] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 145.
[1042] “Quem ... Johannes rex ... comiti parificavit, donando illi comitissam de Wyth,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; although Margaret never was a countess, since Baldwin de Rivers died before his father.
[1043] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 175, 221, 222.
[1044] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 10, 11. Cf. M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 203.
[1045] “[Falco] prosperis successibus undique elevatus, parem in regno habere dedignabatur,” R. Coggeshall, p. 205; “cum videret statum suum supra modum subito prosperatum, dedignabatur habere parem; erat enim ei persaepe in operibus frequentibus pro ratione voluntas,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1046] Quer. Falc., pp. 263, 264.
[1047] Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 72 b, 73. These three writs are entered on the back of membrane 17 of the Close Roll 9 Hen. III (October, 1224–October, 1225), and thus appear to belong to April–May, 1225; but this cannot be their true date; Falkes was outlawed and out of England long before April, 1225. The scribe has put them on a wrong roll. With the chronological data for the year 1224 they fit in perfectly. Falkes says he was accused to the King “triduo post pacem,” i.e., three days after peace was made in London between Hubert and his opponents (cf. above, pp. 216, 217). In 1224 the King was in London, 21st April–26th May (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 593 b–601; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 436–441). Combining this fact with Falkes’s statement and with the writ of 26th April, we see that the “peace” must have been made not earlier than 21st April, and not later than the 23rd. The Monday after the octave of Trinity in that year, 17th June, was the morrow of the day fixed for the re-assembling of the Council at Northampton; see above, p. 222.
[1048] Ann. Dunst., p. 90.
[1049] Quer. Falc., p. 264.
[1050] “Accidit autem quod Henricus de Braibroc ... improbe exigeret a Falcasio et suis quasdam exactiones et reragia quae debebant; ex qua exactionum improbitate commoti violenter ceperunt praedictum,” &c. R. Coggeshall, p. 206.
[1051] See Note IX.
[1052] Quer. Falc., l.c.; Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 225, 226; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253; R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 94; R. Coggeshall, l.c.; Ann. Dunst., p. 86. The date is from Quer. Falc., p. 265. The Contin. Gerv. Cant., vol. ii. p. 113, says the capture took place at Huntingdon, which seems geographically impossible.
[1053] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 95.
[1054] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 226; R. Coggeshall and R. Wend., ll.cc.; Ann. Dunst., pp. 86, 90.
[1055] Quer. Falc., p. 264.
[1056] In the Querimonia, l.c. we read: “Cujus captio postquam mihi fuerat nunciata, ego apud Northamptoniam propter servitium regis cum aliis baronibus terrae conveneram, ad castrum de Bedeford pro exquirendo fratre meo ... tam cito perveni.” But the King, in a letter written a few weeks later, says Falkes refused to come before the Council when summoned to answer for Braybroke’s capture, “cum alias teneatur ratione possessionum magnarum et officii maximi quam tenuit in curia nostra” (see above, footnote 1037) “ad nos in conciliis nostris venire non vocatus” (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 226). This seems to imply that Falkes had not attended the Northampton meeting at all.
[1057] Quer. Falc., pp. 264, 265.
[1058] Cf. ib., R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 95, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1059] R. Wend., l.c. Cf. Hubert’s version of all this in Responsiones, pp. 67, 68, and the King’s in Roy. Lett., l.c.; both in substantial agreement with Roger’s.
[1060] In 1221; see above, p. 180.
[1061] Quer. Falc., p. 265.
[1062] Quer. Falc., p. 265; R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 95, 96. Roger gives an absurd date, “Decimo sexto kalendas Julii, die videlicet Jovis proximo post octavas Trinitatis.” It was the Thursday after the octave of Trinity, but it was 20th, not 16th, June.
[1063] Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 236–238.
[1064] Cf. Chron. Turonense, in Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. xviii. p. 305, with R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 93, R. Coggeshall, p. 208, and the two contradictory versions of Savaric’s conduct given in Ann. Dunst., pp. 86 and 91.
[1065] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 236; Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 250, 251.
[1066] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1067] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 226.
[1068] Responsiones, pp. 66, 67 .
[1069] Quer. Falc., p. 269.
[1070] With treason of such a nature as that of which the Barnwell annalist says “some people” accused Falkes—collusion with a foreign enemy of the King—Falkes was never publicly charged at all.
[1071] When once the siege of Bedford was begun, and still more in after-days, of course, King and Justiciar were alike more inclined to magnify than to minimize the whole affair; but this was wisdom after the event.
