Version classiqueVersion mobile

Droit privé et Institutions régionales

 | 
Société d'histoire du droit et des institutions des pays de l'Ouest de la France

Norman Kings or Norman «King-Dukes»?

John Le Patourel

Texte intégral

  • 1 E.g., D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (1964), pp.247-64; J. Boussard, La notion de royauté sou (...)
  • 2 Notably, Le développement du pouvoir ducal en Normandie... 1035-1135, in Atti del Convegno Interna (...)
  • 3 Touched on by P.E. Schramm, A History of the English Coronation (trans. L.G. Wickham Legg, 1937), (...)

1Between 1066 and 1144, as a result of the Norman Conquest of England, Normandy and England shared a ruler for all but 15 of the 77 years - William the Conqueror from Christmas 1066 until September 1087, William Rufus from the autumn of 1096 until August 1100, Henry Beauclerc from the autumn of 1106 until December 1135 and Stephen from his coronation in England until Geoffrey Plantegenêt had completed his conquest of Normandy in 1144. All four rulers were «kings of the English»; the titles attributed to them in Normandy were various - comes, dux, consul, princeps etc. - with comes used most frequently in the eleventh century and dux establishing itself early in the twelfth. The character of Norman kingship has been the subject of a great deal of study, mostly in relation to England, at least by implication1; and the constituents of the ruler's authority in Normandy have been made clear, most notably by Professor Jean Yver2, to whom this essay is offered in homage and in friendship; but the relationship of the two dignities, that is, the extent to which William the Conqueror or Henry Beauclerc were considered to rule in two distinct capacities with different degrees of authority in each - as king in England and as «duke» in Normandy - or how far the two were merged in fact or in theory, has not received so much attention3. It is a large subject which can only be given a preliminary and tentative treatment here.

  • 4 E.g. the implications of the conventio with the count of Flanders, dated 10 March (1101), Diplomat (...)

2There is a great deal of evidence to encourage the belief that the family of William the Conqueror regarded the whole of his inheritance, that is his heritage, his conquests and his rights of lordship over neighbouring princes, as indivisible - in spite of the partition which was perhaps forced upon him as he was dying. The traditions of the ruling families in Normandy and in England had hitherto been in favour of non-partition (there would have been no kingdom of the English or «duchy» of the Normans in 1066 if this had not been so); and though William’s earlier intentions in the matter are not so clearly recorded as we could wish, it is certainly possible to argue that he had intended his eldest son Robert Curthose to succeed him in Normandy, Maine, England and the overlordships, until Robert’s continuing rebellion made that impossible. After William’s death, Robert took possession of Normandy and laid claim to England, a claim which received a good deal of support; but he was out-manoeuvred by his brother William Rufus who, having secured England, soon obtained a foothold in Normandy and eventually (in 1096) the authority and power if not the title of duke. On the death of William Rufus his brother Henry was able to seize England before Robert returned from the crusade, and it is clear that he intended from the first to have Normandy as well4. He soon had to deal with Robert’s return to Normandy and renewed claim to England; but Robert again failed to make good this claim and Henry, who had the initial advantage of a hold upon England and more than a foothold in Normandy, was able to take possession of the duchy after the battle of Tinchebrai.

  • 5 C.W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (1920), pp.42-66, 120-37; C.W. Hollister, The Anglo- (...)
  • 6 On the succession generally, Le Patourel, The Norman Succession, 996-1135, in Eng. Hist. Rev.,lxxx (...)

