Chapter XXII: Conclusion (5)

Such being the evidence on which is based the accepted view of Henry's movements, let us now turn to the _Gesta Stephani_. Though Mr Howlett's knowledge of the period is great and quite exceptional, I cannot but think that he has been led astray by his admiration for this fascinating chronicle. Miss Norgate sensibly observes that 'there must be something wrong in the story' as actually preserved in the _Gesta_,[3] but Mr Howlett, unwilling to admit the possibility of error in his chronicle, boldly asserts that the 'romantic account'[4] of Henry's adventures which it contains does not refer to his visit in 1149, but to a hitherto unknown invasion in 1147. He appears to imagine that the only objection in accepting this story is found in the fact that Henry was but just fourteen at the time.[5] But this is not so. Putting aside this objection, as also the silence of other chroniclers, there remains the chronological difficulty. How is the alleged visit to be fitted in? Its inventor, who suggests 'about April 1147', for its date, must first take Henry back to Normandy (why or when he does not even suggest) and then bring him back to England as an invader, neither his alleged going or coming being recorded by any chronicler. Then he assigns to his second return to Normandy (after the alleged invasion) the only passages in Gervase and Robert which speak of his returning at all. Surely nothing could be more improbable than that Henry should rush back to England just after he had left it, and had returned to his victorious father, and this at a time when his cause seemed as hopeless there as it was prosperous over the sea.

The evidence of the _Gesta Stephani_ would have, indeed, to be beyond question if we are to accept, on its sole authority, so improbable a story. But what does that evidence amount to? The _Gesta_, unlike other chronicles, not being arranged chronologically under years, the only definite note of time here afforded in its text is found in the passage, 'Consuluit [Henricus] et avunculum [_sic_] Glaorniæ comitem, sed ipse suis sacculis avide incumbens, rebus tantum sibi necessariis occurrere maluit'.[6]

As Earl Robert is known to have died in the autumn of 1147, the word _avunculus_ does, undoubtedly, fix these events as prior to that date. But is not _avunculus_ a slip of the writer for _cognatus_? Is not the reference to Earl William rather than to his father, Earl Robert?[7] Such a slip is no mere conjecture; the statement that Earl Robert was too avaricious to assist his beloved nephew in his hour of need is not only absolutely contrary to all that we know of his character, but is virtually discredited by the _Gesta_ itself when its author tells us, further on:

Comes deinde Glaorniæ ut erat regis adversariorum
strenuissimus et ad magna quevis struenda paratissimus,
iterum atque iterum exercitum comparare, jugi hortaminis et
admonitionis stimulo complices suos incitavit; illos minis,
istos promissis sibi et præmiis conjugare; quatinus omnes
in unam concordiam, in unum animum conspirati, exercitum e
diverso ad idem velle repararent, et collectis undecumque
agminibus, vive et constanter in regem insurgerent.[8]

How can such language as this be reconciled with the statement as to Earl Robert's apathy at the very time when Henry's efforts offered him a unique opportunity of pursuing his war against the king? Mr Howlett does not attempt to meet, or even notice, this objection. Moreover, when the _Gesta_ proceeds to describe Earl William of Gloucester as devoted to his own pleasures rather than to war,[9] we see that the conduct so incredible in his father would in him be what we might expect.

I will not follow Mr Howlett in his lengthy argument relative to the knighting of Eustace and Henry, because he himself admits that it is based only on conjecture.[10] It is sufficient to observe that if the 'romantic' narrative in the _Gesta_ refers to the events of 1149,[11] then the knighting of Eustace, which is a pendant to that narrative, belongs, as the other chroniclers assert, to 1149. The statement, I may add, that Henry applied for help to his mother, by no means involves, as Mr Howlett assumes, her presence in England at the time.

I would suggest, then, that the whole hypothesis of this invasion in 1147 is based on nothing more than a confusion in the _Gesta_. Mr Howlett, indeed, claims that 'mediaeval history would simply disappear if the evidence of chroniclers were to be treated in this way,[12] and detects 'among some modern writers a tendency to incautious rejection', etc.[13] But he himself goes out of his way to denounce, in this connection, as a 'blundering interpolation' a passage in John of Hexham, which he assigns to notes being 'carelessly misplaced' and 'ignorantly miscopied'.[14] The _Gesta_, to my knowledge, is by no means immaculate; its unbroken narrative and vagueness as to dates render its chronology a matter of difficulty; and the circumstance that the passage in dispute occurs towards its close renders it impossible to test it as we could wish by comparison with later portions. The weakness of Mr Howlett's case is shown by his desperate appeal to 'the exact precedent' set by Fulk Nerra, and no talk about the contrast presented by 'physical science' and that 'fragmentary tale of human inconsistencies which we term history' can justify the inclusion of this alleged invasion as a fact beyond dispute in so formal and authoritative a quarter as the preface to a Rolls volume.

[Footnote 1: _Chronicles_, Stephen, Henry II, Richard I, vol.
iii. pp. xvi-xx, 130.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, vol. iv. pp. xxi-xxii.]

[Footnote 3: _England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 377.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 5: 'The invasion of England by Henry in 1147, when
he was but a boy of fourteen, a piece of history which
has hitherto been rejected solely on the ground of
improbability.'--Preface (_ut supra_), p. xxi.]

[Footnote 6: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 131.]

[Footnote 7: There is a precisely similar slip, by John of
Salisbury, in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (Pertz, xx. 532),
where the 'Duke' of Normandy is referred to in 1148 as 'qui
modo rex est' (_i.e._ Henry). Mr Howlett himself has pointed
out (_Academy_, November 12, 1887) that the author 'slipped in
the words "qui modo rex est", and thus transferred to Henry a
narrative which assuredly relates to his father'. The slip in
question, as he observed, had sadly misled Miss Norgate.]

[Footnote 8: _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett), p. 134.]

[Footnote 9: 'Successit in comitatum suum Willelmus filius
suus, senior quidem ætate, sed vir mollis, et thalamorum magis
quam militiæ appetitor' (_Gesta_, ed. Howlett, p. 134).]

[Footnote 10: Mr Howlett incidentally claims that knighthood
was a necessary preliminary to comital rank, and appeals to
the fact that the younger Henry was even carefully knighted
before his coronation (_Gesta_, p. xxii). But what has he to
say to the knighting of Earl Richard of Clare, by Henry VI,
and more especially to the knighting of Malcolm, already
Earl of Huntingdon and king of Scots, by Henry II, in 1159?
(_Robert of Torigni_, p. 203).]

