Version classiqueVersion mobile

Liens personnels, réseaux, solidarités en France et dans les îles Britanniques (xie-xxe siècle)

 | 
Bates David
, 
Gazeau Véronique

Partie 2. Réseaux et solidarités politiques

Networks and Solidarities at the court of Henry I Beauclerc

Judith Green

Résumé

L’interet des historiens pour les réseaux de la cour d’Henri Ier Beauclerc, roi d’Angleterre et due de Normandie, réside essentiellement dans l’étude des liens culturels, ecclésiastiques et familiaux que l’on peut voir à l’œuvre dans ce cadre. Ici, c’est, toutefois, la cour elle-même, comme forme de solidarite politique et culturelie qui doit retenir notre attention, ainsi que les origines sociales de ses membres, les alliances et les rivalités qui y prenaient forme. Il s’agissait d’une des grandes cours royales du XIIe siècle, dont les familiers avaient conscience d’appartenir à un « club », caracterise par son mode de vie. Les richesses du roi et de ses compagnons, un esprit commun de patronage religieux, marqué par les fondations de maisons canoniales, l’importance du patronage de constructions prestigieuses – châteaux, cathédrales, abbayes, prieurés dotés par la cour – constituaient autant de traits distinctifs de la cour d’Henri Ier. Ces caractéristiques, tout comme celle du patronage d’une cour ou l’on utilisait trois langues, étaient l’expression d’une solidarité autant culturelle que politique.

Texte intégral

  • 1 E. J. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1972.

1 The court of Henry I was the centre of a network of power and influence, association, friendship, and clientage. Described by contemporaries as his familia, it comprised laymen, clerks and chaplains, from the greatest of household officers to the lowliest scullions. Here the great nobles, ecclesiastics, and envoys attended the king in ever-shifting throngs, for the royal court was inevitably a honeypot for the ambitious, and nearness to the king was crucial for the ambitious and those soliciting favour. Some bonds went back before the king’s accession to the throne to the time when he was count of the Cotentin, most famously his association with Roger, originally a poor priest of Avranches who became successively chancellor and bishop of Salisbury, pre-eminent at the English exchequer.1 Their relationship lasted until the king’s death, and if its longevity was unusual, there are other examples of an enduring fidelity to Henry.

  • 2 R. L. Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, Oxford, 1912, p. 52-5; Kealey, op. cit., p. 48-5 (...)

2There were different kinds of networks centred on Henry’s court, and the court itself was a point of contact with other networks. Much could be written, for instance, about the connections between canons, monks and royal clerks, or about connections between the court and the cathedral school at Laon.2 Contacts with influences outside England and Normandy, of which Laon is only one example, were to be significant in the development of scholarship and literature. What I should like to do here, however, is to suggest that Henry’s court was itself a solidarity, to consider its characteristics, and to suggest that it was linked with the rise of a culture more commonly associated with his grandson’s court.

  • 3 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, M. R. James ed. and translated. C. N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors (...)
  • 4 Gesta Stephani, K. R. Potter ed., with a new introduction and notes by R. H. C. Davis, Oxford, 1976 (...)
  • 5 Ibid., p. 54.
  • 6 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, p. 440-1.

3By the later twelfth century membership of Henry II’s court engendered insider writing, such as Walter Map’s Courtiers’ Triƒles.3 Yet if we lack a comparable contemporary commentator on the court of Henry I, there is certainly a sense that members of the familia had a special status. The anonymous author of the Gesta Stephani, writing of the beginning of Stephen’s reign, described the late king’s intimate friends of low birth who had been taken into his service as court pages. King Henry had gained their loyalty by gifts of honours and lands, made them his leading officers (archiministros), and put them in charge of cases of all the curiales. When ordered to attend court by Stephen they refused, citing the oath they had taken to their foster-sister, connutritiae, and because of the envy of those better bom than themselves. They feared too the clamour of the poor and the complaints of widows whose lands they had appropriated, lest they lose their ill-gotten gains. Payn FitzJohn and Miles of Gloucester were both royal sheriffs and justices who involved everyone in pleas and oppressed them with services.4 Payn was a brother of Eustace FitzJohn, a northern magnate whom the author mentioned as summum et popularem amicum of King Henry.5 Payn was said by Walter Map to have been a chamberlain who was caught when he drank wine left out for the king should he wake during the night. When he discovered what had happened, Henry ordered that in future two cups of wine should be left out. The story may well have been apocryphal, but the motif of a chamberlain who helped himself to his royal master’s wine, and his master’s generous reaction, must have resonated with an audience.6

  • 7 Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York 1066-1127, C. Johnson ed. and translated, revis (...)
  • 8 N. J. Kerling, “The Foundation of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in West Smithfield, London”, Guildhall (...)

4Clerks serving in the royal household were similarly seen as men having special access to the king, as we may see from the description by Hugh the Chanter of Thurstan, archbishop of York: Thurstan had been a royal chaplain, a canon of St Paul’s London, erudite, capable in domestic and military matters, and responsible for dealing with necessary expenditure abroad. On account of his expertise he was dear to Rufus and familiaris et acceptus et secretarius to Henry, with whom he had great influence. The king used him both in England and Normandy to make arrangements and payments.7 Rahere, founder of Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, was a clerk whose wit, it was said, made members of the court smile. He decided to undertake a pilgrimage to Rome and whilst in Rome he fell ill, promising to renounce the world and to found a priory in honour of Saint Bartholomew if he recovered, as indeed he did.8

  • 9 The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, M. Chibnail ed. and translated, 6 vols. Oxford, 1969 (...)
  • 10 Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, D. E. Greenway ed. and translated, Oxford, 1996 (...)
  • 11 O. V., VI, p. 12-14. It looks as though Orderic chose these words with the intention of criticising (...)
  • 12 William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, E. King ed., translated K. R. Potter, Oxford, 1998, p. 10.

