Transcriber's Note
Obvious printer errors have been corrected. Hyphenation has been
rationalised. Inconsistent spelling (including accents and capitals) has
been retained. Not all accents display properly in all applications.
Small capitals have been replaced by full capitals. Italics are
indicated by _underscores_. Text in multiple columns has been rearranged
into single columns.
The sidenotes in Chapter 4 have been transferred to the text, and are
bracketed by ►pointers◄. Genealogical tables in Appendices K and U have
been split into two in order to reduce their widh.
Some references to years are encased in square brackets, as for example
[1136]. To avoid confusion with the numbered footnotes, these references
have instead been encased in rounded brackets.
GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE
[Illustration:
FACSIMILE OF CHARTER CREATING GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE EARL OF ESSEX.
_See p._ 51.]
GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE
_A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY_
BY
J. H. ROUND, M.A.
AUTHOR OF "THE EARLY LIFE OF ANNE BOLEYN: A CRITICAL ESSAY"
"Anno incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo centesimo quadragesimo primo
inextricabilem labyrinthum rerum et negotiorum quæ acciderunt in Anglia
aggredior evolvere."—_William of Malmesbury_
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16ᵗʰ STREET
1892
_All rights reserved_
PREFACE
"The reign of Stephen," in the words of our greatest living historian,
"is one of the most important in our whole history, as exemplifying the
working of causes and principles which had no other opportunity of
exhibiting their real tendencies." To illustrate in detail the working
of those principles to which the Bishop of Oxford thus refers, is the
chief object I have set before myself in these pages. For this purpose I
have chosen, to form the basis of my narrative, the career of Geoffrey
de Mandeville, as the most perfect and typical presentment of the feudal
and anarchic spirit that stamps the reign of Stephen. By fixing our
glance upon one man, and by tracing his policy and its fruits, it is
possible to gain a clearer perception of the true tendencies at work,
and to obtain a firmer grasp of the essential principles involved. But,
while availing myself of Geoffrey's career to give unity to my theme, I
have not scrupled to introduce, from all available sources, any
materials bearing on the period known as the Anarchy, or illustrating
the points raised by the charters with which I deal.
The headings of my chapters express a fact upon which I cannot too
strongly insist, namely, that the charters granted to Geoffrey are the
very backbone of my work. By those charters it must stand or fall: for
on their relation and their evidence the whole narrative is built. If
the evidence of these documents is accepted, and the relation I have
assigned to them established, it will, I trust, encourage the study of
charters and their evidence, "as enabling the student both to amplify
and to check such scanty knowledge as we now possess of the times to
which they relate."[1] It will also result in the contribution of some
new facts to English history, and break, as it were, by the wayside, a
few stones towards the road on which future historians will travel.
Among the subjects on which I shall endeavour to throw some fresh light
are problems of constitutional and institutional interest, such as the
title to the English Crown, the origin and character of earldoms
(especially the earldom of Arundel), the development of the fiscal
system, and the early administration of London. I would also invite
attention to such points as the appeal of the Empress to Rome in 1136,
her intended coronation at Westminster in 1141, the unknown Oxford
intrigue of 1142, the new theory on Norman castles suggested by
Geoffrey's charters, and the genealogical discoveries in the Appendix on
Gervase de Cornhill. The prominent part that the Earl of Gloucester
played in the events of which I write may justify the inclusion of an
essay on the creation of his historic earldom, which has, in the main,
already appeared in another quarter.
In the words of Mr. Eyton, "the dispersion of error is the first step in
the discovery of truth."[2] Cordially adopting this maxim, I have
endeavoured throughout to correct errors and dispose of existing
misconceptions. To "dare to be accurate" is, as Mr. Freeman so often
reminds us, neither popular nor pleasant. It is easier to prophesy
smooth things, and to accept without question the errors of others, in
the spirit of mutual admiration. But I would repeat that "boast as we
may of the achievements of our new scientific school, we are still, as I
have urged, behind the Germans, so far, at least, as accuracy is
concerned." If my criticism be deemed harsh, I may plead with Newman
that, in controversy, "I have ever felt from experience that no one
would believe me to be in earnest if I spoke calmly." The public is slow
to believe that writers who have gained its ear are themselves often in
error and, by the weight of their authority, lead others astray. At the
same time, I would earnestly insist that if, in the light of new
evidence, I have found myself compelled to differ from the conclusions
even of Dr. Stubbs, it in no way impeaches the accuracy of that
unrivalled scholar, the profundity of whose learning and the soundness
of whose judgment can only be appreciated by those who have followed him
in the same field.
The ill-health which has so long postponed the completion and appearance
of this work is responsible for some shortcomings of which no one is
more conscious than myself. It has been necessary to correct the
proof-sheets at a distance from works of reference, and indeed from
England, while the length of time that has elapsed since the bulk of the
work was composed is such that two or three new books bearing upon the
same period have appeared in the mean while. Of these I would specially
mention Mr. Howlett's contributions to the Rolls Series, and Miss
Norgate's well-known _England under the Angevin Kings_. Mr. Howlett's
knowledge of the period, and especially of its MS. authorities, is of a
quite exceptional character, while Miss Norgate's useful and painstaking
work, which enjoys the advantage of a style that one cannot hope to
rival, is a most welcome addition to our historical literature. To Dr.
Stubbs, also, we are indebted for a new edition of William of
Malmesbury. As I had employed for that chronicler and for the _Gesta
Stephani_ the English Historical Society's editions, my references are
made to them, except where they are specially assigned to those editions
by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Howlett which have since appeared.
A few points of detail should, perhaps, be mentioned. The text of
transcripts has been scrupulously preserved, even where it seemed
corrupt; and all my extensions as to which any possible question could
arise are enclosed in square brackets. The so-called "new style" has
been adhered to throughout: that is to say, the dates given are those of
the true historical year, irrespective of the wholly artificial
reckoning from March 25. The form "fitz," denounced by purists, has been
retained as a necessary convention, the admirable _Calendar of Patent
Rolls_, now in course of publication, having demonstrated the
impossibility of devising a satisfactory substitute. As to the spelling
of Christian names, no attempt has been made to produce that pedantic
uniformity which, in the twelfth century, was unknown. It is hoped that
the index may be found serviceable and complete. The allusions to "the
lost volume of the Great Coucher" (of the duchy of Lancaster) are based
on references to that compilation by seventeenth-century transcribers,
which cannot be identified in the volumes now preserved. It is to be
feared that the volume most in request among antiquaries may, in those
days, have been "lent out" (cf. p. 183), with the usual result. I am
anxious to call attention to its existence in the hope of its ultimate
recovery.
There remains the pleasant task of tendering my thanks to Mr. Hubert
Hall, of H.M.'s Public Record Office, and Mr. F. Bickley, of the MS.
Department, British Museum, for their invariable courtesy and assistance
in the course of my researches. To Mr. Douglass Round I am indebted for
several useful suggestions, and for much valuable help in passing these
pages through the press.
J. H. ROUND.
PAU,
_Christmas_, 1891.
[1] Preface to my _Ancient Charters_ (Pipe-Roll Society).
[2] _Staffordshire Survey_, p. 277.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I.
THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN 1
CHAPTER II.
THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING 37
CHAPTER III.
TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS 55
CHAPTER IV.
THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS 81
CHAPTER V.
THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN 114
CHAPTER VI.
THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER 123
CHAPTER VII.
THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING 136
CHAPTER VIII.
THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS 163
CHAPTER IX.
FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY 201
CHAPTER X.
THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX 227
APPENDICES.
A. STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS 247
B. THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136 250
C. THE EASTER COURT OF 1136 262
D. THE "FISCAL" EARLS 267
E. THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS 278
F. THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER 284
G. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES 286
H. THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS" 287
I. "VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES" 297
J. THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS 299
K. GERVASE DE CORNHILL 304
L. CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP 313
M. THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL 316
N. ROBERT DE VERE 326
O. "TOWER" AND "CASTLE" 328
P. THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON 347
Q. OSBERTUS OCTODENARII 374
R. THE FOREST OF ESSEX 376
S. THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND
GLOUCESTER 379
T. "AFFIDATIO IN MANU" 384
U. THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE 388
V. WILLIAM OF ARQUES 397
X. ROGER "DE RAMIS" 399
Y. THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND 405
Z. BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME 411
AA. "TENSERIE" 414
BB. THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL 417
EXCURSUS.
THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER 420
ADDENDA 437
INDEX 441
CHAPTER I.
THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN.
Before approaching that struggle between King Stephen and his rival, the
Empress Maud, with which this work is mainly concerned, it is desirable
to examine the peculiar conditions of Stephen's accession to the crown,
determining, as they did, his position as king, and supplying, we shall
find, the master-key to the anomalous character of his reign.