[Footnote 11: Mr Howlett asserts (_Gesta_, p. 130, note) that
'when Henry made his better known visit in 1149 his acts were
quite different' from those recorded in the _Gesta_. But if,
as he himself admits, in 1149 Henry visited Devizes on his
way to Carlisle, what more natural than that he should pass
by Cricklade and Bourton (the two places mentioned in the
_Gesta_), which lay directly on his road?]

[Footnote 12: Preface to _Gesta_, p. xx.]

[Footnote 13: Preface to _Robert of Torigni_, p. xxii.]

[Footnote 14: Preface to _Gesta_ (_ut supra_), p. xvi.]

THE ALLEGED DEBATE ON DANEGELD (1163)

The great importance attached by historians to the financial dispute at the council of Woodstock in 1163 renders it desirable that the point at issue should be clearly stated and understood. As I venture to believe that the accepted view on the matter in dispute is erroneous, I here submit the reasons which have led me to that conclusion. 'Two most important points,' writes Dr Stubbs, 'stand out' on this occasion: (1) 'this is the first case of any express opposition being made to the king's financial dealings since the Conquest'; (2) 'the first fruit of the first constitutional opposition is the abolition of the most ancient property-tax [danegeld] imposed as a bribe for the Danes'.[1] It is with the second of these points that I propose especially to deal.

The passage which forms our best evidence is found in Grim's _Life of St Thomas_, and its relative portion is as follows:

Movetur quæstio de consuetudine quadam quae in Anglia
tenebatur. Dabantur de hida bini solidi ministris regis
qui vicecomitum loco comitatus servabant, quos voluit rex
conscribere fisco et reditibus propriis associare. Cui
archiepiscopus in faciem restitit, dicens, non debere eos
exigi pro reditibus, 'nec pro reditu', inquit, 'dabimus eos,
domine rex, salvo beneplacito vestro: sed si digne
nobis servierint vicecomites, et servientes vel ministri
provinciarum, et homines nostros manutenuerint, nequaquam eis
deerimus in auxilium.' Rex autem aegre ferens archiepiscopi
responsionem, 'Per oculos Dei', ait, 'dabuntur pro reditu, et
in scriptura regis scribentur'.

On this passage Dr Stubbs thus comments:

A tax so described can hardly have been anything else than the
danegeld, which was an impost of two shillings on the hide,
and was collected by the sheriffs, being possibly compounded
for at a certain rate and paid by them into the exchequer. As
the danegeld from this very year 1163 ceases to appear as a
distinct item of account in the Pipe-Rolls, it is impossible
to avoid connecting the two ideas, even if we may not identify
them. Whether the king's object in making this proposition was
to collect the danegeld in full amount, putting an end to
the nominal assessment which had so long been in use, and so
depriving the sheriffs of such profits as they made from it,
or whether he had some other end in view, it is impossible now
to determine; and consequently it is difficult to understand
the position taken by the archbishop.[2]

The attempt to identify the payment in dispute with the danegeld does indeed lead to the greatest possible difficulties, and Miss Norgate, who follows closely in Dr Stubbs' footsteps, is no more successful in answering them;[3] for, in the first place, the words of Grim do not apply to the danegeld if taken in their natural sense; and in the second the proceeds of the danegeld were already royal revenue, and were duly paid in, as such, at the exchequer. To meet this latter and obvious difficulty Dr Stubbs suggests that:

as the sums paid into the exchequer under that name (danegeld)
were very small compared with the extent of land that paid the
tax, it is probable that the sheriffs paid a fixed composition
and retained the surplus as wages for their services (etc.).[4]

So, too, Miss Norgate urges that the danegeld 'still occasionally made its appearance in the treasury rolls, but in such small amount that it is evident the sheriffs, if they collected it in full, paid only a fixed composition to the crown, and kept the greater part as a remuneration for their own services'.[5] Now this suggestion raises the whole question as to the revenue from danegeld. We are told that 'the danegeld was a very unpopular tax, probably because it was the plea on which the sheriffs made their greatest profit ... having become in the long lapse of years a mere composition paid by the sheriff to the exchequer, while the balance of the whole sums exacted on that account went to swell his own income'.[6]

As against this view I venture to hold that the danegeld was in no way compounded for, but that every penny raised by its agency was due to the royal treasury, leaving no profit whatever to the sheriff. The test is easily applied: let us take the case of Dorset. The Domesday assessment of this county, according to the late Mr Eyton, who had investigated it with his usual painstaking labour, and collated it with the geld-rolls of two years before, was about 2,300 hides.[7] This assessment would produce, at two shillings on the hide, about £230. Now the actual amount accounted for on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 is £228 5s; on that of 1156 it is £228 5s; and on that of 1162, the last levy, it is £247 5s.[8] There is certainly no margin of profit for the sheriff here. In other counties, we find that the proceeds of the danegeld in 1130, 1156, and 1162, whilst slightly fluctuating, roughly correspond, as, indeed, they were bound to do, the Domesday assessment remaining unchanged.[9] I can, therefore, find no ground for the alleged discrepancy between the amounts accounted for by the sheriffs and those which the assessment ought to have produced.

This being so, the solitary explanation suggested for Henry's action falls to the ground, and it becomes clear that the payment in dispute could not have been the danegeld, as the proposed change could not increase the amount it produced already. As a matter of fact, the last occasion on which danegeld _eo nomine_ was levied was in 1162, but to connect that circumstance with the Woodstock dispute of 1163 is an instance of the _post hoc propter hoc_ argument, more especially as the danegeld was not in dispute, still less its abolition. On the contrary, the primate desired to keep things as they were. What, then, was this mysterious payment but the _auxilium vicecomitis_, or 'sheriffs' aid'? Garnier distinctly states that this is what it was,[10] and Grim's words no less unmistakably point to the same conclusion. To institutional students of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the _auxilium vicecomitis_ is familiar enough. It was, writes Dr Stubbs, a 'payment made to the sheriff for his services',[11] and was, it may be added, a customary charge, varying in amount,[12] paid over locally to the sheriffs. It may fairly be said to have stood to the danegeld in the relation of rates to taxes.