5 Familiares not only had access to the king, but they were said to have had influence over him in a way that potentially disrupted what was thought to be the natural order of things. Orderic Vitalis commended the new king Henry at the start of his reign for being like King Reheboam in the Old Testament who relied the advice of older men. Henry was counselled by Earl Hugh of Chester, Roger Bigod, Robert count of Meulan, and Richard de Redvers.9 Wisdom in counsel was a highly valued virtue in kings, as a second chronicler, Henry of Huntingdon, pointed out in his assessment of Henry.10 Yet Henry was not always above reproach in this respect. When his brother Robert visited England in 1103 without permission or advance warning, Henry was angry and demanded from his privy counsellors assecla et consecretales what he should do.11 And when Henry had the magnates take an oath of loyalty to his daughter in 1127, subsequently dispatching her to marry the heir of the count of Anjou, only two men, it was said, were privy to the identity of her intended spouse, the king’s eldest bastard, Robert earl of Gloucester, and Brian FitzCount, a son of the Breton Count Alan Fergant. Bishop Roger of Salisbury was later to claim that he had only sworn on condition that the king would not give his daughter in marriage to anyone outside the kingdom without consulting himself and the chief men.12

  • 13 O. K, VI, p. 16.
  • 14 R. W. Southern, “The Place of Henry I in English History”, Proceedings of the British Academy, 47 ( (...)
  • 15 For Geoffrey see Southern, op. cit., and D. Crouch, “Geoffrey de Clinton and Roger Earl of Warwick: (...)
  • 16 K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, “Two Studies in North French Prosopography”, Journal of Medieval History, 20  (...)
  • 17 Haimo de Falaise presumably came from Falaise. Nothing is known of his family, though a Hamo de Fal (...)
  • 18 William Trussebut was constable of Bonneville, O. V., VI, 526. He succeeded to the lands held by Ge (...)
  • 19 Wilgrip occurs as a landholder in Orderic’s native Shropshire before 1066, and it is possible Order (...)
  • 20 O. V., III, p. 346-358; cf. Liber Eliensis, E. O. Blake ed., Camden Society, 3rd series, 92 (1961), (...)
  • 21 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 586.

6The fact that the king had the power to raise men “from the dust, over earls and illustrious castellans” was noted by Orderic of Henry’s new men. For chroniclers it was the power new men had over others who were their social superiors that was objectionable. Orderic provided a list13. Such men grew wealthy, as Sir Richard Southern pointed out, by using their responsibility to administer royal and ducal rights to feather their own nests, enriching themselves at the same time as they were serving their master.14 The careers in England of four of those named may be traced: Geoffrey de Clinton, Ralph Basset, Hugh of Buckland, and Rainer of Bath.15 Wigan “algason” was vicomte of Exmes and, though his wife brought him land in England, may well have spent most of his career in Normandy.16 The same may have been true of Haimo of Falaise17 and William Trussebut.18 Guillegrip and Robert of Bostare are unidentifiable.19 Orderic refers to the way these men oppressed others on jumped-up pretexts, and the close parallel with the comments made by the author of the Gesta Stephani is striking. Orderic may have been thinking here of the story of Bricstan of Chatteris, who wanted to dispose of his property before entering the monastic community at Ely, only to find himself accused by a man named Robert Malarteis, who seems to have been acting in the capacity of an official prosecutor (“he had no function other than to catch men out”), and arraigned on charges of larceny and usury before Ralph Basset the king’s justice, presiding in the shire court at Huntingdon.20 Bricstan, whose name showed that he was of English origin, was presumably of relatively humble status, but even the powerful could suffer, as was shown by the story told by Henry of Huntingdon of Bishop Robert Bloet of Lincoln, the author’s diocesan bishop, who was cast into despair towards the end of his life because he was twice sued by the king before a low-born official.21

  • 22 For this word, see S. Airlie, “Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association in the Court Circle of Louis (...)
  • 23 Green, Government of England, p. 240.
  • 24 For Richard see J. F. A. Mason, “The Officers and Clerks of the Norman Earls of Shropshire”, Transa (...)

7How did men such as these, whose family origins were relatively modest, attain such influence, given that those who were already close to the king naturally guarded access? Some were clearly recruited from those who administered royal and ducal lands, fiscalini, the men who administered the fisc.22 Geoffrey de Clinton came from Glympton near Woodstock, one of Henry’s favoured rural retreats23; William de Pont de l’Arche presumably came from Pont de l’Arche near Rouen; and Robert de Brus (the Bruce) from the important domain of Brix near Valognes. Some royal servants may have been clerks. Those who can be identified acted as sheriffs, and it is easy to see how literacy and numeracy would have been useful skills. One, Richard de Beaumais, who had been a clerk in the household of Roger of Montgomery, transferred into the king’s service and became bishop of London.24

  • 25 H. W. C. Davis, “Henry of Blois and Brian FitzCount”, English Historical Review, 24 (1910), p. 297- (...)
  • 26 O. V., VI, p. 304; William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum, XIV, IX, XX, (...)

8An important element in the household was composed of the king’s knights, some of whom, the nutriti, had been raised there and trained in arms. We learn their identity only by chance allusions. After Henry’s death, Brian FitzCount was responsible for a celebrated letter to Henry bishop of Winchester, the old king’s nephew, in which he declared: “ego Brientius filius Comitis, quern bonus rex Henricus nutriuit et cui arma dedit et honorem.and he reiterated his loyalty to the Empress, in whose cause he had become poor.25 Amongst those who served in the household was a kinsman of the emperor, who died in the wreck of the White Ship, and Raymond, a younger brother of the duke of Aquitaine.26

  • 27 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom (...)
  • 28 Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107-1191, D. E. Greenway ed., British Academy Records of Social (...)
  • 29 0. V., VI. p. 302.
  • 30 The Song of Roland, translated into English by Dorothy L. Sayers, Harmondsworth, 1957, p. 147.
  • 31 O. V., VI, p. 60.

