The Anglo-Norman succession debate of II26: Prelude to Stephen's anarchy

On I January 1127 Henry I made his mag-

tlates and prelates swear to accept h .*s daugh-

ter Maud as heiress to England and Norman- dy. In the months prior to the oathtnking,

r.c,rtain idrntifiable curiales H Robert earl of Gkoucester, Brian fitr Count, and David king

of scats - szem to hawe been .rui$orting

Murid’s candidacy. Others, iltclatii?tg Roger bt.rhop of Salisbury and his kinsi?&e?z. appear to have opposed her and perhaps to have supported Henry’s nephew, William elito, as heir.

7.he factions resurfaced at Henry’s death

in December 1135. William, Clito having died in the meentime, Roger of Salisbury became one of Scephcn of Blois’ etrrliest and strongest supporters. Ma&s former friends, Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count, were tcmfiorarily im.mobilired by a violent break between Henry and Maud in the closing rzonths of Henry’s reign, but they, along with King David, .;ub.~eqztrntl;; bec~xe Maud’s most active and c.>nsistent chumpions.

The two factions differed neither in socio- et ouomic background nor in ideology. It was Itot a question of ,>ld baronial families on one side and newly-men curiaies on th<p other, but simply of differing personal allegiances originating in. the dWisiom alm.ong Henry’s courtiers in. 1126.

On 1 January 1127 King Henry I determined the future of the English royal line by having his court swear to accept his daughter Maud as his heir to England and Normandy. John of Worcester states that Henry had taken counsel from his great men (Weaver 1908:

27),’ and William of Malmesbury adds that he arrived at his decision “after deliberating long and deeply” (Potter 1955b:3). On the nature of these deliberations contemporary writers are silent; they disclose neither what alternatives were considered, nor what advice the king received, nor from whom. But buried in the sources are certain clues that point to a clash of opinion at the court of 1 I26 - a struggle between Maud’s friends and opponents that divided Henry’s curinles and foreshadowed the political factions of Sic- phen’s anarchy.

By 1126 t1.e Anglo-Norman succession had become an urgent problem. Henry I, now in

Journal of Medieval History 1 (1975) 19-41. @ North-Holland, Amsterdam 19

Robert ‘Curthose’ Duke of Normandy 1087-l 106,

William I ‘the Conqueror’ Duke of Normandy 1035-S; King of England 1066-87

__-I]

Adeld = Stephen William !I ‘Rufus’ Alice of I:xwainn=

Count of Blois, King of E:ngland d. I I.51

I d. 1102 1087-l 100 (2) d.s.p.

William William ‘Clito’ Theobald STEPHEN = Matilda. LY~l.! inheritance) 1102-28 Count of Blois King of England tlau~htcr of I~us~;~cc 111 ISishop of Winchrs!cr (is denied the d.s.p. 1 I li’p-52 1135-54 Count of I I “!bi I _ patrimonial Boulognc imtl

Mary of Scotl:rntl

Simplified genealogical chart

20

St. hIargaret -_

granddaughter of King Edmund Ironside

hfalcolm II I ‘Canmore’

King of Scats IOSS-93

(31 1

IlENRY I = Edith-Matild;l. Mary := Ku5tnrc III David King of England d. Ills Count or IIoulogne King of Scats I loo-35: (1) I 124-53 rules Normnnd +J I IO&3.5

Robert William ‘Ade!in’ Geoffrq = MAUD =Emperor Henry V Lwl of Clwc~rtcr. I I O.%?O, Count d Anjou.

I

cl. 1167 1 I OG-“5

(1. 1147 c1.s.p. in FVhite Ship d. I151 d.s.p.

(3 (1)

Henry II King of Fqland 1 I&-89; and Aquitaine; Duke of Normandy Count of Anjou

I Kings and Queens ot England to present day

21

his late fifties, had lost his only legitimate son, William Adelin, in the wreck of the White Ship in November 1120. A widower

at the tir;lc, he had immediately remarried, but as the years passed it became more and more ap!>arent that his second wife, Alice of Louvain, would bear him no children. “In grief thz;t the woman did not conceive, and in fear that she would always be barren”, he was obliged to look elsewhere for an heir (Pot- ter 1955b:3).’

Maud, Henry’s one remaining legitimate offspring, came into the succession picture only in May 1125 when the death of her husband, Emperor Henry V, freed her to return home.3 She joined Eer father in Normandy at his command and, it. is said, with regret. Now in her early twenties, she had lived in Germa- ny since she was eight and had evic,ently re- lished being an empress. To Henry I she had the great advantage of being his own child. k:or years he izad struggled to secure the succession of his son, William Adelin; to have turned :~ow from a direct offspring to a nephew woGd have been to reverse the di- rection of h,s diplomacy. Moreover, Henry’s own accessi >n to the throne in 1 1OP. to the prejudice of his elder brother Robert, had been ,justified by the doctrine of paiphyro- geniture: Robert had been born before the Norman Conquest, whereas Henry was born ef a reigning king and queen - born in the purple (Le Prevost 1852:88; Stubbs 1889:467; Brooke 1963:32, 134, 195-6). In 1126 Maud alone, of all possible candidates, could claim porphyrogeniture: she was born in 1102, 0’: a reigning king who was ,the son of a reigning king, aqd of a queen - Herry’s wife, Edith- Matilda - whose ancestors hacl been king:< of the Anglo-Saxons.4 Edward the Confessor on his deathbed had allegedly pr lphesied about the grafting of a green tree, and prior to the

White Ship disaster many people, interpret- ing Edward’s prophesy as the joining of the Ncrman and Old English royal lines, had looked to its fulfillment in Maud’s brother, William Adelin, rcx designalus (Stubhs 1889: 277; Barlow 1962:75-6, 88-90). Henry himself took the idea of the joined lines very seriously, because it provided further justification for the succession of his own children. He would later commend Maud to his barons as the one rightful heir, with Norman kings as her grandfather., uncle, and father, and Qi*! English kings in her mother’s lineage (Pajtter 1955b:3--4).

n/laud’s great impediment was leer sex. In this pre-Elizabethan age she coulcl probably no have: ruled England and IJormandy sue *essful!y witholut a hlusband to upho!d her interests, and the great hope would have been th;lt she might give IJenry I a royal grandson. Accordingly, Henry.s court swore to uphold the succession not only of Maud herself but also of her legitimate son, if she should have one (Weaver 1908:27; compare Potter 19.5.5a: 6-7, 8). In short, the great men of the Anglo- Norman state committed themselves to the I& of the ftlture I-Ienry 11 some six years before his birth.

Besides Maud, the king and his court might possibly have considered the claims of two or three royal nephews or the eldest and most promising of the royal bastards. The available nephews were Theobald and Stephen, sons of Henry I’s sister Adela, countess of Blois; and \~Villiam Clito, son of Henry’s brother, enemy, and captive, Robert Curthose, ex-duke of Normandy.’ Of these nephews, Theobald count of Blois would have been regarded less seriously than his younger brother Stephen.” Henry had favored Stephen exceedingly, giving him the county of Mor-

22

4n in western Normandy and vast estates in England (Davis 1967:7-lo),’ and the

Anglo-Norman batons were wet! acquainted with him. Contemporary writers speak not a word of his candidacy until after Henry’s death, but it may perhaps be significant that in 11.5, by Henry’s arrangement, he was wed to Slatitda of Bouto ne, daughter and heiress of Count Eustace III (Round 1899: no. 1385).

Matilda’s mother, Mary of Scotland, was the siste:l of Henry I’s first wife and, like her, a descendant of Alfred and Edmund Ironside. Stephen’s children would thus graft the Nor- mlm and Anglo-Saxon royal branches no less truly than thi children of Henry 1 and Edith- Matiida. Henry c;mnot have been unau alee of this fact. At the t.ime that he was arrang.1::; t!~e marriage (probab!y ! 1% or early ! 1%)

Maud was stilt reigning in Germany and un- available. Until she was widol*red in late May 1125 Henry may wet! have taken Ytephen’s candidacy seriously.

But Henry’s prin ary motive in marrying Stephen to Matilda may well have belzn the establishment of a trusted nephew in the county of !3outogns rather than a second grafting of the green tree. Boutogne, with its active port ot Wissant, was strategically situated direct!y across the Channel from Romney and Dover. It lay southwest of Elan- ders and just north of Ponthieu, which \,-a~ ruled in the 1 I :20’s by Henry’s enemy, ti il- liam Ta!vas. \Ni!!iam”s county was allus caught in Henry’s web, with Normandy to the south and Boutogne to the north.

In Henry’s eyes the countship of 13outogne would pet-haps have seemed more suitable tr, Stephen’s cap.tcit:es than the throne of Eng- land. For already it was becoming clear that

statesmanship was not one of Stephen’s strong points. Hi:X best known political and military failures lay in the future, but it is

suggestive that when his supporters were

urging his cause in December 1135 they

stressed that the assistance of his wise brothers

bzould “bring LO greater perfection what-

ever is thought to be lacking in him” (Potter

1955aS). During the France-Norman wars of

1118-l 9 - the great military crisis of Henry’s reign - Stephen had been entrusted with the governance of a large, vita! district on the duchy’s southern frontier centering on Sees and At~n~on (Le Prevost 18.52;2X-4; com-

pare Le Pr&ost 1845:423; Le Prtvost ‘852: 162-3).’ Stephen’s misgovernment drove the

inhabitants to ally with Henry’s enemy, Count

I;ulk of Anjou, and to betray to the Angevins the town of Alenqon - a vital frontier strong- hold guarding the southern approach to Nor- mandy through the valley of the Sarthe. The garrison of Atencon castle held out for Henry, but when Stephen and Theobatd tried to re- supply it the Angevins repulsed them sound- ly. Finally Henry himself came upon Ale;i qon with a large army, and in a major bat !L near the city Fulk routed the Anglo-Norm?. (Le Prevost 1852:32Z -4, 331-4; WaliL I’:

!96-4:193; Hatphen and Poupardin “‘1 ?-

155-51; Chartrou 192P:IO-13). The ba!tll: of AtenGon (December 2 118) was the greatest mitiiary debacle of Henry’s career, arlcj h< extricated himself o:;!y by bribing the hi~,:e- vins to break their aitiance with France and marrying his son and I,,rir, William Adetin, to Fulk’s daughter. Tie wars of 1118-19

constituted a grave tn.-eat to Henry’s rule over Normandy, and ;V later years when- ever he recalled the Alqon catastrophe he would doubtless have thought of Stephen. He might have recalled, too, that the justification he had offered for his own conquest of Nor- malldy in 1106 was the incompettnce of his

brat her, Duke Robert.’