On this hypothesis the difficulties of the case vanish at once, and Henry's object is made plain. To add this regular annual levy to his own revenues would be all clear gain, and would relieve him _pro tanto_ from the necessity of spasmodic and irregular taxation. As for the sheriffs and the districts beneath their sway, they were possibly to be left to their own devices to find a substitute for the lost 'aid', like a modern county council bereft of its wheel tax; for the thought suggests itself that Henry was attempting to reverse the process that we have lately witnessed, by relieving the taxes at the expense of the rates, instead of the rates at the expense of the taxes. Whether, therefore, the attitude of the primate can be described as 'opposition to the king's will in the matter of taxation' is perhaps just open to question. He took his stand on the sure ground of existing 'custom', recognized at that time as binding on all.[13] One is tempted to discern a grim irony in Henry's action when he promptly proceeded to turn the tables on his old friend by appealing to the _avitæ consuetudines_ as obviously binding on so rigid a constitutional purist as the primate.[14]

[Footnote 1: _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 69, 70. So, too, Miss
Norgate: 'It seems, therefore, that for the first time in
English history since the Norman Conquest the right of the
nation's representatives to oppose the financial demands
of the crown was asserted in the Council of Woodstock, and
asserted with such success that the king was obliged not
merely to abandon his project, but to obliterate the last
trace of the tradition on which it was founded' (_Angevin
Kings_, ii. 16).]

[Footnote 2: _Const. Hist._, i. 462; so, too, _Early
Plantagenets_, pp. 68-70; and _Select Charters_, p. 29,
where it is described as 'Henry's proposal to appropriate the
sheriffs' share of danegeld'.]

[Footnote 3: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 15, 16.]

[Footnote 4: _Early Plantagenets_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 5: But the Auctor Anonymus makes it clear that the
king was not asking for the balance of the sums raised, but
for the entirety: 'duo illi solidi ... si in unum conferuntur
immensum efficere possunt cumulum'.]

[Footnote 6: Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 381, 582.]

[Footnote 7: _Dorset Domesday_, p. 144.]

[Footnote 8: Thus accounted for (_Rot. Pip._, 8 Hen. II):

£ s. d.
Paid in 141 10 0
Paid out previously 63 0 0
Allowed for remissions 20 1 2
Balance due 22 13 10
-----------------
247 5 0

N.B. The roll sums up the remissions as £21 [_sic_] 1s 2d, but
the total of the items is £20 1s 2d.]

[Footnote 9: Oxfordshire, for instance, where the amounts were
£239 9s 3d, £249 6s 5d, £242 0s 10d; or Wiltshire, where they
run £388 13s 0d, £389 13s 0d, £388 11s 11d.]

[Footnote 10: _L'Aide al Vescunte_, as quoted by Miss Norgate,
who observes thereon, 'This payment, although described as
customary rather than legal, and called the "sheriffs' aid",
seems really to have been nothing else than the danegeld....
His (Garnier's) story points directly to the danegeld.']

[Footnote 11: _Const. Hist._, i. 382.]

[Footnote 12: In this detail alone Grim appears to have
confused it with the uniform two shilling rate of the
danegeld. The record in the _Testa de Nevill_ (pp. 85, 86)
of the 'auxilium vicecomitis', due from the Vills in the
Wapentake of Framelund (Leic.), illustrates well the payment.]

[Footnote 13: Thus the statement that he 'declared at
Woodstock that the lands of his church should not pay a penny
to the danegeld' (_Const. Hist._, i. 578) misrepresents his
position by making him repudiate his undoubted obligation.]

[Footnote 14: This and the preceding and succeeding papers are
reprinted from the _English Historical Review_.]

A GLIMPSE OF THE YOUNG KING'S COURT (1170)

The charter given below is cited by Madox as evidence that in the days of Henry II the exchequer was still 'sometimes holden in other places' than Westminster. Contrary to his usual practice, he does not print the charter; so, wishing to ascertain what light it might throw on the private transaction it records, I referred to its original enrolment.[1] Finding that its evidence would prove of some historical value, I decided to edit it for the use of students.[2]

Willelmus comes de Essex' omnibus hominibus [et] amicis suis,
Francis [et] Anglis, clericis [et] laicis, tam futuris quam
presentibus, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse [et] concessisse
[et] hac carta mea confirmasse Rogero filio Ricardi [et]
suis heredibus villam de Aynho cum omnibus pertinen[ciis]
in escambio pro Cunctonia hereditarie tenendam de me [et]
heredibus meis sibi [et] heredibus suis per servicium unius
militis [et] dimidii, libere et quiete [et] honorifice sicut
unquam antecessores mei liberius [et] honorificencius eam
tenuerunt [et] habuerunt; scilicet in bosco [et] in plano,
in pratis et pascuis, in viis [et] semitis, in aquis, [et]
molendinis, [et] in omnibus predicte ville adjacentibus.
Et insuper dedi [et] concessi predicto Rogero filio Ricardi
terram de Wlauynton' quam pater meus comes Gal[fridus] dedit
Willelmo de Moretonio, per servicium michi faciendum quod
predictus Willelmus patri meo facere debuit, hereditarie
tenendum [_sic_] de me [et] heredibus meis, illi [et]
heredibus suis. Quare volo [et] firmiter precipio quod ista
donacio rata [et] inconcussa permaneat. Et notum sit omnibus
quod istud eschambium factum fuit apud Wynconiam [_sic_]
ad Scaccarium coram domino Rege Henrico filio regis Henrici
Secundi [et] Baronibus suis. Tes[et]e [_sic_]
Reg' comite, Bac'[3] de Luc[i], Willelmo de Sancto Johanne,
Galfrido Archidiacono Cantuar', Ricardo Archidiacono
Pick[tavensi], Hunfrido de Buh[un] constant[e],[4] Manser'
Biset dap[ifero], Gilberto Malet dap[ifero], Hugone de
Gundvil[la], Alano de Nevill[a], Thoma Basset, Willelmo filio
Audel[ini], Johanne Mereschal, Roberto de Bussone, Johanne
const[abulario] Cestr[iae], Ranulpho de Glanvile, Gaufrido de
Say, Gerard de Kanvill[a], Oseberto filio Ricardi, David de
Jarpenvilla, Ricardo filio Hugonis, Johanne Burd, Willelmo
filio Gill[eberti], Roberto de Sancto Claro, Johanne de Roch,
Hasculfo Capellano, Henrico clerico, Roberto clerico, qui hanc
cartam scripsit, [et] multis aliis.