9Comradeship bred a sense of loyalty and solidarity. When the armies of the king of England and the king of France faced each other at Brémule in 1119, William of Malmesbury wrote that Henry addressed his knights and explained his unwillingness to order the attack: they were nutriti regni et alumni pietatis.27 Nigel d’Aubigny, one of the king’s greatest captains, wrote to the king when he believed he was dying and requested his master to confirm the restitution of certain lands to churches: “I beg you dearest lord in whom after God is my whole trust and because I have loved you truly and served you faithfully, have pity upon me for the love of God and of your sweetest nobility.”28 If his men were loyal to Henry, so was Henry to them. When the terrible news of the wreck of the White Ship was broken to the king, he wept for his children and the nobles, but most of all, we are told, for his captains, like Ralph the Red, lord of Pont Erchanfre and Gilbert d’Exmes, and retold their exploits as he wept.29 Albeit that this passage in Orderic recalls Charlemagne bewailing the deaths of his men, it is a topos that must have been considered appropriate.30 For instance, Henry had hurried to Normandy in 1105 because of the capture of some of his men, including Robert FitzHaimon.31 Moreover a sense of gratitude for the king’s generosity could be recalled after his death, as the letter of Brian FitzCount showed.

  • 32 Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, p. XVII-XVIII.
  • 33 PR 31 Henry I, p. 37.
  • 34 Ibid., p. 79.
  • 35 Complete Peerage, by G. E. C., (revised edition) V. Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, G. H. White, 13 vols. i (...)
  • 36 PR 31 Henry I, p. 37.
  • 37 In 1156 Henry d’Oilly, son of Robert and Edith, accounted for the lands of his uncle, Ivo, son of F (...)
  • 38 RRAN, II, no. 1389; Judith A. Green, “Women and Inheritance in Norman England: the case of Geva Rid (...)
  • 39 O. V., VI, p. 428, 442.
  • 40 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontiƒicum, N. E. S. A. Hamilton ed., Rolls Series, London, 1870, (...)
  • 41 A. Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros. Annales de sa vie et de son régne (1081-1137), Paris, 1890, chapter  (...)
  • 42 Galbert of Bruges, The Murder of Charles the Good Count of Flanders, James Bruce Ross ed. and trans (...)

10Personal success opened the path to advancement for other family members. Nigel d’Aubigny’s brother, for instance, was William, who was Henry’s butler during the whole of the reign.32 William de Pont de l’Arche’s brother Osbert held an office in the financial office of the household, where presumably he acted as his brother’s deputy.33 Such families might establish links through marriage with others. The son of Miles of Gloucester, for instance, married a daughter of Payn FitzJohn. Simon, a royal dispenser, was a brother-in-law of Odard the sheriff of Carlisle.34 Herbert the chamberlain married Sybil Corbet, one of the king’s mistresses.35 Herbert’s sister married Robert de Venoix, a marshal.36 There is a second example of a royal mistress being married off to one of the officials of the household: Edith, daughter of Forne, a northern thegn, who married Robert II d’Oilly, constable of Oxford castle.37 A daughter of Geoffrey Ridel the justiciar, married Richard Basset, another justiciar and sheriff.38 The sister of Richard, bishop of Bayeux, was the mistress of Robert of Gloucester, and their son succeeded his uncle as bishop.39 Geoffrey de Clinton’s nephew Roger became bishop of Coventry and Lichfield in 1129, and according to one chronicler the vast sum of two thousand pounds changed hands.40 The midland diocese consisted of the shires of Shropshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, and Warwickshire, the county where Geoffrey held a good deal of land, so that the combined power of uncle and nephew there was formidable. It is comparable with that of the Garlande family at the court of Louis VI, where Anselm and William were seneschals, Gilbert was butler, and their clerical brother Stephen was chancellor and then seneschal41, or that of Bertulf, son of Erembald, provost of the church of Saint Donatian at Bruges and chancellor of the count of Flanders, whilst his brother was castellan of Bruges.42 The three, Geoffrey de Clinton in England, Stephen de Garlande in France, and Bertulf in Flanders, are striking examples of the growth of power and wealth in the hands of officials and their families.

  • 43 For the point about clerical families with members in the English church and the Norman church see: (...)
  • 44 The Historians of the Church of York and of its Archbishops, J. Raine ed., 3 vols., Rolls Series, L (...)
  • 45 C. N. L. Brooke, “Gregorian Reform in Action. Clerical Marriage in England, 1050- 1200”, Cambridge (...)
  • 46 O. V., VI, p. 142-4, 340; for Arnulf see The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, F. Barlow ed., Camden So (...)
  • 47 Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, appendix 3.

11The families of royal chaplains and clerks were particularly successful in establishing themselves on both sides of the Channel as bishops, archdeacons, or prebendaries.43 St Paul’s London in the time of Bishop Richard de Beaumais or Durham under Ranulf Flambard witnessed the appearance in prebends of family members. Archbishop Thurstan was the son of a married prebendary of St Paul’s, and his brother Audouen was bishop of Evreux.44 Thomas I archbishop of York had a brother Samson who became bishop of Worcester, and the latter’s sons Richard and Thomas II, became respectively bishop of Bayeux and archbishop of York.45 John bishop of Lisieux came from a clerical family at Sées; his nephew John was archdeacon and then bishop of Sées, and his younger brother Arnulf followed in the same posts.46 The most resplendently successful clerical family was that of Roger bishop of Salisbury, whose two nephews, Alexander and Nigel, each became bishops, and whose son Athelelm became King Stephen’s treasurer.47 For more than three decades the king’s preference for choosing bishops from amongst the ranks of his chaplains, and the tendency for such chaplains to advance the interests of their relatives, meant that a few families dominated the upper echelons of the church.

  • 48 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, I, p. 744; Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, H. Waqu (...)
  • 49 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 596.