[1072] R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 349.
[1073] Or, possibly, of its ownership in fee. See Note X.
[1074] The chroniclers speak of this sacrilege as if Falkes were alone responsible for it. So far as concerned one of the churches, however, we know from a better authority that Falkes was neither the sole nor the chief culprit. On 5th February, 1217, the guardians of the realm made little Henry give a benefice to the Prior and convent of Newnham for the welfare of his own soul and his father’s soul, “et in recompensacionem dampni quod idem I. pater noster fecit priori et conventui de Newenham quando dirui fecit ecclesiam S. Pauli de Bedeford, quae fuit dicti prioris et conventus de Newenham, eo tempore quo firmari fecit castrum Bedefordiae.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 29.
[1075] R. Coggeshall, p. 205; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 253.
[1076] Ann. Dunst., p. 87. Cf. Ann. Wav., a. 1224: “Falkesius ... nonnullis etiam de majoribus Angliae, sicut dictum est, eidem Falkesio conniventibus, tenuit idem castellum contra regem ... ad quod expugnandum ... omnes fere magnati Angliae, licet fortassis non uno eodemque animo” [printed anno] “pariter convenerant.” While at Northampton Henry had received a letter from the Pope, remonstrating with him about his treatment of Bishop Peter, Earl Ranulf, and some others of his father’s old friends; Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 224, 225.
[1077] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 605 b–608, 610, 611 b, 612, 632, 636, 641; dates, 20th June–10th August.
[1078] Cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 464, 465, and Ann. Dunst., p. 86. Ralf of Coggeshall, p. 206, says that, by a general edict, two men were summoned from every plough [land] throughout the shires, to drag and work machines and convey stones from the quarries.
[1079] Pat. Rolls, l.c.
[1080] Quer. Falc., pp. 265, 266.
[1081] R. Coggeshall, p. 207.
[1082] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96.
[1083] Foedera, I. i. p. 172, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 631 b.
[1084] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 450.
[1085] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 632.
[1086] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 233–235. In p. 233 Ranulf says the King’s letter reached him on 4th August.
[1087] Ib. pp. 229, 230. If Llywelyn thought the Pope was at the back of the attack on Bedford and the excommunication of Falkes, he was mistaken. On 17th August Honorius wrote to Henry reproaching him for his neglect of previous admonitions to treat his subjects gently, and especially for his ingratitude to Falkes, and pointing out the inexpediency of spending on civil war forces that were urgently needed for external defence (ib. p. 544). On or about the same date he addressed a very sharp letter to Archbishop Stephen, reproving him for his share in the matter, and ordering him to recall the sentence which he was reported to have passed upon Falkes and to stop the King’s action against that personage. On the justice of that action Honorius passes no judgement; what he insists upon is its inopportuneness (ib. pp. 543, 544).
[1088] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 96.
[1089] Ann. Dunst., p. 87. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 96, 97; cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 206.
[1090] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 97.
[1091] R. Coggeshall, l.c.
[1092] “Forinseci.”
[1093] Ann. Dunst., pp. 87, 88.
[1094] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 233.
[1095] Foedera, I. i. p. 175.
[1096] “Tres aemuli mei quos ex causis evidentissimis suspectos habebam”—“qui capitales inimici mei erant.” He does not give their names. Two of them were unquestionably Hubert and Stephen; the third may have been Earl William of Salisbury.
[1097] Quer. Falc., pp. 266, 267.
[1098] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 461.
[1099] Quer. Falc., p. 267.
[1100] For the story of the surrender I have combined the accounts given in Ann. Dunst., p. 88, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 97, and R. Coggeshall, p. 207. Cf. also W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and Quer. Falc., ib. p. 267.
[1101] Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[1102] R. Wend., l.c.
[1103] Ann. Dunst. and Quer. Falc., ll.cc.
[1104] See Note XI.
[1105] Quer. Falc., p. 268.
[1106] Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 98, says fratres suos, but Matthew Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 265, who relates this scene on the authority of an eyewitness, the Bishop of Coventry, speaks of only one brother (William), and so does Falkes himself.
[1107] Quer. Falc., p. 268.
[1108] M. Paris, l.c.
[1109] R. Wend. and M. Paris, ll.cc. The Barnwell annalist, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, places this interview at Elstow.
[1110] R. Wend. and M. Paris, ll.cc.
[1111] Stoke Courcy was part of the heritage of his wife. She and her elder sister, Joan, wife of Hugh de Neville, were co-heiresses to the lands of their father, Warin FitzGerold, who had been chamberlain to Henry II, and who was now dead. See Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 10, 89 b.