The purpose of the charter is soon disposed of; it records a grant by the Earl of Essex to Roger fitz Richard (who had married the earl's aunt 'Alice of Essex'[5]) of Aynho, Northants, in exchange for Compton, co. Warwick. Both Manors were in the Mandeville fief, and the former was to be held, as the latter had been (in 1166[6]), 'per servicium unius militis et dimidii'.

The interest of the document is to be sought in its witnesses, and its place of testing, and above all in the date which, I hope to show, they suggest. The mention of the two inseparable archdeacons proves that this date cannot be later than 1174, and consequently, as the young king was present, must have been previous to his revolt in 1173, and therefore to his departure from England about the close of 1172. On the other hand, the date must be subsequent to June 1170, when the young king was crowned, and therefore probably to the meeting at Fréteval (July 22, 1170), at which the Archdeacon of Canterbury was present.

Thus we obtain a limit of date. Within this limit we may exclude the young king's stay in England after the departure of the two archdeacons (December 1170), as also his subsequent presence in England in 1171-2 while his father was in Ireland, for William fitz Aldelin was in Ireland with him. Indeed, we are told by Giraldus (v. 286) that when the king left Ireland (April 1172) William was left behind in charge of Wexford.[7] As the young king then accompanied his father over sea, the only period remaining (except July-December 1170) to which we could assign the document is August-November 1172, when he visited England, with his consort Margaret, for his second coronation. This ceremony took place at Winchester, but we cannot tell whether William fitz Aldelin had yet returned from Ireland, or whether any other of our witnesses were present on that occasion.[8]

But if we turn to the other possible period, the latter half of 1170, we find an occasion when six of the witnesses to the above charter can actually be shown to have been present, under circumstances of peculiar interest, with the young king at Winchester.

The evidence of charters is so deficient at this period of the reign that from August 1170 to June 1171, Mr Eyton could only adduce two charters 'quite problematically' and one more 'safely', as he claims, but erroneously, as his own pages show.[9] If, then, our charter belongs to this period, its evidence is proportionately valuable. Now all that we know of the movements of the young king at the time is that he was at Westminster on October 5th, and that he kept his Christmas at Winchester. Mr Eyton's book must here be used with great caution. He has been misled by R. de Diceto (i. 342)[10] into the statement that Henry was at Woodstock when Becket sought to visit him in December; and adds--by a confusion, it would seem, with his October movements--'The young king is at Windsor' (December 4th[11]). Henry was neither at Woodstock nor Windsor at this time, but at Winchester. Becket's biographers are unanimous in stating that he sent his envoy before him to the young king at Winchester.

Landing on December 1st, and entering Canterbury next day, the primate (says William fitz Stephen), 'post octo dierum moram in sede',[12] sent Richard, prior of Dover (who was destined to be his own successor), to the young king to ask permission to visit him 'tanquam regem et dominum suum'. Richard 'veniens Wintoniam, regem invenit, ubi optimates regni ... coegerat'.[13]

The purpose of this special assembly was connected with the scheme for an irregular election to the vacant sees, at the court of the elder king, by deputations whom his son was to send over.[14] Prior Richard was confronted by the young king's guardians (three of whom attest our charter).[15] He himself, on receiving the application, sent (as I read it) to consult Geoffrey Ridel, who was believed to know his father's wishes, and who, with the Archdeacon of Poitiers, was at Southampton, waiting to cross.[16] Turning, for their movements, to William fitz Stephen, we learn that, while on their way to cross from a Kentish port, the two archdeacons, on entering the county, learnt that the primate had arrived at Canterbury, and, turning their horses' heads, made for a more westerly port.[17] Southampton clearly was the port they made for, and on their way thither they must have visited the young king at Winchester. This is admitted in the case of Geoffrey, who went there, says Becket, to lay before him the complaint of the excommunicated bishops.

I believe that our charter belongs to this occasion, when the two attesting archdeacons were at Winchester. _Reg'_ no doubt is Earl Reginald of Cornwall, who was certainly present at the same time[18] and who is probably referred to in 'li cunte' of Garnier. This will establish the presence of six of our witnesses. Of the others, Richard de Luci takes precedence as justiciar; Alan de Nevill, Thomas Basset, and the great Glanville were, like the two archdeacons and the three guardians of the king, members of the judicial body; Humfrey de Bohun, Gilbert Malet, and Manasser Bisset were present as officers of the household; John, constable of Chester, was (then or afterwards) son-in-law to the grantee's wife, and Geoffrey de Say was the son of the earl's aunt; Osbert fitz Richard and David de Jarpenville (probably John de Rochelle also) were among the earl's feudal tenants and are found attesting another of his charters; and Hasculf was the enterprising chaplain who had plotted to carry off the late earl's corpse and present it to the nuns of Chicksand. The only person whose presence need puzzle us is the Earl of Essex himself; for William fitz Stephen[19] asserts that he was despatched from Henry's court after the arrival there of the excommunicated prelates and the Archdeacon of Poitou. Either, then, he had previously paid a flying visit to Winchester, or he must have been absent when this transaction was recorded.

[Footnote 1: Madox gives a misleading reference. The charter
occurs among the Clavering enrolments of m. 17 (not 19) of the
L.T.R. Memoranda of the Exchequer, containing the Michælmas
_communia_ of 5 Edward II.]

[Footnote 2: Mr Hubert Hall, of the Public Record Office,
kindly undertook to transcribe the charter for me.]

[Footnote 3: Read _Ric[ardo_].]

[Footnote 4: Read _constab[ulo_].]

[Footnote 5: See my paper on 'Who was Alice of Essex?' in the
_Essex Arch. Transactions_.]

[Footnote 6: 'Rogerus filius Ricardi i. militem et tres
partes unius militis.' Probably the quarter fee was a separate
holding.]

[Footnote 7: Humfrey de Bohun also and Hugh de Gundeville were
left behind at Waterford.]

[Footnote 8: Foss (_Judges of England_, i. 235) states
positively that Hugh de Gundeville did not leave Ireland
till 1173, at the time of the rebellion. This, if true,
would dispose at once of an 1172 date for our charter; but,
unfortunately, he does not give his authority, and I have not
succeeded in finding it.]

[Footnote 9: _Court, etc., of Henry II_, pp. 147, 154. The
Archdeacon of Canterbury attests the Chinon charter, which Mr
Eyton 'safely' assigns to the middle of October 1170, adding
that he had 'apparently been with the king ever since the
peace of Fréteval' (July 22nd). But he is known to have been
with the young king at Westminster on October 5th, as indeed
Mr Eyton elsewhere observes (p. 151).]