The actual facts of the case are happily beyond question. From the
moment of his uncle's death, as Dr. Stubbs truly observes, "the
succession was treated as an open question."[3] Stephen, quick to see
his chance, made a bold stroke for the crown. The wind was in his
favour, and, with a handful of comrades, he landed on the shores of
Kent.[4] His first reception was not encouraging: Dover refused him
admission, and Canterbury closed her gates.[5] On this Dr. Stubbs thus
comments:—
"At Dover and at Canterbury he was received with sullen silence. The
men of Kent had no love for the stranger who came, as his predecessor
Eustace had done, to trouble the land."[6]
But "the men of Kent" were faithful to Stephen, when all others forsook
him, and, remembering this, one would hardly expect to find in them his
chief opponents. Nor, indeed, were they. Our great historian, when he
wrote thus, must, I venture to think, have overlooked the passage in
Ordericus (v. 110), from which we learn, incidentally, that Canterbury
and Dover were among those fortresses which the Earl of Gloucester held
by his father's gift.[7] It is, therefore, not surprising that Stephen
should have met with this reception at the hands of the lieutenants of
his arch-rival. It might, indeed, be thought that the prescient king had
of set purpose placed these keys of the road to London in the hands of
one whom he could trust to uphold his cherished scheme.[8]
Stephen, undiscouraged by these incidents, pushed on rapidly to London.
The news of his approach had gone before him, and the citizens flocked
to meet him. By them, as is well known, he was promptly chosen to be
king, on the plea that a king was needed to fill the vacant throne, and
that the right to elect one was specially vested in themselves.[9] The
point, however, that I would here insist on, for it seems to have been
scarcely noticed, is that this election appears to have been essentially
conditional, and to have been preceded by an agreement with the
citizens.[10] The bearing of this will be shown below.
There is another noteworthy point which would seem to have escaped
observation. It is distinctly implied by William of Malmesbury that the
primate, seizing his opportunity, on Stephen's appearance in London, had
extorted from him, as a preliminary to his recognition, as Maurice had
done from Henry at his coronation, and as Henry of Winchester was,
later, to do in the case of the Empress, an oath to restore the Church
her "liberty," a phrase of which the meaning is well known. Stephen, he
adds, on reaching Winchester, was released from this oath by his
brother, who himself "went bail" (made himself responsible) for
Stephen's satisfactory behaviour to the Church.[11] It is, surely, to
this incident that Henry so pointedly alludes in his speech at the
election of the Empress.[12] It can only, I think, be explained on the
hypothesis that Stephen chafed beneath the oath he had taken, and begged
his brother to set him free. If so, the attempt was vain, for he had, we
shall find, to bind himself anew on the occasion of his Oxford
charter.[13]
At Winchester the citizens, headed by their bishop, came forth from the
city to greet him, but this reception must not be confused (as it is by
Mr. Freeman) with his election by the citizens of London.[14] His
brother, needless to say, met him with an eager welcome, and the main
object of his visit was attained when William de Pont de l'Arche, who
had shrunk, till his arrival, from embracing his cause, now, in concert
with the head of the administration, Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, placed
at his disposal the royal castle, with the treasury and all that it
contained.[15]
Thus strengthened, he returned to London for coronation at the hands of
the primate. Dr. Stubbs observes that "he returned to London for _formal
election_ and coronation."[16] His authority for that statement is
Gervase (i. 94), who certainly asserts it distinctly.[17] But it will be
found that he, who was not a contemporary, is the only authority for
this second election, and, moreover, that he ignores the first, as well
as the visit to Winchester, thus mixing up the two episodes, between
which that visit intervened. Of course this opens the wider question as
to whether the actual election, in such cases, took place at the
coronation itself or on a previous occasion. This may, perhaps, be a
matter of opinion; but in the preceding instance, that of Henry I., the
election was admittedly that which took place at Winchester, and was
previous to and unconnected with the actual coronation itself.[18] From
this point of view, the presentation of the king to the people at his
coronation would assume the aspect of a ratification of the election
previously conducted. The point is here chiefly of importance as
affecting the validity of Stephen's election. If his only election was
that which the citizens of London conducted, it was, to say the least,
"informally transacted."[19] Nor was the attendance of magnates at the
ceremony such as to improve its character. It was, as Dr. Stubbs truly
says, "but a poor substitute for the great councils which had attended
the summons of William and Henry."[20] The chroniclers are here
unsatisfactory. Henry of Huntingdon is rhetorical and vague; John of
Hexham leaves us little wiser;[21] the Continuator of Florence indeed
states that Stephen, when crowned, kept his Christmas court "cum totius
Angliæ primoribus" (p. 95), but even the author of the _Gesta_ implies
that the primate's scruples were largely due to the paucity of magnates
present.[22] William of Malmesbury alone is precise,[23] possibly
because an adversary of Stephen could alone afford to be so, and his
testimony, we shall find, is singularly confirmed by independent charter
evidence (p. 11).
It was at this stage that an attempt was made to dispel the scruples
caused by Stephen's breach of his oath to the late king. The hint, in
the _Gesta_, that Henry, on his deathbed, had repented of his act in
extorting that oath,[24] is amplified by Gervase into a story that he
had released his barons from its bond,[25] while Ralph "de Diceto"
represents the assertion as nothing less than that the late king had
actually disinherited the Empress, and made Stephen his heir in her
stead.[26] It should be noticed that these last two writers, in their
statement that this story was proved by Hugh Bigod on oath, are
confirmed by the independent evidence of the _Historia Pontificalis_.[27]
The importance of securing, as quickly as possible, the performance of
the ceremony of coronation is well brought out by the author of the
_Gesta_ in the arguments of Stephen's friends when combating the
primate's scruples. They urged that it would _ipso facto_ put an end to
all question as to the validity of his election.[28] The advantage, in
short, of "snatching" a coronation was that, in the language of modern
diplomacy, of securing a _fait accompli_. Election was a matter of
opinion; coronation a matter of fact. Or, to employ another expression,
it was the "outward and visible sign" that a king had begun his reign.
Its important bearing is well seen in the case of the Conqueror himself.
Dr. Stubbs observes, with his usual judgment, that "the ceremony was
understood as bestowing the divine ratification on the election that had
preceded it."[29] Now, the fact that the performance of this essential
ceremony was, of course, wholly in the hands of the Church, in whose
power, therefore, it always was to perform or to withhold it at its
pleasure, appears to me to have naturally led to the growing assumption
that we now meet with, the claim, based on a confusion of the ceremony
with the actual election itself, that it was for the Church to elect the
king. This claim, which in the case of Stephen (1136) seems to have been
only inchoate,[30] appears at the time of his capture (1141) in a fully
developed form,[31] the circumstances of the time having enabled the
Church to increase its power in the State with perhaps unexampled
rapidity.
May it not have been this development, together with his own experience,
that led Stephen to press for the coronation of his son Eustace in his
lifetime (1152)? In this attempted innovation he was, indeed, defeated
by the Church, but the lesson was not lost. Henry I., unlike his
contemporaries, had never taken this precaution, and Henry II., warned
by his example, succeeded in obtaining the coronation of his heir (1170)
in the teeth of Becket's endeavours to forbid the act, and so to uphold
the veto of the Church.
Prevailed upon, at length, to perform the ceremony, the primate seized
the opportunity of extorting from the eager king (besides a charter of
liberties) a renewal of his former oath to protect the rights of the
Church. The oath which Henry had sworn at his coronation, and which Maud
had to swear at her election, Stephen had to swear, it seems, at both,
though not till the Oxford charter was it committed, in his case, to
writing.[32]
We now approach an episode unknown to all our historians.[33]
The Empress, on her side, had not been idle; she had despatched an envoy
to the papal court, in the person of the Bishop of Angers, to appeal her
rival of (1) defrauding her of her right, and (2) breach of his solemn
oath. Had this been known to Mr. Freeman, he would, it is safe to
assert, have been fascinated by the really singular coincidence between
the circumstances of 1136 and of 1066. In each case, of the rivals for
the throne, the one based his pretensions on (1) kinship, fortified by
(2) an oath to secure his succession, which had been taken by his
opponent himself; while the other rested his claims on election duly
followed by coronation. In each case the election was fairly open to
question; in Harold's, because (_pace_ Mr. Freeman) he was _not_ a
legitimate candidate; in Stephen's, because, though a qualified
candidate, his election had been most informal. In each case the ousted
claimant appealed to the papal court, and, in each case, on the same
grounds, viz. (1) the kinship, (2) the broken oath. In each case the
successful party was opposed by a particular cardinal, a fact which we
learn, in each case, from later and incidental mention. And in each case
that cardinal became, afterwards, pope. But here the parallel ends.
Stephen accepted, where Harold had (so far as we know) rejected, the
jurisdiction of the Court of Rome. We may assign this difference to the
closer connection between Rome and England in Stephen's day, or we may
see in it proof that Stephen was the more politic of the two. For his
action was justified by its success. There has been, on this point, no
small misconception. Harold has been praised for possessing, and Stephen
blamed for lacking, a sense of his kingly dignity. But _læsio fidei_ was
essentially a matter for courts Christian, and thus for the highest of
them all, at Rome. Again, inheritance, so far as inheritance affected
the question, was brought in many ways within the purview of the courts
Christian, as, for instance, in the case of the alleged illegitimacy of
Maud. Moreover, in 1136, the pope, though circumstances played into his
hands, advanced no such pretension as his successor in the days of John.