[1112] Ann. Dunst., pp. 88, 89.
[1113] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 462.
[1114] “Jurato autem stare mandatis Ecclesiae, in ruborem et confusionem meam, Londoniis in die dedicationis ejusdem Sanctae Trinitatis, affectata presentia plurimorum, idem archiepiscopus nudari me faciens, sermonem ad populum facto ... tandem absolutum post verba multa et probra me dimisit.” Quer. Falc., p. 268. We are not obliged to accept Falkes’s description of Stephen’s discourse as containing “blasphemias infinitas,” nor to believe that the words which he proceeds to give as a quotation from it (ib.) were actually spoken by the Primate. His date—“die dedicationis ejusdem S. Trinitatis”—is absolutely unintelligible to me; but the safe-conduct given him on 19th August was to last till the 25th; and 25th August is also the date of his final act of surrender, which would no doubt be made directly after his absolution. That he was absolved before he made it is stated in the deed itself.
[1115] Foedera, I. i. p. 175; Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 210, 211; date, 25th August. A dateless letter from Falkes to the constable of Stoke Courcy, urging its immediate surrender, is in Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 490. On 29th August twenty marks were granted to Falkes from the treasury “for his expenses”; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 643 b.
[1116] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 98.
[1117] The Ann. Wav., a. 1224, say, “Uxor ejus [i.e., Falkesii] ... tradita est cuidam magnato Angliae custodienda cum filiis suis.” This means “her sons”—one by Baldwin and one by Falkes. Falkes himself speaks only of “wife and son” (Quer. Falc., pp. 271, 272), and so does the Pope when writing in his behalf to Henry.
[1118] See (1) the Pope’s reproach to Stephen in 1226 concerning Falkes and Margaret—“Quomodo potest anima tua in eorum venire consilium qui uxorem ejus nobilis detinent, et in multorum scandalum animarumque suarum perniciem matrimonii violant sacramentum?” (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 547), which clearly takes it for granted that their marriage was still recognized by Stephen and everyone else; and (2) a letter patent of 1228 which calls Margaret “quondam uxorem Falkesii” (Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 211); “quondam uxor” or “quae fuit uxor” being the legal description of a widow, but not of a woman who had been “divorced,” i.e., declared by a judicial sentence to have been never truly a wife at all.
[1119] In Quer. Falc., p. 270, Falkes says he was in the bishop’s custody “ix septimanis et amplius.” Nine weeks from 17th August, which seems to be the earliest possible date for his committal to Eustace’s keeping, brings us to 24th October; and we shall see that the latest possible date for the Council’s decision is 26th October. Roger of Wendover’s statement (vol. iv. p. 103) that it took place “Martio mense” is of course quite wrong.
[1120] See above, footnote 1087.
[1121] Cf. Quer. Falc., p. 270, and R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 103. Ralf of Coggeshall, p. 208, has a slightly different version of the way in which this sentence was arrived at.
[1122] Quer. Falc., l.c.
[1123] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 478.
[1124] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 633 b.
[1125] R. Wend., l.c.
[1126] Cf. ib., W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and Ann. Dunst., p. 89.
[1127] So says Roger, l.c.; but the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., l.c.) says Louis sent him to prison at Compiègne, and only released him on an order from the Pope.
[1128] Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[1129] R. Wend., l.c.
[1130] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 264–269; cf. Foedera, I. i. 175, 176.
[1131] “Uxorem cum patrimonio sibi restitui,” Ann. Dunst., p. 89. The “patrimony” referred to must be Margaret’s, since Falkes had never had or been entitled to any of his own. Having been absolutely penniless for two years and a half, he was now “multis debitis oneratus” (ib.), and considering Margaret’s conduct in September, 1224, it would be only natural if he valued his claims upon her chiefly on their pecuniary side.
[1132] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 547; date, 11th July, 1226. This letter to Stephen is the one referred to above, footnote 1118.
[1133] The Ann. Dunst., p. 89, say he died “ab Urbe rediens, apud Sanctum Ciriacum.” So do Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 137, and Matthew Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 291; the latter adds “infectus veneno quod in pisce quodam ei dabatur.”
[1134] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 313, 314, 12th September, 1227.
[1135] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 465, 468, 469, 29th August, 7th and 9th September.
[1136] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 626 b, 20th October.
[1137] Ib. p. 632 b, 6th–8th September; cf. Ann. Dunst. (a. 1225), p. 92.