12Because men such as these owed their power to the king they were uniquely dependent upon him, and if his favour was withdrawn they were very vulnerable. In 1118 the king discovered a plot against him by members of his household and the ringleader, a man whose very identity is not certain, was punished by blinding and mutilation.48 Henry of Huntingdon told the story of Simon, son of Robert, bishop of Lincoln. He had been brought up in the royal entourage, and became dean of Lincoln when still young. He became a friend of the king, and had the qualities of a courtier: he was quick-witted, a good speaker, physically handsome, charming, young in years but old in discretion, but afflicted with the sin of pride. From pride sprang envy, from envy hatred, from hatred slanders, strife, and accusations. He spoke ill of others, and so they destroyed him. Having been at the pinnacle of the court and kingdom, he fell into the king’s greatest hatred and was imprisoned. He escaped via a latrine shaft, and went into exile and misery. The author thought that this story proved the truth of the saying that those who were brought up in flower beds were surrounded by manure.49

  • 50 Ibid., p. 486; O. V., N, p. 276.
  • 51 For a different hypothesis, Crouch, “Geoffrey de Clinton and Roger, Earl of Warwick”, p. 113-124.
  • 52 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, D. Whitelock, D. C. Douglas, S. I. Tucker eds., London, 1961, s. a. 1127 (re (...)
  • 53 O. V., VI, p. 444-5; Chibnail, Empress Matilda, p. 61; King, William of Malmesbury, Historia Novell (...)
  • 54 Walter of Therouanne, « Vita Karoliw, Patrologia Latina, J.-P. Migne ed., 221 vols., Paris, 1844-64 (...)

13At Easter 1130 there occurred the trial of one of the most powerful officials, Geoffrey de Clinton, treasurer and chamberlain. This took place at Woodstock before David king of Scots, a visitor to the court of his brother-in-law.50 The sources indicate only that Geoffrey was charged (inƒamatus) with treason (de prodicione regis ƒalso), that is to say, he was suspected of having betrayed the king. No details survive as to the reasons why he fell under suspicion at this time, but the context may be reconstructed, and it seems that the likeliest reason was a shortfall in revenue receipts.51 The wedding of the king’s daughter to the son of the count of Anjou occurred in June 1128. The bride was accompanied by her half-brother, Robert, earl of Gloucester and Brian FitzCount, and in June the young bridegroom arrived at Rouen where King Henry ceremonially dubbed him a knight, the celebrations which followed lasting three weeks.52 The Empress’s dowry is said to have included castles; presumably it also included money and treasure.53 The king had other major expenses at the time connected with the war in Flanders, during which his nephew Stephen had distributed cash on his behalf.54

  • 55 PR 31 Henry I, p. 131.
  • 56 J. H. Round, The Commune of London, London, 1899, p. 76-8; Dialogus de Scaccario. The Course of the (...)
  • 57 See also Greenway, Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 486-7.

14After their return to England, Robert and Brian visited Winchester, where they presided over an audit of the royal treasure.55 This was the only such occasion known until the late twelfth century.56 These two had been responsible for conveying the Empress-presumably with her dowry-across the Channel, discovered a deficit, and considered Geoffrey to be a suspect. Why, however, did Geoffrey come under suspicion, and not Roger bishop of Salisbury, who was, after all, the king’s chief minister and president of the exchequer, or the other treasurer and chamberlain, William de Pont de l’Arche? Some years ago David Crouch suggested that Geoffrey’s downfall may have been engineered by Roger earl of Warwick and his cousins, the Beaumont twins, Waleran count of Meulan and Robert earl of Leicester. However, there is no evidence that either Roger or Robert were involved in trying to bring Geoffrey down, or that Waleran would have been sufficiently influential in 1129 when he had only just been released from imprisonment, to mount a credible accusation against the king’s chamberlain.57 Roger may not have relished the arrival in his earldom of Warwick of the chamberlain who held the shrievalty, but the two may well have established a modus vivendi.

  • 58 Geoffrey continued to appear at court, but it is possible that his chamberlainship passed to Willia (...)
  • 59 For Henry’s use of mesne tenancies to reward his men see Green, Government of England, p. 181-3; fo (...)

15Geoffrey’s trial shows how even powerful royal familiars were vulnerable to their enemies. He avoided prison in 1130 and occurs in the pipe roll as sheriff of Warwickshire, but his difficulties may not have been over. One of his daughters was married to Norman de Verdon, a local lord in the mouvance of Ranulf II earl of Chester, perhaps against Geoffrey’s wishes.58 His son and successor Geoffrey II called himself chamberlain, but held only a fraction of his father’s lands. Many of these had evidently been under-tenancies, and it is striking in the cases of both Geoffrey de Clinton and William de Pont de l’Arche that their sons were not able to inherit more than a fraction.59 Familiars needed to establish reasonably good relations with the great magnates in their localities, or suffer as a result.

  • 60 William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, p. 64. According to the author of the Gesta Stephani, Roge (...)

16The death of the king who had made these men left them particularly exposed. Roger bishop of Salisbury, for instance, found that although he initially prospered under King Stephen, his loyalty was suspect in 1139, when the king believed that he and his nephews, the bishops of Lincoln and Ely, were planning to hand over their castles to the Empress. So in 1139 King Stephen arrested Roger and Alexander (Nigel escaped). Crushed by his fall from favour, Roger was a broken man and died not long afterwards.60

  • 61 Richard of Hexham, Chronicle, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, R. Howle (...)

17The fate of William Maltravers was even more stark. William came from a lesser family in south-west England. It was suggested that he may have been a financier, as he was able to proffer a very large sum to marry a widow, and with the marriage came custody for fifteen years of a very large lordship in the north of England. The king however had previously confiscated this lordship from another family, the Lacies, and after Henry’s death one of the knights loyal to the Lacy family killed William Maltravers.61

  • 62 Luchaire, Louis VI, p. XLV-LIV.
  • 63 For the fatalities see Galbert of Bruges, Murder of Charles the Good, p. 316-7.

18In France and Flanders too new men were similarly powerful and vulnerable. Stephen de Garlande’s niece married Amaury de Montfort; they intended that Amaury would succeed Stephen as seneschal, but this led to an attack on Stephen and his brother Gilbert, incited by the queen. Stephen was chased from the palace and replaced as chancellor. The king besieged Stephen’s castle of Lagny for some time, but eventually the two achieved some kind of reconciliation. Stephen was restored to the chancellorship, but he never recovered the seneschalcy, and his brother lost his office of butler.62 In Flanders Count Charles wanted to check the power of the Erembalds under their head, Chancellor Bertulf, by challenging his legal status as a freeman. The Erembalds opted for pre-emptive action, and the count was murdered before the high altar of St Donatian’s church in Bruges. This was the act of desperate men: a civil war broke out, and in the end many of the family were killed and their power was destroyed.63 Their fate was the most extreme but, like Geoffrey de Clinton in England and the Garlande family in France, new men could fall as spectacularly as they had risen.