His attitude was not that of an overlord to a dependent fief: he made no
claim to dispose of the realm of England. Sitting as judge in a
spiritual court, he listened to the charges brought by Maud against
Stephen in his personal capacity, and, without formally acquitting him,
declined to pronounce him guilty.
Though the king was pleased to describe the papal letter which followed
as a "confirmation" of his right to the throne, it was, strictly,
nothing of the kind. It was simply, in the language of modern diplomacy,
his "recognition" by the pope as king. If Ferdinand, elected Prince of
Bulgaria, were to be recognized as such by a foreign power, that action
would neither alter his status relatively to any other power, nor would
it imply the least claim to dispose of the Bulgarian crown. Or, again,
to take a mediæval illustration, the recognition as pope by an English
king of one of two rival claimants for the papacy would neither affect
any other king, nor constitute a claim to dispose of the papal tiara.
Stephen, however, was naturally eager to make the most of the papal
action, especially when he found in his oath to the Empress the most
formidable obstacle to his acceptance. The sanction of the Church would
silence the reproach that he was occupying the throne as a perjured man.
Hence the clause in his Oxford charter. To the advantage which this
letter gave him Stephen shrewdly clung, and when Geoffrey summoned him,
in later years, "to an investigation of his claims before the papal
court," he promptly retorted that Rome had already heard the case.[34]
He turned, in fact, the tables on his appellant by calling on Geoffrey
to justify his occupation of the Duchy and of the Western counties in
the teeth of the papal confirmation of his own right to the throne.
We now pass from Westminster to Reading, whither, after Christmas,
Stephen proceeded, to attend his uncle's funeral.[35] The corpse, says
the Continuator, was attended "non modica stipatus nobilium catervâ."
The meeting of Stephen with these nobles is an episode of considerable
importance. "It is probable," says Dr. Stubbs, "that it furnished an
opportunity of obtaining some vague promises from Stephen."[36] But the
learned writer here alludes to the subsequent promises at Oxford. What I
am concerned with is the meeting at Reading. I proceed, therefore, to
quote _in extenso_ a charter which must have passed on this occasion,
and which, this being so, is of great value and interest.[37]
Carta Stephani regis Angliæ facta Miloni Gloec' de honore Gloecestr' et
Brekon'.
S. rex Angl. Archiepĩs Epĩs Abbatibus. Com̃. Baroñ. vic. præpositis,
Ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglicis totius Angliæ
et Walliæ Saɫ. sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Miloni Gloecestriæ
et hæredibus suis post eum in feoᵭ et hæreditate totum honorem suum de
Gloec', et de Brechenion, et omnes terras suas et tenaturas suas in
vicecomitatibus et aliis rebus, sicut eas tenuit die quâ rex Henricus
fuit vivus et mortuus. Quare volo et præcipio quod bene et honorifice
et libere teneat in bosco et plano et pratis et pasturis et aquis et
mariscis, in molendinis et piscariis, cum Thol et Theam et
infangenetheof, et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus
quibus unqũ melius et liberius tenuit tempore regis Henrici. Et sciatis
q̃m ego ut dñs et Rex, convencionavi ei sicut Baroni et Justiciario meo
quod eum in placitum non ponero quamdiu vixero de aliquâ tenatura ꝗ̃
tenuisset die quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, neq' hæredem
suum. T. Arch. Cantuar. et Epõ Wintoñ. et Epõ Sar'. et H. Big̃ et Roᵬ
filio Ricardi et Ing̃ de Sai. et W. de Pont̃ et P. filio Joħ. Apud
Rading̃.
Sub magno sigillo suo.
The reflections suggested by this charter are many and most instructive.
Firstly, we have here the most emphatic corroboration of the evidence of
William of Malmesbury. The four first witnesses comprise the three
bishops who, according to him, conducted Stephen's coronation, together
with the notorious Hugh Bigod, to whose timely assurance that coronation
was so largely due. The four others are Robert fitz Richard, whom we
shall find present at the Easter court, attesting a charter as a royal
chamberlain; Enguerrand de Sai, the lord of Clun, who had probably come
with Payne fitz John; William de Pont de l'Arche, whom we met at
Winchester; and Payne fitz John. The impression conveyed by this charter
is certainly that Stephen had as yet been joined by few of the magnates,
and had still to be content with the handful by whom his coronation had
been attended.
An important addition is, however, represented by the grantee, Miles of
Gloucester, and the witness Payne fitz John. The former was a man of
great power, both of himself and from his connection with the Earl of
Gloucester, in the west of England and in Wales. The latter is
represented by the author of the _Gesta_ as acting with him at this
juncture.[38] It should, however, be noted, as important in its bearing
on the chronology of this able writer, that he places the adhesion of
these two barons (p. 15) considerably after that of the Earl of
Gloucester (p. 8), whereas the case was precisely the contrary, the earl
not submitting to Stephen till some time later on. Both these magnates
appear in attendance at Stephen's Easter court (_vide infra_), and again
as witnesses to his Oxford charter. The part, however, in the coming
struggle which Miles of Gloucester was destined to play, was such that
it is most important to learn the circumstances and the date of his
adhesion to the king. His companion, Payne fitz John, was slain,
fighting the Welsh, in the spring of the following year.[39]
It is a singular fact that, in addition to the charter I have here
given, another charter was granted to Miles of Gloucester by the king,
which, being similarly tested at Reading, probably passed on this
occasion. The subject of the grant is the same, but the terms are more
precise, the constableship of Gloucester Castle, with the hereditary
estates of his house, being specially mentioned.[40] Though both these
charters were entered in the Great Coucher (in the volume now missing),
the latter alone is referred to by Dugdale, from whose transcript it has
been printed by Madox.[41] Though the names of the witnesses are there
omitted, those of the six leading witnesses are supplied by an abstract
which is elsewhere found. Three of these are among those who attest the
other charter—Robert fitz Richard, Hugh Bigod, and Enguerrand de Sai;
but the other three names are new, being Robert de Ferrers, afterwards
Earl of Derby, Baldwin de Clare, the spokesman of Stephen's host at
Lincoln (see p. 148), and (Walter) fitz Richard, who afterwards appears
in attendance at the Easter court.[42] These three barons should
therefore be added to the list of those who were at Reading with the
king.[43]
Possibly, however, the most instructive feature to be found in each
charter is the striking illustration it affords of the method by which
Stephen procured the adhesion of the turbulent and ambitious magnates.
It is not so much a grant from a king to a subject as a _convencio_
between equal powers. But especially would I invite attention to the
words "ut dominus et Rex."[44] I see in them at once the symbol and the
outcome of "the Norman idea of royalty." In his learned and masterly
analysis of this subject, a passage which cannot be too closely studied,
Dr. Stubbs shows us, with felicitous clearness, the twin factors of
Norman kinghood, its royal and its feudal aspects.[45] Surely in the
expression "dominus et Rex" (_alias_ "Rex et dominus") we have in actual
words the exponent of this double character.[46] And, more than this, we
have here the needful and striking parallel which will illustrate and
illumine the action of the Empress, so strangely overlooked or
misunderstood, when she ordered herself, at Winchester, to be proclaimed
"DOMINA ET REGINA."
Henry of Huntingdon asserts distinctly that from Reading Stephen passed
to Oxford, and that he there renewed the pledges he had made on his
coronation-day.[47] That, on leaving Reading, he moved to Oxford, though
the fact is mentioned by no other chronicler, would seem to be placed
beyond question by Henry's repeated assertion.[48] But the difficulty is
that Henry specifies what these pledges were, and that the version he
gives cannot be reconciled either with the king's "coronation charter"
or with what is known as his "second charter," granted at Oxford later
in the year. Dr. Stubbs, with the caution of a true scholar, though he
thinks it "probable," in his great work, that Stephen, upon this
occasion, made "some vague promises," yet adds, of those recorded by
Henry—
"Whether these promises were embodied in a charter is uncertain: if
they were, the charter is lost; it is, however, more probable that the
story is a popular version of the document which was actually issued by
the king, at Oxford, later in the year 1136."[49]
In his later work he seems inclined to place more credence in Henry's
story.