[1138] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 99.
[1139] Cf. ib. and Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 22, 25, &c.
[1140] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 496; cf. Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 22. This tallage, according to Ann. Wav., a. 1225, brought in five thousand marks.
[1141] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 99, 100. Cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 93.
[1142] Statutes of Realm, Charters of Liberties, pp. 22–25.
[1143] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 237, 238.
[1144] According to the Chron. Turon. (R.G.S. vol. xviii.), p. 307, Savaric went to England (cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 477, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 8 b, 9) to ask for succour, “sed Anglici, de ejus adjutorio diffidentes, eum latenter capere tentaverunt.” He however escaped, and at Christmas did homage to Louis.
[1145] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 239.
[1146] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 101.
[1147] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 507; cf. Ann. Wav. and Dunst., a. 1225.
[1148] “Dederat ei namque rex, ante recessum suum ab Anglia, comitatum Cornubiae cum tota Pictavia; unde ab omnibus comes Pictaviae vocabatur, titulusque literarum suarum ‘comes Pictaviae et Cornubiae.’” M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 270, adding in margin: “Clam dederat ei Wasconiam et incartaverat.”
[1149] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 503, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 10 b, 11, 21, 22 (1st and 3rd January, 13th March). By 21st March the fleet was found to be too large for its purpose, and many vessels were dismissed; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 514.
[1150] R. Wend., l.c.; cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 94, and Ann. Winton., a. 1225. This last authority says they went “about Mid-Lent” (9th March), but Roger’s date agrees better with the Rolls. He says there were forty knights; the Ann. Winton. say seventy.
[1151] Cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 513–516, and Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 16 b, 19 b.
[1152] See Richard’s letter, dated 2nd May, in Foedera, I. i. p. 178, and cf. Petit-Dutaillis, p. 262.
[1153] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 579, 601, 580, 552, Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 43.
[1154] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 528, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 70 b, 71, 72 b.
[1155] It is more difficult to understand what Henry can have expected to gain by another embassy sent out about the same time as the one to Germany. On 14th January, 1225, Ansoldus of Genoa is ordered to buy a hundred marks’ worth of scarlet and “tela de rey” to give from the King to the Soldan of Damascus, the King promising to pay him when he returns from the Soldan. Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 13 b.
[1156] Foedera, I. i. p. 179.
[1157] See the text (dateless) in Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 518–520.
[1158] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 552.
[1159] 13th November, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 261. See more about the siege in R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 102, and Ann. Dunst., p. 94.
[1160] On comparing the story in R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 105–107, 116, with the King’s letter to William, Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 83, and the entries ib. pp. 92–96, and Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 9, 12, 13, which show that William’s visit to the King at Marlborough took place between 31st December, 1225, and 29th January, 1226 (see especially Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 12, 23rd January), I venture to think that Roger’s “tres menses” in p. 107 should read “tres septimanas.”
[1161] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 114, 115.
[1162] Ib. pp. 116, 117.
[1163] Dugdale, Baronage, vol. i. p. 177, from Register of Lacock Abbey. Roger (p. 117) says that after the reconciliation at Marlborough Hubert invited Longsword to dinner and there, “ut dicitur,” poisoned him. If so, the poison must have been a slow one, since the dinner took place before the court left Marlborough, i.e., before 30th January, and the Earl did not die till five weeks later. His health, already failing in October, was evidently broken down altogether by his sufferings at sea.
[1164] See Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 261–263; Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 14, 15, 24, 31–36, 38, 59, 75–78; Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 38 b, 51, 98, 118 b.
[1165] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 25, 26, and Ann. Dunst., pp. 98, 99.
[1166] See his instructions concerning Brother Thomas of the Temple, “ducenti magnam navem nostram in hoc itinere nostro versus Wasconiam,” Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 11, 19th January, 1226.
[1167] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 114, with dates in Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 9–13, and Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 92–96.
[1168] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 14.
[1169] Chron. Turon., p. 312.
[1170] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 74, 75.
[1171] Chron. Turon., p. 313.
[1172] Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 151.
[1173] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 125.
[1174] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 545–547.
[1175] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 126.
[1176] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 44.
[1177] Cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 489 and 471 (13th August and 23rd September, 1224) with Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 648, which shews that Henry was at Shrewsbury 24th–30th September.
[1178] “Kinardly caput de terris quas Madoc filius Griffin tenet per servicium militare est in manu Lewelini,” Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 24, 18th March, 1225.