3These events make it clear that none of William the Conqueror’s three sons acquiesced in the partition of 1087, and that each, when the opportunity presented itself, endeavoured to reunite the whole of his father’s inheritance in his own hands. Their endeavour was supported by the barons and the greater churchmen. A great many Norman barons, with important estates or prospects already in Normandy, had accepted lands in England after 1066. It was in their interest that the two countries should be ruled by one man, or that, if there had to be two rulers, their relations should be such that these barons could continue to enjoy their lands peaceably on either side of the Channel. Their actions in the crises of 1088-91 and 1100-015, quite apart from the motives attributed to them by Orderic Vitalis and other chroniclers, show that they looked at the situation in this way and regarded the separation of England and Normandy as abnormal and indeed intolerable. Norman ecclesiastics who had found a broad avenue of promotion in England and Norman foundations which received lands there had very similar interests. Consequently Henry Beauclerc had no difficulty in persuading barons and prelates to accept his only legitimate son, William AEtheling, as his heir to Maine, England and Normandy, and later (after William’s death) his daughter Matilda as his heir to England and Normandy together. At this point the indivisibility of the Conqueror's lands seemed to have been established; and it was confirmed by the manner in which Stephen of Blois succeeded to England and Normandy in 1135-6 and the assumptions of both sides in the civil war that followed6.

  • 7 L. Musset, Gouvernés et Gouvernants dans le monde Scandinave et dans le monde normand(XIe-XIIe siè (...)
  • 8 Le Patourel, Transfretatio Regis, in Rev. hist, de droit français et étranger, 51e année (1973), 5 (...)
  • 9 Provisionally, Le Patourel, Normandy and England (University of Reading, Stenton Lecture, 1970), 1 (...)

4The men who ruled Normandy and England from 1066 until 1144 had therefore to find a form of government for the two countries together. This they did, not by establishing a formal institution of regency in either country or by enfeoffing a relative or a trusted vassal with one or the other, but by extending to England the itinerant manner of ruling which they already practised in Normandy7, and dividing their time and attention between the two countries, giving perhaps a little more to Normandy than to England. Whatever obstacle to their movement the English Channel may have presented seems to have been easily overcome8. Thus all that we should regard as the «central government» of the time, king, household (including chamber and an embryonic chancery) and court, was common to the two countries; and the institutions through which, in each country, the king provided for some part of his administration, the exchequers, the treasuries and the courts acting in the king’s name, were still imperfectly separated from the itinerant household and court and from one another, both in terms of personnel and of function. It is not too much to say, in spite of persisting differences in the institutions of local government, that one single governmental structure ruled Normandy and England in the time of the Norman kings; and that this government was bringing about a progressive integration of the two countries is strongly suggested by the degree of assimilation in law, institutions and in other respects, that it achieved9.

5The question, then, is whether contemporaries formed any theory of the relationship between the kingship and the «dukedom», such as existed in fact, or any means of expressing it. Failing a contemporary treatise on the subject, we should look for such expression in the titles attributed to the rulers or through the ceremonies of inauguration in which they participated.

  • 10 For the titles attributed to the rulers of Normandy before 1066, M. Fauroux, Recueil des Actes des (...)
  • 11 P. Chaplais, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: from the Diploma to the Writ, in Prisca Munimenta, Studies. (...)
  • 12 Chaplais, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery, pp.44-61; T.A.M. Bishop and P. Chaplais (edd.), Facsimiles of (...)
  • 13 On the seals: A.B. and A. Wyon, The Great Seals of England (1887); Bishop and Chaplais, Facsimiles (...)