"After the funeral, at Oxford or somewhere in the neighbourhood, he
arranged terms with them; terms by which he endeavoured, amplifying the
words of his charter, to catch the good will of each class of his
subjects.... The promises were, perhaps, not insincere at the time;
anyhow, they had the desired effect, and united the nation for the
moment."[50]
It will be seen that the point is a most perplexing one, and can
scarcely at present be settled with certainty. But there is one point
beyond dispute, namely, that the so-called "second charter" was issued
later in the year, after the king's return from the north. Mr. Freeman,
therefore, has not merely failed to grasp the question at issue, but has
also strangely contradicted himself when he confidently assigns this
"second charter" to the king's first visit to Oxford, and refers us, in
doing so, to another page, in which it is as unhesitatingly assigned to
his other and later visit after his return from the north.[51] If I call
attention to this error, it is because I venture to think it one to
which this writer is too often liable, and against which, therefore, his
readers should be placed upon their guard.[52]
It was at Oxford, in January,[53] that Stephen heard of David's advance
into England. With creditable rapidity he assembled an army and hastened
to the north to meet him. He encountered him at Durham on the 5th of
February (the day after Ash Wednesday), and effected a peaceable
agreement. He then retraced his steps, after a stay of about a
fortnight,[54] and returned to keep his Easter (March 22) at
Westminster. I wish to invite special attention to this Easter court,
because it was in many ways of great importance, although historians
have almost ignored its existence. Combining the evidence of charters
with that which the chroniclers afford, we can learn not a little about
it, and see how notable an event it must have seemed at the time it was
held. We should observe, in the first place, that this was no mere
"curia de more": it was emphatically a great or national council. The
author of the _Gesta_ describes it thus:—
"Omnibus igitur summatibus regni, fide et jurejurando cum rege
constrictis, edicto per Angliam promulgato, summos ecclesiarum ductores
cum primis populi ad concilium Londonias conscivit. Illis quoque quasi
in unam sentinam illuc confluentibus ecclesiarumque columnis sedendi
ordine dispositis, vulgo etiam confuse et permixtim,[55] ut solet,
ubique se ingerente, plura regno et ecclesiæ profutura fuerunt et
utiliter ostensa et salubriter pertractata."[56]
We have clearly in this great council, held on the first court day
(Easter) after the king's coronation, a revival of the splendours of
former reigns, so sorely dimmed beneath the rule of his bereaved and
parsimonious uncle.[57]
Henry of Huntingdon has a glowing description of this Easter court,[58]
which reminds one of William of Malmesbury's pictures of the Conqueror
in his glory.[59] When, therefore, Dr. Stubbs tells us that this custom
of the Conqueror "was restored by Henry II." (_Const. Hist._, i. 370),
he ignores this brilliant revival at the outset of Stephen's reign.
Stephen, coming into possession of his predecessor's hoarded treasure,
was as eager to plunge into costly pomp as was Henry VIII. on the death
of his mean and grasping sire. There were also more solid reasons for
this dazzling assembly. It was desirable for the king to show himself to
his new subjects in his capital, surrounded not only by the evidence of
wealth, but by that of his national acceptance. The presence at his
court of the magnates from all parts of the realm was a fact which would
speak for itself, and to secure which he had clearly resolved that no
pains should be spared.[60]
If the small group who attended his coronation had indeed been "but a
poor substitute for the great councils which had attended the summons of
William and Henry," he was resolved that this should be forgotten in the
splendour of his Easter court.
This view is strikingly confirmed by the lists of witnesses to two
charters which must have passed on this occasion. The one is a grant to
the see of Winchester of the manor of Sutton, in Hampshire, in exchange
for Morden, in Surrey. The other is a grant of the bishopric of Bath to
Robert of Lewes. The former is dated "Apud Westmonasterium in presentia
et audientia subscriptorum anno incarnationis dominicæ, 1136," etc.; the
latter, "Apud Westmonasterium in generalis concilii celebratione et
Paschalis festi solemnitate." At first sight, I confess, both charters
have a rather spurious appearance. Their stilted style awakes suspicion,
which is not lessened by the dating clauses or the extraordinary number
of witnesses. Coming, however, from independent sources, and dealing
with two unconnected subjects, they mutually confirm one another. We
have, moreover, still extant the charter by which Henry II. confirmed
the former of the two, and as this is among the duchy of Lancaster
records, we have every reason to believe that the original charter
itself was, as both its transcribers assert, among them also. Again, as
to the lists of witnesses. Abnormally long though these may seem, we
must remember that in the charters of Henry I., especially towards the
close of his reign, there was a tendency to increase the number of
witnesses. Moreover, in the Oxford charter, by which these were
immediately followed, we have a long list of witnesses (thirty-seven),
and, which is noteworthy, it is similarly arranged on a principle of
classification, the court officers being grouped together. I have,
therefore, given in an appendix, for the purpose of comparison, all
three lists.[61] If we analyze those appended to the two London
charters, we find their authenticity confirmed by the fact that, while
the Earl of Gloucester, who was abroad at the time, is conspicuously
absent from the list, Henry, son of the King of Scots, duly appears
among the attesting earls, and we are specially told by John of Hexham
that he was present at this Easter court.[62] Miles of Gloucester and
Brian fitz Count also figure together among the witnesses—a fact, from
their position, of some importance.[63] It is, too, of interest for our
purpose, to note that among them is Geoffrey de Mandeville. The
extraordinary number of witnesses to these charters (no less than
fifty-five in one case, excluding the king and queen, and thirty-six in
the other) is not only of great value as giving us the _personnel_ of
this brilliant court, but is also, when compared with the Oxford
charter, suggestive perhaps of a desire, by the king, to place on record
the names of those whom he had induced to attend his courts and so to
recognize his claims. Mr. Pym Yeatman more than once, in his strange
_History of the House of Arundel_, quotes the charter to Winchester as
from a transcript "among the valuable collection of MSS. belonging to
the Earl of Egmont" (p. 49). It may, therefore, be of benefit to
students to remind them that it is printed in Hearne's _Liber Niger_
(ii. 808, 809). Mr. Yeatman, moreover, observes of this charter—
"It contains the names of no less than thirty-four noblemen of the
highest rank (excluding only the Earl of Gloucester), but not a single
ecclesiastical witness attests the grant, which is perhaps not
remarkable, since it was a dangerous precedent to deal in such a matter
with Church property, perhaps a new precedent created by Stephen" (p.
286).
To other students it will appear "perhaps not remarkable" that the
charter is witnessed by the unusual number of no less than three
archbishops and thirteen bishops.[64]
Now, although this was a national council, the state and position of the
Church was the chief subject of discussion. The author of the _Gesta_,
who appears to have been well informed on the subject, shows us the
prelates appealing to Stephen to relieve the Church from the intolerable
oppression which she had suffered, under the form of law, at the hands
of Henry I. Stephen, bland, for the time, to all, and more especially to
the powerful Church, listened graciously to their prayers, and promised
all they asked.[65] In the grimly jocose language of the day, the keys
of the Church, which had been held by Simon (Magus), were henceforth to
be restored to Peter. To this I trace a distinct allusion in the curious
phrase which meets us in the Bath charter. Stephen grants the bishopric
of Bath "_canonica prius electione præcedente_." This recognition of the
Church's right, with the public record of the fact, confirms the account
of his attitude on this occasion to the Church. The whole charter
contrasts strangely with that by which, fifteen years before, his
predecessor had granted the bishopric of Hereford, and its reference to
the counsel and consent of the magnates betrays the weakness of his
position.
This council took place, as I have said, at London and during Easter.
But there is some confusion on the subject. Mr. Howlett, in his
excellent edition of the _Gesta_, assigns it, in footnotes (pp. 17, 18),
to "early in April." But his argument that, as that must have been (as
it was) the date of the (Oxford) charter, it was consequently that of
the (London) council, confuses two distinct events. In this he does but
follow the _Gesta_, which similarly runs into one the two consecutive
events. Richard of Hexham also, followed by John of Hexham,[66] combines
in one the council at London with the charter issued at Oxford, besides
placing them both, wrongly, far too late in the year.
Here are the passages in point taken from both writers:—
RICHARD OF HEXHAM.
Eodem quoque anno Innocentius Romanæ sedis Apostolicus, Stephano regi
Angliæ litteras suas transmisit, quibus eum Apostolica auctoritate in
regno Angliæ confirmavit.... Igitur Stephanus his et aliis modis in
regno Angliæ confirmatus, episcopos et proceres sui regni regali edicto
in unum convenire præcepit; cum quibus hoc generale concilium
celebravit.
JOHN OF HEXHAM.
Eodem anno Innocentius papa litteris ab Apostolica sede directis eundem
regem Stephanum in negotiis regni confirmavit. Harum tenore litterarum
rex instructus, generali convocato concilio bonas et antiquas leges, et
justos consuetudines præcepit conservari, injustitias vero cassari.
The point to keep clearly in mind is that the Earl of Gloucester was not
present at the Easter court in London, and that, landing subsequently,
he was present when the charter of liberties was granted at Oxford. So
short an interval of time elapsed that there cannot have been two
councils. There was, I believe, one council which adjourned from London
to Oxford, and which did so on purpose to meet the virtual head of the
opposition, the powerful Earl of Gloucester. It must have been the
waiting for his arrival at court which postponed the issue of the
charter, and it is not wonderful that, under these circumstances, the
chroniclers should have made of the whole but one transaction.
