The Minority of Henry the Third

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]

[519] He is called “Magister Pandulfus, subdiaconus et familiaris domini Papae,” until his election to the see of Norwich in July, 1215, and even afterwards. See the preamble to Magna Charta, and Pat. Rolls Joh., pp. 154 b, 181. Roger of Wendover (vol. iii. p. 235) calls him cardinal in 1211; but Pandulf never was a cardinal at all.
[520] Ann. Worc., a. 1215.
[521] “Domine, de longinquo venimus huc per petitionem tuam,” is the opening speech of the envoys to John, in Ann. Burton a. 1211, pp. 209–210; and the king at the end of the discussion bursts out—“Intimatum mihi erat per quosdam latores meos, immo latrones, quod vos in curia Romana promoveretis causam meam et quod me diligeretis; modo vero hic percipio quod causam meam non fovetis.... Talia autem mihi nunciaturos non mandavi, sed ut causam meam defenderetis,” ib. p. 216.
[522] Ib. pp. 209–217.
[523] See John Lackland, pp. 175, 179, 180.
[524] R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 256.
[525] “Domini Papae nuncius,” June, 1213, Pat. Rolls Joh., pp. 99 b, 100 b.
[526] Ib. p. 107, 1st January, 1214.
[527] Ib. p. 100.
[528] “In nuncium nostrum,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 141.
[529] Pat. Rolls Joh., pp. 129 b, 132.
[530] R. Wend., vol. iii. pp. 336–338, 340.
[531] Between 15th and 18th July; Pat. Rolls Joh., pp. 149, 149 b.
[532] Ib. p. 182 b, 13th September, 1215.
[533] Bliss, Calendar, vol. i. p. 56.
[534] Ib. p. 58.
[535] R. Coggeshall, p. 186.
[536] On the date of this correspondence see Professor Powicke’s article on “The Chancery during the Minority of Henry III,” Eng. Hist. Rev., vol. xxiii. p. 229.
[537] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 113.
[538] Ib. p. 112.
[539] Ib. p. 117.
[540] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 120.
[541] “Si ... ad beatum Martyrem visitandum ire velitis.”
[542] Ib. pp. 119–121.
[543] On the whole subject of Chancellor, Vice-chancellor, and custody of the seals, and on Richard de Marsh and Ralf de Neville, see Powicke, pp. 223–231.
[544] “Per vicarium,” Dial. de Scaccario, lib. i. c. xv.
[545] Professor Powicke, p. 228, says positively that this was so, citing as his authority “Rot. Claus. passim.” So far as I can see, however, these Rolls contain no actual proof that the “R. camerarius” who figures in them together with the treasurer and another chamberlain whose initial is “F.” is Ralf de Neville. The identification seems to be an inference from Pandulf’s injunctions about “paying nothing out.”
[546] This is clear from the tone of Pandulf’s letters. See especially the letter of 12th May—“Rogamus autem et monemus prudentiam tuam ut verbum secretum quod tibi diximus studeas loco et tempore fideliter procurare.” Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 119.
[547] Pandulf issues his orders “legationis qua fungimur auctoritate” (ib.), because in his case the secular authority of the regent was included in and covered by the legatine authority. He had been made regent just because he was the Pope’s Legate.
[548] Ib. p. 116.
[549] “Ad factum scaccarii detis operam efficacem, sicut regi et regno cognoscatis expedire,” Foedera, I. i. p. 157, January, 1220.
[550] Ann. Dunst. a. 1223, p. 84.
[551] There is no authority for the oft-repeated assertion that Hubert’s father was brother to William FitzAudelin.
[552] For their relationship see Sweetman, Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, vol. i. No. 2217.
[553] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 9.
[554] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 163.
[555] R. Coggeshall, pp. 139–140.
[556] Ib. p. 154.
[557] See references in Dugdale, Baronage, vol. i. p. 693.
[558] Before 7th April; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 142.
[559] Before 11th April (1215); ib. p. 194.
[560] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 138, 24th May, 1215.
[561] Between 15th June, when he figures in the Great Charter as “senescallus Pictaviae,” and 25th June, when he appears for the first time as “Justiciarius Angliae,” Ib. p. 144 b. He himself seems to have stated in 1239 “quod dominus Johannes Rex tradidit ei justitiariam apud Runingmede coram domino Stephano Archiepiscopo, comite Warannae, comite de Ferrariis, et aliis magnatibus”; Responsiones (M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi.), p. 65.
[562] M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. pp. 28, 29.
[563] See above, pp. 51, 52.
[564] R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 181; M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 309.