[Footnote 10: Becket, he says, visited London on his way, 'ad
videndam faciem novi regis, qui tunc temporis morabatur apud
Wdestoc' [_sic_].]

[Footnote 11: 'Court of King Henry the Younger' (Eyton, pp.
151-2).]

[Footnote 12: _Materials_, p. 121. William of Canterbury
places Richard's despatch 'post aliquot dies reditus sui'
(_ibid._, i. 106).]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, i. 106; so Garnier (p. 166, Ed.
Hippeua)--

'Le juefne Rei aveit à Wincestre trové.
Là èrent del pais li barun assemblé.']

[Footnote 14: _Ibid._, 106; so Garnier--

'Pur c'èrent assemblé cele genz à cel jur,
Et li prince et li cunte et des baruns plusur.']

[Footnote 15: 'Veniens itaque legatus ad curiam, convenit
tutores regis ... Willelmum de Sancto Johanne, Willelmum
filium Aldelinae, Hugonem de Gundulfivilla, Randulfum
Stephani' (i. 108-9).]

[Footnote 16: 'Qui de portu Suthamtune transfretaturi erant'
(i. 111). Geoffrey sent back a scornful reply (see also
Garnier) expressing his wonder that the young king could think
of meeting a man who meant to disinherit him. This statement
agrees with Becket's own complaint (vii. 406) that his
_archidiabolus_ Geoffrey was instructed to make this charge.]

[Footnote 17: III. 120. 'Duo archidiaconi ... jam in Cantiam
venerant, ad regem illac transfretaturi. Audito autem
quod archiepiscopus appulsus Cantuariae esset, lora statim
diverterunt, ad occidentals maris portus tendentes.' This
convicts Mr Eyton of error in asserting that on December 1st
the two archdeacons were at Dover, waiting to cross (p. 149).]

[Footnote 18: _Ibid._, i. 111.]

[Footnote 19: _Memorials_, iii. 127.]

THE FIRST KNOWN FINE (1175)

In his masterly introduction to _Select Pleas of the Crown_,[1] Professor Maitland, with his usual skill, discusses the evolution of the _Curia Regis_ and the relation of the central to the itinerant courts. An appendix to this introduction is devoted to 'early fines'; and the conclusion arrived at, as to the date when regular fines began, is that 'the evidence seems to point to the year 1178 or thereabouts, just, that is, to the time when King Henry was remodelling the Curia Regis; thenceforward we have traces of a fairly continuous series of fines' (p. xxvii). More definitely still, in his latest work, he traces the existence of fines 'from the year 1179'.

The earlier document I here print from the valuable cartulary of Evesham (_Vesp._ B. xxiv., fo. 71, etc.) is, I contend, a true fine, and is fortunately dated with exactitude (July 20th):

Hæc est finalis concordia facta in curia domini Regis apud
Evesham ad proximum festum sancte Margarete post mortem
comitis Reginaldi[2] Cornub' coram Willelmo filio Audelini
et Willelmo filio Radulfi et Willelmo Basset et aliis
justiciariis domini regis qui ibi tunc aderant, inter Rogerum
filium Willelmi et Robertum Trunket de terra de Ragl' unde
placitum fuit inter eos in curia domini Regis. Scilicet quod
predictus Wibertus Trunket clamavit quietam predicto Rogero
terram illam de Ragl' et [_sic_] feud[um] et hereditatem suam
et totum jus suum quod in predicta terra habebat, et ipse
trunchet reddidit in curia domini Regis terram illam de Ragl'
in manu [_sic_] abbatis de Evesham, et ipse abbas ibi statim
in curia Regis reddidit eam predicto Rogero. Pro hac autem
concessione dedit predictus Rogerus predicto trunchet xx.
marcas argenti, et predictus abbas dedit truchet unum anulum
argenteum cum cural.

The transcript of this fine is immediately followed by a royal charter confirming it, and establishing Roger in possession:

H. dei gratia ... Sciatis me concessisse et presenti carta
confirmasse finem que factus fuit in curia mea inter, etc.,
etc. ... et Wibertus eam reddidit solutam et quietam in manu
abbatis de evesham de cujus feodo terra illa est.... Et
ideo volo et firmiter precipio.... Test. Willelmo Audelin',
Willelmo filio Radulfi, Willelmo Basset, Berteram de Verdun,
Gaufrido Salvagio. Apud Evesham.

Mr Eyton, to whom this fine was unknown, does not, in his _Court and Itinerary of Henry II_, include Evesham among the places visited by the king in 1175, but makes him visit Feckenham about October (p. 196). But as we learn from the above fine that Henry was at Evesham on July 20th, Mr Eyton's conclusions must be reconsidered. Henry, according to him, was at Woodstock July 8th and at Nottingham August 1st. Now this latter date is derived from a Nottingham charter (p. 193), among the witnesses to which are William fitz Audelin 'Dapifer', William Basset, and William fitz Ralf, the very three justices before whom our fine had been levied at Evesham on July 20th. I hold, therefore, that Henry proceeded (possibly through Lichfield, as Mr Eyton asserts) from Woodstock to Nottingham _via_ Evesham; and, further, that he visited Feckenham (to the north of Evesham) on this occasion, and not, as Mr Eyton imagined, in October. We find accordingly that of the Feckenham charters quoted by that writer (p. 196), one is witnessed by all three of our officers, William fitz Audelin 'Dapifer', William fitz Ralf, and William Basset; one by William fitz Audelin and William fitz Ralf; and the third by William fitz Ralf and William Basset.

Now, working from the Pipe-Rolls, Mr Eyton discovered that:

while the king was in Staffordshire there were pleas held in
that county which are expressed to have been held by William
fitz Ralph, Bertram de Verdon, and William Basset _in curia
Regis_ (p. 193).

He also noted that

the Pipe-Roll of 1175, after duly recounting the results of
the ordinary assizes, held by William de Lanvall and Thomas
Basset (who appear to have visited York while the king was
there), contains the following (in regard to a different kind
of judicature than that at which the two justiciars presided),
and which probably took place in a court of which the king in
person was president:

'Placita et conventiones per Willelmum filius Radulfi,
Bertram de Verdon, et Willelmum Basset, in curia Regis.' These
_Placita_ were apparently nothing more than fines with the
crown (p. 194).

So, too, he found that at Northampton

the three justiciars who had attended him in his special
_curia_ in Staffordshire and at York, negotiated a fine by
Robert de Nevill, 'pro rehabenda saisina de Uppetona quæ fuit
Radulfi de Waltervilla' (p. 194).