  • 64 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, p. 438.
  • 65 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, I, p. 736.
  • 66 O. V., VI, p. 296.

19The rivalries and competitiveness of the court should not obscure the fact that its way of life, reinforced by interests and values held in common, helped to reinforce a sense of belonging to an elite group. The court had its routines of daily life. According to Walter Map, Henry worked in the mornings, reserving the afternoons for pleasure and the reception of visitors.64 It became the custom to have one formal meal each day rather than two, on the advice of Robert count of Meulan, following, it was said, the practice of the Byzantine Emperor.65 We have no idea of the number who regularly accompanied the king, though the fact that the White Ship alone may have carried about three hundred people gives pause for thought.66 The transport and provisioning of such a large entourage was a major organizational task, and in order to prevent the depredations for which his brother’s court had been notorious, the king ordered reform in 1108: details of his journeys were published in advance, rates at which provisions were to be bought were prescribed, as were the daily pay and allowances of leading officials.

  • 67 Ibid., p. 64-8.
  • 68 William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, p. 10-13.
  • 69 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 592-5.

20Any idea that this was a puritan establishment, however, must be discarded. It is evident that the court was a place for fashionable display. Men continued to wear their hair long, despite the ritual haircut of 1105 by Henry and his followers at Carentan.67 William of Malmesbury refers to a knight in England who in 1129 vowed to cut his hair as a penitential act, and was copied at least for a short time by other knights.68 Clothing was magnificent, if we take at face value the comments of Henry of Huntingdon about the rich clothes of Prince William and of Bishop Robert Bloet.69 Gaimar described the lighthearted way of life at court:

  • 70 Gaimar, L’Estoire des Engleis, A. Bell ed., Anglo-Norman Text Society (1960), LL, 6495-6499. Ian Sh (...)

“des festes ke tint li reis,
Del boschaier ne del gabeis,
Del douanier e de l’amur
Ke demenat li reis meillur
Ki unkes fust ne ja ne seit.”70

  • 71 Southern, “The Place of Henry I in English History”, in Medieval Humanism, p. 230; J. Gillingham, “ (...)
  • 72 Prestwich, “Household of the Norman Kings’’, p. 30-3.

21It has been suggested that Gaimar was joking in view of Henry’s cruelty, but it can be argued that the author was simply evoking a world of feasts, entertainments, and hunting rather than make any kind of comment, however oblique, on the king.71 The length of Henry’s reign, his wealth, and his personal tastes, provide a context for a flowering of court culture of the kind conjured up by Gaimar, and Geoffrey of Monmouth, who wrote his History of the Kings of Britain in 1135 or 1136.72 Henry believed in showing off the wealth he amassed. Money was poured into castles, palaces, and houses, and wealth was showered on churches, not only in England and Normandy, but also further afield. Building castles and making gifts to churches were about much more than display, of course, but the point to be emphasised here is that court life engendered common values and a desire for its leading members to display their wealth.

  • 73 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, I, p. 738; R. Stalley, “A Twelfth-Century Patron of Ar (...)
  • 74 Historia Anglorum, p. 720.
  • 75 R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, A. J. Taylor, History of the King’s Works, II, The Middle Ages, London, (...)
  • 76 B. Cunliffe and J. Munby, Excavations at Portchester Castle, Reports of the Research Committee of t (...)
  • 77 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154 [hereafter RRAN], III, Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildi (...)
  • 78 O. V., VI, p. 466-8.

22Like their royal master, his courtiers built in grand style. Roger of Salisbury spared no expense, especially at Salisbury cathedral and Malmesbury abbey73, at Devizes, which Henry of Huntingdon called the most splendid castle in Europe, and at Sherborne, almost its equal.74 The chamberlain Geoffrey de Clinton was probably responsible for starting the keep at Kenilworth castle which, only a few miles from the Beaumont earl’s castle at Warwick, made a striking statement about his wealth.75 His fellow chamberlain William de Pont de l’Arche held the estate at Portchester where a stone keep, which the king may have kept under his direct control, was going up in the early twelfth century.76 William also had a stone house in London.77 Richard Basset, son of Roger, built a keep constructed with ashlar blocks, a point specifically made by Orderic, on his ancestral fief in Normandy.78

  • 79 M. Amoux dir., Des clercs au service de la reforme. Études et documents sur les chanoines réguliers (...)
  • 80 For the history of the foundation preserved at Holy Trinity see The Cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldga (...)
  • 81 RRAN, II, Regesta Henrici Primi, C. Johnson and H. A. Cronne eds., Oxford, 1956, nos. 1826, 1827.
  • 82 The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey Gloucestershire, C. D. Ross ed., 3 vols., London, 1964-1977,1, p (...)
  • 83 RRAN, II, nos. 1507, 1508; The Cartulary of St Denys near Southampton, E. O. Blake ed., Southampton (...)
  • 84 RRAN, II, no. 1737.
  • 85 Ibid., no. 1301 (Henry’s grant of the royal manor); for the foundation M. L. Colker, “Latin Texts c (...)
  • 86 Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 127-137.
  • 87 J. C. Dickinson, “The Origins of Carlisle Cathedral”, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorlan (...)
  • 88 Arnoux, op. cit., p. 120, 142-4, 215-220.
  • 89 For a discussion of the arrival of Augustinians at St Frideswide’s and the roles of the bishop and (...)
  • 90 For the conversion of Dorchester into a house of Augustinian canons see Henry II’s confirmation cha (...)
  • 91 Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, I, p. XIII.
  • 92 For Geoffrey’s charters, London, British Library, ms. Harley 3650, f. 1-2.
  • 93 E. Mason, “The King, the Chamberlain and Southwick Priory”, Bulletin of the Insitute of Historical (...)
  • 94 The timing of the foundation of Launde priory is obscure, see the notes to RRAN, II, no. 1390, and (...)
  • 95 Amoux, Des clercs au service de la réƒorme, p. 39-55.