P :ior to Maud s widowhood, Stephen may

23

well have been considered a possible if un- promising successor to the throne. Whatever his shortcomings he was lqy’.;l, rich, affable., and well connected, and his T larriage to Ma- tilda of Boulogne suggests i .at his star was rising. But there is nothing o indicate that he was under serious consi ieration in the

deliberations of 1126. It had been suggested by %ome that Henry

might have settled the succession on his eldest bastard, Robert earl of Glcuucester. Robert was able, well educated, imn.! lrsely wealthv, and a curia&-administratk, of the king‘s inner circle.” But his illegitimacy ruled him out as a candidate for the royal success,on. His bastard grandfather, William the Con- queror, had been the product of an earlier, far different age and had won the throne over the dead bodies of Anglo-Saxons. In 1119 the bastard William of Ypres had failed in his attempt on the Flemish succession and would fail again in 1127, when Flemish townsmen pledged to reject him as their count “because he is illegitimste” (Pirenne 1891:76).” In England the tradition against bastard kings runs all the ~a‘* back to the Council of Chelsea of A.D. 787 (Maddan and Stubbs 1878 3453; compare John 1966:33; Lie- bes;nann 1903:662; Liebermann 1916:341), and in the early twe!fth century, with ec- ciesiastical reform at high tide, the selection of RoCert of Gloucester would have been inausp .:ious at the very least.”

The, 3 remains William Clito, son of Hen- ry’s ca;‘tive brother Robert Curthose. As the Conquc ror’s one surviving legitimate grandson in .he male line, Clito had the best here- ditary claim of all. Indeed, as the only child of William I’s eldest son, Clito’s claim was better, on th- grounds of primogeniture, than Henry’s own. In late 1126 Clito was twenty- four years old.‘j Even before his coming of age

he had been the focus of opposition to Henry I, and in 11 I8 the French, Angevins, Flemings and dissident Normans had combined in a massive effort to win Normandy for him. The effort failed, and in October 1 I19 there occurred a little-known negotiation between Henry and Clito in the neighborhood of Aumale on Normandy’s northeastern frontier (Edwards 1866:320-l ; compare Le Pr&vost !852:395). Clito pleaded for his father’s re- lease, swearing that he and his father would go to Jerusalem and never again trouble Hen- ry’s dominions. Henry, victorious over his enemies, refused to free Curthose but promis- ed to enrich Clito in return for his submis- sion. Orderic, reporting Henry’s meeting with Pope Calixtus the following month at Gisors, quotes the king as saying that hc had offered Clito authority over three English counties and a place at court where he might learn the art of government. Henry alle that he would favor his nephew “as a son”, or so Orderic tells us (Le Prevost 1852: 403-4) * I4 In any event, Clito rejected the offers out of respect for his captive father and resumed his life as a labldless war derer. Had he chosen to become a 1 Anglo-Norman magnate and courtier, the loss of the royal son and heir a year thereafter might well have deflected the succession tc hi:n - unless, of course, he had chosen to boP rd the White Ship himself. But even under the best of circum- stances, it would have been painful for Hen- ry to offer the succession to the person against whose claims he had struggled 50 long. And there was always the hazard that, in theory at least, recognizing Clito’s right to succeed might have cast doubt on Henrv’s own right to rule. If Clito were the righiful heir, why should he not be the rightful ki, s (Le Prltou- rel 197 1:245)?

Even though the negotiations ol’ I 119 fail-

24

ed to produce an accord between Henry and Clito, the two apparently parted without anger. In 1123-24, however, Clito resumed his active role as Anglo-Norman pretender, and the warfare of thtise two years seems to have embittered Henry deeply. F,rr the sec-

ond time in his career the peace of Norman- dy had been broken. The threat was far less

serious than in I 118-19, but Henry’s severe

enforcement of the Anglo-Norman laws

against rebels and malefactors in 1124 suggests a mood of angry disillusionment, pro- voked by the shattering of the 1120 peace.” At this moment Henry would hardly have

een enthusiastic about settling the succession on the person whose claims had provok- cd the war.lb It was probably in 1124 that he began negotiating Stephen’s marriage with Matilda of Boulogne.

Nevertireless, Clito’s case remained strong, and he continued to find ardent supporters among the Anglo-Norm.ms. Some, like the rebels of 1123-24, would have put him on Henry’s throne immediately. But there were others, in no sense rebe”s. who looked for- ward to his peaceful succession upon Henry’s death. John of Worcester reports that the news of Clito‘s death in battle in 1128 was r,eceived with universal &-rief (Weaver 1908: 29). Henry of Huntingdon adds that Clito was the sole rightful heir to the crown and

was ,judged worthy of it by all men (Arnold

I 879:304-5)” Th ese are strong words, coming LS they do from English writers by no means hostile to Henry. They reflect a wide- spread feeling, following the death of Wil- liam Adelin that although Henry merited allegiance as long as hc lived, Clito should succeed him. 3y all accounts, the feeling was sufficiently strorg to make William Clito Maud’s chief rival in the deliberations of 1126. He is the only claimant apart from

Maud herself who is known to have enjoyed substantial support.

On 11 September 1126 Henry 1 crossed from Normandy to England with Maud and a group of important pro-Clito rebels captured jn 1124. Maud was returning to her hame- land after an absence of more than sixteen years. Perhaps the succession had already been under discussion at the king’s ccllrt in Normandy,” but now the d,:bate began in earnest. Henry’s good friend and former brother-in-law, King David of Scotland, joine,f the court that fall, along with two other neighboring princes - Conan count of Brittany and Rotrou count of Perche, vassals and SOIS-. n-law of the English king. And from Norm iandy came such major dignitaries as Geoffrl y archbishop of Rouen and John bishop of Lisieux, the head of Henry’s Nor- man admi iistration (Clark 1970:48; Johnson 1961:129; Johnson and Cronne 1956: no. 1166).”

The factional conflicts of late 1126 are il- luminate& by the Anglo-Saxon chronicler’s statement .hat the king had Robert Curthose transferrc ’ from Bishop Roger of Salisbury’s custody at I;evizes to Robert of Gloucester’s custod! at tiristol. This was done, the chronicler adds, on the advice of Maud, seconded by that of her uncle, King David (Clark 1970: 48). Maud was evidently maneuvering for the succession by assuring that the kingdom’s most valuable political prisoner, Clito’s father, would be in safe hands,” and one can deduce that her succession was already supported by a court faction which included King David and Robert earl of Gloucester, but not Roger of Salisbury.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicl’e reports the trar‘sfer of still another prisoner in late 1126. Waleran count of Meulan, the most important

of the captive pro-Clito rebels, crossed the

Channel w’ith em-y in September, was in-

carcerated at the royal castle of ridgnorth

(Shropshirs), and W:IS moved to Walling-

ford shortly therealter (Clark 1!370:47).”

north was under the jurisdiction of one

enry’s ‘new men’, Payn ‘itz John, sheriff

suggests that lMaud was endezvtrring to place

ciress of

over, Roger and his fellow lords had sworn cubsequent oaths to Maud in 113 1 and 1133, after her marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou (Pot- ter 1955b:lO; Stubbs 1%8:187; Stubbs 1876: 246).% Nevertheless, Roger’s protestations convey the strong implication that he was hostile to Maud in 1126, and the implication is reinforced by Curthose’s transfer from Devizcs to Bristol.

Roger’s opposition to Mzud does not in it- self im?ly that he favcrec. naming Clito as hreir in her place. R,ugrr ,ioes not seem to have known CZito personally and is nowhere quot- ed as expressing opinicirs on Clito’s ,:andi- dacy. Nevertheless, Clito was the most liktly alternative to Maud. And Roger’s attitude toward him can perhaps be inferred from the glcwing accounts of Clito’s career in the writings of the contemporary historian, Hen- ry of Huntingdon.

As archdeacon of Huntingdon, Henry was the direct ecclesiastical subordinate of Bish- op Alexander of Lincoln. Henry’s Historia AngCorrtm was written at Bish?op Alexander’s request and was dedicated to him (Arnold :879:1- 4). Bishop Alexander, in turn, was Roger cf Sal&bury’s nephew, dormer ward, and clr.sest political ally.*’ Roger and his kinsmen formed a tightly-knit ecclesiastical family that had risen from obscurity in King Henry’s service; they were attacked as a group by Stephen in 1 139.28 On all matters of state they thought as one.*’ While it would be an exaggeration to regard Henry of Hunting- don sim;)ly as a spokesman for Roger’s family, it is nevertheless suggestive that in the pre- face to his Hisforia Anglorum Henry en- treats Bisholp Alexander to pi-&$ him when what he writes is fitting and to correct him when it is not (Arnold 1879:3-1).30 Henry wrote his history to please Bishop Alexander and would not be likely to express views to

which the family might object. He heaps lavish praise on Alexander and portrays Roger of Salisbury &.s a great man in the affairs of the world. Describing Rozer’s arrest in 1139, Henry resists reflecting on his favc i ite theme of pride falling, despite its singular appro- priateness to the event. He argues instead that Roger was unfairly trbated and concludes with a harmless cliche about the turn of for- tune’s wheel (Arnold 1879:24.5-i, 265-7. 280, 316).3’

Of all contemporary writers, Henry of Huntingdon is William Clito’s warmest ad- vocate. Most of the chroniclers and historians withhold their judgment on Clito. Orderic Vitalis describes him as attractive but im-

pulsive and tragically ill-starred. To John of Worcester he is William Miser - ‘the Pitiable’ (Weaver 1908:2CIJ. But Henry of Huntingdon sees him as the hei- of the age, a warrior of irresistible courage, a youth of immortal fame. On no other layman does Henry of Hunting- don lavish such praise. He embellishes his notice of Clito’s death with it ten-line eulogy that portrays him as a fallen god (Arnold 1879:249-50). These passages were written between I 128 and 1133, while Henry I still reigned and Roger of Salisbury still dominat- ed the English government (Arnold 1879: xi). They describe a man who, as Henry of Huntingdon himself admits, had been the king’s enemy (Arnold 1879:247). Even if Henry of Huntingdon harbored an eccentric personal affection for Clito (bb,horn he had never mei), he would hardly l...\ve expressed it with SI zh flair unless he amicipated sym- pathetic I \:sponses in high placels. A few years i:.rter, in Isis Episfle to Wdler, Henry of Hun- tingdon qiescribed Clito 1s a man of supreme worth wh . remained tht one true heir +o the crown am! was recognized a3 such b; all men. His death destroyed the hopes of “all those

who regarded him as the future king” (Arnold 1879:304-5). Henry of Huntingdon’s primary channel into high politics ‘vas the court of Bishop Alexander, which hg, attended f’aith- fully and knew intimately. Roger of Salis- bury’s hostility toward Maud is mirrored in Henry of Huntingdon’s suggestion that her machinations in 1135 may have driven King Henry into his fatal illness, and in his later allusion to her ‘intolerable pride” (Arnold 1879:2.54, 275). It seems probable that Henry of Huntingdon’s attitude toward Clito like- wibe reflects the viewpoint of Bishops Roger and Alexander

Roger of Salisbury’s faction may possibl) have included, for a time, the archbishop of Canterbury, William of Corbeil. Roger and William seem to have enjoyed a long ac- quaintance. We know that the future archbishop had earlier studied and taught at the cathedral school of Laon, which was just then serving as a training center for Anglo-Nor- man administrators. ‘* Roger himself had sent his nephews, Alexander and Nige;, to study at Laon, and he later gave warm hospitality to a fund-raising misr ion of Laon canons when they visited Salisblry. It was from Laon that Roger drew the master of his own school at Snlisbury, Guy d’Etampes (Kealey 1972: 48-9, 91-2), and it may well have been Wil- liam of Corbeil’s activities at Laon that first brought him to Roger’s attention. Subsequent- ly William became the first prior of St. Qsyth’s, Essex, an Augustinian house founded by Roger of Salisbury’s close ad- ministrative colleague, Richard de Beaumais, bishop of London (Dickinson 1950:112-13). Roger’s enthusiasm for the Augustinian move- ment is shown by his founding of St. Frides- wide’s, Oxford, which, like St. Qsyth’s was a daughter house of Queen Edith-Matilda’s foundation of Holy Trinity, Aldgate (Dickin-

son 1950:113-15). Whatever Roger’s relations!rip with Wil-

liam of Corbeil may have been during these vears, we are told by the Anglo-Saxon chronicler that William owed his archiepiscopacy to the bishop of Salisbury. During the debates ot 1123 over the Canterbury successicn. the monastic party had insisted that the new archbishop, like all previous ones, should be a monk. But the bishops, led by Koger, tvere determined never again to have a monk as their primate. The monks held out for two days, “but is was no use, because the bishop of Salisbury was strong and controlled all England . . . Then they elected a clerk called William of Corbeil” (Clark 1970~43). Later that year Henry 1 was told by a lege,te from Rome that it was uncanonical for a clerk to preside as archbishop over the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, “but because of his love for the bishop of Salisbury, the king would not annul it” (Clark 1970:43). Immedi- ately after William’s consecration, and with his consent, the bishopric of Lincoln was given to Roger’s nephew Alexander (Weaver 1908:17), and when, in 1125, William jour- neyed to Rome and won the legateship for Canterbury, Alexander was the one Anglo- Norman bishop to accompany him (Johnson I961 : 122; Arnold 1 879:246).33 They returned earlv in 1126, in time to participate in the autumn deliberations.

M-e are not told what role Archbishop Wil- liam played in the: succession debate. But if there was anyone in England who might have raised an effective objection to Henry’s plan, that person was the archbishop of Canter- bury. As Anselm’s career had shown, and as Theobald’s would later show, the archbishops of Canterbury enjoyed, at Icast potentially, a position of considerable independence. Whereas most Anglo-Norman bishops were

29

products of the royal household, the post-

Conquest archbishops of Canterbury had all been heads of religious houses before rising

to the primacy.34 According to Canterbury tradition, Lanfranc ‘chose’ William Rufus to succeed on the Conqueror’s death (Earle and Plummer I892:290),” and Theobald would one day, with papal backing, block the ;mointing of Eustace as Stephen’s heir ‘Davis 1967: 105,177). Archbishop William’s auihor- ity w PS theoretically even greater than Lan- franc’s, Anselm’s and Theobald’s, for Wil- liam had recently adde4 to his archiepiscopal powers those of the papal legateship. Al- though he had neither Anselm’s fame and connections nor Theobald’s opportunity to refuse consecration (which was not at issue in 1126 -27), it was nevertheless his prerogative to swear the first oath to Henry’s chosen successor, and his refusal to do so would doubtless have brought the proceedings tc; an abrupt halt.

On 1 Januarv 1127 Archbishop William exercised his prerogative, swearing the first oath to Maud. It happens that just at that time she king was manifesting a quite re- markable generosity toward his archbishop. 1 t was very likely at the 1126 Christmas court that Henry agreed to give William of Corbeil and his successors the perpetual custody and constabulary of Rochester Castle with free- dom to fortify it as they pleased (Johnson and Cronne 1956:356 and no. 1475).36 At the Christmas court, too, Henry gave William singularly strong support in the long-stand- ing dispute between Canterbury and York. At issue was Archbishop Thurstan of York’s right to participate in crowning the king at the Christmas crown-wearing of 1126 and to have his archiepiscopal crlss borne before him within the province of Canterbury. Hen- IY owed much to Thurstan - for helping

negotiate peace with the king of France in 1120, and for supporting William of Cor- beil’s bid for the legateshi:, in 1126. Prior to the peace of 1120 Thurstan aud the king had been at odds, but since that time they had been on generally friendly ti.rms. Neverthe- less, at the Christmas court of 1126 Henry came out foursquare for Canterbury and in- structed Thurstan to remain in his lodgings during the crown-wearing. Thurstan was so furious that he refused to speak to William of Corbeil, “and did not do so for a long time thereafter” (Johnson 19C 1: 129-3 1; Weaver 1908:22; Nicholl 1964:67-8, 72-4, 95-100). It would have been at about this time also that Henry granted William the privilege of summoning and p_ ___ redding ~vpr ;1 gyzt, !qg-

atiue council. William held his synod at Westminster on 13-16 May 1127, in the presence of multitudes of the clergy aud laity and nearly all the bishops of England and Wales (Archbishop Thurstan sent his re- grets). The decrees of the synod were afterwards confirmed and ratified by King Henry himself (Johnson 1961:130; Weaver 1908: 23-25; Arnold 1879:247).

All this may be coincidence. One can only observe that when Archbishop William took his oath to Maud, Eis debt to Roger ct Saiis- bury had been overshadowed by tire substantial and recent generosity of the king himself.

In summary, then, the faction supporting Maud in the closing months of 1126 included her uncle King David of Scotland, her hnlf- brother Robert earl of Gloucester,37 Brian fitz Count, and perhaps John bishop of Lisieux. In the opposing faction were Roger bishop of Salisbury and presumably such kinsmen as Alexander bishop of Lincoln and Nigel rwpos episcofii (the future bishop of Ely). To this

30

group might perhaps I.e added Payn fitz John, from whose custody the captive Waleran was removed late in the year, and conceivably Archbishop William, Roger’s gooi\ friend. We know from charter evidence that all these men were around the king in fall 1126.

A royal charter, probably issued at Ports- mouth on Henry’s return from Normandy, is attested by Maud, Archbishop William, Brian fitz Count and five others (Johnson and Cron- ne 1956: no. 144S).% Shortly thereafter the king was at Rockingham with (among others) Robert of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, Alexander of Lincoln, and probably also Roger of Salisbury Nige; his nephew, and Payn fitz John (Johnson lnd Cronne 19.56:

nos. l-15S3 1461, 1463). At Woodstock that same fall the king’s attendants included .4rchbishop William, King David, Robert of Gloucester, John of Lisieux, Roger of Salis- bury, Payn fitz John, and Brian fitz Count (Johnson and Cronne 1956: no. 1466: compare no. 1467) 3y

The two factions were composed of similar kinds of men - raised to high position by Hen- ry and frequenrers of his court.@Their diffe:.- e?Tces were nef ther socio-economic nor ideo- logical but seer? to have depended largely on their estimate of their candidate’s ability to rule effectively and uphold their interests. The members of both factions had risen high under Henry I, but - excluding King David - their power was too new to be secure and they would have been apprehensive about their status under Henry’s successor. They were vulnerable and needed a friend on the throne. Hence, a i*reat deal depended on their personal relationships with Maud and Clito. Roger and his kinsmen had never met Clito, but the writings of Henry of Hun- tingdon suggest a feeling of warm admira- tion none the less, and messages may well

have been exchanged. On the other side, John of Li:ieux, Brian fitz Count and Robert of Gloucester had all been involved in warfare against Clito’s supporters in Normandy and n!ay well have found Clito himself hard to swallow. Brian and earl Robert, moreover, M ould perhaps have feared the return of Cli- to’s exiled, land-hungry companions. As for Maud, she had only recently_returntc from Germany, but all that we kr,iGr of her em- phatic personality suggests that she was capa- ble of making friends and enemies quickly. And she would have been with Brian fitz Count, John of Li:ieux and Robert of Glou- cester at Henry’s court in Normandy prior to the September crossing. King David and Ro- bert of Gloucester may have been swayed by their kinship with Maud,” but their chief motive was probably nothing more or less than personal affection.

The most significant thing about these’ f;tc- : ions is that they resurfaced in the follow ing reign to become the nuclzl of the two con- tending parties of Stephen’s anarchy. Much had happened during the nine ye,-rs between the oath-taking of 1127 and Henry’s death on I December 1135: William Clito had died: Maud had been wed to Geoffrey count ot Anjou and borne him two sons. But those who had supported the empress in 1126 supported her again in her wars with Stephen, and those who opposed her in 1126 opposed her still.

This is not to say that the rift of 1126 made Stephen’s seizure of the throne inev’table. The fact that his first son, Eustace (hoi-n ca. 1129-31) was given a name traditional

among former counts of Boulogne suggests that Stephen may have continued for some years after the 1127 oaths to see his family’s Auture in that country rather than on the Eng- lish throne, and that the idea of challenging

31

Maud’s s’uccession may not have crossed his mind until the 1130’s (Le Patourel 1973: 1 1n).42 Indeed, Maud’s opponents in 1126 would probably have had no choice but to accept her in December 1135, had it not been for her violent break with her father several months before (Le Prevcst 1855:45ff; Arnold 1879253-4; Marx 1914:320; Hollister and Keefe 1973:16). A resulting border war between Hlenry I and the Angevins (August- November 1135) pitted the king and his most faithful supporters - men such as Robert of Gloucester, John bishop of Lisieux and (proh- bly) Brian fitz Count (J.lhnson and Cronne 1956: nos. 1915-16)43 - against a dissident ‘Algevin’ faction in Normandy (Ls Pr&ost 1 855:45-6).M The threat of rl:bellious Normar; barons in league with An?ou had occurred before; 45 it c&s considerable doubt on the oft- repeated bu: oversimplified notion that a deep-set Norman hatred of the Angevins had doomed Henry’s succession plan from the Ftart. 46 The problem of December 1135 was tlot so much a matter of innate anti-Angevin bias as of a bewildering mix-up of allegiances “~rou~ht on by the mid- 1135 war. The clash nc;. oni’y separated Henry from Maud but also i~roC;~iced hostilities and land disputes between Henry’s trusted magnates and Maud’s and Geoffrey’s .dlies. On Henry’s deatEti these hostilities insured that the very me:1 most iilclined to honor his wishes on the tucce.;sion were poiitically and militarily at odds with Maud, cL;eoffrey, and their Nor- man baronial supporters. The problem was intensified when llfaud and Geoffrey, just afte. Henry’s death, launched an ill-considered i-lvasion of Nol.mandy in their own in- tere. ts and those of their Norman allies, seiz- ing ands in the southern part of the ,l::chy ;md committing various hair-raising atrocities. The Norman baronial majority was

forced to take up arms against the Angevin invasion and to call for the help of Theobald count of Blois, Henry’s old friend and Ste- phen’s brother (Halphen and Poupardin 1913: 22.5; Le Prevost 185i:56-7; Howlett 1889: 128-9).47 The overall effect of these events was to paralyze some of Maud’s most powerful potential supporters for a brief but crucial period, allowing Stephen to seize the English throne and establish his power. The paralysis is illustrated by the position attributed to Rob- ert of Gloucester just after Henry I’s death: he is said to have favored the succession not of Maud, bu.t oi’ her two-year-old son, the future Hcnr:? II (Potter 19Ma:8). Thus, Ro- bert could support the Angevin succession in theory while, at the same time. holding aloof from Maud and Geoffrey until the situation in Normandy cleared. Yet wirh Henry Plan- tagenet in Anjou, Robert could do nothing positive in his behalf until the disputes brought on by the mid-l 1.‘: t war were re- conciled.

Meanwhile, Maud’s old ,:nemies rushed into action. Having lost their argument in 1126, and their candidate on Clito’s death in 1128, they became tht earliest supporters of Stephen of Blois. Dashing to England with a handful of companions in December 1135, Stephe? was refused admission by Robert of Gloucester’s garrisons at Dover and Canter- bury (Round 1892:1-2), but he was welcomed by his brother Henry, bishop of Winchester, and by Roger of Saiisbury. Winchester had been the site of Bishop Roger’s excheruer and Bishop Henry’s cathedral, and one can presume that the two men had become well acquainted. In 1135 Bishop Henry’s par- tiality for his brother would have blended smoothly with Bishop Roger’s dislike of Milud. At Winchester the royal treasure was handed over to Stephen and the fiscal ad-

32

ministration was placed at hi; disposal (Pot- ter 1955b:15). 48 It remained to make public some persuasive justification for the viola- tion of the oaths to Maud and her son. The break between Henry and Maud in mid-l 135 made it possible for Hugh Bigod, one of the king’s stewards, to ailege that Henry had changed his mind on his deathbed, repudiat- ing Maud and designating Stephen as his heir.49 Hugh’s oath was supported by Roger of Salisbury, and although many remained un- convinced - for Roger had not been at Hen- ry I’s deathbed and neither apparently had Hugh - the story sufficed to persuade Ko- per’s old friend Archbishop William to of- ficiate at Stephen’s coronation (Blake 1962: 285; Poole 1927:86; Stubbs 1876~248; compare Potter 1955a:6-8). On 22 December Stephen was anointed and crowned “in the presence of three bishops (the archbishop and [hose of Winchester and Salisbury), no ab- bots, and very few robles” (Potter 1955b: 1 5-16).M A charter issued by Stephen at Rcad- ing two weeks la)T:r is a itested by Archbishop William, Henry bishop of Winchester, Roger bishop of Salisbury, Hugh Bigod, Payn fitz John, and three other laymen (Cronne and Davis 1968: no. 386; compare nos. 187, 387, 591, 678, am! Round 18S2:10-12).5’ And Roger’s kinsmen - Roger the chancellor, Nigel of Ely, and Alexander of Lincoln - likewise turn up among Stephen’s earliest attestors (Cronne and Davis 1968: nos. 99, 255-6, 335, 373a, 465 585, 716-17, 832, 906, 919, 942, 975). By Easter 1136 Stephen was so well established that the majority of the Anglo-Norman magnates and prelates attended his court (Cronne and Davis 1968: nos. 46,944). David of Scotland’s son, Henry, was there, and so was Brian fitz Count.“’ Shortly afterwards Robert of Gloucester himself arrived and did homage, “after being many

times summoned to the king’s presence by message, and letters” (Potter 1955a:8; 1955b: 17-18’.“” ?l’hese men, and others like them, had no choice but to join Stephen’s band- wagon or forfeit their English lands. But in ihe first critical weeks of Stephen’s bid for power,, when his adherents were few and much ‘was uncertain, Roger of Salisbury was at his side. Henry of Huntingdon says flatly that R.oger did everything in his powtr to give Stephen the crown, rende.;ing him grezt- er service than any other person (Arnold 1879:256,265). In March 1137. when Stephen crossed the Channel to establish his control of Normandy, he was accompanied by his chancellor (Roger of Salisbury’s son) and by Bishops Alexander of Lincoln and Nigel oi; Ely (Roger’s nephews), while Roger him&f governed England in the king’s absence and Roger’s kinsman Adelelm served as royal treasurer (Haskins 1918:124; Cronne and Davis 1968:xix, xxi1 and nos. 31, 67, 313, 397). And Waleran of Meulan, the captive rebel of 1126, became Stephen’s chief adviser.%

Contrar), to the traditional view that Ste- phen was raised to the throne by ‘the great Conquest baronage’ and opposed by Henry I’s ‘new men’ (Jolliffe 1961:201; Southern 1970:220), is seems rather that the succession issue divided the court down the middle, with ‘new men’ on both sides in 1126 and again in the aftermath of Henry’s death. Prior to Stephen’s great court of Easter 1136 most of his key supporters were officials, cltriales, and other ‘new men’ of the previous reign. The only representatives of rich old families among the attestors of his early charters are Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrars, and three junior members of the Clere family. The lord of Clare himself, Richard i’itz Gil- bert, opposed Stephen in 1136; and the Bi-

3.3

gods were not merely old established barons but also royal stewards who had served Henry I faithfully and been much enriched by Eim.5”

While Roger of Salisbury, Hugh Bigod and others hastened into Stephen’s camp at first opportunity, Maud’s friends of 1126 were slow to rally to her support. By abou: Easter 1138, however, Robert of Gloucester had settled his differences with Maud and Geof- frey (Howlett 1889:136). In late Jn~ly of that year King David ied his army into Yorkshire, only to be ,outed a month later at North- allertor, by an English force Icyal to Stephtn. And by late 1139 Maud was herself car I- paigning in England, backed by Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count (Da% 196i: 39-40).