[565] Dict. Nat. Biogr., “Peter des Roches.”
[566] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 1 b.
[567] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 22 b.
[568] See Rolls, a. 1201–1205, passim.
[569] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 49.
[570] Ib. pp. 40, 43, 46 (a. 1204).
[571] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 18 b.
[572] Ann. Winton. a. 1205.
[573] Ann. Dunst. a. 1210.
[574] Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 110, 110 b.
[575] R. Coggeshall, p. 168.
[576] Ann. Wav., a. 1214.
[577] In the Patent Roll of 15 John (1213–1214), Pat. Rolls Joh., p. 107, it is stated that “vicesimo secundo die Decembris liberatum fuit sigillum apud Windlesoram Radulfo de Nevill, sub domino Wintoniensi episcopo deferendum.” From this it has by some writers been inferred that Peter was Chancellor for a short time in 1213–1214. But Walter de Gray, who had been Chancellor ever since 2nd October, 1205 (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 53), appears in that capacity on 10th October, 1213, and again on 12th January, 1214 (ib. pp. 156 b, 160), and the title of chancellor is nowhere given to Peter. It seems therefore that Ralf was made keeper of the seal “under the Bishop of Winchester” as a mere temporary arrangement, necessitated by the fact that the Chancellor (Walter de Gray) was going to Flanders on business for the King; ib. p. 156 b. See also Powicke, “Chancery,” pp. 226, 227.
[578] Henry was born on 1st October, 1207; R. Wend., vol. iii. p. 219.
[579] The notices of little Henry during his father’s lifetime are unluckily very few. We know that about August, 1215, he and his mother were sent for safety to the royal castle of Corfe (Hist. Ducs, p. 152), and that at the time of his father’s death he was in the castle of Devizes, under the care of a valiant man-at-arms, Ralf of Saint-Samson (see above, pp. 2, 3). These temporary removals of the boy from Peter’s custody were, however, certainly not due to any withdrawal of John’s confidence from Peter, whose name follows that of Gualo in the list of executors of the will made by John on his death-bed.
[580] “Willelmus Mareschallus, regis rector et regni, diem clausit extremum; post cujus mortem memoratus rex in custodia Petri Wintoniensis episcopi remansit.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 46.
[581] Turner, pt. II. p. 237.
[582] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 13, 14.
[583] Ib. p. 136.
[584] Ib. p. 13; see on this Turner, pt. II. p. 236.
[585] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 136. The new custodian was Falkes, who had been custodian of Rockingham before Count William. The fact that Sauvey was not re-committed to Geoffrey de Serland implies no slight upon the latter; he had in the interval been well provided for elsewhere.
[586] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 245.
[587] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 257, 258; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 434, 434 b.
[588] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 416 b.
[589] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 235.
[590] Ib. p. 240.
[591] Ib. p. 191.
[592] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 98.
[593] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 400 b.
[594] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 99.
[595] Ib. pp. 128, 129.
[596] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 263–265.
[597] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 16, 17.
[598] There can be no doubt that this is the “forma pacis” which Pandulf asks Ralf de Neville to send him in May 1219: ib. p. 117 (for date see above, p. 113).
[599] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 197.
[600] Foedera, I. i. p. 157. The letter is dateless, but there can be no doubt about its reference. It cannot refer to the treaty made between the two kings at York in June 1220, because on that occasion Peter, as well as Pandulf, was present in person; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 235.
[601] This was explicitly stated in the charge against Hubert de Burgh in 1239, as reported in his Responsiones, M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. vi. pp. 70–71. A promise that one of William’s daughters should be married to one of John’s sons is also mentioned by Gervase of Canterbury (vol. i. p. 103) as included in the treaty of Norham. The text of that treaty in Foedera, I. i. p. 103, rests on no authority beyond that of Rymer.
[602] Both Margaret and her sister were born before the end of 1195; R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 299, 308.
[603] “Primae conventiones.”
[604] Responsiones, p. 71.
[605] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 59, 60.
[606] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 434.
[607] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 58, 59, 76, 77; Foedera, I. i. p. 157.
[608] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 260, 261.
[609] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 418, 418 b. Llywelyn’s version, as given in a letter from him to Pandulf, Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 122, 123, was very different.
[610] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 143.
[611] Foedera, I. i. p. 159.
[612] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 244.
[613] “Eodemque anno ... devotus Deo rex Henricus III fecit inchoari fabricam novae capellae B. Virginis apud Westmonasterium, eodem rege existente fundatore et patrono, et primum lapidem operis in fundamento in bonum auspicium disponente, videlicet sabbato sancto Pentecostes.” M. Paris, Hist. Angl. a. 1220, vol. ii. p. 242. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 188, and Ann. Berm., a. 1220.