23In Normandy William de Tancarville the chamberlain, who evidently entered Henry’s service after the battle of Tinchebray, possessed great estates, and a castle at Tancarville. William’s major project was the conversion of the collegiate church at Boscherville into the abbey of Saint-Georges, and his son Rabel converted the church at Sainte-Barbe-sur-Auge into an Augustinian priory.79 It was in the foundation of Augustinian priories that members of the court set a particularly strong lead. Queen Matilda initiated the foundation of Holy Trinity priory at Aldgate,80 and her example was soon taken up by her husband, to whom was attributed the foundation of Dunstable,81 Cirencester82, St Denys83, and Wellow.84 He was also credited with materially assisting the foundations of the priories of Merton85, Nostell86, and with regularising the chapters at Carlisle87 and Sées88. Where the royal pair led, their courtiers followed: Roger bishop of Salisbury (St Frideswide’s Oxford)89, his nephew Alexander bishop of Lincoln (Dorchester)90, Robert d’Oilly the constable (Oseney, Oxford)91, the chamberlains Geoffrey de Clinton (Kenilworth)92, William de Pont de l’Arche (Southwick and a role in the regularisation of St Mary Overy, Southwark93), the justice and sheriff Richard Basset (Launde).94 In Normandy we may note the work of John bishop of Lisieux in reorganising the chapter at Sées.95 There were many motives, pious and secular, for founding communities of canons, but that so many should have been founded by members of the court was in part a matter of fashion.

24The contribution of familiares to the extension of royal and princely authority in early twelfth-century Europe is clear enough, but what has been suggested here is that Henry I’s familiares, who had profited so much in the king’s service, can be seen using their wealth in competitive display, and that the buildings they paid for reflected and reinforced their status in this ‘solidarity of power’. That glittering world, underpinned by the king’s wealth, provided a context in which a court-based culture could flourish, and thus laid the foundations for the efflorescence of his grandson’s court.

Notes

1 E. J. Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1972.

2 R. L. Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, Oxford, 1912, p. 52-5; Kealey, op. cit., p. 48-50.

3 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, M. R. James ed. and translated. C. N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors revised edn., Oxford, 1983.

4 Gesta Stephani, K. R. Potter ed., with a new introduction and notes by R. H. C. Davis, Oxford, 1976, p. 22-4.

5 Ibid., p. 54.

6 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, p. 440-1.

7 Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York 1066-1127, C. Johnson ed. and translated, revised M. Brett, C. N. L. Brooke and M. Winterbottom, Oxford, 1990, p. 56.

8 N. J. Kerling, “The Foundation of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in West Smithfield, London”, Guildhall Miscellany, 4, no. 3, 1972, p. 137.

9 The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, M. Chibnail ed. and translated, 6 vols. Oxford, 1969-1980, [hereafter O. V.] V, p. 298; J. Hudson, “Henry I and Counsel”, in The Medieval State. Essays presented to James Campbell, J. R. Maddicott and D. M. Palliser eds., London and Rio Grande, p. 109-126.

10 Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, D. E. Greenway ed. and translated, Oxford, 1996, p. 698.

11 O. V., VI, p. 12-14. It looks as though Orderic chose these words with the intention of criticising Henry’s treatment of his brother.

12 William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, E. King ed., translated K. R. Potter, Oxford, 1998, p. 10.

13 O. K, VI, p. 16.

14 R. W. Southern, “The Place of Henry I in English History”, Proceedings of the British Academy, 47 (1962), p. 127-169 reprinted in Medieval Humanism and Other Studies, Oxford, 1970, p. 206-233.

15 For Geoffrey see Southern, op. cit., and D. Crouch, “Geoffrey de Clinton and Roger Earl of Warwick: New Men and Magnates in the Reign of Henry I”, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 55 (1982), p. 113-124; Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th series, 3, Cambridge, 1986, p. 239-242. For Ralph Basset see Basset Charters, W. T. Reedy ed., Pipe Roll Society, New Series, 50 (1989-1991), p. XXVIII-XXX. Hugh of Buckland occurs at several points in the Abingdon chronicle, see Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, J. Hudson ed. and translated, Oxford, 2002, II, p. LXXI. Hugh may have been a prebendary of St Paul’s, see Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300.1, St Paul’s London, London, 1968, p. 51. Much less is known about Rainer of Bath than the other three, but see Green, op. cit., p. 233.

16 K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, “Two Studies in North French Prosopography”, Journal of Medieval History, 20 (1994), p. 25-30.

17 Haimo de Falaise presumably came from Falaise. Nothing is known of his family, though a Hamo de Falaise was pardoned thirteen shillings danegeld in Warwickshire in 1130, Pipe Roll [hereafter PR] 31 Henry I, J. Hunter ed. for the Record Commission, London, 1833, p. 108.

18 William Trussebut was constable of Bonneville, O. V., VI, 526. He succeeded to the lands held by Geoffrey FitzPayn, see Early Yorkshire Charters, 10, Sir Charles Clay ed., Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series Extra Series (1973), p. 5-22.

19 Wilgrip occurs as a landholder in Orderic’s native Shropshire before 1066, and it is possible Orderic had known a man of this name, Domesday Book, A. Farley ed. for the Record Commission, 4 vols., London, 1783-1816,1, f. 254, 258b. For the suggestion that Bostare may be a corruption of Bosco Rohardi, see Chibnall, O. V., VI, 17n.

20 O. V., III, p. 346-358; cf. Liber Eliensis, E. O. Blake ed., Camden Society, 3rd series, 92 (1961), p. 266-9.

21 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 586.

22 For this word, see S. Airlie, “Bonds of Power and Bonds of Association in the Court Circle of Louis the Pious”, in New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious, P. Godman and Roger Collins ed., Oxford, 1990, p. 197-8.