My own evidence proves that the same three justiciars had been with him, earlier in the summer, in his special _curia_ at Evesham, where an actual fine was levied.

Thus we have proof that in the summer of 1175 the king was accompanied on his progress by a special group of justices, with whose assistance he held pleas, just as, a generation later, John, in his ninth year, 'was journeying about the country with three judges in his train--Simon Pateshull, Potterne, and Pont Audemer'.[3] While he was doing this, as Eyton has shown, two great eyres were going on throughout the country, one of them conducted by William de Lanvall[ei] and Thomas Basset, the other by Ranulf de Glanville and Hugh de Cressi. It is noteworthy that all these four are found, with William fitz Audelin, among the witnesses to a royal charter assigned by Mr Eyton--rightly, no doubt--to the king's stay at York (_circ._ August 10, 1175), as they also are among the witnesses to the Nottingham charter mentioned above (p. 385), assigned by Eyton to August 1st. The latter, therefore, brings together the king's own party of three or four justices with the four justices in eyre.

The great importance of this royal _iter_ consists in its bearing on the evolution of the _curia regis_. The years 1175 and 1176 form a critical epoch in this institutional development. Dr Stubbs, writing on this subject, reminds us that 'the first _placita curiæ regis_ mentioned by Madox are in 1175' (i. 600), and speaks of the 'two circuits of the justices in 1175, and the six circuits of the judges in 1176' (_ibid._). So far, indeed, all is clear. The two judicial eyres of 1175 are known to us from the Pipe-Rolls; the six of 1176 are found in the chronicles also, for they were settled by the Assize of Northampton in January of that year (i. 484-5). The really difficult subject is the king's own _iter_, for which, we have seen, there is clear evidence, but of which Dr Stubbs, working from Madox, seems to have been unaware. His words are:

All the eighteen justices of 1176 were officers of the
Exchequer; some of them are found in 1175 holding 'placita
curiæ regis' in bodies of three or four judges, and not in the
same combinations in which they took their judicial journeys.
We can scarcely help the conclusion that the new jurisprudence
was being administered by committees of the general body of
justices, who were equally qualified to sit in the Curia and
Exchequer, and to undertake the fiscal and judicial work of
the eyre.

[_Note_: For instance, in 1176, William fitz Ralf, Bertram de
Verdun, and William Basset hear pleas in Curia Regis touching
Bucks. and Beds.; yet on the eyre, these two counties are
visited by three other judges, etc.]

These statements are based on Madox's extracts from the Pipe-Rolls,[4] which afford, however, more definite evidence than Dr Stubbs discovered. In the Pipe-Roll of 1175 and its immediate successor we find 'Placita _in Curia Regis_' held by a single group of judges--William fitz Ralf, Bertram de Verdon, and William Basset (Thomas Basset is a substitute in one case and William fitz Audelin, we have seen, in another)--quite distinct from the 'placita' of the justices in eyre, which were not described as 'in curia regis'. The view, therefore, that I now advance is that these pleas, 'in curia regis', were held by a separate group of judges in the train of the king himself, whose _iter_ began at Reading, June 1175.[5] It was there, I believe, that were held the 'placita' for Bucks and Beds, duly recorded in the Pipe-Roll of 1175. That this royal _iter_ was continued through the Exchequer year 1175-6 seems to be well established, and the chronological difficulty of distinguishing between the two years renders the discovery of a fixed point, such as that afforded by the Evesham fine, of special value. Its evidence also establishes the presence of the king in person,[6] whose charter of confirmation should be carefully noted on account of its reciting the fine.

Having now traced the royal _iter_, of which the pleas are distinguished on the Pipe-Rolls as held 'in curia regis', I turn to the circuits of the judges. I have fortunately lighted, in the course of my researches, on two more fines earlier than any known to Professor Maitland. And, better still, one of these is the original document itself. The date of the first is July 1 and of the second June 29, 1176. The justices named in each case are those who are known to have gone the circuits, in which Leicester and Oxford were respectively comprised.[7] The importance of these documents demands that they should be printed _in extenso_.

I

Hec est finalis concordia facta apud Legr[ecestr]am proxima
die Jovis post proximum festum apostolorum petri et pauli
postquam Hugucio legatus Rome pervenit in Angliam,[8] coram
Hugonem de Gundevile et Willelmo filio Radulfi et Willelmo
Basset, Justiciariis domini Regis, et ceteris Baronibus qui
ibi tunc aderant Inter Galfridum Ridel et Bertramum de Verdun
de terra de Madeleye, unde placitum fuit inter eos in curia
Domini Regis, Videlicet quod Galfridus Ridel dedit Bertrammo
[_sic_] de Verdun feodum I militis in Leycest'syre, scilicet
servitium viii. car. terre quas Robert Devel tenet in
Swineford et in Walecote et servitium ii. car. terre quas
Walterus de Folevile tenet in parva Essebi et servitium I car.
terre quam peverel tenet in Flekeneye, et servitium i. car.
terre quam Hardeui[nus] tenet in eadem Flekeneye. Et has xii.
car. terre dedit ei et concessit in feodo et hereditate per
servicium unius militis. Et in Staffordesyre dedit predictus
Galfridus prenominato Bretamo [_sic_] xii. bov. terre quas
habebat in Crokestene de feodo de Madelye et servitium de
Foxwiss et de Hanekote per v. sol. inde annuatim reddendos
Galfrido pro omnibus que ad illum pertinent. Has vero terras
in Leycest'syre et in Staffordsyre dedit Galfridus Ridel et
concessit Bertramo et heredibus suis tenendas de illo et de
heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate libere et quiete per
prenominatum servitium pro omnibus que ad illum pertinent, et
pro ista donatione et concessione Bertrammus [_sic_] de Werdun
[_sic_] totam calumpniam quam habuit versus Galfridum in
Madeleye quietum clamavit de illo et de heredibus suis
Galfrido Ridel et heredibus suis.[9]

II

Hec est finalis concordia que facta fuit apud Ox[eneforde] in
curia Regis coram Ricardo Giffard et Rogero filio Reinfr[idi]
et Johanne de Caerdif Justitiis Regis ... proximum festum
apostolorum petri et pauli postquam dominus Rex cepit
ligantiam baronum Scotie apud [Ebo]racum[10] inter Canonicos
Oseneie et Ingream et tres filias eius scilicet Gundream et
Isabella et Margaretam de terre de Oxenef[orde] unde placitum
fuerat inter eos in curia Regis scilicet quod Ingrea et tres
filie sue prenominate clamaverunt predictis canonicis quietam
terram illam in Oxenenef[orde] de se et de heredibus suis pro
xx. sol. quos canonici illi dederunt et omne jus quod in eadem
terra habebant quietum illis clamaverunt.[11]

It will be observed that the Oxford fine is described as made 'in curia regis', while the Leicester one is not. It would seem, then, that in spite of the distinction drawn at first on the rolls, the phrase 'curia regis' was already creeping in as describing a court at which the king was not present.