[1179] Foedera, I. i. p. 178, Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 83 b, 154 b, 155, Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 56, 59.
[1180] Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 154 b, 155.
[1181] Ann. Dunst., p. 100.
[1182] The silence of the Brut is most significant. That chronicle, after its daring assertion that the Earl Marshal was “slain” at Carnwyllon in 1223 (see above, footnote 893), says not another word about the relations between England and Wales till 1228.
[1183] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 500.
[1184] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 387.
[1185] Ann. Dunst., a. 1225, pp. 91, 92.
[1186] Close Rolls, vol ii. p. 37 b, 10th May.
[1187] Ib. p. 39 b, 13th May, 1225. Cf. ib. pp. 125 b, 126.
[1188] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 31, 32, 75–78, 12th May, 1226.
[1189] Ib. p. 47.
[1190] Ib. pp. 51, 52, 4th July.
[1191] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 500.
[1192] Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 96 b.
[1193] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 48, 49.
[1194] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 291.
[1195] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 80, 81.
[1196] Ib. p. 58.
[1197] See above, pp. 190, 191.
[1198] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 82.
[1199] Ib. p. 59, 27th August.
[1200] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 291.
[1201] Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 70.
[1202] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 560–564.
[1203] Ib. pp. 572, 573.
[1204] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 585; also in W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 256.
[1205] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 257.
[1206] Ib. pp. 274–276.
[1207] Chron. Turon., p. 310.
[1208] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 279.
[1209] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 107, 115, 116, 123, 124, W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 278, 279, and Ann. Dunst., p. 99.
[1210] Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 149, 149 b; Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 24, and cf. ib. pp. 27, 28.
[1211] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 118 and 108.
[1212] Ann. Osen. and Wykes, a. 1226, p. 67. Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 64.
[1213] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. p. 27.
[1214] Ib. pp. 153, 154.
[1215] Chron. Turon., p. 317.
[1216] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 135, 136, and Chron. Turon., p. 318.
[1217] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 136.
[1218] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 136, 137. Archbishop Walter went at some date between 1st December, 1226, and 7th January, 1227, Pat. Rolls, vol. ii., pp. 94, 106, and the Bishop of Carlisle seems to have gone with him, ib. p. 107.
[1219] Brother and successor of Almeric, who died in March, 1226; Chron. Turon., p. 313.
[1220] Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100, 102, 103, 153.
[1221] Chron. Turon., p. 318.
[1222] Foedera, I. i. pp. 186, 187.
[1223] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 138; Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 162.
[1224] Wallingford, December 29th, 30th; Oxford, 31st; Woodstock, 1st–7th January; Oxford, 8th–10th; Reading, 11th–13th; Close Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 163 b–166; cf. Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 105–107.
[1225] Close Rolls, vol. ii. p. 207.
[1226] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 139, 140.
[1227] Roger dates these proceedings “mense Februario,” which the letter close shews to be a month too late; he says that Henry thereupon “excussit se per consilium Huberti de Burgo, justiciarii regni, de consilio et gubernatione dicti episcopi [Wintoniensis] et suorum, qui regi fuerant prius quasi paedagogi, ita quod omnes illas a curia sua et cohabitatione removit” (p. 139), whereas Peter had been removed from his tutorship six years before; and he travesties the proclamation about charters as follows: “In eodem itaque concilio rex fecit cancellare et cassare omnes chartas de provinciis omnibus regni Angliae de libertatibus Forestae, postquam jam per biennium in toto regno fuerant usitatae, hanc occasionem praetendens quod chartae illae concessae fuerant, et libertates scriptae et signatae, dum ipse erat sub custodia, nec sui corporis aut sigilli aliquam habuerit potestatem, unde viribus carere debuit quod sine ratione fuerat usurpatum.... Tunc vero denuntiatum est viris religiosis et aliis qui suis volebant libertatibus gaudere, ut innovarent chartas suas de novo regis sigillo, scientes quod rex chartas antiquas nullius esse momenti reputabat” (pp. 139, 140). The King’s instructions to the sheriffs say not a word of the Forest Charter, and were obviously never meant to apply either to that document or to the Great Charter; and what they do say about other charters is completely misrepresented by the last clause of Roger’s concluding sentence.
[1228] Respons., p. 69.
[1229] In the early part of December, 1226, the Archbishop of Dublin and the clergy of the March in Ireland had been entreated to send an aid to the King; Pat. Rolls, vol. ii. pp. 100–104.
[1230] See Note VII.

The Minority of Henry the Third

About This Book

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]