The earl, on his arrival, did homage, with the very important and
significant reservation that his loyalty would be strictly conditional
on Stephen's behaviour to himself.[67]
His example in this respect was followed by the bishops, for we read in
the chronicler, immediately afterwards:
"Eodem anno, non multo post adventum comitis, juraverunt episcopi
fidelitatem regi quamdiu ille libertatem ecclesiæ et vigorem disciplinæ
conservaret."[68]
By this writer the incident in question is recorded in connection with
the Oxford charter. In this he must be correct, if it was subsequent to
the earl's homage, for this latter itself, we see, must have been
subsequent to Easter.
Probably the council at London was the preliminary to that treaty
(_convencio_) between the king and the bishops, at which William of
Malmesbury so plainly hints, and of which the Oxford charter is
virtually the exponent record. For this, I take it, is the point to be
steadily kept in view, namely, that the terms of such a charter as this
are the resultant of two opposing forces—the one, the desire to extort
from the king the utmost possible concession; the other, his desire to
extort homage at the lowest price he could. Taken in connection with the
presence at Oxford of his arch-opponent, the Earl of Gloucester, this
view, I would venture to urge, may lead us to the conclusion that this
extended version of his meagre "coronation charter" represents his final
and definite acceptance, by the magnates of England, as their king.
It may be noticed, incidentally, as illustrative of the chronicle-value
of charters, that not a single chronicler records this eventful assembly
at Oxford. Our knowledge of it is derived wholly and solely from the
testing-clause of the charter itself—"Apud Oxeneford, anno ab
incarnatione Domini MCXXXVI." Attention should also, perhaps, be drawn
to this repeated visit to Oxford, and to the selection of that spot for
this assembly. For this its central position may, doubtless, partly
account, especially if the Earl of Gloucester was loth to come further
east. But it also, we must remember, represented for Stephen, as it
were, a post of observation, commanding, in Bristol and Gloucester, the
two strongholds of the opposition. So, conversely, it represented to the
Empress an advanced post resting on their base.
Lastly, I think it perfectly possible to fix pretty closely the date of
this assembly and charter. Easter falling on the 22nd of March, neither
the king nor the Earl of Gloucester would have reached Oxford till the
end of March or, perhaps, the beginning of April. But as early as
Rogation-tide (April 26-29) it was rumoured that the king was dead, and
Hugh Bigod, who, as a royal _dapifer_, had been among the witnesses to
this Oxford charter, burst into revolt at once.[69] Then followed the
suppression of the rebellion, and the king's breach of the charter.[70]
It would seem, therefore, to be beyond question that this assembly took
place early in April (1136).
I have gone thus closely into these details in order to bring out as
clearly as possible the process, culminating in the Oxford charter, by
which the succession of Stephen was gradually and, above all,
conditionally secured.
Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, however, but view
with suspicion the causes assigned to his failure by often unfriendly
chroniclers. That their criticisms had some foundation it would not be
possible to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune,
we should have heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these
writers, not enjoying the same standpoint as ourselves, were, I think,
somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. Stephen, for instance,
has been severely blamed, mainly on the authority of Henry of
Huntingdon,[71] for not punishing more severely the rebels who held
Exeter against him in 1136. Surely, in doing so, his critics must forget
the parallel cases of both his predecessors. William Rufus at the siege
of Rochester (1088), Henry I. at the siege of Bridgnorth (1102), should
both be remembered when dealing with Stephen at the siege of Exeter. In
both these cases, the people had clamoured for condign punishment on the
traitors; in both, the king, who had conquered by their help, was held
back by the jealousy of his barons, from punishing their fellows as they
deserved. We learn from the author of the _Gesta_ that the same was the
case at Exeter. The king's barons again intervened to save those who had
rebelled from ruin, and at the same time to prevent the king from
securing too signal a triumph.
This brings us to the true source of his weakness throughout his reign.
That weakness was due to two causes, each supplementing the other. These
were—(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as
resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so long only as
he gave satisfaction to those who had placed him on the throne; (2) the
existence of a rival claim, hanging over him from the first, like the
sword of Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could
compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to submit to
further demands.
Let us glance at them both in succession.
Stephen himself describes his title in the opening clause of his Oxford
charter:—
"Ego Stephanus Dei gratia assensu cleri et populi in regem Anglorum
electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctæ Romanæ
ecclesiæ legato consecratus, et ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis
pontifice confirmatus."[72]
On this clause Dr. Stubbs observes:—
"His rehearsal of his title is curious and important; it is worth while
to compare it with that of Henry I., but it need not necessarily be
interpreted as showing a consciousness of weakness."[73]
Referring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause phrased thus:—
"HENRICUS FILIUS WILLELMI REGIS post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, Dei
gratia rex Anglorum."[74]
Surely the point to strike us here is that the clause in Stephen's
charter contains just that which is omitted in Henry's, and omits just
that which is contained in Henry's. Henry puts forward his relationship
to his father and his brother as the sole explanation of his position as
king. Stephen omits all mention of his relationship. Conversely, the
election, etc., set forth by Stephen, finds no place in the charter of
Henry. What can be more significant than this contrast? Again, the
formula in Stephen's charter should be compared not only with that of
Henry, but with that of his daughter the Empress. As the father had
styled himself "Henricus filius Willelmi Regis," so his daughter
invariably styled herself "Matildis ... Henrici regis [_or_ regis
Henrici] filia;" and so her son, in his time, is styled (1142), as we
shall find in a charter quoted in this work, "Henricus filius filiæ
regis Henrici." To the importance of this fact I shall recur below.
Meanwhile, the point to bear in mind is, that Stephen's style contains
no allusion to his parentage, though, strangely enough, in a charter
which must have passed in the first year of his reign, he does adopt the
curious style of "Ego Stephanus Willelmi Anglorum primi Regis nepos,"
etc.,[75] in which he hints, contrary to his practice, at a
quasi-hereditary right.
Returning, however, to his Oxford charter, in which he did not venture
to allude to such claim, we find him appealing (_a_) to his election,
which, as we have seen, was informal enough; (_b_) to his anointing by
the primate; (_c_) to his "confirmation" by the pope. It is impossible
to read such a formula as this in any other light than that of an
attempt to "make up a title" under difficulties. I do not know that it
has ever been suggested, though the hypothesis would seem highly
probable, that the stress laid by Stephen upon the ecclesiastical
sanction to his succession may have been largely due, as I have said (p.
10), to the obstacle presented by the oath that had been sworn to the
Empress. Of breaking that oath the Church, he held, had pronounced him
not guilty.
Yet it is not so much on this significant style, as on the drift of the
charter itself, that I depend for support of my thesis that Stephen was
virtually king on sufferance, or, to anticipate a phrase of later times,
"Quamdiu se bene gesserit." We have seen how in the four typical cases,
(1) of the Londoners, (2) of Miles of Gloucester, (3) of Earl Robert,
(4) of the bishops, Stephen had only secured their allegiance by
submitting to that "original contract" which the political philosophers
of a later age evolved from their inner consciousness. It was because
his Oxford charter set the seal to this "contract" that Stephen, even
then, chafed beneath its yoke, as evidenced by the striking saving
clause—
"Hæc omnia concedo et confirmo salva regia et justa dignitate meâ."[76]
And, as we know, at the first opportunity, he hastened to
break its bonds.[77]
The position of his opponents throughout his reign would seem to have
rested on two assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the
"contract" justified _ipso facto_ revolt on theirs;[78] the second, that
their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as such,
could be thrown off at any moment by performing the famous
_diffidatio_.[79]
This essential feature of continental feudalism had been rigidly
excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of
his position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman
followers more absolute than he could have claimed as their feudal lord.
It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due the introduction for
a time of this pernicious principle into England. We have seen it hinted
at in that charter of Stephen in which he treats with Miles of
Gloucester not merely as his king (_rex_), but also as his feudal lord
(_dominus_). We shall find it acted on three years later (1139), when
this same Miles, with his own _dominus_, the Earl of Gloucester, jointly
"defy" Stephen before declaring for the Empress.[80]
Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival claim, we
approach a subject of great interest, the theory of the succession to
the English Crown at what may be termed the crisis of transition from
the principle of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary
right according to feudal rules.
For the right view on this subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs,
who, with his usual sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:—
"The crown then continued to be elective.... But whilst the elective
principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary or
possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of
inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was recognized as
co-ordinate.... The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown
to his own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the hereditary
principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the
recognition of the elective theory.[81]
Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong bias in favour of the elective
theory, is fully justified in his main argument, namely, that Stephen
"was no usurper in the sense in which the word is vulgarly used."[82] He
urges, apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the
eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn oath, and not
in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly suggests that the
wretchedness of his reign may have hastened the growth of that new
belief in the divine right of the heir to the throne, which first
appears under Henry II., and in the pages of William of Newburgh.[83]
So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear enough. But we have
also to consider the Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think
that, as implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a
single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's daughter ("regis
Henrici filia"), but she claimed it further because the succession had
been assured to her by oath ("sibi juratum") as such.[84] It is
important to observe that the oath in question can in no way be regarded
in the light of an election. To understand it aright, we must go back to
the precisely similar oath which had been previously sworn to her
brother. As early as 1116, the king, in evident anxiety to secure the
succession to his heir, had called upon a gathering of the magnates "of
all England," on the historic spot of Salisbury, to swear allegiance to
his son (March 19).[85] It was with reference to this event that Eadmer
described him at his death (November, 1120) as "Willelmum jam olim regni
hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Before leaving Normandy in November, 1120,
the king similarly secured the succession of the duchy to his son by
compelling its barons to swear that they would be faithful to the
youth.[86] On the destruction of his plans by his son's death, he
hastened to marry again in the hope of securing, once more, a male heir.