I have also discovered, in MS., a 'fine' of some ten or twelve years earlier, most valuable for comparison with those which I have here discussed. We have there a similar charter of confirmation, in which the king describes the transaction as 'finem illum quem Abbas Willelmus de Hulmo fecit coram me',[12] and the document confirmed, moreover, describes itself as a 'finis' between the Abbot of Holme and William and Henry de Neville, brothers.[13] But the form is very different from that of the true fine, which is fully developed in our example of 1175. The Holme 'fine' may be safely assigned to March 1163-March 1166,[14] and as it was 'made' at Westminster, it not improbably belongs to the series of proceedings there _circ._ March 8, 1163. It may fairly be presumed that if, at the date of this fine, the fully developed form existed it would have been duly employed at Westminster on this occasion. We may therefore safely assert, at least, that it came into use between the dates of these two transactions.

As bearing on the evolution of the fine, the charter of Henry II, confirming a 'finis et concordia', and assigned by me to 1163-70,[15] ought to be compared with the Holme charter, as indicating, perhaps, some advance, through the close resemblance between the clauses, in these royal charters, confirming the fine points to an almost common stage of development.

HOLME LEWES

Quare volo et firmiter precipio Et ideo volo et firmiter precipio
quod finis ille sicut coram me ut finis iste et concordia
factus est stabilis sit, et stabilis sit et firma maneat et
firmiter et inconcusse ex inconcusse inter eos teneatur,
utraque parte teneatur. sicut facta fuit coram me et
utrobique concessa.

The part played by William fitz Audelin in the affairs, at this time, of Ireland, gives also some importance to this proof of his presence at Evesham on July 20, 1175. It brings us, indeed, in contact with the great 'Laudabiliter' controversy. Miss Norgate holds that William fitz Audelin was sent to Ireland in charge (with the Prior of Wallingford) of that contested document in 1175.[16] Professor Tout, in his biography of William, writes on the contrary, oddly enough, that he was 'sent in 1174 or 1175' [_sic_] on this mission, but 'soon left Ireland, for he appears as a witness of the treaty of Falaise in October 1174 [_sic_], and in 1175 and 1176 he was constantly in attendance at court in discharge of his duties as steward or seneschal'.[17] This confusion, however, is slight when compared with the statements as to William's tenure of the government of Ireland. It is agreed that he was sent to succeed Earl Richard (who died April 5, 1176); but while Miss Norgate holds that 'early in the next year Henry found it necessary to recall him',[18] Professor Tout places his recall in 1179, consequent on complaints against him to the king in January of that year. Without undertaking to decide the question, I may suggest that William had returned to England by May 1177--for he is proved by charters to have attended the Oxford council of that date--when Henry replaced him, as governor, by Hugh de Lacy, but entrusted him, as Hoveden states, with Wexford. We have only to assume that Gerald, by mistake, assigns to 1172 his Wexford appointment, which really belonged to 1177 (Professor Tout thinks this probable), and then the solution I suggest satisfies all the requirements.

William fitz Audelin, I may add, has been peculiarly the sport of genealogists. Having been selected by them as ancestor to the great Irish house of Burke ('De Burgo') he was further transformed, by a flight of fancy even wilder than usual, into a lineal descendant of Charlemagne. Who he really was seems to have remained unknown, for his life in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ treats with suspicion, though duly mentioning, his alleged descent from Charlemagne. Moreover, his very name would seem to have been left in doubt. It would, of course, be difficult to distinguish 'Aldelinus' from 'Aldelmus' in MS., and I confess to having looked on the latter--which is the form adopted by Professor Tout in the _Dictionary of National Biography_, as by Miss Norgate and others--as probable enough from its likeness to the English 'Aldhelm'. But the 'fitz Audeline' of the Anglo-Norman poem on the Conquest of Ireland seems decisive. 'Willelmus filius Audelini, domini regis dapifer' was the style he used in his own charters.[19]

Having always kept a look-out for him in Yorkshire, I recognized William at once in a charter which is among those abstracted in the Report on the Portland MSS.[20] This is a confirmation by Roger de Mowbray of a grant to Fountains by 'Aldelin de Aldefeld and Ralph his son and his other sons'. Among the witnesses are 'Ralph son of Aldelin, William his brother', and at the close, 'Amelin son of Aldel'. Now, if we turn to the _cartæ_ of 1166, we find, under Yorkshire, that Ralph 'filius Aldelin' held half a knight's fee of Roger de Mowbray, and William filius Aldelin one fee of Henry de Lacy. Here we recognize the two brothers mentioned in the charters above.[21] The small fief of William 'filius Aldelin' himself is entered under Hampshire, where it is described as 'terra quam dominus Rex dedit Willelmo filio Aldelin, Marscallo suo, cum Juliana filia Roberti Dorsnelli'.

It is through this Juliana that we obtain the coping-stone of proof. Her charter granting Little Maplestead, Essex, to the Hospitallers, has for its first witness 'Radulfo filio Adelini', who, as we have seen above, was her husband's brother.[22] And he is also the first witness to William's confirmation of her gift.[23]

The parentage and the true name of William fitz Audelin are thus, at length, clearly established.

[Footnote 1: Vol. i. (Selden Society).]

[Footnote 2: 'Reg.' MS. The earl died July 1, 1175. This fine
further confirms the accuracy of the _Gesta Henrici_ (see
Eyton, p. 192).]

[Footnote 3: Maitland's _Select Pleas of the Crown_, I. xv.]

[Footnote 4: _History of the Exchequer_ (Ed. 1711), pp. 64,
65.]

[Footnote 5: Eyton's _Itinerary_ p. 191.]

[Footnote 6: Prof Maitland has explained that this presence
was formal (_Select Pleas of the Crown_, I. xiv).]