[614] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 244. There must have been many present who had seen three coronations before Henry’s accession—those of Richard in 1189 and 1195, and that of John in 1199. The Ann. Dunst., p. 57, mention a detail which would have a special significance for those who remembered Richard’s first crowning: “Judaei vero in Turri Lundoniarum servabantur interim ad cautelam.” Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 63, says the crowning was at Canterbury, but he is certainly wrong. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 208, and R. Coggeshall, p. 187. T. Wykes, a. 1220, says: “Sane quia propter aetatis teneritudinem nondum sufficiens fuerat [rex] ad regni gubernaculum, totius regni proceres providebant sibi tutorem et custodem, virum summi discretionis et probitatis, dominum Hubertum de Burgo, qui motus regis voluntarios refraenaret, ne forte per immoderantiam lasciviret; factusque est justiciarius totius Angliae, ut sua prudentia, qua caeteris praepollebat, regis et regni negotia dispensaret.” And the Bermondsey Annals, a. 1220, say: “Hoc anno Hubertus de Burgo factus est justiciarius totius Angliae,” while the Waverley Annals make a like statement under the date 1219. These entries seem to be all derived from a common source, and based upon a mistake. There is superabundant documentary evidence that Hubert had been justiciar uninterruptedly ever since 1215; if he had not been reappointed at Henry’s accession, there could be no reason and no occasion for him to be reappointed now; and his own words in 1239, as given in the Responsiones, p. 64, distinctly imply that nothing of the kind had ever taken place.
[615] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 170, 171, August, 1214.
[616] See above, p. 117.
[617] Before 4th Feb. 1215: Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 186 b.
[618] Before 8th December, 1215: ib. p. 241.
[619] The Archbishop’s appointment as seneschal is dated 28th March, 1217. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 54.
[620] Ib. p. 152, 8th May, 1218.
[621] He was probably about the same age as Isabel, who was then twenty-six. His parents had been married in 1181; but his mother—who as the only child of the elder brother of Isabel’s father had claims on Angoulême—must have been then so young that her son is not likely to have been born till some years later.
[622] Of Jerusalem and Cyprus.
[623] Foedera, I. i. p. 159; cf. John’s treaty with the Lusignans, Charter Rolls, p. 197 b.
[624] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 30, 31.
[625] Ib. pp. 37, 38.
[626] She was proposing to go in July, 1217, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 113, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 315, but seems not to have actually gone till next year.
[627] Hist. Ducs, p. 206.
[628] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 73 b.
[629] Ib. p. 168 b.
[630] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 33, 34.
[631] Such at least was Hugh’s story: “non poterat exire de Rupella sine commodatione praedictae pecuniae,” ib. p. 44.
[632] Ib. pp. 43–45.
[633] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 395 b, 16th July.
[634] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 199, 25th July.
[635] See the King’s letter to William Maingo, 24th July, 1219, in Foedera, I. i. p. 155.
[636] It had been made in September, 1214, to last for five years from Easter, 1215; ib. p. 125.
[637] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 201.
[638] Foedera, I. i. p. 157; Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 74, 76.
[639] They were Philip d’Aubigné, the Abbot of Stratford, and Alan Basset. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 410 b.
[640] Foedera, I. i. pp. 158, 159. Cf. Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 94, Ann. Dunst., a. 1220 (which wrongly make the period five years), and Hist. Ducs, pp. 207, 208; the two latter authorities expatiate on Philip’s generosity in consenting to prolong the truce without pecuniary consideration.
[641] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 33, 34.
[642] Warren went with her to the King, and a day, 15th September, was given them, at which Warren begged Hubert to attend and do his utmost “tam pro rege quam pro nobis”; ib. p. 42. The result does not appear.
[643] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 408, 14th November.
[644] He landed at Dover on 1st November, and proposed to be in London to meet Pandulf on the 4th; Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 49.
[645] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 54, 55.
[646] Ib. pp. 45, 46, 49–54, 62, 63, 65.
[647] Ib. pp. 94–96. Cf. the letter of Ivo de la Jaille—one of the Angevin barons who still held out for the Angevin house—ib. p. 93. Geoffrey de Neville was sent back to Poitou in February, 1220, but only “in nuncium nostrum,” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 411 b; he went after 12th February, and seems to have returned to England before 27th April, ib. p. 417. The “Seneschal of Poitou and Gascony” to whom letters are addressed on 10th February, 2nd July, and 29th July, 1220 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 228, 245, 243), was clearly a deputy, most likely William Gauler.