Despairing of this after some years, he took advantage of the Emperor's
death to insist on his daughter's return, and brought her with him to
England in the autumn of 1126. He was not long in taking steps to secure
her recognition as his heir (subject however, as the Continuator and
Symeon are both careful to point out, to no son being born to him), by
the same oath being sworn to her as, in 1116, had been sworn to his son.
It was taken, not (as is always stated) in 1126, but on the 1st of
January, 1127.[87] Of what took place upon that occasion, there is,
happily, full evidence.[88]
We have independent reports of the transaction from William of
Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, the Continuator of Florence, and Gervase
of Canterbury.[89] From this last we learn (the fact is, therefore,
doubtful) that the oath secured the succession, not only to the Empress,
but to her heirs.[90] The Continuator's version is chiefly important as
bringing out the action of the king in assigning the succession to his
daughter, the oath being merely an undertaking to secure the arrangement
he had made.[91] Symeon introduces the striking expression that the
Empress was to succeed "hæreditario jure,"[92] but William of
Malmesbury, in the speech which he places in the king's mouth, far
outstrips this in his assertion of hereditary right:—
"præfatus quanto incommodo patriæ fortuna Willelmum filium suum sibi
surripuisset, _cui jure regnum competeret_: nunc superesse filiam, _cui
soli legitima debeatur successio, ab avo, avunculo, et patre regibus_;
a materno genere multis retro seculis."[93]
Bearing in mind the time at which William wrote these words, it will be
seen that the Empress and her partisans must have largely, to say the
least, based their claim on her right to the throne as her father's
heir, and that she and they appealed to the oath as the admission and
recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in any way whatever
of the character of a free election.[94] Thus her claim was neatly
traversed by Stephen's advocates, at Rome, in 1136, when they urged that
she was not her father's heir, and that, consequently, the oath which
had been sworn to her as such ("sicut hæredi") was void.
It is, as I have said, in the above light that I view her unvarying use
of the style "regis Henrici filia," and that this was the true character
of her claim will be seen from the terms of a charter I shall quote,
which has hitherto, it would seem, remained unknown, and in which she
recites that, on arriving in England, she was promptly welcomed by Miles
of Gloucester "sicut illam quam justam hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit."
The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. Had her brother
lived, there can be little question that he would, as a matter of
course, have succeeded his father at his death. Or again, had Henry II.
been old enough to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure,
have done so. But as to the Empress, even admitting the justice of her
claim, it was by no means clear in whom it was vested. It might either
be vested (_a_) in herself, in accordance with our modern notions; or
(_b_) in her husband, in accordance with feudal ones;[95] or (_c_) in
her son, as, in the event, it was. It may be said that this point was
still undecided as late as 1142, when Geoffrey was invited to come to
England, and decided to send his son instead, to represent the
hereditary claim. The force of circumstances, however, as we shall find,
had compelled the Empress, in the hour of her triumph (1141), to take
her own course, and to claim the throne for herself as queen, though
even this would not decide the point, as, had she succeeded, her
husband, we may be sure, would have claimed the title of king.
Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, it tends to the
belief that the obsolescence of the right of election to the English
crown presents considerable analogy to that of canonical election in the
case of English bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated
into a mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of
change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to extort
beforehand from the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession,
and when they subsequently complain of this attempt to dictate to them
on the subject. We catch sight of it again when his daughter bases her
claim to the crown, not on any free election, but on her rights as her
father's heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when
Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by Divine
right ("Dei gratia"[96]), and attempts to reduce that election to
nothing more than a national "assent" to his succession. Obviously, the
whole question turned on whether the election was to be held first, or
was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. Thus, at the
very time when Stephen was formulating his title, he was admitting, in
the case of the bishopric of Bath, that the canonical election had
_preceded_ his own nomination of the bishop.[97] Yet it is easy to see
how, as the Crown grew in strength, the elections, in both cases alike,
would become, more and more, virtually matters of form, while a weak
sovereign or a disputed succession would afford an opportunity for this
historical survival, in the case at least of the throne, to recover for
a moment its pristine strength.
Before quitting the point, I would venture briefly to resume my grounds
for urging that, in comparing Stephen with his successor, the difference
between their circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At
Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression had
rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had led to an impatience
of official restraint which opened the path to a feudal reaction: at the
accession of Henry, on the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled
administration and of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the
advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the
introduction of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated
the position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the
Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II. derived
from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first by
his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas Henry came to his
work unhampered by compact or concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted
throughout by a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for
all the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as
Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at length a
rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that which had threatened
his predecessor seemed likely for a time to break his power as
effectually as the followers of the Empress had broken that of Stephen.
He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that efficient
administration which years of strength and safety had given him the time
to construct.
It in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not
superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that Stephen's
disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed better fortune, we
might have heard less of his defects. It will be at least established by
the evidence adduced in this work that some of the charges which are
brought against him can no longer be maintained.
[3] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 13; _Const Hist._ (1874), i. 319.
[4] _Gesta Stephani_, p. 3.
[5] "A Dourensibus repulsus, et a Cantuarinis exclusus" (_Gervase_, i.
94). As illustrating the use of such adjectives for the garrison, rather
than the townsfolk, compare Florence of Worcester's "Hrofenses
Cantuariensibus ... cædes inferunt" (ii. 23), where the "Hrofenses" are
Odo's garrison. So too "Bristoenses" in the _Gesta_ (ed. Hewlett, pp.
38, 40, 41), though rendered by the editor "the people of Bristol," are
clearly the troops of the Earl of Gloucester.
[6] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 14. Compare _Const. Hist._, i. 319: "The
men of Kent, remembering the mischief that had constantly come to them
from Boulogne, refused to receive him." Miss Norgate adopts the same
explanation (_England under the Angevin Kings_, i. 277).
[7] There is a curious incidental allusion to the earl's Kentish
possessions in William of Malmesbury, who states (p. 759) that he was
allowed, while a prisoner at Rochester (October, 1141), to receive his
rents from his Kentish tenants ("ab hominibus suis de Cantia"). Stephen,
then, it would seem, did not forfeit them.
[8] In the rebellion of 1138 Walchelin Maminot, the earl's castellan,
held Dover against Stephen, and was besieged by the Queen and by the men
of Boulogne. Curiously enough, Mr. Freeman made a similar slip, now
corrected, to that here discussed, when he wrote that "whatever might be
the feelings of the rest of the shire, the men of Dover had no mind to
see Count Eustace again within their walls" (_Norm. Conq._, iv. 116),
though they were, on the contrary, quite as anxious as the rest of the
shire to do so.
[9] "Id quoque sui esse juris, suique specialiter privilegii ut si rex
ipsorum quoquo modo obiret, alius suo provisu in regno substituendus e
vestigio succederet" (_Gesta_, p. 3). This audacious claim of the
citizens to such right as vested in themselves is much stronger than Mr.
Freeman's paraphrase when he speaks of "the citizens of London and
Winchester [why Winchester?], who freely exercised their ancient right
of _sharing in_ the election of the king who should reign over them"
(_Norm. Conq._, v. 251; cf. p. 856).
[10] "Firmatâ prius utrimque pactione, peractoque, ut vulgus asserebat,
mutuo juramento, ut eum cives quoad viveret opibus sustentarent, viribus
tutarentur; ipse autem, ad regnum pacificandum, ad omnium eorundem
suffragium, toto sese conatu accingeret" (_Gesta_, p. 4). See Appendix
A.
[11] "Spe scilicet captus amplissima quod Stephanus avi sui Willelmi in
regni moderamine mores servaret, precipueque in ecclesiastici vigoris
disciplinâ. Quapropter districto sacramento quod a Stephano Willelmus
Cantuarensis archiepiscopus exegit de libertate reddenda ecclesiæ et
conservanda, episcopus Wintoniensis se mediatorem et vadem apposuit.
Cujus sacramenti tenorem, postea scripto inditum, loco suo non
prætermittam" (p. 704). See Addenda.
[12] "Enimvero, quamvis ego vadem me apposuerim inter eum et Deum quod
sanctam ecclesiam honoraret et exaltaret, et bonas leges manuteneret,
malas vero abrogaret; piget meminisse, pudet narrare, qualem se in regno
exhibuerit," etc. (_ibid._, p. 746).