[Footnote 7: Except that Robert fitz Bernard's place is taken
by John of Cardiff.]

[Footnote 8: October 27, 1175.]

[Footnote 9: Sloane Charter xxxi. 4, No. 34. See also
Addenda.]

[Footnote 10: August 1175.]

[Footnote 11: Cotton Charter, xi. 73 (original).]

[Footnote 12: Galba, E., II. fo. 31_b_.]

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, 62_b_.]

[Footnote 14: The witnesses to the fine and the charter
confirming it included Richard Archdeacon of Poitiers and
Robert Earl of Leicester. The former gives us the limit March
1163, and the king was not in England in the lifetime of the
latter after March 1166.]

[Footnote 15: See my _Ancient Charters_, pp. 67-8.]

[Footnote 16: 'It is acknowledged on all hands that there is
no sign of any attempt on Henry's part to publish the letter
in Ireland ... before 1175. In that year Gerald states that
the letter was read ... at Waterford.' _English Historical
Review_, viii. 44. Cf. p. 31. See also _Angevin Kings_, ii.
182.]

[Footnote 17: _Dictionary of National Biography_. I differ
wholly from both writers, and take the view, based on record
evidence, that, contrary to the accepted belief, William
visited Ireland some two years earlier.]

[Footnote 18: _England under the Angevin Kings_, ii. 183.]

[Footnote 19: The name of 'Audelin' is extant as a surname. I
have met with it in London.]

[Footnote 20: 13th Report Hist. MSS., App. ii., p. 4. We are
indebted, I believe, to Mr Maxwell Lyte for these interesting
abstracts.]

[Footnote 21: The name seems to be preserved in Thorpe-Audlin
(_vulgo_ Audling), a township in the West Riding of Yorkshire,
some 4-1/2 miles from Pontefract.]

[Footnote 22: It seems to be printed only in a footnote to
Morant's _Essex_ (i. 282). 'Radulfo filio Willelmi domini mei'
is a witness, which certainly suggests that William had been
married before.]

[Footnote 23: See _Monasticon_. Prof Tout seems to have been
unaware of these charters of William, one of which is dated.
Indeed he only says that William 'is said to have married'
Juliana, giving the _carta_ (1166) as his authority.]

THE MONTMORENCY IMPOSTURE

Many a jest has been levelled at the Irish family of Morres for seeking and obtaining permission from the Crown, some eighty years ago, to assume the glorious name of 'De Montmorency', in lieu of their own, as having been originally that of their family.[1] They have since borne, as is well known, not merely the name, but even the arms and the proud device of that illustrious house. Moreover, the introduction of the name Bouchard, borne by the present Lord Mountmorres, proves the determination of the family to persist in their lofty pretensions.

I am not aware whether these pretensions have ever been regularly exposed: they seem to have been thought too fantastic for serious criticism. At the same time, it must be remembered that they have been formally and officially recognized by Sir W. Betham as Deputy Ulster, by the English crown (on the strength of his statement) and by the Chevalier De la Rue, 'garde-général des archives du Royaume', on the French side, in 1818. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that MM. de Montmorency at the time, in spite of the repeated and strenuous appeals of the Morres family, declined to admit their claim to be members of the house of Montmorency.

To the indignant protest of Col. Hervey Morres (styling himself 'de Montmorency-Morres') against this action of the French house, we owe the most complete exposition of the case on behalf of his family.[2] On it, therefore, my criticisms will be based. Nor will these criticisms be destructive only: they will show that the pedigrees upheld by Col. Morres and his opponents were both alike erroneous, and will establish the real facts, which, it will be found, completely vindicate the accuracy of Giraldus Cambrensis.

The controversy hinged on a well-known personage. 'Herveius de Monte Mauricii', as Giraldus terms him. The French house, taking their stand on the historians of their family, insisted that he was the only Montmorency who had gone to Ireland in his time, and that as he had, admittedly, left no legitimate issue, the Morres claim was untenable. The Irish house contended that, on the contrary, others of the family had come over also, and that they were lineally descended from one of Hervey's brothers, but the whole story undoubtedly sprang from the mention of this Hervey--the sole connecting link--and from the curious form in which Giraldus chose to latinize his name.

Now Duchesne, the historian of the house of Montmorency, whose version Desormeaux and Père Anselme did but follow in the main, wrote thus of Hervey:

Il espousa Elizabeth de Meullent veuve de Gislebert de Claire,
Comte de Pembroc en Angleterre et mère de Richard de Claire,
surnommé Strongbow, Comte de Pembroke, dompteur de l'Hibernie,
duquel à raison de cette alliance un Autheur du temps le
qualifie parastre ou beaupère (p. 92).[3]

But this 'Autheur' is Giraldus Cambrensis, on whom Duchesne based his account, and who, we find, does not speak of Hervey as stepfather, but as paternal uncle of Strongbow:

Herveius de Monte Mauricii, vir quoque fugitivus a facie
fortunæ, inermis et inops, ex parte Richardi comitis cujus
_patruus_ erat, explorator potius quam expugnator advenit (i.
3).

Duchesne's version, therefore, is out of court, although it was repeated by Père Anselme, and even adopted in the _Genealogist_ by so skilled and able a genealogist as Mr G. W. Watson.[4]

Col. Hervey Morres went so far as to accuse Duchesne and Desormeaux 'd'adulation, d'immoralité, et de mauvaise foi' in giving this account of his great namesake; and he proceeded to substitute a version of his own, severing the hapless man and converting him into two! To make this clear, I must print the essential part of the pedigree as given by him.

Hervé
de Montmorency
|
-------------------------------------------
| | |
Bouchard Geoffroi Hervé,
de Montmorency dit le Riche 1st Bishop
V | of Ely [1109-31]
|
-------------------------------
| |
Adelaide = Hervé Robert, fils de
de de Montmorency Geoffroi, fils
Clermont | de Hervé
| |
| |
---------------- -----------------------
| | | | |
Guillaume, HERVÉ, Etienne, Jordan HERVÉ,
ob. s. p. fils de Hervé, d. 1136, V Connétable
chamberlain to aged 56 or 57 d'Irelande,
Henry II, 1182 | ob. s. p. 1205
|
|
Robert,
fils d'Etienne

The explanation is extremely simple: the whole pedigree is concocted with a view to making the Irish Hervey uncle to Robert fitz Stephen. This was done to satisfy the supposed requirements of Giraldus, whose words Col. Morres thus triumphantly quoted: