Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

Chapter XXI: Conclusion (4)

Text size

What, then, was its date? The clue, unfortunately, is slight; but it may not improbably belong to the close of 1175 or early part of 1176. This brings us to the interesting question, why was such a writ issued? Remembering that during his stay at Dublin (November 1171-January 1172) Henry II had granted that city to his men of Bristol, we may hold it in accordance with the spirit of the time, and, indeed, a matter of virtual certainty, that Bristol would have striven on the strength of this grant to exclude 'its rival port' (_Conquest of England_, p. 443) from the benefits of the Dublin trade. Chester would, therefore, appeal to the King on the strength of its antecedent rights, and would thus have obtained from him this writ, recognizing and confirming their validity.

The Domesday customs of the city (i. 262_b_) contain a curious allusion to its Irish trade:

Si habentibus martrinas pelles juberet prepositus regis ut
nulli venderet donec sibi prius ostensas compararet, qui hoc
non observabat xl. solidis emendabat ... Hæc civitas tunc
reddebat de firma xlv. lib et iii. timbres pellium martrinium.

There is nothing to show where these marten skins came from, or why they are mentioned under Chester alone. But on turning to the customs of Rouen, as recorded in the charters of Duke Henry (1150-1) and King John (1199), we find they were imported from Ireland.

Quæcunque navis de Hibernia venerit, ex quo caput de Gernes
[Guernsey] transierit, Rothomagum veniat, unde ego habeam
de unaquâque nave unum tymbrium de martris aut decem libras
Rothomagi, si ejusdem navis mercatores jurare poterint se ideo
non mercatos fuisse illas martras ut auferrent consuetudinem
ducis Normanniæ, et vicecomes Rothomagi de unaquaque habeat
viginti solidos Rothomagi et Camerarius Tancarvillæ unam
accipitrem aut sexdecim solidos Rothomagi.

Giraldus Cambrensis, it may be remembered, alludes to the abundance of martens in Ireland,[3] and describes how they were captured. We thus have evidence in Domesday of the Irish trade with Chester, even in the days of Edward the Confessor.

[Footnote 1: The error as to the Chester writ was explained by
me in a letter to the _Academy_ (No. 734).]

[Footnote 2: _Conquest of England_, p. 440.]

[Footnote 3: 'Martrinarum copia abundant hic silvestria'
(_Top. Hib._, i. 24).]

WALTER TIREL AND HIS WIFE

In his detailed examination of all the evidence bearing on the death of William Rufus, the late Mr Freeman carefully collected the few facts that are known relative to Walter Tirel. They are, however, so few that he could add nothing to what Lappenberg had set forth (ii. 207) in 1834. He was, however, less confident than his predecessor as to the identity of Walter Tirel with the Essex tenant of that name in Domesday. I hope now to establish the facts beyond dispute, to restore the identity of Walter Tirel, and also to show for the first time who his wife really was.

The three passages we have first to consider are these, taking them in the same order as Mr Freeman:

Adelidam filiam Ricardi de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum
conjugem habuit, quæ Hugonem de Pice, strenuissimum militem,
marito suo peperit (_Ord. Vit._).

Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde R. quod tenuit Phin dacus pro
ii. hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio (_Domesday_, ii. 41).

Adeliz uxor Walteri Tirelli reddit compotum de x. marcis
argenti de eisdem placitis de La Wingeham (_Rot. Pip._, 31
Hen. I).

Dealing first with the Domesday entry, which comes, as Mr Freeman observed, 'among the estates of Richard of Clare', I would point out that though Ellis (who misled Mr Freeman) thought that 'Tirelde' was the name, the right reading is 'tenet Walterus Tirel de R[icardo]', two words (as is not unusual) being written as one. Turning next to the words of Orderic, we find that Lappenberg renders them 'Adelaide, Tochter des Richard Giffard', and Mr Freeman as 'a wife Adelaide by name, of the great line of Giffard'. But there is no trace of a Richard Giffard, nor can 'Adelida' herself be identified among the Giffards. The explanation of the mystery, I hold, is that she was the daughter, not of a Giffard, but of Richard _de Clare_, by his wife Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard the elder. It is noteworthy that Orderic employs a precisely similar expression in the case of another Adeliza, the daughter of Robert de Grentmesnil. He terms her 'soror Hugonis de Grentemaisnil de clara stirpe Geroianorum', though she was only descended from the famous Geroy through her mother. Richard's daughter was sufficiently described as 'Adelida filia Ricardi', just as her brothers were known as 'Gilbertus filius Ricardi', 'Rogerus filius Ricardi', etc. The position of that mighty family was such that this description was enough, and they were even known collectively as the 'Ricardi', or 'Richardenses' (_Mon. Ang._, iv. 609). This is well illustrated by the passage in the Ely writer, describing Adeliza's brother Richard, Abbot of Ely, as

parentum undique grege vallatus, quorum familiam ex Ricardis
et Gifardis constare tota Anglia et novit et sensit. Ricardi
enim et Gifardi, duæ scilicet ex propinquo venientes familiæ,
virtutis fama et generis copia illustres effecerat.

The above forms are curious, but not without parallel. Thus the descendants of Urse d'Abetot are spoken of as 'Ursini' in Heming's Cartulary. Æthelred of Rievaulx speaks of 'Poncii' and 'Morini' as present at the battle of the Standard; Gerald, in a well-known passage (v. 335), speaks of the 'Giraldidæ' and 'Stephanidæ', and Orderic, we have seen, of the 'Geroiani'.

The doubly influential character of this descent is well illustrated in this passage (_quantum valeat_) from the chronicle of St John's Abbey, Colchester.

Parcebatur tamen Eudoni, propter genus uxoris ipsius Rohaisæ:
erat enim hæc de genere nobilissimo Normannorum, filia
scilicet Ricardi, qui fuit filius Gilbert Comitis, duxitque
Rohaisam uxorem, quæ erat soror Willelmi Giffardi, Episcopi
Wintoniæ. Itaque, cum fratres et propinqui junioris Rohaisæ
quoslibet motus machinaturi putarentur, si contra maritum
ipsius aliquid durius decerneretur, sic factum est ut
interventu predicti Episcopi, etc., etc.

This passage is, I believe, the sole evidence for the real parentage of Bishop William. It was clearly unknown to Canon Venables, who wrote the Bishop's life for the _Dictionary of National Biography_.

Like most of these 'foundation' histories, this document is in part untrustworthy. But it is Dugdale who has misread it, and not the document itself that is responsible for the grave error (_Baronage_, i. 110) that Eudo's wife was 'Rohese, daughter of Walter Giffard, Earl of Buckingham'. Here again, as in the Tirel case, the daughter of a Clare, by a Giffard, is converted into a Giffard. The error arose from referring the 'qui' to Eudo instead of to his father-in-law, Richard. The 'Historia' is perfectly consistent throughout in its identification of the younger Rohese, of whom it states that 'commorata est marito annis triginta duobus, cui ante habiles annos nupta est' (iv. 609).

In asserting under 'Clare' (_Baronage_, i. 208) that Eudo married the widow (not the daughter) of Richard, Dugdale relied on another and more inaccurate document (_Mon. Ang._, v. 269) which actually does speak of

Rohesia una sororum Walteri [Giffard secundi]--duas plures
enim habuit--conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio Gilberti,
qui in re militari, tempore Conquestoris, omnes sui temporis
magnates præcessit--

as marrying Eudo Dapifer after her husband's death. But we must decide in favour of the Colchester narrative: Eudo's wife was her daughter and namesake.

We see then that Walter Tirel was son-in-law to Richard de Clare, who had enfeoffed him in 'Laingaham' before 1086. Now this 'Laingaham' was Langham in Essex, just north of Colchester, which gives us an important clue. Walter's widow 'Adeliz' was in possession in 1130 (_Rot. Pip._, Hen. I) because, as we have seen, it was probably given her by her father 'in maritagio'. But her son Hugh held it under Stephen, and Anstis saw among the muniments of the Duchy of Lancaster a mortgage of it by Hugh to Gervase 'Justiciar of London'. I have not yet identified this 'mortgage', but the confirmation of it to Gervase de Cornhill by Earl Gilbert de Clare, as chief lord of the fee, is extant,[1] and its first witness is Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, so that it cannot be later than 1148, or earlier than 1138 (or 1139). Moreover in yet another quarter (Lansdown MS. 203, 15 dors.) we find a copy of a charter by this latter Earl Gilbert, belonging to the same occasion, which runs as follows:

Com. Gilb. de Penbroc omnibus hominibus Francis et Anglis sal.
Sciatis me concessisse illam convencionem et vendicionem quam
Hugo Tirell fecit Gervasio de Chorhella de manerio suo de
Laingham parte mea. Nam Comes de Clara ex parte sua illud idem
concessit, de cuius feodo predictum manerium movet.

Both charters contain the curious 'movet' formula, in England so rare that I think I have not met with any other instance. It is, of course, equivalent to the regular French phrase: 'sous sa mouvance'. This mortgage or sale was probably effected as a preliminary to the crusade of 1147, in which Hugh Tirel is known to have taken part. Now the above Gervase, as I have shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, was no other than Gervase de Cornhill, and after his death we find Langham duly in the possession of his son, Henry de Cornhill.[2] The chain of evidence is thus complete, and the identity of the Tirels and of their Manor placed beyond question.

But returning to the parentage of Walter's wife, we find that it raises a curious question by the family circle to which it introduces us. For we now learn that Gilbert and Roger, sons of Richard de Clare, who were present at Brockenhurst when the King was killed, were brothers-in-law of Walter Tirel, while Richard, another brother-in-law, was promptly selected to be Abbot of Ely by Henry I, who further gave the see of Winchester, as his first act, to William Giffard, another member of the same powerful family circle.[3] Moreover, the members of the house of Clare were in constant attendance at Henry's court, and 'Eudo Dapifer', whose wife was a Clare, was one of his favourites. I do not say that all this points to some secret conspiracy, to which Henry was privy, but it shows at least that he was on excellent terms with Walter Tirel's relatives.

I have explained in my article on the Clares in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ that there has been much confusion as to the family history. As the errors are very persistent, it may perhaps be of some service, especially for identifying names, if I append a pedigree for the period of the Tirel connection, which will distinguish the descendants of Count Gilbert, 'illustrious in his forefathers and his descendants'.

Two charters will illustrate the attendance of the family at court in the early days of Henry I. An interesting charter belonging to Christmas, 1101, is attested by 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi et Robertus filius Baldwini et Ricardus frater ejus', while the attestations to one of September 3, 1101, comprise 'G[islebertus] filius R[icardi] R[ogerus] (or R[obertus]) frater suus W[alterus] frater suus.... R[obertus] (or R[icardus]) filius B[aldwini].'[4]

Among the most persistent of errors are those which identify Richard 'filius Baldwini' with Richard de Redvers (who was of a different family and died long before him), and which make this compound Richard an Earl of Devon.

Planché endeavoured to slay the former of these errors--which, originating in the _Monasticon_, is embalmed in Dugdale's _Baronage_--as Taylor had previously done in his 'Wace', and the Duchess of Cleveland has rightly observed in her _Battle Abbey Roll_ (1889) that 'there is not the slightest authority for assuming' the identity. But the necessity for again correcting the error is shown by its reappearance in Mr Freeman's _Exeter_ (1887) and by the life of Baldwin de Redvers, in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, by Mr Hunt, which begins by stating that he was 'the eldest son of Richard, Earl of Devon, the son of Baldwin de Moeles', whereas his father was not an Earl, and was not the son of Baldwin de Moeles.

I may also take this opportunity of pointing out that (as is shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_) Richard fitz Gilbert (d. 1136) was not an earl, the earldom of Herts having been ante-dated like that of Devon.

Dugdale again has omitted, because he failed to identify, another daughter of the house of Clare, who made a most interesting match. This was 'Adelidis de Tunbridge', wife of William de Percy, a niece and namesake, I confidently suggest, of Walter Tirel's wife. She seems to have brought into the Percy family the names of Richard and Walter. The charters which establish, I think, her identity are those of Sallay Abbey, in which Maud (widow of William, Earl of Warwick) and her sister Agnes (ancestress of the later Percies) speak of their mother as 'Adelidis de Tunbridge' (_Mon. Ang._, v. 512-13). She can only, therefore, in my opinion, have been a daughter of Gilbert 'de Tunbridge'; and with this conclusion the dates harmonize well. Yet another daughter was Margaret, wife of William de Montfichet, who brought into that family the names of Gilbert and Richard.