23 Green, Government of England, p. 240.

24 For Richard see J. F. A. Mason, “The Officers and Clerks of the Norman Earls of Shropshire”, Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society, 56 (1957-60), p. 253-4. Other examples include Hugh of Buckland who may have been a prebendary of St Paul’s, and Osbert the priest sheriff of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Judith A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, Public Record Office Handbooks, London, H. M. S. O., 1990, p. 14-15. Richard of Winchester probably sheriff of Bedfordshire in the eleven-twenties may also have been a prebendary, PR 31 Henry I, p. 100; Fasti I St Paul’s, p. 86.

25 H. W. C. Davis, “Henry of Blois and Brian FitzCount”, English Historical Review, 24 (1910), p. 297-303.

26 O. V., VI, p. 304; William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum, XIV, IX, XX, cited by J. O. Prestwich, “The Military Household of the Norman Kings”, English Historical Review, 96 (1981), p. 8.

27 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom ed. and translated, Oxford, 1998,1, P- 734.

28 Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107-1191, D. E. Greenway ed., British Academy Records of Social and Economic History, new series, 1 (1972), p. 6.

29 0. V., VI. p. 302.

30 The Song of Roland, translated into English by Dorothy L. Sayers, Harmondsworth, 1957, p. 147.

31 O. V., VI, p. 60.

32 Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, p. XVII-XVIII.

33 PR 31 Henry I, p. 37.

34 Ibid., p. 79.

35 Complete Peerage, by G. E. C., (revised edition) V. Gibbs, H. A. Doubleday, G. H. White, 13 vols. in 12, London, 1910-59, XI, appendix D, p. 108, citing R. W. Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols., London, 1854-1860, VII, p. 145, 159, 181.

36 PR 31 Henry I, p. 37.

37 In 1156 Henry d’Oilly, son of Robert and Edith, accounted for the lands of his uncle, Ivo, son of Forne, PR 2 Henry II, p. 27; Edith’s son by Henry I referred to Henry d’Oilly as his brother, Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, H. E. Salter ed., 6 vols., Oxford Historical Society, I-III (89-91) 1929-1931, IV-V (97-98) 1934-5, VI (101) 1936, VI, no. 1117; Complete Peerage, XI, appendix D, p. 108-9, W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 vols. in 8, new edn., London, 1817- 30, VI, p. 251.

38 RRAN, II, no. 1389; Judith A. Green, “Women and Inheritance in Norman England: the case of Geva Ridel”, Prosopon, 12 (2001), 1-8.

39 O. V., VI, p. 428, 442.

40 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontiƒicum, N. E. S. A. Hamilton ed., Rolls Series, London, 1870, p. 311.

41 A. Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros. Annales de sa vie et de son régne (1081-1137), Paris, 1890, chapter 3; E. Boumazel, Le Gouvemement capétien au xiie siècle, 1108-1180, Limoges, 1975, p. 35ff.

42 Galbert of Bruges, The Murder of Charles the Good Count of Flanders, James Bruce Ross ed. and translated, New York, 1967, p. 97-8n.

43 For the point about clerical families with members in the English church and the Norman church see: D. S. Spear, “The Norman Empire and the Secular Clergy, 1066-1204”, Journal of British Studies, 21 (1982), p. 1-10.

44 The Historians of the Church of York and of its Archbishops, J. Raine ed., 3 vols., Rolls Series, London, 1879-1894, II, p. 261; D. Nicholl, Thurstan Archbishop oƒ York (1114-40), York, 1964, p. 5.

45 C. N. L. Brooke, “Gregorian Reform in Action. Clerical Marriage in England, 1050- 1200”, Cambridge Historical Journal, 12, no. 1 (1956), p. 1-21, reprinted Medieval Church and Society, London, 1971, p. 86-7.

46 O. V., VI, p. 142-4, 340; for Arnulf see The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, F. Barlow ed., Camden Society, 3rd series, 61 (1939), p. XI-XIX; Arnulf himself wrote that he had been archdeacon, p. 57; C. Poling Schriber, The Dilemma of Arnulf of Lisieux. New Ideas versus Old Ideals, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1990, p. 1-3.

47 Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, appendix 3.

48 William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, I, p. 744; Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, H. Waquet ed. and translated, Paris, 1929, p. 190.

49 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 596.

50 Ibid., p. 486; O. V., N, p. 276.

51 For a different hypothesis, Crouch, “Geoffrey de Clinton and Roger, Earl of Warwick”, p. 113-124.

52 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, D. Whitelock, D. C. Douglas, S. I. Tucker eds., London, 1961, s. a. 1127 (recte 1128); for the date of the wedding see M. Chibnail, The Empress Matilda. Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English, Oxford, 1991, p. 56-7; John of Marmoutier, Historia Gauƒredi ducis Normannorum et comitis Andegavorum, Chroniques des Comtes d’Anjou, L. Halphen et R. Poupardin ed., Paris, 1913, p. 178-80.

53 O. V., VI, p. 444-5; Chibnail, Empress Matilda, p. 61; King, William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, p. XLI.

54 Walter of Therouanne, « Vita Karoliw, Patrologia Latina, J.-P. Migne ed., 221 vols., Paris, 1844-64, 166, col. 937.

55 PR 31 Henry I, p. 131.

56 J. H. Round, The Commune of London, London, 1899, p. 76-8; Dialogus de Scaccario. The Course of the Exchequer by Richard FitzNigel and Constitutio Domus Regis. The Establishment of the Royal Household, C. Johnson ed. and translated, with corrections by F. E. L. Carter and D. E. Greenway, Oxford, 1983, p. 24-5.

57 See also Greenway, Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 486-7.

58 Geoffrey continued to appear at court, but it is possible that his chamberlainship passed to William de Pont de l’Arche, who was responsible in Oxfordshire for paying the danegeld which had been pardoned to Geoffrey, PR 31 Henry I, p. 6. After 1130 Geoffrey’s daughter, Lescelina, married Norman de Verdon, M. S. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family. The De Verduns in England, Ireland and Wales 1066-1316, Dublin, 2001, p. 30-3. It is not certain if the marriage took place before or after Geoffrey’s death (Hagger thinks before), but the fact that Lescelina’s marriage portion included the important castle of Brandon which her brother, Geoffrey the younger, tried to recover, suggests either that their father was dead, or unable to resist its transfer. Crouch suggested that the Earl Roger of Warwick had taken away Brandon, but Norman de Verdon, or the latter’s overlord, Ranulf II earl of Chester could have been responsible. The issue of Geoffrey’s troubles needs re-examination.