[648] On January 17th, 1220, Pandulf urged Hubert “Provideatis etiam de persona quae ire debeat in Pictaviam, quia tempus instat quo debeat quicumque fuerit iter arripere. Nec expectetis super praemissis consilium, cum nos hoc velimus et consulamus omnimodis bona fide.” Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 76. Again, on 27th January: “Si de mittenda persona in Pictaviam tractavistis et eam invenistis, nobis quam citius vestris literis intimetis.” Ib. p. 79.
[649] See for date Shirley’s note, ib. pp. 32, 33.
[650] “Comites Marchiae et Angolismae” in Shirley’s printed text, ib. p. 114; but this latter word must be an error for Augiae.
[651] See the whole of this very amusing epistle, ib. pp. 114, 115. The date is approximately determined by Henry’s letter of congratulation to Hugh.
[652] Foedera, I. i. p. 160.
[653] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 233. Ralf and Joldewin are spoken of as going to Poitou “in nuntium nostrum” on 20th May; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 418 b.
[654] Close Rolls, vol i. p. 436.
[655] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 235. The Ann. Dunst., a. 1220, say: “Mense Junio apud Eboracum rex Scotiae affidavit sororem Henrici regis Angliae; qua de causa idem rex Angliae remisit ei quinque millia marcarum.” Probably remisit here is a scribe’s error for promisit, and five thousand marks was the dowry given by Henry to his sister on her marriage. The little damsel Isabel of England was apparently taken to York that Alexander might see her; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 234. The Lord of Galloway, Alan, also came to York at this time, and performed the homage which he owed to Henry; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 420 b.
[656] Isabel’s demand is curiously worded: “Precamur vos diligenter quod ei [i.e., Hugoni] reddatis jus suum, scilicet Niortum, Castrum Exonense, et de Rokingham, et tria millia et quingentas marcas quas pater vester, maritus quondam noster, nobis legavit” (Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 115). The mention of Rockingham should probably run “et villam de Rokingham.” The lands bestowed by John upon Isabel in dower consisted of the city of Saintes, Niort, Saumur, La Flèche, Beaufort, Baugy, Château-du-Loir, “Trov” (Charter Rolls, pp. 74 b, 75), the city and fair of Exeter, the towns of Ilchester, Wilton, Malmesbury, Chichester, Queenhithe, and Waltham, the honour of Berkhamsted, the county of Rutland, and the town of Rockingham, Falaise, Domfront, Bonneville-sur-Toucques, and all the lands which had belonged to the dowry of his mother Queen Eleanor (ib. 128).
[657] Foedera, I. i. p. 161.
[658] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 261.
[659] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 149; cf. ib. p. 133.
[660] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 134.
[661] Ib. p. 140.
[662] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 132, 133.
[663] Ib. p. 127.
[664] Ib. pp. 123, 124.
[665] Ib. pp. 126, 127.
[666] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 129.
[667] See the story in Turner, pt. II. pp. 223, 224.
[668] Foedera, I. i. p. 162.
[669] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 249.
[670] Cf. Peter’s letter to Pandulf, Foedera, l.c., and Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 430, where we find the Dean sent home at the King’s expense “in nuncium nostrum” on 18th September.
[671] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 437.
[672] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 265, 266.
[673] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 149.
[674] Ib. pp. 536, 537.
[675] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 255.
[676] Philip of Ulecote died before 30th October; ib. p. 269.
[677] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 157–159.
[678] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 439.
[679] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 159.
[680] “Barones qui praesentes erant in crastino coronationis juraverunt quod castra et wardias suas ad voluntatem regis resignarent, et de firmis suis fidelem compotum ad scaccarium redderent; et si quis regi rebellis resisteret, et infra quadragintas dies post excommunicationem a legato non satisfecerit, quod ad mandatum regis ei bella moverent, ut exhaeredetur sine fine rebellis.” Ann. Dunst., a. 1220, p. 57. See Note VI.
[681] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 121.
[682] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 65. The castle is not expressly named; but its inclusion in the grant appears from the sequel.
[683] Hundred Rolls, vol. i. p. 309.
[684] On 26th November, 1217, the King bids “the sheriff of Lincolnshire”—no name is mentioned—“cause Nicolaa de Haye to have a reasonable aid from her knights and free tenants in your bailiwick for the payment of debts incurred by her when she was besieged in Lincoln castle.” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 344.
[685] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 130.