Count Gilbert,
of Brionne.
Benefactor to Bec.
Murdered 1040
|
--------------------------------------------(connect to
| Richard de Bienfaite)
|
Albreda=(1) Baldwin (2) Emma
de Meules, =
_alias_ de Clare, |
_alias_ Baldwin of |
Exeter, _alias_ |
Baldwin the |
Sheriff [of Devon]. |
Benefactor to Bec |
| (connect
| to Roger,
| 'filius Ricardi')
------------------------------------------- -----
| | |
William,[1] Robert,[2] Richard, Gilbert,
'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini', 'filius Baldwini',
Sheriff of Devon, held Brionne Sheriff of _alias_ Gilbert
1090 (see p. 256). against Robert Devon, 1129. de Tunbridge,
Benefactor to Bec of Normandy Died 1136.[3] mar. Adeliza
in 1090. Benefactor to Bec de Clermont
Benefactor to Bec (see p. 394)
|
----------------------------------------(connect
| | to Baldwin,
| | 'filius Gilberti')
| | |
Richard, Gilbert, Walter,[7]
'filius Gilberti,' 'filius Gilberti', 'filius Gilberti,'
d. 1136[3] Earl of Pembroke. of Maldon.
| Protector of Went on crusade
V St Neot's[5] _circ._ 1147
a quo the |
Earls of V
Hertford
(connect to
Count Gilbert
of Brionne)
----
|
Richard = Rohese, dau. of
de Bienfaite, Walter Giffard.
_alias_ 'filius Benefactress of
Gilberti', _alias_ St Neot's Priory
'filius Comitis |
Gilberti', _alias_ |
'de Tunbridge', |
_alias_ 'de Clare'. |
Founder of St |
Neot's Priory |
(cell to Bec) |
|
(connect to |(connect
Gilbert, |to Robert
'filius Baldwini') |'filius
------------------------------------------------ Ricardi')
| | |
Roger, Walter, Richard,
'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi', 'filius Ricardi',
living 1130 ob. s. p. Monk of Bec,
ob. s. p. Founder of Abbot of Ely 1100.
Benefactor to Tintern Abbey, Died 1107
Bec[4] 1131,
living 1136[5]

(connect
to Walter,'
'filius Gilberti')
-----------------------------------------
| | |
Baldwin, Adelidis Rohese,[8]
'filius Gilberti', 'de Tunbridge' mar. Baderon
_alias_ Baldwin mar. William de Monmouth
de Clare. de Percy
Founder of Deeping |
Priory (Benedictine) |
and Bourne Priory V
(Austin)

(connect
to Richard
'filius Ricardi')
----------------------------------------
| | |
Robert, Rohese, Adeliza = Walter
'filius Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', 'filia Ricardi', | Tirel,
d. (after Easter) mar. Eudo Dapifer died at | Lord of Poix,
1136. _circ._ 1088 Conflans, an | under-tenant
Bur. at St Neot's, He died 1120. offshoot of Bec, | of his
(? Dapifer Regis) She died 1121, _circ._ 1138 | father-in-law,
| and was buried | 1086
| at Bec |
| |
--------------------------------
| | Hugh
Walter Maude = William Tirel,
'filius "Roberti', 'de Senliz'. | de Albini Lord of Poix,
'Dapifer Regis[6] Benefactress | 'Brito' Benefactor to Bec.
(see p. 360) to St Neot's V Went on crusade 1147
|
V

[Footnotes from Family Tree:

[Footnote 1: 'Baldwinus vero genuit Rodbertum, et Guillelmum,
Richardum, nothumque Guigerum' (Ord. Vit.). This last was a
monk of Bec. 'Baldwinus frater istius [Ricardi] Willelmum,
Robertum et Ricardum cum tribus sororibus genuit' (_Mon.
Ang._, v. 269). The authority is not good, but is confirmed
_aliunde_. It is not proved that William was a son of Emma.]

[Footnote 2: 'Baldwino patri meo Molas et Sapum reddidit [Rex
W.] et filiam amitæ suæ uxorem dedit' (_Ord. Vit._)]

[Footnote 3: 'Eodem anno obierunt plures ex principibus
Angliæ.... Ricardus filius Gisleberti Robertus filius Ricardi,
patruus ejus, Ricardus filius Baldwini, consobrinus ejus'
(_Robert of Torigni_).]

[Footnote 4: 'Mortuis autem absque liberis Rogero et
Waltero.']

[Footnote 5: 'Oportet me habere in custodia et defensione
mea omnes res Becci sicut ecclesie que fundata est ab
antecessoribus meis' (Cartulary of St Neot's, fo. 73).]

[Footnote 6: Ancestor of the fitzWalters of Dunmow and of
Baynard's Castle, who are accordingly spoken of by Fantôme as
'Clarreaus'--a word which has puzzled his editor, Mr Howlett.]

[Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._ iv. 597. _Formul Ang._ p. 40.]

[Footnote 8: _Mon. Ang._, iv. 597.]]

[_To face page_ 359.]

We have yet to deal with one more member of this historic house, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, or Baldwin de Clare, ancestor, through his daughter and heir, of the family of Wake. I had always suspected that Baldwin fitz Gilbert, the recognized grandfather of Baldwin Wac (1166), could be no other than Baldwin, son of Gilbert de Clare, a well-known man. But Dugdale, under 'Wake' (i. 539) positively asserts that the former was 'brother to Walter de Gant, father of Gilbert de Gant, the first Earl of Lincoln of that family'. This proves, however, on inquiry, to be based on an almost incredible blunder. Dugdale actually relied on a charter,[5] which includes Baldwin among the Clares, and which he himself under 'Clare' rightly so interprets (_Baronage_, i. 207_b_). There is, therefore, no ground for deriving Baldwin from De Gant, or for rejecting his identity with that Baldwin _de Clare_, who addressed the troops on behalf of Stephen at the battle of Lincoln.[6]

Having made several additions to the pedigree of De Clare, I have also to make one deduction in Robert fitz Richard's alleged younger son 'Simon, to whom he gave the Lordship of Daventry in Northamptonshire' (_Baronage_, i. 218). This erroneous statement is taken from a monastic genealogy (blundering as usual) in the Daventry Cartulary.[7] The documents of that house show at once that Simon was the son of Robert fitz 'Vitalis' (a benefactor to the house in 1109), not of Robert fitz Richard, and was not, therefore, a Clare. Nor was he lord of Daventry.