[13] The phrase "districto Sacramento" is very difficult to construe. I
have here taken it to imply a release of Stephen from his oath, but the
meaning of the passage, which is obscure as it stands, may be merely
that Henry became surety for Stephen's performance of the oath as in an
agreement or treaty between two contracting parties (_vide infra
passim_).
[14] _Ante_, p. 3.
[15] _Gesta_, 5, 6; _Will. Malms._, 703. Note that William Rufus,
Henry I., and Stephen all of them visited and secured Winchester even
before their coronation.
[16] _Const. Hist._, i. 319.
[17] "A cunctis fere in regem electus est, et sic a Willelmo Cantuarensi
archiepiscopo coronatus."
[18] "The form of election was hastily gone through by the barons on the
spot" (_Const. Hist._, i. 303).
[19] _Select Charters_, p. 108.
[20] _Early Plantagenets_, p. 14.
[21] "Consentientibus in ejus promotionem Willelmo Cantuarensi
archiepiscopo et clericorum et laicorum universitate" (_Sym. Dun._, ii.
286, 287).
[22] "Sic profecto, sic congruit, ut ad eum in regno confirmandum omnes
pariter convolent, parique consensu quid statuendum, quidve respuendum
sit, ab omnibus provideatur" (pp. 6, 7). Eventually he represents the
primate as acting "Cum episcopis frequentique, qui intererat, clericatu"
(p. 8).
[23] "Tribus episcopis præsentibus, archiepiscopo, Wintoniensi,
Salesbiriensi, nullis abbatibus, paucissimis optimatibus" (p. 704). See
Addenda.
[24] "Supremo eum agitante mortis articulo, cum et plurimi astarent et
veram suorum erratuum confessionem audirent, de jurejurando violenter
baronibus suis injuncto apertissime pænituit."
[25] "Quidam ex potentissimis Angliæ, jurans et dicens se præsentem
affuisse ubi rex Henricus idem juramentum in bona fide sponte
relaxasset."
[26] "Hugo Bigod senescallus regis coram archiepiscopo Cantuariæ
sacramento probavit quod, dum Rex Henricus ageret in extremis, ortis
quibus inimicitiis inter ipsum et imperatricem, ipsam exhæredavit, et
Stephanum Boloniæ comitem hæredem instituit."
[27] "Et hæc juramento comitis (_sic_) Hugonis et duorum militum probata
esse dicebant in facie ecclesie Anglicane" (ed. Pertz, p. 543).
[28] "Cum regis (_sic_) fautores obnixe persuaderent quatinus eum ad
regnandum inungeret, quodque imperfectum videbatur, administrationis suæ
officio suppleret" (p. 6).
[29] _Const. Hist._, i. 146.
[30] See his Oxford Charter.
[31] See the legate's speech at Winchester: "Ventilata est hesterno die
causa secreto coram majori parte cleri Angliæ, _ad cujus jus potissimum
spectat principem eligere, simulque ordinare_" (_Will. Malms._, p. 746).
[32] Henry had sworn "in ipso suæ consecrationis die" (Eadmer), Stephen
"in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die" (Innocent's letter). Henry of
Huntingdon refers to the "pacta" which Stephen "Deo et populo et sanctæ
ecclesiæ concesserat in die coronationis suæ." William of Malmesbury
speaks of the oath as "postea [_i.e._ at Oxford] scripto inditum." See
Addenda.
[33] See Appendix B: "The Appeal to Rome in 1136."
[34] See Appendix B.
[35] _Hen. Hunt._, 258; _Cont. Flor. Wig._, 95; _Will. Malms._, 705.
[36] _Const. Hist._, i. 321.
[37] Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 109, and Lansdowne MS. 259, fol. 66, both
being excerpts from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the Duchy.
[38] Speaking of the late king's trusted friends, who hung back from
coming to court, he writes: "Illi autem, intentâ sibi a rege
comminatione, cum salvo eundi et redeundi conductu curiam petiere;
omnibusque ad votum impetratis, peracto cum jurejurando liberali
hominio, illius sese servitio ex toto mancipârunt. Affuit inter reliquos
Paganus filius Johannis, sed et Milo, de quo superius fecimus mentionem,
ille Herefordensis et Salopesbiriæ, iste Glocestrensis provinciæ
dominatum gerens: qui in tempore regis Henrici potentiæ suæ culmen
extenderant ut a Sabrinâ flumine usque ad mare per omnes fines Angliæ et
Waloniæ omnes placitis involverent, angariis onerarent" (pp. 15, 16).
[39] _Cont. Flor. Wig._
[40] "S. rex Angliæ Archiepĩs etc. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse
Miloni Gloec̃ et heredibus suis post eum in feodo et hereditate totum
honorem patris sui et custodiam turris et castelli Gloecestrie ad
tenendum tali forma (_sic_) qualem reddebat tempore regis Henrici sicut
patrimonium suum. Et totum honorem suum de Brechenion et omnia
Ministeria sua et terras suas quas tenuit tempore regis Henrici sicut
eas melius et honorificentius tenuit die qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et
mortuus, et ego ei in convencionem habeo sicut Rex et dominus Baroni
meo. Quare precipio quod bene et in honore et in pace et libere teneat
cum omnibus libertatibus suis. Testes, W. filius Ricardi, Robertus de
Ferrariis, Robertus filius Ricardi, Hugo Bigot, Ingelramus de Sai,
Balduinus filius Gisleberti. Apud Radinges" (Lansdowne MS. 229, fols.
123, 124).
[41] _History of the Exchequer_, p. 135.
[42] I am inclined to believe that in Robert fitz Richard we have that
Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) who died in 1137 (Robert de Torigny),
being then described as paternal uncle to Richard fitz Gilbert (de
Clare), usually but erroneously described as first Earl of Hertford. If
so, he was also uncle to Baldwin (fitz Gilbert) de Clare of this
charter, and brother to W(alter) fitz Richard (de Clare), another
witness. We shall come across another of Stephen's charters to which the
house of Clare contributes several witnesses. There is evidence to
suggest that Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) was lord, in some way, of
Maldon in Essex, and was succeeded there by (his nephew) Walter fitz
Gilbert (de Clare), who went on crusade (probably in 1147).
[43] There is preserved among the royal charters belonging to the Duchy
of Lancaster, the fragment of one grant of which the contents correspond
exactly, it would seem, with those of the above charter, though the
witnesses' names are different. This raises a problem which cannot at
present be solved.
[44] In the fellow-charter the phrase runs: "sicut Rex et dominus Baroni
meo."
[45] "The Norman idea of royalty was very comprehensive; it practically
combined all the powers of the national sovereignty, as they had been
exercised by Edgar and Canute, with those of the feudal theory of
monarchy, which was exemplified at the time in France and the Empire....
The king is accordingly both the chosen head of the nation and the lord
paramount of the whole of the land" (_Const. Hist._, i. 338).
[46] Compare the words of address in several of the _Cartæ Baronum_
(1166): "servitium ut domino;" "vobis sicut domino meo;" "sicut domino
carissimo;" "ut domino suo ligio."
[47] "Inde perrexit rex Stephanus apud Oxeneford ubi recordatus et
confirmavit pacta quæ Deo et populo et sanctæ ecclesiæ concesserat in
die coronationis suæ" (p. 258).
[48] "Cum venisset in fine Natalis ad Oxenefordiam" (_ibid._).
[49] _Const. Hist._, i. 321.
[50] _Early Plantagenets_, pp. 15, 16.
[51] "The news of this [Scottish] inroad reached Stephen at Oxford,
where he had just put forth his second charter" (_Norm. Conq._, v. 258).
"The second charter ... was put forth at Oxford before the first year of
his reign was out. Stephen had just come back victorious from driving
back a Scottish invasion (see p. 258)" (_ibid._, p. 246).
[52] See Mr. Vincent's learned criticism on Mr. Freeman's _History of
Wells Cathedral_: "I detect throughout these pages an infirmity, a
confirmed habit of inaccuracy. The author of this book, I should infer
from numberless passages, cannot revise what he writes" (_Genealogist_,
(N.S.) ii. 179).
[53] "In fine Natalis" (_Hen. Hunt._, 258).
[54] _Sym. Dun._, ii. 287.
[55] The curious words, "vulgo ... ingerente," may be commended to those
who uphold the doctrine of democratic survivals in these assemblies.
They would doubtless jump at them as proof that the "vulgus" took part
in the proceedings. The evidence, however, is, in any case, of
indisputable interest.
[56] Ed. Howlett, p. 17.
[57] "Quem morem convivandi primus successor obstinate tenuit, secundus
omisit" (_Will. Malms._).
[58] "Rediens autem inde rex in Quadragesimâ tenuit curiam suam apud
Lundoniam in solemnitate Paschali, quâ nunquam fuerat splendidior in
Angliâ multitudine, magnitudine, auro, argento, gemmis, vestibus,
omnimodaque dapsilitate" (p. 259).