6The formal title borne by a ruler is most naturally to be looked for in his written acts. Those which survive from the time of the Norman kings, in the form of the diploma or the writ, were generally written by a scribe employed by the beneficiary and were drafted, it must be supposed, under his direction. The various titles found in such acts are therefore those regarded as appropriate in particular scriptoria, and cannot be taken as «official» in any modern sense. In many of them the style rex Anglorum et dux (or comes, princeps etc.) Normannorum is indeed used10, implying that for some people at some times the king ruled in two distinct capacities11. In those writs which are thought to have been written by a royal clerk, and may thus be treated as more «official» in their formulae, the style rex Anglorum is almost invariable; and this is so whether the beneficiary or the property concerned was in England or in Normandy and whether the writ was dated in the one country or the other, as though for the court the king’s royal title comprehended the ducal12. But too much cannot be built upon this; for the fact that the king was prepared to put his seal or his signum to documents attributing a wide variety of titles to him shows that no conception of a formal, official style giving expression to political facts or aspirations, such as was used by Henry II and his successors, existed in the time of the Norman kings. Even the inscriptions on the royal seals, which were used for Norman affairs as well as those of England and which might have been expected to carry titles that could be taken as «official», did not always correspond with the political situation. Though the seal of William the Conqueror bears an inscription which seems intended to express the union of the two dignities, it is a quasi-literary rather than an official composition; the seal of William Rufus associates the equestrian representation, otherwise associated with the ducal title, with the royal; Henry did not add the Norman title to his seal until some time after he had assumed the government of Normandy and Stephen continued to use it long after he had lost all semblance of authority in the duchy13.

  • 14 E.g., Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica (ed. M. Chibnall, 1969), iii, 154-6, 250; (éd. A. (...)
  • 15 E.g., Guillaume de Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi (éd. R. Foreville, 1952), pp.258, 262; William of Mal (...)
  • 16 Fauroux, Recueil des Actes des ducs de Normandie, Index Rerum, s.v. regnum.
  • 17 E.g., Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), iv, 122-4; (éd. Le Prévost), iii, 269; ±v, 329; v. 45; Chronica Mo (...)
  • 18 Chronica Monasterii de Hida, passim.

7Chroniclers writing in England naturally referred to the king as rex, rex Willelmus (or Henricus), or rex Anglorum, when describing his activities in Normandy, for that is how they would think of him; and it was equally natural that Norman writers should do the same, for they would give him the highest title he could claim and it is reasonable to suppose that it would be a matter of pride to the Normans that their ruler was a king. Occasionally the Norman chroniclers do give the two titles, rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum14; but most often they refer to rex Willelmus or rex Henricus, or to either as rex Anglorum, in Normandy as in England. They normally use the word regnum for England only and sometimes, though rarely, distinguish between regnum and ducatus15; but the term regnum could be applied to Normandy16 and is occasionally used in a context where it can only be understood as referring to the two countries together or even to the totality of the lands over which the king exercised some form of dominion17. The only writer who seems to be searching for a phrase to fit the situation is the chronicler of Hyde Abbey at Winchester. He speaks of rex Norman-Anglorum, regnum NormanAnglorum, principes Norman-Anglorum, ecclesia Norman-Anglorum, and, although not perhaps quite consistently, he seems to include the two countries in these terms, not simply the Normans in England18.

  • 19 Schramm, History of the English Coronation, pp.27-31; Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.206-7, et (...)
  • 20 Douglas, ubi supra, pp.207-10 and authorities there quoted.
  • 21 Guillaume de Jumièges, Gesta (éd. Marx), p.268 (interp. Torigni); David, Robert Curthose, p.42, an (...)
  • 22 Chaplais, Seals and Original Charters of Henry I, pp.264-5 (with reserves on the reasons for the c (...)
  • 23 Ordericus (éd. Le Prévost), iv, 233-4 (cf. pp.237, 269).
  • 24 Gesta Stephani (éd. K.R. Potter, 1955), p.8; but cf. Malmesbury, Historia Novella (éd. Potter), p. (...)
  • 25 J.H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville (1892), pp.262-6; Regesta Regum AngloNormannorum,iii, nos 944, (...)
  • 26 Historia Novella (éd. Potter), p.54. On the sense of the title «domina» in this context, Round, Ge (...)
  • 27 Schramm,History of the English Coronation, p.46. Schramm does not quite say this; but the text of (...)
  • 28 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum,iii, nos 270, 271; iv, plates I and II.

8The evidence of the coronations is similarly indeterminate. William the Conqueror was crowned specifically as king of the English in 1066. The only modification that was made in the traditional English rite on that occasion was that the archbishop of York asked the English people present, in their own language, whether they consented to William’s coronation and the bishop of Coutances put the same question in French to the Normans - who at that moment had no possessions in England whatever their expectations may have been19. There is no evidence of any corresponding ceremony in Normandy at that time; but the Easter festival at Fécamp in 1067 and William’s royal display there and elsewhere during that year20 must have been designed to make his newly-acquired royal status known in the duchy, at the least. William Rufus could lay claim to no more than England immediately after his father’s death; and though Robert Curthose is recorded as returning immediately to Rouen and taking possession of the duchy, nothing is said of any ceremony of investiture21. Nor would any such ceremony have been appropriate when William Rufus took over the government of Normandy in 1096. Henry, whatever his intentions, could only be crowned as king of the English in 1100, and there is no specific record of any ceremony of investiture in Normandy during the six months he spent there after the battle of Tinchebrai. He did not not even add the ducal title to the inscription on his seal until later on22; but Orderic Vitalis records that, before returning to England in March 1107, Henry held a number of important assemblies at which he reorganized the government of Normandy regali potestate and during which some form of investiture might have staged, for the expressions used by the chronicler to describe the establishment of his authority seem to echo, in very general terms, the form of the coronation oath23. According to the Gesta Stephani, however, the archbishop of Canterbury consecrated and anointed Stephen regem in Angliam et Normanniam24; and this, with the fact that the archbishop of Rouen and four of his suffragans were present at the Easter court of 113625 (they could hardly have reached Westminster in time for the coronation itself) and the statement of William of Malmesbury that Matilda was elected in Anglie Normannieque dominant in 114126, have been taken as settling the question of the relationship between the two dignities, so far as ceremonies could do this, by making one coronation in England serve for both and making Stephen in effect «king of the English and of the Normans27». It may indeed show the direction in which men’s minds were moving; but Stephen, in the two charters of liberties issued immediately ofter the coronation (both documents as formal as any could be), is still entitled rex Anglorum simply, and the inscriptions on his seals are (Obv.) STEPHANVS DEI GRATIA REX ANGLORVM and (Rev.) STEPHANVS DEI GRATIA DVX NORMANNORVM28.

  • 29 C.H. Haskins, Norman Institutions (1918), pp.281-4.

9No theory that would express the extent to which the government of England and Normandy had been integrated in fact can therefore be deduced confidently from the titles attributed to the rulers or from such ceremonies of coronation as are recorded. Indeed the very fact that the double title, rex Anglorum et dux (comes etc.) Normannorum is sometimes used in formal documents and on some of the royal seals, together with the possibility that rex may have been used essentially as a courtesy title in Normandy, might be taken to indicate that William the Conqueror, Henry, and Stephen in his early years, were indeed thought to be acting in two distinct capacities, as king in England and as «duke» in Normandy; just as the Consuetudines et Justicie, drawn up in Normandy for William Rufus and Robert Curthose in 1091, could be taken to imply that William the Conqueror had one body of rights and prerogatives in Normandy and another in England29.

  • 30 E.g., II Cnut, cc. 12, 14, 15 (AJ. Robertson, The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henr (...)
  • 31 Apart from the passage in the Gesta Stephani quoted above, there is no evidence that any of the No (...)
  • 32 Summarized by Musset, Gouvernés et Gouvernants, pp.459-60.
  • 33 In the articles cited above (note 2).
  • 34 Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.105-32, 153-4, 319-20.
  • 35 E. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae (1958), pp.166-71.
  • 36 Fauroux, Recueil des Actes des ducs de Normandie, no 137 (p. 314), quoted by Musset, ubi supra.
  • 37 Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.317-45.
  • 38 E.g., L. Delisle, Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (1867), pièces just (...)
  • 39 Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), iii, 26; (ed. Le Prévost), ii, 316; cf. iv, 305. The text of the canons (...)
  • 40 Ordericus (éd. Le Prévost), iv, 233-4, 237, 269; cf. Eadmer, Historia Novorum (éd. M. Rule), Chron (...)
  • 41 Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), ii, 208, 238, 284; (éd. Le Prévost), ii, 177, 200-01, 237.
  • 42 L. Valin, Le duc de Normandie et sa cour (912-1204) (1910), p.258.
  • 43 E.g., Schramm, History of the English Coronation, pp.31-2; H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, The Go (...)
  • 44 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum,i (éd. H.W.C. Davis, 1913), pp.xxi-xxii; II, (edd. C. Johnson and (...)
  • 45 L. Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant et de la reine Mathilde pour les abbayes Caennaise (...)
  • 46 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (éd. W. Stubbs, Chronicles and Memorials, 1887-9), u, 496; F. L (...)
  • 47 Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.340-1.
  • 48 J.-F. Lemarignier, Recherches sur l’hommage en marche et les frontières féodales (1945), pp.90-93. (...)

10Yet this last consideration, at least, may not be as significant as it appears at first sight; for it could be argued that the differences between the two countries in this respect were no greater in principle than the differences between the king’s rights in Wessex, Mercia and the Danelaw within his kingdom of England30. Similarly the variety of the titles and the nature of the ceremonies (so far as these are known) may imply no more than a failure, as yet, to describe the situation in these terms or perhaps to feel the need to do so. Yet William or Henry or Stephen, having been consecrated, crowned and anointed in England, could not throw off the supernatural qualities of kingship when they crossed over to Normandy, as they were doing at frequent intervals. Nor were they then in the position of a king visiting a foreign land. In Normandy they were in their own country, among their own people, with barons and churchmen who were vassals and close associates in England also and who could hardly change their mode of address or their relationship in mid-Channel31. Moreover the rule of the dukes in Normandy before 1066 had had many of the qualities of royal government32. Yver has shown how many of the rights and prerogatives of the Norman dukes derived ultimately from Carolingian royalty33; and their relations with the Church, in the part they had had in the election of bishops and abbots, in ecclesiastical councils and generally in the resurrection of the Norman Church, contributed a substantial religious element to their authority34. «Duke William» was acclaimed by name in Laudes sung in Rouen Cathedral, very probably though not certainly before the Conquest35; beyond the duchy he could already be regarded as effectively king of all his land36. After 1066 the actions of William and his sons in Normandy were no less royal. Their relations with the Church were modified only by such success as the general reforming movement of the time achieved - in fact their relations with the Church in England and the Church in Normandy were now assimilated37. Their court in Normandy, and the courts which were held in their name there, were as much curia regis as they were in England38; a local officer there could be described as vicecomes regis in a formal document39; Henry reorganized the government of Normandy in 1106-7 regali potestate40; and his provisions then, like William’s in 106741, for the preservation of the peace, the administration of justice and the protection of churches were certainly royal in character. The Laudes continued to be sung there42 and even the solemn crown-wearings on the great feasts of the Church, normally regarded as a feature of their rule in England43, may have taken place in Normandy as well. No chronicler shows such a detailed interest in the places at which the king celebrated the principal feasts of the Church while he was in Normandy as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the related chronicles show in England; but some at least of the greater festivals are known to have been kept at one or other of the principal churches when the king was there44; and if the record of the abbey of Saint-Etienne at Caen is right in describing the crown which William the Conqueror bequeathed to the monks as coronam qua in celebrioribus festivitatibus inter sacra missarum sollenpnia coronabatur45, then we may at least be confident that William had had that crown with him in Normandy, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he made use of it there. And finally, to forestall one obvious objection, though King Louis VI specifically claimed Normandy as part of his kingdom, and whatever the relationship between duke and king may have been before 1066, Henry refused to do homage pro culmine imperii46 as William the Conqueror had refused to swear fealty to the pope47. No man who was king of the English and duke of the Normans did homage for Normandy or anything else between 1066 and 114448. In this respect, as in many others, things were different under the Angevin kings.

  • 49 C.T. Clay (éd.), The Honour of Warenne (Early Yorkshire Charters,viii, Yorks. Arch. Soc., Record S (...)

11If therefore one could pick and choose among the various contemporary phrases used to describe the relationship between William’s or Henry's royalty in England and his status in Normandy, that which might seem to us the most appropriate would be the formula found in a charter of William II de Warenne granting lands and rents in England to the priory of Bellencombre in Normandy: Hec donatio... a domino nostro Henrico Anglorum rege in Normannia principaute regali potestate statuta et confirmata...49 Henry could not be described formally as «king of the Normans», but he ruled Normandy «with royal power». Though distinctions of capacity were certainly not unknown at the time, they do not appear to have been applied consistently in theory, and not at all in practice, to William or Henry or Stephen as rulers of England and Normandy. It may well be better, therefore, to speak of «Norman kings» rather than Norman «kingdukes».

Notes

1 E.g., D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (1964), pp.247-64; J. Boussard, La notion de royauté sous Guillaume le Conquérant, in Annali della Fondazione italiana per la storia amministrativa (1967), pp.47-77.

2 Notably, Le développement du pouvoir ducal en Normandie... 1035-1135, in Atti del Convegno Internazionali di Studi Ruggeriani (Palermo, 1955), pp.183-204; Contribution à l'Etude du développement de la compétence ducale en Normandie, in Annales de Normandie,viii (1958), 139-83; Les premières institutions du duché de Normandie, in I Normanni e la loro espansione in Europa nell’alto medioevo (Settimane di Studio del Centro italiona di studi sull'alto medioevo, (Spoleto, 1969), pp.299-366.

3 Touched on by P.E. Schramm, A History of the English Coronation (trans. L.G. Wickham Legg, 1937), pp.45-7 and Douglas, ubi supra, pp.259-64.

4 E.g. the implications of the conventio with the count of Flanders, dated 10 March (1101), Diplomatic Documents (éd. P. Chaplais, 1964), pp.1-4.

5 C.W. David, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (1920), pp.42-66, 120-37; C.W. Hollister, The Anglo-Norman Civil War: 1101, in English Historical Review,lxxxviii (1973), 315-31.

6 On the succession generally, Le Patourel, The Norman Succession, 996-1135, in Eng. Hist. Rev.,lxxxvi (1971), 225-50; What did not happen in Stephen’s reign, in History,lviii (1973), 1-17. Since the first article was published, LJ. Engels has shown that the part of the argument based on the anonymous De Obitu Willelmi (in Guillaume de Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, éd. J. Marx, 1914, pp.145-9) needs to be reconsidered - De Obitu Willelmi ducis Normannorum...: Texte, modèles, valeur et origine, in Mélanges Christine Mohrmann (Utrecht-Anvers, 1973), pp.209-55.

7 L. Musset, Gouvernés et Gouvernants dans le monde Scandinave et dans le monde normand(XIe-XIIe siècles), in Gouvernés et Gouvernants, Rec. Soc. Jean Bodin,xxiii (1968), 463.

8 Le Patourel, Transfretatio Regis, in Rev. hist, de droit français et étranger, 51e année (1973), 560-61.

9 Provisionally, Le Patourel, Normandy and England (University of Reading, Stenton Lecture, 1970), 1971.

10 For the titles attributed to the rulers of Normandy before 1066, M. Fauroux, Recueil des Actes des ducs de Normandie (911-1066), Mém. Soc. Antiq. Norm.,xxxvi, (1961), pp.49-50, 57.

11 P. Chaplais, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: from the Diploma to the Writ, in Prisca Munimenta, Studies... presented to Dr A.E.J. Hollaender (éd. F. Ranger, 1973), pp.43-62, The Seals and Original Charters of Henry I, in Eng. Hist. Rev.,lxxv, (1960), 261-2, 269-71.

12 Chaplais, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery, pp.44-61; T.A.M. Bishop and P. Chaplais (edd.), Facsimiles of English Royal Writs to A.D. 1100. Presented to Vivian Hunter Galbraith (1957); Chaplais, Seals and Original Charters of Henry I, pp.266-8; T.A.M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis (1961).

13 On the seals: A.B. and A. Wyon, The Great Seals of England (1887); Bishop and Chaplais, Facsimiles of English Royal Writs, passim; Chaplais, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery, p.44 (with reserves on some points of interpretation); Chaplais, Seals and Original Charters of Henry I, passim; Regesta RegumAnglo-Normannorum, edd. H.A. Cronne and R.H.C. Davis, iii (1968), pp.xv-xvii; iv (1969), pp.3-5, plates I and II.

14 E.g., Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica (ed. M. Chibnall, 1969), iii, 154-6, 250; (éd. A. Le Prévost, 1838-55), ii, 427; iii, 39.

15 E.g., Guillaume de Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi (éd. R. Foreville, 1952), pp.258, 262; William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella (éd. K.R. Potter, 1955), pp.21, 53; Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), iii, 98; iv, 92; (éd. Le Prévost), ii, 378; iii, 242; iv, 237.

16 Fauroux, Recueil des Actes des ducs de Normandie, Index Rerum, s.v. regnum.

17 E.g., Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), iv, 122-4; (éd. Le Prévost), iii, 269; ±v, 329; v. 45; Chronica Monasterii de Hida juxta Wintoniam, in Liber Monasterii de Hyda (ed. E. Edwards, Chronicles and Memorials, 1866), p.319, is perhaps ambigous. I am grateful to Professor C.W. Hollister for drawing my attention to the relevance of this chronicle.

18 Chronica Monasterii de Hida, passim.

19 Schramm, History of the English Coronation, pp.27-31; Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.206-7, etc.

20 Douglas, ubi supra, pp.207-10 and authorities there quoted.

21 Guillaume de Jumièges, Gesta (éd. Marx), p.268 (interp. Torigni); David, Robert Curthose, p.42, and authorities there quoted.

22 Chaplais, Seals and Original Charters of Henry I, pp.264-5 (with reserves on the reasons for the change).

23 Ordericus (éd. Le Prévost), iv, 233-4 (cf. pp.237, 269).

24 Gesta Stephani (éd. K.R. Potter, 1955), p.8; but cf. Malmesbury, Historia Novella (éd. Potter), p.15.

25 J.H. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville (1892), pp.262-6; Regesta Regum AngloNormannorum,iii, nos 944, 46, 271.

26 Historia Novella (éd. Potter), p.54. On the sense of the title «domina» in this context, Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp.69-80.

27 Schramm,History of the English Coronation, p.46. Schramm does not quite say this; but the text of the Gesta Stephani, which he quotes, would support this interpretation better than his own conclusion that the Norman bishops were present at the Easter court to secure Stephen’s recognition as «Duke of Normandy».

28 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum,iii, nos 270, 271; iv, plates I and II.

29 C.H. Haskins, Norman Institutions (1918), pp.281-4.

30 E.g., II Cnut, cc. 12, 14, 15 (AJ. Robertson, The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, 1925, pp.180-81); L.J. Downer (ed.), Leges Henrici Primi (1972), pp.44-45, 96-8 (c. 6).