But Dugdale's most unpardonable blunder is his identification of Maud 'de St Liz', wife of William de Albini Brito. He makes her sixty years old in 1186 (p. 113), and yet widow of Robert fitz Richard, who died in 1134 (p. 218), finally stating that 'she died in _anno_ 1140' (_ibid._)! Here, as in the case of Eudo Dapifer, William's wife was the daughter, not the widow. In both cases the lady was a Clare. The fact is certain from his own authority, the cartularies of St Neot's.[8] We have a grant that 'Rob[ertus] filius Ric[ardi]', at fo. 79_b_, grants from 'Matildis de Sancto Licio (_al._ "Senliz") filia Roberti filii Ricardi' on the same folio, and on the preceding one (fo. 79) this conclusive one as to her husband:

Ego Willelmus de Albineio Brito et Matild' uxor mea dedimus et
concessimus ecclesiam de Cratefeld deo et ecclesie Sci. Neoti
et monachis Beccensibus pro anima Roberti filii Ricardi et
antecessorum meorum.

Then follows their son's confirmation, as 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius Matillidis de Seint Liz'. Next, 'Willelmus de Albeneio filius Matild' de Senliz', gives land, 'quam terram Domina Matild' Senliz mater mea eis prius concesserat'--her said grant of land in Cratfield duly following as from 'Matild de Senliz filia Roberti filii Ricardi'. Further, we have Walter fitz Robert (fitz Richard) confirming this grant by his sister Matildis. Finally, we learn that Cratfield belonged to her in 'maritagio'. Now (as 'Cratafelda') it belonged in Domesday to Ralf Baignard. His honour, on his forfeiture, was given to Robert fitz Richard, who was thus able to give Cratfield 'in maritagio' to his daughter. Here then is independent proof of what her parentage really was, and further independent proof, if needed, is found in this entry (1185):

Matillis de Sainliz que fuit filia Roberti filii Richardi, et
mater Willelmi de Albeneio est de donatione Domini Regis et
est lx. annorum (_Rot. de Dominabus_, p. 1).

We thus learn that, as with Avicia 'de Rumilly', daughter of William Meschin, it was possible for a woman to bear, strange though it may seem, the maiden name of her mother. Clearly, Maud was the widow of William de Albini, who sent in his _carta_ (under Leicestershire) in 1166, and died, as I reckon, from the Pipe Rolls, in November 1167. She was not, as alleged, the widow of the William who fought at the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106.

Lastly, we come to the parentage of Walter Tirel himself. Mr Freeman wrote that this was 'undoubted', that 'Walter was one of a family of ten, seemingly the youngest of eight sons' of Fulc, Dean of Evreux, and that 'he became, by whatever means, Lord of Poix in Ponthieu and of Achères by the Seine' (_W. Rufus_, II, 322, 673).[9] But the mystery of his rise is not lessened by the fact that, as Mr Freeman put it, most accounts 'connect him with France rather than with Normandy'. Closer investigation suggests that Orderic in no way identifies the Walter Tirel of 1100 with the son of Dean Fulc, and shows indeed that his French editors had specially declared the two to be distinct. In short, Walter had nothing to do with Dean Fulc or with Normandy, but was, as categorically stated, a Frenchman, the third of his name who occurs as Lord of Poix. Père Anselme identifies him with the second (who occurs in 1069), but he is probably identical with the third, who occurs in an agreement with the Count of Amiens, 1087, and who, with his wife 'Adelice', founded the Priory of St Denis de Poix,[10] and built the Abbey of St Pierre de Sélincourt. It was he who was father of Hugh the Crusader.[11]

Here may be mentioned another name by which Walter seems to have been known. I take it from the twelfth century chronicle of Abbot Simon in the 'Chartularium Sithiense',[12] which appears to have eluded Mr Freeman's researches when he made his collection of all the versions of the death of William Rufus:

Willelmus prioris Willelmi regis Angliæ filius, eodem anno a
Waltero _de Bekam_, ex improviso, interficitur. Qui, cum rege
in saltu venatum iens, dum sagitta cervum appeteret, eadem
divinitus retorta, rex occiditur. Cujus interitus sancte
recordationis viro Hugoni, abbati Cluniacensi est præostensus,
etc., etc.

The testimony of a St Omer writer on the deed of the Lord of Poix is, even if traditionary, worth noting; but I do not profess to explain the 'Bekam'.[13]

If we now turn to the French writers, we find that the special work on the family is that of M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy, 'Archiviste-Généalogiste'.[14] It savours, however, of Peerage rather than of History, and relies for its expansion of Père Anselme's somewhat jejune narrative[15] on private MS. collections instead of original authorities. This work was followed by an elaborate monograph on 'Poix et ses Seigneurs' by M. l'Abbé Delgove,[16] who accepts the former writer's genealogy without question, though dealing more critically with the charters of foundation for the Priory of St Denis de Poix. He admits that these charters are not authentic in their present form, but accepts their contents as genuine. Now the endowment of St Denis, according to them, included two marcs out of the tithes 'de Lavingaham en Angleterre'. Here, though these writers knew it not, we have again our Essex Langham, the 'Lawingeham' of the Pipe-Roll. Is this the reason why Walter required the consent of his wife 'Adeline' and son Hugh to the grant?

Neither of these writers knew of the English evidence, nor did they solve the mystery of Walter Tirel's wife, whom they, like Lappenberg, imagined to be the daughter of a Richard Giffard. This tends to diminish our trust in the pedigree they give. They took a Walter Tirel to England at the Conquest, but only because Wace mentions the 'Pohiers', or men of Poix, and because the name of Tirel is found in the Battle Roll. In their view, Hugh Tirel, Lord of Poix, the crusader of 1147, was grandson of the famous Walter. Now Orderic, whose evidence on the point they ignore, says, as we have seen, he was the son; and as the chronicler was contemporary both with father and son, we cannot think him mistaken. Moreover, the Pipe-Roll of 1130 cannot be harmonized with their pedigree. Adeliz, wife (? widow) of Walter Tirel, then answered for Langham, and could not be 'Adeline dame de Ribecourt', who was dead, according to both writers, before 1128 (or 1127), and who could not, in any case, have aught to do with Langham.

But there is other evidence, unknown to these French writers, which proves that the version they give must be utterly wrong. Among the archives at Evreux there is a charter of Hugh Tirel to the Abbey of Bec, granting 'decem marcas argenti in manerio quod dicitur Lavigaham' to its daughter-house of Conflans, where, he says, his mother had taken the religious 'habit', and retired to die. The Priors of Conflans, and [St Denis of] Poix are among the witnesses; and we read of the charter's date:

Hoc concessum est apud piceium castrum anno M.cxxxviii. ab
incarnatione dominica viii. idus martii.

Even if we make this date to be 1139, we here find Hugh in possession of Poix and Langham at that date, whereas the French writers tell us that he only succeeded in 1145, and that his father died in that year.[17] The above charter, moreover, points to his mother having survived his father, and died at Conflans as a widow. Until, therefore, evidence is produced in support of the French version, we must reject it _in toto_.

I close this study with an extract from that interesting charter by which Richard I empowered Henry de Cornhill to enclose and impark his woods at Langham, the same day (December 6, 1189) on which he empowered his neighbours the burgesses of Colchester to hunt the fox, the hare and the 'cat' within their borders. The words are:

Sciatis nos dedisse et concessisse Henrico de Cornhell'
licentiam includendi boscum suum in Lahingeham et faciendi
sibi ibidem parcum, et ut liceat illi habere omnes bestias
quos poterit ibi includere.[18]

Thus did the wealthy Londoner become a country squire seven centuries ago. Nor is it irrelevant to observe that the 'Langham Lodge coverts' are familiar to this day to those who hunt with the Essex and Suffolk.

[Footnote 1: Duchy of Lancaster: Grants in boxes, A. 157. It
is there described as 'conventionem et venditionem quam
Hugo Tirell' fecit Gervasio de cornhella de manerio suo de
lauhingeham', which implies an actual sale rather than a
mortgage. The seal of Earl Gilbert, with the three chevrons
on his shield, is, I claim, an earlier instance, by far, of
coat-armour on a seal than any hitherto known (see my paper in
_Arch. Journ._, ii. 46).]

[Footnote 2: Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 42.]

[Footnote 3: A metrical epitaph, preserved by Rudborne, claims
for him a descent from Charlemagne, which implies that he,
like Walter's wife, was 'de sublimi prosapia Gifardorum' (see
p. 355 _supra_).]

[Footnote 4: See also _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 329.]

[Footnote 5: Old _Monasticon_, i. 245_b_; and _vide infra_, p.
393. A curious sketch of the above scene in a MS. of Henry of
Huntingdon (Arundel MS. 148) depicts Baldwin with two of the
Clare chevrons on his shield, and a marginal note, almost
illegible, duly describes him as grandfather of Baldwin Wac.
This sketch is overlooked in the British Museum catalogue of
drawings.]

[Footnote 6: See also _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I, and my _Geoffrey
de Mandeville_.]

[Footnote 7: _Mon. Ang._, v. 178.]

[Footnote 8: Cott. MS. Faustina A. iv. See also Addenda.]

[Footnote 9: Mr Freeman rendered Walter Map's 'Achaza' by
'Achères'. But as the Tirels always styled themselves 'Sires
de Poix Vicomtes d'_Equesnes_' it is probable that the latter
was meant.]

[Footnote 10: His gift was confirmed by Geoffrey, Bishop of
Amiens, who died in 1116.]

[Footnote 11: The essential reference occurs in the charter of
1069 granted by Ralf, Count of Amiens, which mentions 'Symon
filius meus et Gualterus Gualteri Tirelli natus' (Archives
depart. de le Somme: Cartulaire de N.D. d'Amiens, No. 1, fo.
91). These were the first and second known bearers of the
name. The latter occurs in a St Riquier charter of 1058. Poix
was some fifteen miles from Amiens, and its lordship was of
considerable importance. A charter of 1030 to Rouen Cathedral
is said to contain the name 'Galtero Tyrello, domino de
Piceio'.]

[Footnote 12: _Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de St Bertin_
(_Documents Inédits_), pp. 267-8.]

[Footnote 13: I find entered in the Cartulary of Hesdin
(Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) on fo. 29, a notification
'quia Walterus Tireel et filius eius Hugo hospitem unum eum
omni mansione ... apud villam Verton concesserunt', and that
they have granted freedom from toll 'apud Belram ... coram
militibus suis'. Could 'Bekam' possibly be a misprint for
'Belram' [Beaurain]?]

[Footnote 14: _Histoire Genealogique et Héraldique de la
Maison des Tyrel, Sires, puis Princes de Poix_, etc., etc.
(2nd Ed.) 1869.]

[Footnote 15: Vol. vii., pp. 820 _et seq._]

[Footnote 16: _Memoires de la Société d'Antiquaires de
Picardies_ (1876), xxv. 287 _et seq._]

[Footnote 17: M. l'Abbé Delgove produces (p. 369) a precisely
similar case, in which a deed of 1315 proves John Tirel to
have been already in possession of Poix, although, according
to the family history, he did not die till 1315. This throws
doubts, he admits, on M. Cuvillier-Morel-d'Acy's chronology.]

[Footnote 18: Duchy of Lancaster, Royal Charter, No. 42.
_Supra_, p. 357.]

WALDRIC, WARRIOR AND CHANCELLOR

The importance of fixing the sequence of chancellors, for chronological purposes and especially the dating of charters, is very great. Waldric, who preceded Ranulf as chancellor to Henry I, was, as a warrior and then a bishop, a man of mark. It has hitherto been supposed, as by Mr Archer (who wrote his life for the _Dictionary of National Biography_), that his latest appearance as chancellor was early in 1106, before the King's departure for Normandy. His feat in taking Duke Robert prisoner at Tinchebrai (September 28, 1106) is well known, but was believed to be the only evidence of his presence in Normandy with the King. There is, however, in _Gallia Christiana_ (vol. xi) a valuable charter recording a 'causa seu placitum', decided before King Henry at Rouen, November 7, 1106, among those present being 'Waldricus qui tunc temporis erat regis cancellarius'. We can trace, therefore, his tenure of the office up to that date.