[686] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 356, 367, 367 b, &c. The exact date at which she recovered the castle does not appear; probably it was not very long before the date of the first of these entries, 17th March, 1218; for on 13th November, 1218, we find an order to the Treasury for payment to Earl William of what he spent “per visum et testimonium legalium hominum in reparacione castri Lincolniae tempore pacis,” ib. p. 383. If he had delivered the castle to its Dame immediately on receipt of the King’s order to do so, at the beginning of November, 1217, he would not have had much time for its repair tempore pacis, the peace having been made on 12th September.
[687] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 200, 201.
[688] Order, dated 23rd May, 1220, for payment to Falkes of the wages of three knights “qui sunt in servitio nostro in castro Lincolniae cum eodem Falkesio” from the octave of the Assumption in the King’s third year (22nd August, 1219) to the octave of Trinity in his fourth year (31st May, 1220). Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 419.
[689] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 73.
[690] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 86, 87.
[691] Hist. Ducs, pp. 175, 176.
[692] “Johannes Marescallus reddit compotum de £128 7s. pro fine suo et fine fratris sui Gilleberti de terra patris eorum. In operatione castri de Merleberga £26 13s. 4d. per breve Regis et per visum Yvonis de Neville. Et debet £100 33s. 8d.” Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II (1175–1176), p. 172.
[693] The warden of Marlborough castle throughout John’s reign was Hugh de Neville; see Pat. Rolls Joh. and Close Rolls, vol. i., passim, the latter from p. 16 b (1205) onwards. John “de Turri” appears as its constable on the morrow of Magna Charta (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 214 b), no doubt as deputy for Hugh, who was at Runnimede with the king. It was Hugh who surrendered the place to Louis in 1216; Hist. Ducs, pp. 175, 176.
[694] In a writ of Computate in favour of the sheriff of Wiltshire, 13th November, 1222, occurs this item: “Computate et eidem in firma manerii de Merleberge c. et lx. libras blanchas, videlicet xxxii libras annuas de praedictis v. annis praeteritis, quas comes W. Marescallus senior et comes W. Marescallus junior et Johannes de Ferentino receperunt de eodem manerio per eosdem annos ad custodiendum castrum de Merleberge”; and the “past five years” are in an earlier part of the writ defined as “de anno regni nostri secundo, tertio, quarto, quinto, et sexto,” i.e. from 29th October, 1217, to 28th October, 1222. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 521.
[695] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 100, 101; date, 3rd April [1220].
[696] On 24th July, 1221, “the King’s constable of Marlborough” is bidden to give the heirs of Robert of Barfleur seisin of the mill at Marlborough called Port Mill, “de quo W. Marescallus comes Penbrochiae cum habuisset seisinam castri de Merleberge eosdem heredes pro voluntate sua disseisivit.” Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 466.
[697] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 299 b, 305 b; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 55.
[698] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 348. Cf. above, p. 87.
[699] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 354 b, 13th March, 1218.
[700] Ib. p. 397, 22nd July, 1219.
[701] Ib. p. 406 b, 29th October, 1219.
[702] That the Marshal had taken this oath is stated in the King’s letter of 11th September, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 429 b.
[703] Hubert held the castles of Dover, Canterbury, Rochester, Norwich, Orford, and the Tower of London (see Turner, pt. II. pp. 242, 243); the first three as sheriff of Kent, the next two as sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, and the last as Justiciar.
[704] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 244.
[705] Pontefract, 19th June; Nottingham, 21st June; Leicester, 23rd June; Northampton, 23rd June; Rockingham, 26th June. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 238.
[706] W. Cov., l.c.
[707] See above, p. 123.
[708] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 238.
[709] “Computate Falkesio de Bréauté £100 quas posuit in expensis nostris in obsidione castri de Rockingham,” 5th November, 1220, Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 439 b.
[710] W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 244, 245.
[711] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 239.
[712] The Barnwell annalist’s account of this affair (W. Cov., l.c.) suggests a possibility that Aumale’s deputy constable at Rockingham may have been more forward than Aumale himself to resist the King, and in fact gone beyond the count’s orders in shutting the gates. Mr. Turner thinks the statement of Roger of Wendover (vol. iv, p. 65) that the two castles were found “penitus omnia victualium genere destituta, ita quidem quod nec etiam tres panes invenirentur in eis,” “suggests that the count had been misrepresented by the letters patent of November, 1219, which recited that he was fortifying the castles and storing them with corn” (Turner, pt. II. p. 242). I cannot follow this argument; to me a statement as to the contents of a place in June, 1220, conveys no suggestion whatever as to the contents of that place in November, 1219.
[713] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 240, 29th June, 1220.