From that time onward England was torn by civil war, and baronial loyalties fluctuat- ed constantly. 56 But through ail the confusion, Maud’s friends of 1126-27 - David of Scot- land, Robert of Gloucester, and Brian fitz Count - fought often for the empress and never against her. King David had declared for Maud and invaded England immediately after Stephen’s coronation. Stephen had forced him to terms in early 1136, and Ste- phen’s northern barons defeated him in 1138, but he remained Maud’s lifelong friend. He rEndered valuable service to her in 114 1, raided Stephen’s kingdom a+11 in 1149, and knighted Maud’s son, the futul e Henry II, in the same year. ” Brian fitz Couqt is described in the Gesta Stejhni as a p::!-son bound I-O Maud by unbreakable ties of affection: “Even in a&versity, great though the danger might be, they were in no way divided” (Pot- ter 1955a:89).5s As for Robert of Gloucester, from I138 to his death in 1147 he was Maud’s captain and. most powerful supporter - the “life and soul” of the Angcvin party (Poole

195&148). Roger of Salisbury had complained that Hen-

ry I, in arranging Maud’s Angevin marriage, had consulted only Robert of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and John bishop of Lisieux (see above note 24). In his capacity as a Nor- man bishop, John played a much more am- biguous role in the years following Henry’s death than Robert or Brian. It may be significant that John was one of only two Nor- man bishops absent from Stephen’s 1136 Easter court, along with Richard bishop of Bayeux, Robert of Gloucester’s natural son (Cronne and Davis 1968: cos. 46, 944).“9 John had been with Henry I on his anti-Angevin campaign of mid-l IS5 (Johnson and Cronne 1956: nos. 1915-16) and after Henry’s death John would doubtless have shared the ambiv- alence of other Normans ot^ the king’s inner circle. His opinion of Maud would have declined still further when thz Angevins burn- ed Lisieux in September I 196 (Howlett 1889: 131; Le PrCvost l&X:75). But whereas John had served as the chief official of Henry’s Norman government, he seems to have been permitted no such authority under Stephen. The principal royal deputies in tt: duchy during the initial months of Stephen’s reign were apparently Waleran of Meulan and his twin, Robert earl of Leicester (Cronne and Davis 1968:xxi.60 When Stephen entered Normandy in force in 1137, John joined his court, but before the king departed for Eng- land ht. appointed as his justiciars William of Roumare, Roger of Saint-Sauveur, vicomte of the Cotentin, “and others”. A charter of 18 December 1138 shows William of Roumare serving as Stephen’s Norman Justiciar, Roger of Saint-Sauveur having been killed the previous January (Haskins 1918:92,127; Le PrP- vost 1 855:91-2).61 But John of Lisieux, despite his remLsva1 from the center of the Norman

34

administration, continued to support Stc:phen for the next several years. His nephen, Ar- nulf archdeacon of SCes, argued SteElhen’s claim before the pope in 1 1X8 (Cronne 1970:

89-92) and in 114 1, when Geoffrey 0: An-

jou was engaged in his conquest of No**mandy, John held Lisieux against him for a, time, surrendering the city only when it became clear that the Angevin tide was too strong to resist (Howlett 1859:142; Le Pr&ost Id.%:

132).

As the civil war dragged on, allegiances dissolved and shifted, particularly among Stephen’s early supporters. Stephen arrested Roger of Salisbury in 1139 for obscure rca- sons. perhaps arising from a rivalry between Bishop Roger and Waleran of Meulan. Wale- rar. himse!f defected in ‘11-i 1 to save his Nor- man patrimony from Angevin confiscation. John of Lisieux, tied to his bishopric, came to terms with whoever controlled the duchy - first Stephen, then the Angevins. As circum- stances changed, interests and loyalties changed with them. But with all due reservd- tions, it remains clear that the partisan divi- sions of the anarchy were prefigured by the factions of 1126 at the court ot Henry 1

NOkS

:> 1 am grateful IO the American Council of s.earn-

ed Societies, the American Philosophical Society, the Social Science Research Council, the Fulbright Com- mission, the John Simoa Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. and the WP. den and Fellows of Merton College, Oxford. for thtir help ir supporting research for this pilpr.

I . . .quis. . . in rcgendi regni statum succedat. corn. muni consilio tractatur (the normal procedure for major policy decisions): for the date see Round IX92:31. 2 Alice failed to conceive during her fifteen-year marriage to Henry I, for reasons that will always remain obscure. After Henry’s death she married

William II of Albini jrlfyal butler and afterwards earl of Arundel) and bore him seven children. Henry I fathered three children by his first wife (one of whom died in infancy) ,-nd at least twenty bastards (Coknyne !!U9: Appendix D). The fact that Robert of Turigny. writing ca. 114_‘-~0~ describes three of Henry’s bustards as udhr jtawws (Marx 1914.307) sugg-sts thlct the king was still fit at the time of his second mal*riage in January 1121. 3 Henr,., V died at Utrecht aged forty-four on 23 May 11,5. 4 Henry’s queen, Matilda or Maud, dau$;er of Kin&r Malcolm and St. Margaret of Scotland, was baptized ‘Edith’. The hyphenated ‘!klth-Maiitda’ is anat hronistic yet useful in distir,guishing her from numerous other Matildas of her tl.ve. For the same reasvm the Empress Matilda will be referred to thrt.ughout this paper ad ‘Mnud’. Henry’s son, Wil- liam is identified !lerein by the cognomen ‘Adelin’ (016 English rrrlh~lit~g. heir to the throne) which 0rdt:ric gives him. i William Ciito. Robert Curthose’s only child, wa5 Henry I'S sole nephew on the male side. Adela countess of Blois was Henry’s only sister to bear children. Of her four sons. William, the eldest, had. for some disability, been denied the comital inheri,- ante: Theobald succeeded as count of Blois in 110” and inherited Champagne in 1125: Stephen became a gre .t Anglo-Norman l~rldholder and count of Boulol ne: Henry, the youngest, fol!owed XI ecclesiastical career (monk of Cluny, then abbot of Glastc iA- bury. bishop of Winchester and legate for England). 6 (‘n Henry !‘s death in December 113.5, Count ‘Thcoh~ld entered Normandy at the invitation of .\Jorman barons who wished to place themselves under his authority. He withdrew relurt;mtly upon hearing of Stephen’s accession (Le Pr&ost 18.X:X; Hov*lett I%Y!).I~-~). During much of Henry’s reign. Theobnld had been his ally against King Louis VI of France. *I

Stephen’s 1128-30 danegeld exemptions of %132 lis. 1 J. for lands in nineteen shires place him among ,he three wealthiest lords in England (with Roger bishop of Salisbury and Robert earl of Gloucester) (Hunter 1835); my calculation is based on 1128-29 or I 19-30 exemmtions, whichr:vcr are higher: city aids

are k.xcludcd). Stephen’s Norman county of Mortain was valued at %I000 a year in Henry II'S rei:.-i

(Kyto1, 1x7s: 1 It?).

S This district included all the lands forme:$’ held by Robert of Bell?mc (the Hi6mois: the forest of (;ouffcrn and thirty-four castles). It was given bv Henry I to Theobald count of Blois in 1118. Theo- bald promptly transfer.ed it to Stephen in return .‘oJ. StFphen’s shale of the paternal inheritance in Bl& 9 Inccm+tence may also ha:Jc prevented tk.: -rlccession of Stephen’s eldest brother, William, to

the county of Blois (Davis 19G7:4). 10 Henry married Robert to the heiress of Robert fit2 Hamon and gave him lands in twenty-three shires as well as in Wales, with danegeld exemptions in ~I~&.-xJ of more than 2125. ‘These lands were later assessed. at oger 260 knights’ fees (at 327 fees including the Welsh lands). Robert was created earl of Gloucester in 1121 or 1122. He attested ninety-six royal charters between II 13 and 1135 (Hunter 1833; johnson and Cronne 1956: nos. 1015a-1973; Sanders :360:(i). 1’ . . .quod spurius sit. Compare Walter of The- rouanne in Pertz 1861:542-59. William of Ypres’ paternal grandfathEr was the Flemish count Robert I (1071--93) but his mother was a commoner. I2 RuxrDr ‘iad it that Robert of Gloucester was advised to claim the throne on Henry’s death but declined to do so (Potter r955a:8). 13 !'e was born not in 1101, as the standard sec- ondary aclthorities state, but on 25 October 1102: BL MS. Cotton Caligula, A. VIII, fo. 41: A.D. 1162: Eodem anno natus est Guillelmus filius R[oberti] comitis die sanctorum Ciispini et Crispiniani in torre Rotomagens . 14 Orderlc p~is the o,‘fer in the context of a full- scale defens: of Henry’s policy and may be exagger- ating. But that some such proposals were made to Clito is con.:istent with Henry’s goal in 1119-20 to resoIve all i.ifferences with his foreign and domestic enemies.. In 1119 he had allied with Anjou, renewed a muney fief with Flanders, and pardoned his rebel barons; in -120 he purchased peace with France. The hcmage of his son William P.delin to Louis VI represented an official French a.cquiescence to Henry’s dominion over Normandy. 15 Within a period of nine months four rebel knigl.:c were blinded (Le Privost 1852:459-60: Marx 1914:295-6j while in England minters were mutilated (Marx 1914:237; Clack 1970:46) and forty-four thieves were hanged and six more blinded and cas- trz ted (Clark 1970:46: “more thieves than had ever besn hanged before”. A perusal of the Leges Hen&+ Primi (Downer 1972) makes it clear that Henry did noi exceed the letter of the customary law against the’t, bad coinage, treason, and slander of the king, but in 1124, as never before, he enforced the law without pity. 16 Henry himself shares reapoosibility for the hostilities, of 1123-24, but their impact oo his attitude toward Clito is evident none the less. In 1124 the potentially dangerous and slightly consanguineous marriage of Clito and Sibylla of Anjou was annulled bv papal legates under Henry’s influence, !’ 3rderic Vita!is adds that when Clito was defend- ing his position in Flanders in 1128, great numhtrs of su>;orters came to him from Normandy (Le P$vost