There is some doubt and difficulty as to another charter. Foss believed that Waldric was the 'Walterus Cancellarius' who is found in a charter to Tewkesbury of '1106'.[1] This charter is printed in the _Monasticon_ (ii. 66) from an Inspeximus _temp._ Henry IV. There is, however, a better Inspeximus on the Charter Roll of 28 Edward I[2] (No. 16), in which the name is clearly Waldric. But the difficulty is that the same Inspeximus contains another version of this charter (No. 2), with a fuller list of witnesses.[3] I have examined the roll for myself, and there is no doubt as to the date, for the clause runs:

Facta est hec carta Anno.... ab incarnacione domini M^{o}
centesimo vii^{o} apud Wintoniam.

The other version, in the body of the charter, contains the words, 'Anno Dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo centesimo sexto apud Wintoniam'. I have always looked with some suspicion on these Tewkesbury charters,[4] and that suspicion is not lessened by the double version of this, or by the name of the last witness in that of 1107, namely, 'Roger de Pistres'. The only known bearer of that name was dead before Domesday, though this witness may just possibly be identical with Roger de Gloucester (son, I hold, of Durand de Pistres[5]) who was killed in 1106.

On the whole, it is safer to deem that Waldric's last appearance as chancellor, at present known, is in the Rouen charter of November 1106. Ranulf, his successor, first appears as Foss pointed out,[6] in a charter to St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.[7] Its date is determined by the appearance among the witnesses of Maurice, Bishop of London (d. September 26, 1107) and of Ranulf himself as chancellor, combined with the statement appended to the charter that it was granted in the King's eighth year ('octavo imperii sui anno'). One must not attach too great importance to these clauses, which did not, as a rule, form part of the original charter, but in this case the names of the witnesses point to Easter--September 1107; and it is just possible to assign to the eighth year the close of the Westminster gathering, at the beginning of August, when this charter to St Andrew's may well have been granted.

Miss Norgate holds that Bishop Roger 'probably resumed' the chancellorship in 1106, on Waldric's elevation to the Bishopric of Laon,[8] but I do not know of any evidence to that effect.

[Footnote 1: _Judges of England_, i. 140.]

[Footnote 2: _30th Report of Deputy-Keeper_, p. 203.]

[Footnote 3: _Ibid._, p. 204.]

[Footnote 4: See _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, 421, 431-2.]

[Footnote 5: See p. 245 _supra_.]

[Footnote 6: _Judges of England_, i. 79.]

[Footnote 7: _Monasticon_, v. 191.]

[Footnote 8: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 22.]

A CHARTER OF HENRY I (1123)

A good illustration of the value of charters for chronological and biographical purposes is afforded by one which Henry I granted to the church of Exeter. It is printed in the _Monasticon_ under Plimpton, to the foundation of which priory it is asserted to have been preliminary. That foundation is assigned to 1121. The charter, however, is also found among those confirmed by Henry VIII (Confirmation Roll, I Henry VIII, p. 5, No. 13), with a list of witnesses arranged in correct order; whereas the _Monasticon_ version is taken from the pleadings under Richard II (Coram Rege, Hil. 2 Richard II, Rot. 20, Devon), and records the witnesses in grievous disorder. The explanation of such disorder is that the clerk in the latter case was not familiar with the system on which the attestations to these charters were arranged, the names of the leading witnesses being placed in a line above the others. This will be made evident from the two lists of witnesses:

_Right Order_ _Wrong Order_

King Henry
Queen Adeliza Queen Adeliza
William, Archbishop of Canterbury William, Archbishop of Canterbury
Thurstan, Archbishop of York Robert, Earl of Gloucester
Richard, Bishop of London Thurstan, Archbishop of York
William, Bishop of Winchester William, Earl of Surrey
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury Roger, Bishop of Salisbury
Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln Roger, Earl of Warwick
Evrard, Bishop of Norwich Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln
Hervey, Bishop of Ely Robert, Earl of Leicester
Ralf, Bishop of Chichester Evrard, Bishop of Norwich
Ranulf, Bishop of Durham Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_
Robert, Bishop of Coventry Hervey, Bishop of Ely
'Theold', Bishop of Worcester William de Pirou, _dapifer_
Bernard, Bishop of St David's Ralf, Bishop of Chichester
Richard, Bishop of Hereford William d'Aubeny
Godfrey, Bishop of Bath Ranulf, Bishop of Durham
Geoffrey the Chancellor Nigel d'Aubeny
Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's, Robert, Bishop of Coventry
Winchester
Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock Richard fitz Baldwin
Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne 'Theold', Bishop of Worcester
Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon Baldwin de Redvers
Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury Bernard, Bishop of St David's
Robert, Earl of Gloucester Johel de Berdestaple
William, Earl of Surrey Richard, Bishop of Hereford
David, Earl of Huntingdon Guy de Totness
Ranulf, Earl of Chester Godfrey, Bishop of Bath
Roger, Earl of Warwick Robert de Cadentona [_sic_]
Robert, Earl of Leicester Geoffrey the Chancellor
Hugh Bigot, _dapifer_ William fitz Odo
William de Pirou, _dapifer_ Geoffrey, Abbot of St Peter's,
William d'Aubeny Winchester
Nigel d'Aubeny Goislin de Pomereda
Richard fitz Baldwin Osbert, Abbot of Tavistock
Baldwin de Redvers Rainald de Valle Torta
Johel de Berdestaple Thurstan, Abbot of Sherborne
Guy de Totness William fitz Richard
Robert de 'Badentona' Vincent, Abbot of Abingdon
William fitz Odo Herbert de Alneto
Goislin de Pomereda Seffrid, Abbot of Glastonbury
Rainald de Valle Torta Humfrey de Bohun
William fitz Richard William, Abbot of Cerne
Herbert de Alneto Walter fitz Thurstan[1]
Humfrey de Bohun
Walter fitz Thurstan

It is obvious that this charter was granted before the death of the Bishop of Worcester (October 20, 1123), and before the King's departure from England (June 1123). But it must be subsequent to the death of the previous chancellor, Ranulf (Christmas 1122), and to the appointment or consecration (February 1123) of Archbishop William. The narrow limit thus ascertained points to the Easter court of 1123 at Winchester, the great gathering of bishops and earls implying some such occasion. Easter fell that year on April 15th.