[714] See above, p. 143. The date must be before 29th June, as the Earl speaks of the Count’s lack of obedience to the King “de his quae modo custodit in Anglia.”
[715] He may even have had no stake there at all. For all we know, his father may not have possessed a rood of land at Fors or anywhere else. Fors itself is a mere village.
[716] Ann. Dunst., a. 1220, p. 64.
[717] Ib. p. 58; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 246, and Ann. Wav., a. 1220.
[718] Hist. Ducs, p. 209.
[719] Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 245, Ann. Dunst., p. 58, and Hist. Ducs, pp. 208, 209. The last reckons twenty-five bishops; the first, seventeen bishops and three archbishops, among whom, however, he does not name Reims.
[720] Hist. Ducs, p. 209; Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[721] Hist. Ducs, p. 208.
[722] “Praesente ... rege Anglorum Henrico quarto,” says the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., l.c.), using the reckoning which counted the “young King,” Henry II’s son, as Henry III.
[723] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 437.
[724] Cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 437 b, and Ann. Dunst., a. 1220.
[725] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 151.
[726] I venture to suggest that this may be the explanation of a letter from Pandulf to Hubert de Burgh, Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 130: “Quod actum est de vicecomite Eboracensi, in Dei et domini regis ac nostrum pariter acceptatum esse noscitur praejudicium et contemptum, non enim per nostram vel vestram ammonitionem adhuc potuit liberari. Ideoque discretionem vestram monemus attentius et hortamur quatenus ipsum secundum justitiam et legem terrae faciatis quantocius liberari, cum teneamini hoc circa quemlibet observari facientes” (?) “ita quod honor domini regis conservetur illaesus, et vos inde possitis merito commendari.” In the printed edition this letter purports to be “datum apud Lincolniam, nonas Junii”; Dr. Shirley took this to be 5th June, 1220, and tentatively suggested as “not impossible” that the outrage to which it alludes may have been an act of vengeance perpetrated by William of Aumale, Geoffrey’s most powerful neighbour in Yorkshire, on the erroneous suspicion that it was Geoffrey’s influence which had “disappointed” him of Geoffrey’s former office of seneschal of Poitou. But (1) I greatly doubt whether Aumale, or anybody else, would be “disappointed” at not being made seneschal of Poitou. That office was neither a pleasant nor a lucrative one, but one which most of its various holders, for many years past, seem to have accepted with reluctance and escaped from as soon as possible. (2) The fact that in none of the various accounts of Aumale’s misdoings—in the chronicles, or in the royal letters patent—is there any mention of the capture of the sheriff of Yorkshire, makes it appear very improbable that he was concerned in the matter. Had he been so, or even suspected of being so, his enemies would surely have made the most of such a charge to add to the indictment which, as we shall see, was brought against him early next year. (3) Dr. Shirley cites as a reference showing this letter to have been written in 1220 “inter alia, Rot. Claus. i. p. 419 b”; but I can see there nothing which bears on the subject. It seems to me possible that the word printed Junii may have been originally a contracted form of Januarii; that the true date of the letter may be 5th January, 1221; and that its true connexion may be not with Aumale but with the dispute about the carucage. I can find in the Rolls nothing to prove or to indicate whether Geoffrey de Neville was or was not at liberty either c. 5th June, 1220, or c. 5th January, 1221. On 22nd January he was sent with a message from the King to the count of Aumale; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 446.
[727] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 437.
[728] See above, p. 124.
[729] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 253, 254.
[730] Ib. p. 253.
[731] See the details of the debts to Pandulf, Feb. 18th, 1221, ib. p. 284.
[732] See above, p. 129.
[733] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 141, 142.
[734] Ib. p. 143.
[735] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 428.
[736] Brut, p. 307.
[737] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 144, 145. Cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 61.
[738] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 144, 145.
[739] Pat. Rolls, vol. pp. 254, 255.
[740] Foedera, I. i. p. 164.
[741] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 431 b. Of course it by no means follows that these commissioners got what they went for.
[742] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 236.
[743] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 429 b.
[744] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 150.
[745] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 257.
[746] See above, p. 145.
[747] We shall find it in his custody in January, 1221.
[748] He eventually gave it, not later than 12th March, 1221, to the boy’s maternal uncle, Ranulf of Chester. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 285.
[749] Cf. ib. p. 272, and Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 442.
[750] Turner, pt. II. pp. 247, 248.
[751] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 119.
[752] Ann. Dunst., p. 64.
[753] Turner, pt. II. p. 248.
[754] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 66. Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 247.
[755] R. Wend., l.c. He goes on: “Habuit autem, ut dicebatur, hujus factionis incentores Falcasium, Philippum Marc, Petrum de Maloleone” [recte “Malolacu”] “Engelardum de Athie, et alios multos, qui clam miserunt ei viros armatos ut pacem regni turbaret.” But there is not a particle of evidence to indicate that such was the fact, or even that it was suspected at the time; indeed, the evidence of the records disproves the existence of such a suspicion against two of the men named, Philip Marc and Falkes; see Turner, pt. II. p. 254, and Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 448 b. Once again, as in his account of the Newark affair in 1217, Roger is carrying back to an earlier date his recollections of 1223.
[756] “Comes de Albomari mense Januario visus est furtive capere castra de Neuwerga, et de Latford, et de Kimbautona; sed turpiter repulsus, accessit ex improvisu ad Fodringham,” etc., says the printed text of Ann. Dunst., a. 1221, p. 63. Visus is obviously an error for nisus. Newark and Sleaford belonged to the Bishop of Lincoln; Kimbolton to the Earl of Essex.
[757] I think this must be the real meaning of the words of Roger of Wendover, (vol. iv. p. 67): “Convenerunt interim magnates Angliae ad regem apud Westmonasterium ut de negotiis regni tractarent; comes vero, qui cum caeteris vocatus fuerat, simulavit se illo ire,” coupled with the safe-conduct until Candlemas granted to Aumale on some day between 15th and 22nd January, 1221, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 278; cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 446.
[758] “Justiciarius Angliae tunc in custodiam habebat,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 247. Roger, l.c., says “erat tunc castellum in custodia Ranulfi comitis Cestrensis,” but the former is probably right. Cf. Turner, pt. II. p. 252.
[759] Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 67, and Ann. Dunst., p. 63.
[760] R. Wend., l.c.
[761] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 247.
[762] On 22nd January a letter close was sent to Aumale bidding him trust what two persons named therein should say to him on the King’s behalf; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 446. This, from its tone, would seem to have been despatched in ignorance of the Fotheringay outrage—certainly before the assembly in which Aumale was excommunicated again. The date of that assembly is given in the Dunstable Annals, l.c., as “in die Conversionis Sancti Pauli.” But the excommunication is announced, as having already taken place, in a letter dated January 23rd, Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 169.
[763] Cf. W. Cov., l.c., and Ann. Dunst., p. 64.
[764] “Tum quia castrum domini sui regis proditione cepit antequam ipsum difidasset.” I think this sentence of the Dunstable annalist (l.c.) tends to confirm the Barnwell writer’s statement that Fotheringay was in the custody of Hubert. Strictly speaking, Fotheringay was never “a castle of his (Aumale’s) lord the King,” i.e., King Henry; it was a castle of the Earl of Huntingdon’s, and held of the King of Scots; Henry had only the right to its custody during the minority of the heir, and he had committed it to Alexander as custodian. If, however, Alexander had (as he very likely may have done) placed it temporarily in Henry’s hand, to be garrisoned by Henry’s men under Henry’s justiciar, the Dunstable writer’s words would be far more intelligible than if they were applied to it when in the keeping of the Earl of Chester, who we know was, at some date before—unluckily there is nothing to prove how long before—12th March, 1221, appointed custodian of the honour of Huntingdon not by Henry, but, with Henry’s sanction, by Alexander; see above, footnote 748.
[765] Ann. Dunst., p. 64.
[766] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 169. This letter, dated 23rd January, is addressed to Geoffrey de Neville. There can be no doubt that a like summons was sent to the other sheriffs and barons, and that the muster was a general one.
[767] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 248.
[768] Roy. Lett., vol i. p. 171. He left Bytham on 31st January; ib.
[769] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 474 b.
[770] W. Cov., l.c.
[771] Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 448.
[772] Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[773] W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 248, 249.
[774] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 67.
[775] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 249. Ann. Dunst., p. 64.
[776] Ann. Dunst., l.c.
[777] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 67, 68.
[778] Commentators seem puzzled to account for a letter, dated 29th April, 1221, in which the Pope bids the Archbishop of York and his suffragans, “cum, sicut audivimus et dolemus, gravis guerra in regno Angliae incipit pullulare, quae nisi fuerit repressa celeriter, in totius regni poterit excrescere detrimentum ... quatenus singuli tanquam propriam causam agentes ad praecidendam guerrarum materiam et pacis foedera reformandam omne studium et diligentiam impendatis”; Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 174, 175. I would suggest that Honorius had heard something of the misdoings of the lord of Holderness, and was neither sufficiently learned in English geography to realize that they were not actually done in the northern province, nor, as yet, aware—as, indeed, he could not be at that date—how promptly they had been brought to an end.