31 Apart from the passage in the Gesta Stephani quoted above, there is no evidence that any of the Norman kings were anointed as «duke» or «king» of the Normans; but in Normandy they would have been recognized as anointed rulers whatever their title. This may conceivably help to explain the occasional concern of the «Anonymous of York», now known as the «Norman Anonymous», to claim for a dux or princeps the power and authority of a king (G.H. Williams, The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D., 1951, pp.52-5, with full discussion of the MS, editions and literature). If indeed the phrases used by the Anonymous can be taken as referring to the duke of the Normans, however obliquely, his statements might be taken as theoretical support for the identification or confusion of the two dignities, king and duke; though the date when he is thought to have been writing could give rise to a great deal of speculation.

32 Summarized by Musset, Gouvernés et Gouvernants, pp.459-60.

33 In the articles cited above (note 2).

34 Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.105-32, 153-4, 319-20.

35 E. Kantorowicz, Laudes Regiae (1958), pp.166-71.

36 Fauroux, Recueil des Actes des ducs de Normandie, no 137 (p. 314), quoted by Musset, ubi supra.

37 Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.317-45.

38 E.g., L. Delisle, Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (1867), pièces justificatives, pp.40,46; Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), iii, 34; (éd. Le Prévost), ii, 322; iv, 303, 460; Haskins, Norman Institutions, pp.90, 91, 95, 98 etc. It is interesting that the Consuetudines et Justicie (1091) should use the term curia domini Normannie rather than curia ducis. The latter, if found at all under the Norman kings, is exceedingly rare.

39 Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), iii, 26; (ed. Le Prévost), ii, 316; cf. iv, 305. The text of the canons of the council of Lillebonne (1080) printed by A. Teulet in Layettes du Trésor des Chartes,i (1863), no 22 (pp.25-8), now shown to bear the seal of Henry II (P. Chaplais, Henry II's reissue of the canons of the Council of Lillebonne..., in Journal of the Society of Archivists,iv, 1970-73, pp.627-32, with text), presumably represents the formal document. Orderic paraphrases the dating clause at the beginning. The form of this should be noted and also the distinction throughout the text between comes Robertus and rex Willelmus.

40 Ordericus (éd. Le Prévost), iv, 233-4, 237, 269; cf. Eadmer, Historia Novorum (éd. M. Rule), Chronicles and Memorials, 1884), p.184.

41 Ordericus (éd. Chibnall), ii, 208, 238, 284; (éd. Le Prévost), ii, 177, 200-01, 237.

42 L. Valin, Le duc de Normandie et sa cour (912-1204) (1910), p.258.

43 E.g., Schramm, History of the English Coronation, pp.31-2; H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, The Governance of Medieval England (1963), pp.32, etc.

44 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum,i (éd. H.W.C. Davis, 1913), pp.xxi-xxii; II, (edd. C. Johnson and H.A. Cronne, 1956), pp.xxix-xxxi.

45 L. Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant et de la reine Mathilde pour les abbayes Caennaises (Mém. Soc. Antiq. Norm.,xxxvii, 1967), pp.132-4; cf. Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum,i, no 397; ii, no 601; L. Delisle and E. Berger, Recueil des actes de Henri II,i (1916), pp.261-4. Repeated redemption of the crown suggests recovery for an occasion only, as for a crownwearing. See also, Engels, De Obitu Willelmi..., p.255, «Note additionnelle».

46 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (éd. W. Stubbs, Chronicles and Memorials, 1887-9), u, 496; F. Lot, Fidèles ou Vassaux? (1904), pp.201-2.

47 Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp.340-1.

48 J.-F. Lemarignier, Recherches sur l’hommage en marche et les frontières féodales (1945), pp.90-93. The homages of William AEtheling in 1120 and of Eustace in 1137 and 1140 seem to have been primarily for recognition of the right to succeed. There is no reason to think that Henry would have given up possession of Normandy to his son while he lived, and it is certain that Stephen did not do so.

49 C.T. Clay (éd.), The Honour of Warenne (Early Yorkshire Charters,viii, Yorks. Arch. Soc., Record Series, Extra Series,vi, 1949), p.81 (no 29).

Auteur

Professeur honoraire à l'Université de Leeds

© Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre, 1976

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

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