Now two sees had fallen vacant at the beginning of the year, those of Lincoln and of Bath. Lincoln was given to Alexander, whether at Easter (Winchester), as stated by Henry of Huntingdon, or in Lent, as asserted by the continuator of Florence; but he was not consecrated till July 22nd. Bath was bestowed on Godfrey, whose consecration did not take place till August 26th, though Henry of Huntingdon assigns his appointment, like that of Alexander, to Easter (Winchester). Both these bishops, it will be seen, attest the above charter, which proves that it cannot be earlier than Easter (April 15th), while the evidence below practically limits it to the Easter court at Winchester.

The first point to be observed is that these two bishops attest as such (not as 'elect') long before their consecration. As it is generally held that bishops never did so, this point is of importance (always assuming the accuracy of the evidence) for its bearing on other charters.[2] Secondly, four of the witnesses--the two archbishops, the Bishop of St David's, and the Abbot of Glastonbury--are said by the continuator to have left for Rome after Alexander's appointment. From this charter it is clear that they did not leave till after Easter. The third point is that Earl Roger of Warwick had, at the date of this charter, succeeded his father, Henry.

Turning to Geoffrey the chancellor, we find in this charter perhaps his earliest appearance. Foss, in his useful work, is here a year out. He wrongly assigned the death of the preceding chancellor, Ranulf, to Christmas 1123, instead of Christmas 1122, and he assumed that our charter must be subsequent to Bishop Godfrey's consecration (August 26, 1123), and, in fact, that it belonged to 1124 (to which year he wrongly assigned the death of Bishop Theowulf). It is important for chronological purposes to date the change of chancellor correctly. I have already determined (p. 481) the date of Ranulf's accession to the post.

The correction of this date of Ranulf's death affects that of the foundation of Laund Priory, Leicestershire, which is assigned by Nichols and by the Editors of the _Monasticon_ to 'about 1125'. As the foundation charter is addressed to William, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, it must be subsequent to Alexander's promotion in the spring of 1123 (if not to his consecration on June 22nd). This is admitted by Foss, who accepts the charter without question. There is nothing in the document to excite suspicion, nor do I impugn it without reluctance. But the awkward fact remains that it is witnessed by Ranulf the chancellor, who died, as we have seen, at the beginning of 1123, and actually in the lifetime of Bishop Robert, Alexander's predecessor at Lincoln. There can be no question as to Ranulf's death, for the sequence of events is inexorable. Henry of Huntingdon tells us that (1) the king spent Christmas (1122) at Dunstable; that (2) he went thence to Berkhampstead, where Ranulf was accidentally killed; that (3) he then visited Woodstock, where Bishop Robert met with an equally sudden death; that (4) at the Purification (February 2, 1123) he gave the See of Canterbury to William of Corbeuil; that (5) he gave (at Winchester) the See of Lincoln to Alexander at Easter. It is singular that the members of the foundation had two strings to their bow, another charter of Henry I being adduced for Inspeximus. Its witnesses imply a later date, and their names do not involve any chronological difficulty.

We have in this Exeter charter one of the earliest attestations (according to my theory) of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. It should be noted that he takes at once precedence of all other earls, just as he had taken, before his elevation, precedence of all laymen under the rank of earl.

Of the barons most are familiar. Richard fitz Baldwin was the son and successor of the famous Baldwin of Exeter, and was, like him, sheriff of Devon (see p. 237). Baldwin de Redvers was the son of Richard de Redvers, and became subsequently first earl of Devon (the confusion of these two families, from the similarity of name, seems to be incorrigible).[3] The lords of the great honours of Barnstaple and Totnes[4] are followed by Robert of Bampton, who had succeeded to the Domesday fief of Walter de Douai, and who, as I have shown (_English Historical Review_, v. 746), was afterwards a rebel against Stephen. Goislin de Pomerey was the heir of Ralf de Pomerey, the Domesday baron; and Reginald (Rainaldus) de Vautort was a great under-tenant of the honour of Mortain. William fitz Richard I identify with that great Cornish magnate, whose daughter and heiress carried his fief to Reginald, afterwards Earl of Cornwall. Herbert de Alneto also was a Cornish baron, father of that Richard who, in 1130, paid £100 for his succession (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 158). Specially interesting, however, is the name of William fitz Odo, in whom I detect not the William fitz _Otho_, of Essex and Middlesex (with whom he is confused in the Index to the 1130 Pipe-Roll), but the son of 'Odo filius Gamelin'; a Devonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 116_b_). I see him in that '--filius Odonis', who is entered on the damaged Devonshire roll (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Henry I, p. 157) in connection with thirty-four shillings, which proves that he held a considerable estate. The fief of 'Odo filius Gamelin' was assessed at 21-3/16 hides, representing in Devon large estates.[5]

[Footnote 1: It will be observed that this list omits the
Bishops of London and Winchester and the Earls of Huntingdon
and Chester, but adds the Abbot of Cerne.]

[Footnote 2: An excellent instance of this practice is found,
ten years later, in the case of Bishop Nigel, who attested
three charters in 1133, before the king's departure, as Bishop
of Ely, though he was not consecrated till some months later.
They are those found in _Monasticon_, vi. 1174, 1274, and that
which granted the chamberlainship to Aubrey de Vere.]

[Footnote 3: It has found its way, under 'Baldwin', into the
_Dictionary of National Biography_.]

[Footnote 4: The _Guido de Totteneys_ of this charter seems to
be identical with the _Wido de Nunant_ of the charter granted
by Henry II to this priory. This conjecture is confirmed
by the entry in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I: 'Wido de Nunant
reddit comp. de x. marcis pro concessione ferie de Totneis'
(p. 154). There is a story quoted by Dugdale, under Totnes
priory, from the records of the abbey of Angers, that Juhel
'of Totnes', the Domesday baron, was expelled by William
Rufus, and his lands given to Roger de Nunant. I certainly
find Roger de Nonant attesting in 1091 the foundation charter
of Salisbury Cathedral in conjunction with William fitz
Baldwin (see pp. 330, 472); and Manors belonging to Juhel in
1086 are found afterwards belonging to Valletort, Nonant's
successor, as part of his honour of Totnes. But it would seem
that Juhel retained part of his honour of Barnstaple, while
the Nonants held the rest as the honour of Totnes. Indeed, he
must have held both _capita_ so late as 1113, when, say the
monks of Laon, 'venimus ad castrum, quod dicitur Bannistaplum,
ubi manebat quidam princeps nomine Joellus de Totenes', etc.
(_Hermannus_, ii. 17), adding that they afterwards visited
Totnes 'præfati principis castrum' (_ibid._, 18).]