1852:479; compare th. chronicle of Rouen. S.U. 1128, where William Clito is described as miles nulli com- parabilis probitate (Bouquet 1877:785). 18 Henry had assembled a galaxv of distinguished people at Rouen in 1125. including his queen, his three archbishops, and the legate John of Crema (Johnson and Cronne 1956: nos. 1427-7). It is possible (though unlikely) that Henry’s regent, Roger bishop of Salisbury, visited Normandy in 112.5 (Kealey 1972:150n). 19 Conan of Brittany and Rotrou of Perchc were married to i!iegitimate daughters of Henry I. both named Maud (Rotrou’s Maud had drowned in i 120 in the wreck of the White Ship). Prcscrrt 415~ were Queen Alice, Ouen bishop of Evreux, William de Tancarville the chamberlain, William archbishop of Canterbury, Thurstan archbis:lop of York (at rlhrist- mas, and probably earlier as well), and man! other m-gnates and prelates (Johnson and Cronnc 1!1.5f: nos. 1459-61, 1463. 1466-7. 147.5. 20 The safekeeping of itnportant prisoners could be a matter of vital importance. On the almost cata- strophic consequence of Ranulf Flambard’s escape in 1101 front William de Mandeville’s custody in the Tower of I.ondon, see Hollister 1973a and b. In 1129- 30 a heaqvy fine was assessed a;, ,nst the curialis Aubrey de Vere for permitthlg a prisoner to escape (Hunter 1833:53). 21 Two additional import. ot rebel cartives, H;rgh de Chat~auneuf and Hugh tie Montfort. were incar- cctrated, respectively, at the royal castle of Windsor and at Earl Robert’s castle at Glouccstcr (whose castellan, under the earl. was Walter. sheriff of Gloucester): Clark 19i6:4.5, 47; Potter 19.5.5b:35. 22 Payn fitz John is recorded as holding his shire court at B-idgnorth (Johnson and Cronne 19.56: no. 1473 and p. 3.X). The Gcstn St~~hr~E aller;es that l’ayn was slow to support Stephen (Potter lc).??n:lti). but Payn attested for Stephen at Reading, ca. 4 January I 136, less than t-.vtl weeks after the coronation (Cronne and Davis 968: n)s. 386. 591: Round 1892:11-12). Payn died frghting the Welsh in 1137 and thus played no role in the wars between Stephen itnd Maud. On his career under Henry I set below. note 40. 23 On Brian’s career see Southern 1976:220: Sten- ton 1961:236n.: Round 190l:210-12: Llovd 1939:443: Cronne and Davis 1968.xX. The Pipe Roll of 1 I30 shows Robert of Glouctstcr atid Brian fitz Count fuuctioning a! co-auditors Iif the Winrhester treasury Gil 1128-29 Hunter 18’%:12!)-31) dnd Ilso shows Brian enjoyhg a very substantial Janegeld exemp- tion r?f g72 1s. 4d. (the fifth highest extmptior. of :ny person in England) for lands in clcven diffcient counties. He .rttested more than forty royal charters between 1125 and 1135 (Johnson and Cronne 19.56:

nos. 112.5-1953) and his tenants owed him in excess of 100 knights (Hall 1896:308-10; Sanders 1960:93). In Henry I’s closing years, in short, Brian was one of the king’s wealthiest barons and most active (ctrinlcs. 24 John bishop of Lisieux. the head of Henry’s government in Normandy, was with the king in England in fall I126 (Johnson and Cronne 19.56: no. 1466). He had reason to favor Maud over Clitk), having been at Henry’s side in the war of 1123-24 against Clito’s supporters (Le PrPvost 1852:447). Years before, as archdeacon of S&es, he had fled Normandy during the closing years of Robert Cur- those’s arlarchic rule and had found refuge with r_Ienry in England (Le Privost lK52:4iS-5).

A royal charter attested by Mnud in England in I1 14-16 (Johnson and Cronnc 19%: no. I 174) is clearly a forgery (Robinson 1911:151--4: Barnes and Slnde 1962:9~ and n.). The Wavcrlcy nnnalist nilegrs that early in 112 Henry summoned the empress to England. but that she was prevented from completing her journey (so men said) by Charles crunt of Flan- ders, who refused to permit her to cross his lands (I.uard lX65:21R). Although the Waverlry Annals are a late authority. the story may be true: Henry of Huntipgdon places Henry 1 in Kent after Pentecost (Arnold 1879,244) at about the time that the Waver- ley anna!ist has him at Canterbury awpi:ing Maud’s arrival. Couttt Charles seems to have been on good terms with Henry at the time (Edwards 1866:320; Le PrCvost IX.%? 46tl-,I). but the trouble may have arisen from hostilitrcs between Charles and Maud’s husband. Henry V led an army to Li&ge in 1122 and was strongly sup,>orted by Godfrey count of Louvain (Henry I’s new father-in-law) who had earlier tried to prevent Cllarles’ succession (Wauters 1883:X46-i: Vercauteren 193X:249: Pertz 1861 :.%I?: Riissler 1897: GI-(ii: Meyer van Knonau 1909:273-77). 26 Round discounts this evidence (189?:3ln.) but unconvincingly (compare Chartrou 3928336.-37). Anx- iorls to retarll the royal favor, Roger of Salisbury actually supervised the oath-taking ceremony of 1127 (Weaver 191)X.2?: Arnold 1879:2.5(i). ?? Reared in hii uncle’s household. Alexander began his ecclesiastic;1 career in I121 as archdeacon of Salisbury and obtained the see of Lincoln in 1123 through Roger’s influence (Clark lY70:44). ?B Besides Roger and Alexander. the group includ - cd Roger’s nephew Nigel, royal treasurer and subsequently bishop of Ely (I 133-69): Roger’s nephew (or san) Adelelm, King Stephen’s treasurer: Roger’s WI Roger ‘le Pocr’, King Stephen B chancellor: and several arrhdearons. Later generations of the family would produce distinguished royal officers such as Richard fitz Nigel - author of the Dinlogus de SCCN- cmio - and William of Ely (Kealey 1972).

29 For exzmple, Henry I was nearly deceived by the efforts of Henry of St. Jean d’Ange1y into placing the abbey of Peterborough under the authority of Cluny, but “by the mercy of God r.nd by means of the bishop of Salisbury, the bishop of Lincoln. and other powerful men ~110 were there, the king per- ceived that he was behaving treacherously” (Clark 1970:54). 30 Tuqc: pater patriae, princeps a rege secundus, i Praesul .jlexander, si quae perscripsimus apta, / Laude tua niteant, minus apta precamur ut aptes. 31 The point must not, however, be pycc:*d too far: elsewhere (256) Henry includes Roger among the oat’l-violators who suffered the j,lst judgment of God. 32 For the names of importar.: Anglo-Normans WI;.) studied at Lawn see MPL 156:962-1018. The subject has been much discussed: see. for example, T;ltlock 1933. Martinet 1963: Poole 1912:53-6. 3: Thurstan archbishop of York traveled separ- a cly. William’s party also inc’u&d John bishop of (,las+w, Geoffrey abbot of St. Albans, and Thurstan ahbrt of Sherborne, a house cli-ectly dependent on Rag ‘r of Salisbury and raised from a priory to an abbev by Roger in 1122 (Johnson and Cronne 1956: ms. 1042, 13241. The delegation obtained a papal Iettt r confirming all of Roger of Salisbury’s pos- ;Jess:ons (Hol!zmann 1936:llln.).

Lanfranc had been abbot of Caen. Anselm had :,een abbot of Bet, Ralph had been abbot of SCes and Irishop of Rochester. William had tjeen prior of St. Osyth’s, and William’s successor, Theobald, was previously abbot of Bee. Ironically. Becket was the first post-Conquest archbishop of Canterbury to ripr from the king’s household. 35 Mortuo regt Willelmo tram mare, filium eius Willelmum, sirut pater constituit, Lanfrancus in regcm elegit. et in ecclesia beati Petri. sacrauit. et coronauit. 36 Dated at Winchester i;; [January] 1127 et hoc consilio baronum meorum. The consilio probably OC-

curred at ihe I 126-27 Christmas court, where John of Worcester setsms to place the transaction (Weaver 1908:23). Ioh], mentions the Rochester gift (likewise consilio baronurn suorum) s.n. 1126, immrldiately following his discussion of the oath-taking. and immediately preceding the 1126 obits The chronicle then continues with the next ytar da’e and events of

1127. 37 A further indication of Robert of Gloucester’s early attachment to Maud is to be found in Cronne and Davi: 196X: no. 898 (A.D. 1126-31. at L0nd.m). the only charter known to have been issued by Mlud in Englar+:l prior to Henry I’s death. 1’ts two attestors are Robe3 t earl of Gloucester crnd R;lnull (I or II?) earl of C?ester. The charter suggests that Hew had given Mcaud lands in Hampshire. No such lands are