59 For Henry’s use of mesne tenancies to reward his men see Green, Government of England, p. 181-3; for Geoffrey p. 241-2 and for William, p. 267-9.

60 William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, p. 64. According to the author of the Gesta Stephani, Roger was enervated by luxuria, p. 96.

61 Richard of Hexham, Chronicle, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, R. Howlett ed., 4 vols., Rolls Series, London, 1884-9, III, p. 140; W. E. Wightman, The Lacy Family in England and Normandy 1066-1194, Oxford, 1966, p. 66-73.

62 Luchaire, Louis VI, p. XLV-LIV.

63 For the fatalities see Galbert of Bruges, Murder of Charles the Good, p. 316-7.

64 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, p. 438.

65 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, I, p. 736.

66 O. V., VI, p. 296.

67 Ibid., p. 64-8.

68 William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, p. 10-13.

69 Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, p. 592-5.

70 Gaimar, L’Estoire des Engleis, A. Bell ed., Anglo-Norman Text Society (1960), LL, 6495-6499. Ian Short gives a modem translation: “But as for the festivities that the king held, as for the drinking ranks as boasting bouts, the courting and the live affairs, still to-day he ranks as the best king that ever was” (“Gaimar’s Epilogue and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Liber vetustissimus”, Speculum, 69 [1994], 324-43).

71 Southern, “The Place of Henry I in English History”, in Medieval Humanism, p. 230; J. Gillingham, “Kingship, Chivalry and Love, Political and Cultural Values in the Earliest History Written in French: Geoffrey Gaimar’s Estoire des Engleis”, dans Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelƒth-Century Renaissance. Proceedings of the Borchard Conƒerence on Anglo-Norman History, 1995, Woodbridge, 1997, p. 57-8.

72 Prestwich, “Household of the Norman Kings’’, p. 30-3.

73 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, I, p. 738; R. Stalley, “A Twelfth-Century Patron of Architecture. A Study of the Buildings erected by Roger, Bishop of Salisbury 1102-1139”, Journal of the British Archaeological Association, 3rd series, 34 (1971), p. 62-83.

74 Historia Anglorum, p. 720.

75 R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin, A. J. Taylor, History of the King’s Works, II, The Middle Ages, London, 1963, p. 682-3.

76 B. Cunliffe and J. Munby, Excavations at Portchester Castle, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, IV, Medieval. The Inner Bailey, London, 1985, p. 122.

77 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154 [hereafter RRAN], III, Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildis Imperatricis ac Gauƒridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum 1135-54, H. A. Cronne ed., Oxford, 1969, no. 829.

78 O. V., VI, p. 466-8.

79 M. Amoux dir., Des clercs au service de la reforme. Études et documents sur les chanoines réguliers de la province de Rouen, Bibliotheca victorina, XI, Turnhout, 2000, chap. 1 and appendix of texts.

80 For the history of the foundation preserved at Holy Trinity see The Cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldgate, G. A. J. Hodgett ed., London Record Society, 7 (1971), p. 223ff. and for discussion C. Brooke assisted by G. Keir, London 800-1216. The Making of a City, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1975, p. 314-325. Aldgate was not the first Augustinian priory in England, but it was one of the earliest, see J. C. Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England, London, 1950, chap. 3.

81 RRAN, II, Regesta Henrici Primi, C. Johnson and H. A. Cronne eds., Oxford, 1956, nos. 1826, 1827.

82 The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey Gloucestershire, C. D. Ross ed., 3 vols., London, 1964-1977,1, p. XIX-XXII.

83 RRAN, II, nos. 1507, 1508; The Cartulary of St Denys near Southampton, E. O. Blake ed., Southampton Record Series, 2 vols., 24, 25 (1981), 25, appendix 1, nos. 1, 2.

84 RRAN, II, no. 1737.

85 Ibid., no. 1301 (Henry’s grant of the royal manor); for the foundation M. L. Colker, “Latin Texts concerning Gilbert, founder of Merton Priory”, Studia Monastica, 12 (1970), p. 241-271.

86 Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 127-137.

87 J. C. Dickinson, “The Origins of Carlisle Cathedral”, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 45 (1946), p. 134-43; RRAN, II, no. 1491 where a date of 1127 is suggested; Nicholl, Thurstan, p. 140-1.

88 Arnoux, op. cit., p. 120, 142-4, 215-220.

89 For a discussion of the arrival of Augustinians at St Frideswide’s and the roles of the bishop and the king respectively see Kealey, Roger of Salisbury, p. 121-2.

90 For the conversion of Dorchester into a house of Augustinian canons see Henry II’s confirmation charter, Calendar of Charter Rolls preserved in the Public Record Oƒƒice, 6 vols., London, 1903-1927, III, p. 47.

91 Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, I, p. XIII.

92 For Geoffrey’s charters, London, British Library, ms. Harley 3650, f. 1-2.

93 E. Mason, “The King, the Chamberlain and Southwick Priory”, Bulletin of the Insitute of Historical Research, 53 (1980), p. 1-10. Southwick priory was founded by William at Portchester, and when the canons later moved to Southwick the account of the foundation was revised in a way that played down William’s role. The respective roles of the royal chamberlain and Bishop William Giffard in the regularization of Southwark are not clear, as early evidence for the foundation is lacking, Victoria County History, Surrey, 4 vols. and index vol., London, 1902-1914, II, p. 107. Dickinson, op. cit., p. 119-120 suggested that the reference to the chamberlain might have been the result of confusing Southwark with Southwick, but William was a benefactor of the former, RRAN, III, no. 829.

94 The timing of the foundation of Launde priory is obscure, see the notes to RRAN, II, no. 1390, and Dickinson, op. cit., p. 12 In. John prior of Launde was mentioned in 1125, Cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldgate, no. 871.

95 Amoux, Des clercs au service de la réƒorme, p. 39-55.

Auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search