[Footnote 5: Reprinted, with additions, from _English
Historical Review_.]

THE ORIGIN OF THE NEVILLES

It is difficult to believe that so interesting a genealogical question as the origin of this famous house should have remained as yet undetermined. I have shown above (p. 137) that we can identify in Domesday Gilbert and Ralph de Neville, the earliest bearers of the name in England, as knightly tenants of the Abbot of Peterborough; but the existing house, as is well known, descends from them only through a female. It is at its origin in the male line that I here glance. The innumerable quarters in which, unfortunately, information of this kind has been published makes it impossible for me to say whether I have been forestalled. So far, however, as I can find at present, two different versions are in the field.

First, there is Dugdale's view that Robert fitz Maldred, their founder, was 'son of Dolfin, son of Earl Gospatric, son of Maldred fitz Crinan by Algitha daughter of Uchtred, Earl of Northumberland, who was son-in-law to King Æthelred'. This was, apparently, Mr Shirley's view, for, in his _Noble and Gentle Men of England_ he derives the Nevilles from 'Gospatric, the Saxon Earl of Northumberland', though he makes Robert fitz Maldred his _great_-grandson, as Rowland had done in his work on the House of Nevill (1830), by placing Maldred between Dolfin and Robert fitz Maldred. Even that sceptical genealogist, Mr Foster, admitted in his peerage their descent from this Earl Gospatric. The immediate ancestry, however, of their founder, Robert fitz Maldred, can be proved, and is as follows:

Drummond's _Noble British Families_ (1842) set out a new origin for the family without any hesitation, and this was adopted by the Duchess of Cleveland, whose elaborate work on the _Battle Abbey Roll_ has much excellent genealogy. Their patriarch Dolfin was now made the son of that Uchtred, who was a grandson and namesake of Dugdale's Earl Uchtred, _temp._ King Æthelred. A chart pedigree is required to show the descent of the earls:

No authority, unfortunately, is given for the identity of this Uchtred with Uchtred, father of Dolfin, and the assumption of that identity involves the conclusion that Eadwulf 'Rus', who took the lead in the murder of Bishop Walcher (1080), was brother to Dolfin who received Staindrop in 1131, and uncle to a man who died in 1195 or 1196! We cannot therefore accept this descent as it stands, or carry the pedigree at present beyond Dolfin fitz Uchtred (1131). But as this Dolfin, when doing homage to the Prior of Durham for Staindrop, reserved his homage to the kings of England and of Scotland, as well as the Bishop of Durham, he was, no doubt, a man of consequence, and was probably of high Northumbrian birth. It may be worth throwing out, as a hint, the suggestion that his father Uchtred might have been identical with Uchtred, son of Ligulf, that great Northumbrian thegn who was slain at Durham in 1080. But this is only a guess. One cannot, in fact, be too careful, as I have shown in my two papers on 'Odard of Carlisle' and 'Odard the Sheriff',[1] in identifying two individuals of the same Christian names, when, in these northern districts, the names in question were so widely borne. The Whitby cartulary, for instance, proves that Thomas de Hastings was (maternal) grandson of Alan, son of Thorphin 'de Alverstain', son of Uchtred (son of Gospatric), which Uchtred gave the Church of Crosby Ravensworth to the abbey in the time, it would seem, of William Rufus. But who Gospatric, his father, was has not been clearly ascertained. The skilled genealogists of the north may be able to decide these points, and to tell us the true descent of 'Dolfin, the son of Uchtred'.

[Footnote 1: _Genealogist_, N.S., v. 25-8; viii. 200.]

THE ALLEGED INVASION OF ENGLAND IN 1147

When Mr Richard Howlett, in the preface to his edition of the _Gesta Stephani_ for the Rolls series, announced that we were indebted to its 'careful author' for the knowledge of an invasion of England by Henry FitzEmpress in 1147, 'unrecorded by any other chronicler', and endeavoured at considerable length to establish this proposition,[1] it was received, from all that I can learn, with general incredulity. As, however, in the volume which he has since edited, he reiterates his belief in this alleged invasion,[2] it becomes necessary to examine in detail the evidence for a discovery so authoritatively announced in the pages of the Rolls series.

The accepted view of Henry's movements has hitherto been that, by his father's permission, in the autumn of 1142 he accompanied the Earl of Gloucester to England; that he remained there about four years; that, by his father's wish, at the end of 1146 or beginning of 1147 he returned from England; that he then spent two years and four months over sea; that in the spring of 1149 he again came to England, and was knighted at Carlisle by the king of Scots on May 22nd. As to the above long visit, commencing in 1142, Gervase of Canterbury is our chief authority, but the other chroniclers (omitting for the present the _Gesta Stephani_) harmonize well with his account. Gervase and Robert of Torigni alike mention but one arrival of Henry (1142) and one departure (1146 or 1147), thus distinctly implying there was then only one visit--namely, that visit which Gervase tells us lasted four years. The only slight discrepancy between Gervase and Robert is found in the date of Henry's departure. Robert places that event under 1147, and mentions that Henry visited Bec May 29th in that year. There is also, Mr Howlett has pointed out, charter evidence implying that Henry was back in Normandy in March or April. Now Gervase says distinctly that he was away from England two years and four months. The chroniclers, Gervase included, say that he returned to England in the middle of May 1149. Counting back the two years and four months, this would bring us to January 1147, as the date of his departure from England. But there is a charter of his to Salisbury Cathedral, tested, as Mr Howlett observes, at Devizes, April 13, 1149. If this evidence be trustworthy, it would take us back to December 1146, instead of January 1147. It is easy to see how Gervase may have included in 1146, and Robert in 1147, an event which appears to have taken place about the end of the one or the beginning of the other year.

Much has been made of the alleged circumstance that Gervase assigned the Earl of Gloucester's death to 1146, whereas he is known to have died in 1147. But reference to his text will show that he does nothing of the kind. Writing of Henry's departure at the close of 1146, he tells us that the earl was destined never to see him again, for he died in November [_i.e._ November 1147]. He is here obviously anticipating.

Previous Next

Comments

Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth CenturiesChapter XXI: Conclusion (4)

0%35 min left in chapter