37

recorded in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, but important portions of its Hampshire accounts are miss- ing. 38 The charter is a little suspicious. 39 Queen Alice. Rotrou count of Perche and a num- ber of others were also with Henry at Woodstock - his favorite hunting place. 4s Among those reared at Henry’s court were King David, Robert of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, and the captive Waleran of Meulan. On Brian see above. note 23. Roger of Salisbury, who began as an obscure priest of Avranches, directed Henry’s household for some years prior to Henry’s accession in 1100 and was tte royal chancellor from 110 to 1102 or 1103 when he received his bishopric. Besides his important work in the excheqc..er, he served as Hen;*y’s regent in England from I123 onward. He enjoyed danegeld exemptions in 1128-30 of ~153 is. 8d. (the highest of any person in England) for !ands in fifteen shirts (Kealey 1972:27i and throughout). He attested songe 247 ckcters Toi Henry I throughout the thirty-five year reign. Payn fitz John is said by Walter Map (perhaps wrongly) to have been one of Henry’s chamberlains (James 1914:220). He became sheriff of Herefordshire (ca. 1123 ff.) and Shropshire (ca. 1121 ff.), received valuable lands along the Welsh frontier (Cronne and Davis 1968: no. 312), attested some sixty royal charters between ca. 1115 and 1135. and probably served as an itinerant justice in the west (Wightman 19GG:175-81; Darlington 1968: no. 1%: Johnson and Cronne 1956: nos. 1052-3942: Hun- te;_ l:r33:13G). 31 But Robert of Gloucester, Maud’s iialf-brother, was itlao the first cousin of borh Wil1iar.r C!ito ai:d Stephen. King David. Maud’s uncle, \sas unrelated to Clito but was the unclr of Stephen’s n ife. Brian fitz Count wds distantly ,.:lated to Maud, Clito, and Stephen: Duke Richard I of Normandy (942-936) was the great-great-great grandfather of all four. 42 Stephen’s second son, William, was horn some- time between 1132 and 1137 (Clay 1949:14--15). 43 On Brian’s association with Henry during the king’s final stay in Normandy (1133-3.5) see Johnson and Cronne 3956: nos. 1899, 1900-1902, 1908, 1911, and (?) 1934. Stcp!~en himself may have served in the 1135 campaign (Johnson and Cronne 19%;: nos. 1932, 1934, 1941), but he was in Boulogne at the time of Henry’s death (Ho~!ctt 1889:127). 44 Origo igitur mdximarum dissentionum inter Normanniae proceres pullulabat. Nam eorum quidam Andegavensi favebsnt., . (mid-l 135). Among these anti-royalist friends of Anjou were ‘William Talvas and Roger de Toeni (Le PrCvost 1955:4G-47, 57, 58-59. 45 ?t had occurred in 1118-19 and again. in 1123- 24 (i-lollister and Keefe 1973:9-I 1).

46 In the wariare in Normandy after Henry’s death, th:: Normans seem ti: have hated Stephen’s Flemish mercenaries no 1‘:s~ than they hated the Angevins. Their hatred of both arose primarily from atrocities committed by Flemish and Angevin warriors in Normandy at just that time. 47 According to Orderic, the invasion began during the firs! weerc of December. Robert of Torigny dates the negotiatitms with Theobald 21-22 December. 48 Roger and William de Pont de l’Arche, sberiff of Hampshire alld chamberlain of the treasury, de- livered the treasure to Stephen. As head of the exchequer, Roger was in a position to sway various administrati. e officers and sheriffs. For the names of some nf Henry’s local and court officials who joined Stephen at the opening ,r his reign see below. note 55. 49 The Bigods, a minor family of pre-Conquest Normandy, ac.luired some F Iglish lands after the Conquest. The Conqueror subsequently enriched Hugh’s father, Roger Bigod. with lands forfeited by Ralph earl of Norfolk. &oger Bigod was further enriched by Henry I, who granted him Framlingham. Suffolk. Roger was a sheriff in East Anglia. a royal steward, and an active crrrinlis of William I, Wil- liam II. and Henry I. Hugh inherited the family honor and royal stewardship in 1120 and was fre- quer ‘1: at Henry I’s court, attesting forty-seven known royal ch 1 t<ir between 1121 and 1135. He was apparently with Henry’s court in fall 112G (Johnson and Cronne 195G: no. 14.51). and he was with Henry at Rouen in 113.5 (Round 1899: no. 590). Ulgcr bishop of Angers testifir:d at the papal court in 1139 that Hugh had not been present at Henry’s deathbed (Poole 1927:88). Hugh shifted his allegiance three times during Stephen’s reian and became earl of Norfolk ca. 1141. so Malmesbury’s statement is corroborated by Cronne and Davi! 1968: n L 45: a charter of Stephen’s dated 26 December, 1135, at Westminster, attested by (only) Archbishop William and Bishops Henry and Roger. The only other charters that may have been issued around the time of the coronation are nos. 270 (attested only by the steward William Mattel an1 500 (attested only by Bishop Henry). 51 The occasion of the visit waj Henry I’s funeral. The other attestors arc Lk tllinm de I’ont de 1’Ar hc (chamberlain of the Winch ster treasury). Robert !Itz Richard (royal steward and member of the Clarc family), and Ingelrnm de Say (not lord of Clun. JS

Round ;illeges, but a member of a cadet branch of the Say family, which held a mesne tenancy under Stephen in Henry I’s reign: Johnson and Cronne 19.N: no. 1.544). 52 On Stephen’s settlement with Kirg David see Davis 1967:21.

38

53 Robert B. Patterson (1968) argues that Robert of GlrlucesfPr must hav: come to Stephen’s court prior to Easter i 136, because he attested a charter of Stephen’s ‘Jearing the date 11%. An analysis of Stephen’s itinerary. however, makes it clear that the charter was issued in the middle months of 1136 when Stephen was traveling to or from the siege of Exeter, and that the date ‘MCXXXV’ is a scribe’s or copyist’s error (Cronne and Davis 1968: no. 818 and pp. xiii-xiv for the dating idiosyncrasies of Scriptor xiii - the probable scribe). I am not persuaded by the argument in Patterson 196.5: for a brief criticism of Patterson’s ronc!usions see Davis 1967:ldc, and for a more comprehensive critique, see Leedom 1974. 54 Walcran was betrothed to Stephen’s daughter and in 1136 fought in Stephen’s behalf in p!ormandy, recovering the royal castle of Vaudreuil from Roger de Toeni. Stephen granted Walernn the earldom of Worcester in 1133. He fought on .ftcr Stephen’s rapture ‘n February 1111. but then shifted to the Angevir,s in order to preserve his extensive dominions i:l Normandy (Davis 1967:67-S: Cronne 1970:5&l. 169; Cokayne 1969:829-37). 55 The Bigods were not strictly speaking an old- line Gnquest family: see above note 49. The Glares who attest pre-Easter ch:;rters are Walter ;ltz Richard. Baldwin fitz Gilbert, and Robert fitz Richard. All three were younger sons of the lord ol Clare and all had made their fortunes under Henry I (Sanders 1960:107. 110-11. 129). Rober fitz Richard. the most frequent of thi: pre-Easter Clare attestors, was a royal steward (Cronne and Davis 19~8: xviii: Calcy 1X30:147). Henry I gave him the forfeited honor of Wlllinm Baynard fios.’ 11 10. The senior Clilre. Richard fitz Gilbert, lord of Glare and Card. gan and one of Henry I’s great mal:nates. was in arms against Stephen when ambushed and killed by the Welsh on 1.5 April 1136 (Potter 1955a:lO-11). Robert de Ferrars N~S from a middling baronial family of the Conquest whose English lands were valued in Domesday Book at about 6.543 a year - a ‘Class B’ family on W. J. Corbett’s scale (1926:510-l 1). Stephen also seems to have been supported from the ‘Jeginning by the Beaurronts (Cronne and Davis I:WB:xxi) - whose English holdings were modest in the Con- queror’s days (Corbett 1926:51 .l but expanded very significantly under William II a’ d F enry I (Sanders l!KO:61. !)3). Other men whw: I ames occur in Stcsphen’s prr-Easter 1136 chart rs include adminis- urn tars and ‘new men’ such as OK ! teward William M-1 tel. the treasury chamberlains \Jilliam de Pant tic Arche, the shrriff and royal jJstirc Payn fitz John. thf, constable RoGert de Verc, t 1~’ c mstahle. justice, ant sheriff Mile.; of Gloucester the -chamberlain of the CU?~P~U curic,r William Mauduit. and, of course, the most CP’ -braced and successful of all Henry I’s

climbers, Roger of Salishury and his kin. William of Malmeshury is clearly correct in his comment that Stephen was crowned in the presence of ~~arrrissimis c~j~iinzatibzts (Potter l!~.~ib:l~i). Yh SCC the useful chr:rt of shifting nllcgianccs in Davis 1967, Appendix II. 57 David’s invasions served his own e!lds as well, but he had always kept the peace under Henry I and would almost certainly have continued to do so had Maud succeeded her father. Contemporaries portray David as an idealist and a man of honor. In the 1110’s he was Mau,l’s “most-favourcr! :,I:?d” - a member of “the hard core” 01 Biephen’s opposition (Davis 196i:93. 9;: Ritchie i!LG:Z.i7-2.59: Warren 19i3: 1 X0). St? Brian is said to have written a pamphlet !,now lost) in support of the empress’ claims (Richardson ilntl Sayles I!K3:27s). ,\ surviving letter of Brian’s to Henry bishop of Winchester rnstigates the b;shop and others who had violated their oaths and betr.nyed Maud (Davis l!~lO:301--5). 59 John apptars in only three of Stephen’s charters. all issued during the king’s one visit to Normandy. in 1137 (Cronne and Davis l!,‘jX: nos. 29X, 327, 608: compare no. 843. John attests the charter of Stephen’s queen in 1137 at Evreux.) On the attend- ance of 4nglo-Norman bishops at Stephen’s 1136 Easter court see Davis 1967:22n. b0 On John’s role in Normanr!y under Henry I. possibly as ‘chief justiciar’, see Haskins 191%:87-99. Waleran zncl Robert were of course funt-titming chiefly as military rather than jlidicial deputies of King Stephen. and it would therefore he misleading to insist that they literally ‘succeeded’ John. 61 Ncustriae vcro justitinrios C;uillelmum de Rol- mara ct Rogerium vicecomitem aliosque n,)rjnullus cor,stituerat. Compare Cronne and Davis l%i’i:xxi- xxii. Haskins (191x:321) shows John functioning with judicial ;_uthority in 118. hut seemingly in his capacity as bishop of Lisicux rather than as just;ciar of Normandy. The case concerned the church of Dives in the diocese of Lisicux. and was heard by John in the presence of the dean of Lisieux. two archdeactrns. and three other local personages.