[779] Ann. Dunst., a. 1221, p. 68. On 28th April Falkes, Richard de Rivers, and Engelard de Cigogné were sent to the Marshal with a letter desiring him to trust to what they should tell him from the King about the castle of Marlborough “ad fidem, commodum, et honorem nostrum.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 287.
[780] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 245.
[781] Stapleton, Rotuli Normanniae, vol. ii. introduction, p. cxxxviii.
[782] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 244, 245. This may be an allusion to the supposed plot of Peter de Maulay, or merely to what was possibly the origin of a misunderstanding which had occurred between the Marshal and the government at the time of the siege of Bytham. The Marshal received no summons for that expedition, but hearing when on his way “ad remotas partes” on business of his own that the host was mustering, he hurried back and wrote to the King, expressing his surprise at not having been summoned, and his readiness to join the muster; ib. pp. 170, 171. The omission to summon him can hardly have been intentional; it is much more likely that the summons miscarried, and this may have occurred through its interception by some mischief-maker.
[783] Roy. Lett., vol. i. pp. 244, 245. Marlborough castle was in Pandulf’s custody till 7th February, 1224; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 426. So also, no doubt, was Luggershall, John Little, who on 2nd March, 1224, was ordered to deliver both castles to Robert de Meisy (ib. p. 428), being sub-warden under Pandulf. The Ann. Dunst. (p. 68) which do not mention Luggershall, say of Marlborough, “Quod quidem [Marescallus] tali conditione reddidit in manum legati, quod si alii similiter castra sibi commendata redderent, et suum retineretur, alioquin ei redderetur”; but the King’s letter is a better authority as to the condition.
[784] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 284. Cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 451.
[785] Cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250, and Ann. Dunst., p. 75, and for Richard Muscegros see Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 216.
[786] Ann. Dunst., p. 68. This authority says “post Pentecosten”; the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., l.c.) places the capture of Peter de Maulay “in festo Pentecostes,” which, like Falkes’s narrative (which will be dealt with later) leaves it uncertain whether the date meant is Whit-Sunday or merely Whitsuntide.
[787] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 321.
[788] Querimonia Falcasii, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 260, and Ann. Dunst., p. 68.
[789] “De qua captione non ante dictus nobilis evadere potuit quam ea castra quae sibi tam a domino Guala quam etiam a patre domini regis commissa fuerant restitueret,” says Falkes (Quer. Falc., l.c.). But the records show that Peter really resigned nothing, except Corfe, until 20th November (1221), and that he retained Sherborne till 30th January, 1222 (Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 325). On the words about Gualo see Note VI.
[790] Ann. Dunst., p. 75.
[791] W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 250, 251.
[792] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 320.
[793] Ib. p. 321; cf. Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 481 b.
[794] See footnote 789 above.
[795] Ann. Dunst., p. 68.
[796] See below, p. 176.
[797] See above, pp. 73, 74.
[798] Early in the year it seems to have been arranged that Henry and Alexander should meet at Lincoln on 7th June; but the place and day were changed to York and 14th June (Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 476), and the meeting was ultimately postponed till 19th June.
[799] Ann. Dunst., pp. 68, 69. Hubert (and of course Henry) was at Oxford 9th June, Northampton 11th, Nottingham 14th, Blyth 15th, and York 19th; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 461 b, 462.
[800] Chron. Melrose and Chron. Lanercost, a. 1221. M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 66, gives the date as 25th June, which the Close Roll, vol. i. p. 463, shows to be incompatible with the movements of the English court. Alexander’s settlement of dowerlands upon Joan—“sponsae nostrae dilectae”—is dated York, 18th June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 309.
[801] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 249.
[802] Cf. ib. p. 250, and Flores Hist., vol. ii. p. 172; the date comes from the latter.
[803] He went after Michaelmas, 1220, Ann. Dunst., p. 64, “propter quaedam negotia Anglicanae Ecclesiae,” W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 246.
[804] He reached England about 15th August; W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 250.
[805] Ann. Dunst., p. 74.
[806] The Continuator of Florence of Worcester, a. 1221, (p. 173), says that Pandulf “a legationis officio revocatur.” This phrase need not exclude a voluntary resignation; he may have been recalled at his own request. No papal letters on the subject are extant; it is probable that Pandulf, like Gualo, asked permission to lay down an office which seems never to have been much to his taste; and it is even possible that he may have made his request through Stephen.

The Minority of Henry the Third

About This Book

FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]