Literature Arnold, ‘I’. (cd.) ,879. Henry trf Hunting~lon. I:istoria

Anglorum. KS London. Barlow. 1:. (etl.) 19(i’L. Vita I?dwnrdi rcgis. I,ondon. Barnes, I’. M. arid C. F. Sladc (cds.) l!lfi;‘. A medieval

miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton. Pipe Roll Society. London.

Blake. E. 0. ied.) I~Mip. Likr Elienoir. Ca.mden Strei- ety third series 92. London.

isouquel. ~4. and &err (rd.) I 877. Eu rhrunico Hcrtomagen~i. Rrcueil des hist~~riel~s de.) GMJIPI et de !a France 12:7X4-6. Paris

P-~li,~e. I:. N. I,. 1963 The Saxon and No.,man kingr.

,qew York. (.aley. J. and others (ed.) 1830. Monrrticc.n Anglica-

num, 6. London. CIlartrou. J. 1928. L’Anjou de I I99 ir 11.51. Paris. Clark, C. (ed.) 1970. The Peterborough chronicle,

i070-i 1.54. Second edition. Oxford. ( lay, C. T. (ed.) 1949. Early YIlrkshire charters. 8.

The horrour of Warenne. Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Huddersfield.

L jokayne], G. E. (ed.) 1949. The complete peerage, I I. London.

C,okayne], G. E. (ea.) 19.59. The CtJmpkk peerage. I2 (2). London.

Corbett, W. J. 1926. The development of the duchy of Normandy and the Norman conquest of England. Cambridge medieval history. .5:481-.520. Cambridge.

Cronne. H. A. 1970. The reign of Stephen. London. Cronne. H. A. and R. H. C. Davis (ed.) 1968. Regesta

regum Anglo-Normannorum, 3. Regesta Regis Stephani. 1135-i 154. Oxford.

Darlington. R. R. (ea.) 1968. The cartulary of Worcester Cathedral Priory. Pipe Roll Society. London.

Davis, H. W. C. 1910. The battle of Tinchebrai: A crlrrection. English historical review 25:295-303.

Davis. R. H. C. 1967. King Stephen. London. Dickinsor . J. C. 19.50. The origins of the Austin

Canons and their introduction into England. Lon- don.

Downer. l,. J. (ed.) 1972. Leges Henrici Primi. Ox- ford.

Earlc, .I. and C. Pibinmer (eds.) 1892. Vita Lanfranci. Two uf the Saxon chronicles parallel. 1, 287-92. Oxford.

Edwards. 1 (ed.) IF%. Chronica monasterii de Hida juxta Wintoniam. Liber monasterii de Hyda. 283- 32;. RS London.

Eyton, R. W. 1878. COUJt, household and itinerary of King Henry IT. London.

Haddan A. W. and W. Stubbs (ea.) 1878. Councils and ecclesiastical documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, 3. Oxford.

Hall. H. (ea.) 1896. The red book of the exchequer, I. RS. London.

Halphen. L. and R. Poupardin (ed.) 1913. Chroniques des comtes d’Anjou et des seigncurs d’Amboise. Paris.

Haskins. C. H. 1918. Norman institutions. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Hollister, c. W. 1973a. The Anglo-Norman civil war:

lish historical review 8N:.‘Ii 4-34. ~.I~~lIi~ter, C. W. i%7.% The mi&rtlrnes of tllr

~~n[I~~jlles. History .58: I s-28. Hollisfer. C. W. and T. K. Keefe. 1979 The making

of the Angcvin Empire. Journal of British studies I” (2): I-L.;.

Holbmann, W. 19% Papsturkunden in England, 2. Berlin.

Howilett. H. (ed.) i&89. Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II an 1 Richard I, 4. The chronicle of Robert of Torigni. KS. London.

Ilunter. J. (ed.) IRM. The pipe roll o.^ 31 Henry I. London.

James, M. R. (ed.) i9:4. Walter ;ti~p, De nugis curialium. Ox-ford.

John. E. 1966. Orbis Bri#anniac. Leicrzter. Johnson, C. (ed.) 1961. Hugh the Chant.o., The history

of the church of York, i ObS-1127. Loraon. lohnson. C 2nd H. A. Cronne (ed.) 1!>.56. Regesta

regum Anglo-Normannor,m. 2. Rtccsta Henrici Primi. Oxford.

.lolliffe, J. E. A. 1961. The constitutinn.d history of medieval England. Fourth edition. ? PW York.

Xeaiey, E. J. 1972. Roger of Salisbury. viceroy of England. Berkeley.

Leedom, J. W. 1974. William of Malmesbury and Robert of Gloucester reconsidered. Alblon 6(3) : 25 i-63.

Le Patourel, J. 1971. The Norman succession, 996 113.5. English historical review 86:22.5-50.

Le Patourel, J. 1973. What did not happen in Stephen’s reign. History 67:1-17.

I,e PrCvost, A. (ea.) 184.5. Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica, 3. Paris.

Le Pr&ost. A. (ed) 18.52. Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica, 4. Paris.

Le PrCvost, A. (ed.) 185.5. Orderic Vitalis. Historia ecclesiastica, 5. Paris.

Liebermann, F. (ed.) 1903. Die Gesetze der Angel- sachsen, 1. Halle.

Liebermann, F. (ed.) 1916. Die Gesetze dar Angel- sachsen, 3. Halle.

Lloyd, J. E. 1939. A history of Wales. Thircl edition. 2. London.

Luard. H. R. (ed.) l&65. Annales monnsterii de Waverleia. Annaies monastici 2:127--l 1 I. RS. ton- don.

Martinet, S. 1963. Le voyage des Laonnais en Angle- terre en 1113. Memoires de la federation des SociCtGs d’histoire et d’arch{ologie de l’Aisne 9: 81-92.

Marx. J. (ed.) 1914. Gesta Normannorum ducum. Rouen.

Meyer von Knonau, G. 1909. Jahrbiicher des deut- schen Reichs unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V. 7. Leipzig.

40

Nicholl, D. 1964. Thurstan archbishop of York (I 114~- Wauters, i\. IS ;3. Godefroid ler, comte de Louvain. I 140). York. Acadimic ro).ale de Belgique. Biographie nati#.male

Patterson, R. B. 1965. William of Malmesbury’s 73842-51. Bruxelles. Robert of Gloucesrer: a re-evaluation of the Weaver, ,I. R. H. (ed.) 190X. The chronicle of John His/o& noudln. American historical review 70: of Worcester. Oxford. 9x3-97 Wightman, W. E. 1966. The Lacy family in England

Pattersor, R. B. 1968. Stephen’s Shaftesbury charter: and Normandy. Oxford. another case against William of Malmestury. Speculum 43:487-92.

Pertz, G. H. (ed.) 1861. Walter of ThCrouanne, Vita Karoli Comitis. MGH. Script:,res 12537-61. Han- nover.

Pirenne, H. (ed.) 1891. Galbcrt de Bruges. Histoire du meurtre de Charles le Bon. Paris.

Poole, R. L. 1953. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta. Second edition. Oxford.

Poole, R. L. 1912. The exchequer in the twelfth century. London.

Poole, R. L. (ed.) 1,127. John r)f Salisbury, Historia pontificalis. Oxfor*l.

Potter. K. R. (ed.) 19.5.5a. Gesta Stephani. J>ondon. Potter. K. R. (ed.) 1955b. William of Malmeshury.

Historia novella. 1 ,ondon. Richardson, H. G. and G. 0. Saylcs. 1963. The

governance of mediaevnl England. Edinburgh. Ritchie, R. L. G. 1954. The Normans in Scotland.

Edinburgh. Robinson, J, A. 1911. Gilbert Crispin, abbot of West-

minster. Cambridge. Rijssler, 0. 1897. KJiserin Mathilde. Berlin. Round. J. H. 1892. Geoffrey de Mandeville. London. Round, J. 1T. (ed.) 1899. Calendar of documents

pres *rved in France. London. Round. .J. H. 1901. Peerage and family history. New

York. Sanders. 1. J. 1960. English baronies. a study of

their origin and descent, 1086-3327. Oxford. Southern, R. W. 197n. Medieval humanism and other

studies. Oxford. Stenton, F. M. 1961. The first century of English

feudalism, 1066-I 166. Second edition. Oxford. Stuk.bs. W. (ed.) 1868. Roger of Hoveden, Chronica,

1. RS. Londm. Stuhbs, W. (ed.) 1876. Ralph de Diceto, Opera

hlstorica. I. RS. London. Stuhbs, W. (ed.) 1887. William of Malmesbury, Gesta

requm Anglorum, 1. RS. London. Stubbs, W. (ed.) 1889. William of Malmeshury. Gesta

regum An$orum, 2. RS. London. Tatlock, J. S. P. 1933. The English journey of the

Laon canons. Speculum 8: 454-65. Vercauteren, F. (ed.) 193X. Actes des comtes de

Flandre, IO7 1-I 128. Bruxelles. Waquet, H. (ed.) 1964. Suger. Vie de Louis VI le

Gros. Paris. Warren, W. L. 1973. Henry II. London.

Documents

The Anglo-Norman succession debate of II26: Prelude to Stephen's anarchy