[59] "[Consuetudo] erat ut ter in anno cuncti optimates ad curiam
convenirent de necessariis regni tractaturi, simulque visuri regis
insigne quomodo iret gemmato fastigiatus diademate" (_Vita S.
Wulstani_). "Convivia in præcipuis festivitatibus sumptuosa et magnifica
inibat; ... omnes eo cujuscunque professionis magnates regium edictum
accersiebat, ut exterarum gentium legati speciem multitudinis
apparatumque deliciarum mirarentur" (_Gesta regum_).
[60] See in _Gesta_ (ed. Howlett, pp. 15, 16) his persistent efforts to
conciliate the ministers of Henry I., and especially the Marchers of the
west.
[61] See Appendix C.
[62] "In Paschali vero festivitate rex Stephanus eundem Henricum in
honorem in reverentia præferens, ad dexteram suam sedere fecit" (_Sym.
Dun._, ii. 287).
[63] Dr. Stubbs appears, unless I am mistaken, to imply that they first
appear at court as witnesses to the (later) Oxford charter. He writes,
of that charter: "Her [the Empress's] most faithful adherents, Miles of
Hereford" [_recté_ Gloucester] "and Brian of Wallingford, were also
among the witnesses; probably the retreat of the King of Scots had made
her cause for the time hopeless" (_Const. Hist._, i. 321, _note_).
[64] See Appendix C.
[65] "His autem rex patienter auditis quæcumque postulârant gratuite eis
indulgens ecclesiæ libertatem fixam et inviolabilem esse, illius statuta
rata et inconcussa, ejus ministros cujuscunque professionis essent vel
ordinis, omni reverentiâ honorandos esse præcepit" (_Gesta_).
[66] John's list of bishops attesting the (London) council is taken from
Richard's list of bishops attesting the (Oxford) charter.
[67] "Eodem anno post Pascha Robertus comes Glocestræ, cujus prudentiam
rex Stephanus maxime verebatur, venit in Angliam.... Itaque homagium
regi fecit sub conditione quadam, scilicet quamdiu ille dignitatem suam
integre custodiret et sibi pacta servaret" (_Will. Malms._, 705, 707).
[68] _Ibid._, 707.
[69] _Hen. Hunt._, p. 259.
[70] _Ibid._, p. 260.
[71] "Vindictam non exercuit in proditores suos, pessimo consilio usus;
si enim eam tunc exercuisset, postea contra eum tot castella retenta non
fuissent" (_Hen. Hunt._, p. 259).
[72] _Select Charters_, 114 (cf. _Will. Malms._).
[73] _Ibid._
[74] _Ibid._, 96.
[75] _Confirmation Roll_, 1 Hen. VIII., Part 5, No. 13 (quoted by Mr. J.
A. C. Vincent in _Genealogist_ (N. S.), ii. 271). This should be
compared with the argument of his friends when urging the primate to
crown him, that he had not only been elected to the throne (by the
Londoners), but also "ad hoc _justo germanæ propinquitatis jure_ idoneus
accessit" (_Gesta_, p. 8), and with the admission, shortly after, in the
pope's letter, that among his claims he "de præfati regis [Henrici]
prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse."
[76] _Select Charters_, 115. But cf. _Will. Malms._
[77] As further illustrating the compromise of which this charter was
the resultant, note that Stephen retains and combines the formula "Dei
gratiâ" with the recital of election, and that he further represents the
election as merely a popular "_assent_" to his succession.
[78] Compare the clause in the _Confirmatio Cartarum_ of 1265,
establishing the right of insurrection: "Liceat omnibus de regno nostro
contra nos insurgere."
[79] See _inter alia_, Hallam's _Middle Ages_, i. 168, 169.
[80] "Fama per Angliam volitabat, quod comes Gloecestræ Robertus, qui
erat in Normannia, in proximo partes sororis foret adjuturus, _rege
tantummodo ante diffidato_. Nec fides rerum famæ levitatem destituit:
celeriter enim post Pentecosten missis a Normanniâ suis regi _more
majorum amicitiam et fidem interdixit, homagio etiam abdicato_; rationem
præferens quam id juste faceret, quia et rex illicite ad regnum
aspiraverat, et omnem fidem sibi juratam neglexerat, ne dicam mentitus
fuerat" (_Will. Malms._, 712). So, too, the Continuator of Florence:
"Interim facta conjuratione adversus regem per prædictum Brycstowensem
comitem et conestabularium Milonem, _abnegata fidelitate quam illi
juraverant_, ... Milo constabularius, _regiæ majestati redditis fidei
sacramentis_, ad dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, cum grandi manu
militum se contulit" (pp. 110, 117). Compare with these passages the
extraordinary complaint made against Stephen's conduct in attacking
Lincoln without sending a formal "defiance" to his opponents, and the
singular treaty, in this reign, between the Earls of Chester and of
Leicester, in which the latter was bound not to attack the former, as
his lord, without sending him the formal "diffidatio" a clear fortnight
beforehand.
[81] _Const. Hist._, i. 338, 340.
[82] _Norm. Conq._, v. 251.
[83] "In a later stage, when the son of his rival was firm on the
throne, the doctrine of female succession took root under a king who by
the spindle-side sprang from both William and Cerdic, but who by the
spear-side had nothing to do with either. Then it was that men began to
find out that Stephen had been guilty not only of breaking his oath, but
also of defrauding the heir to the crown of her lawful right" (_ibid._,
p. 252).
[84] "Henrici regis filia, ... vehementer exhilarata utpote regnum sibi
juratum ... jam adepta" (_Cont. Flor. Wig._, 130). But the above duplex
character of her claim is best brought out in her formal request that
the legate should receive her "tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis
Anglia et Normannia jurata esset."
[85] "Conventio optimatum et baronum totius Angliæ apud Salesbyriam XIV.
kalend. Aprilis facta est, qui in præsentiâ regis Henrici homagium filio
suo Willelmo fecerunt, et fidelitatem ei juraverunt" (_Flor. Wig._, ii.
69).
[86] "Normanniæ principes, jubente rege, filio suo Willelmo jam tunc
xviii. annorum, hominium faciunt, et fidelitatis securitatem sacramentis
affirmant" (_Sym. Dun._, ii. 258).
[87] Oddly enough, the correct date must be sought from Symeon of
Durham, though, at first sight, he is the most inaccurate, as he places
the event under 1128 (a date accepted, in the margin, by his editor)
instead of 1126, the year given by the other chroniclers. But from him
we learn that the Christmas court (_i.e._ Christmas 1126) was adjourned
from Windsor to London, for the new year, "ubi Circumcisione Domini"
(January 1) the actual oath was taken. William of Malmesbury dates it,
loosely, at Christmas (1126), but the Continuator of Florence, more
accurately, "finitis diebus festivioribus" (p. 84), which confirms
Symeon's statement.
[88] It is scarcely realized so clearly as it should be that the oath
taken on this occasion was that to which reference was always made. Dr.
Stubbs (_Const. Hist._, i. 341) recognizes "a similar oath in 1131" (on
the authority of William of Malmesbury), and another in 1133 (on the
authority of Roger of Hoveden). But the former is only incidentally
mentioned, and is neither alluded to elsewhere, nor referred to
subsequently by William himself; and the latter, which is similarly
devoid of any contemporary confirmation, is represented as securing the
succession, not to Matilda, but to her son. It is strange that so recent
and important an oath as this, if it was really taken, should have been
ignored in the controversy under Stephen, and the earlier oath,
described above, alone appealed to.
[89] Henry of Huntingdon merely alludes to it, retrospectively, at
Stephen's accession, as the "sacramentum fidelitatis Anglici regni filiæ
regis Henrici" (p. 256).
[90] "Fecit principes et potentes adjurare eidem filiæ suæ et heredibus
suis legitimis regnum Angliæ" (i. 93). This is, perhaps, somewhat
confirmed by the words which the author of the _Gesta_ places in the
primate's mouth (p. 7).
[91] "In filiam suam, sororem scilicet Willelmi, ... regni jura
transferebat" (p. 85). The oath to secure her this succession was taken
"ad jussum regis" (p. 84). Compare with this expression that of Gervase
above, and that (_quantum valeat_) of Roger Hoveden, viz. "_constituit_
eum regem;" also the "jubente rege" of Symeon in 1120. It was
accordingly urged, at Stephen's accession, that the oath had been
compulsory, and was therefore invalid.
[92] "Juraverunt ut filiæ suæ imperatrici fide servata regnum Angliæ
_hæreditario jure_ post eum servarent" (p. 281). Compare William of
Newburgh, on Henry's accession: "Hæreditarium regnum suscepit." These
expressions are the more noteworthy because of the contrast they afford
to the Conqueror's dying words, "Neminem Anglici constituo heredem ...
non enim tantum decus hereditario jure possedi" (_Ord. Vit._).
[93] _Will. Malms._, 691.
[94] That the oath of January 1, 1127, preceding the marriage of the
Empress, was, as I have urged, the ruling one seems to be further
implied by the passage in William of Malmesbury: "Ego Rogerum
Salesbiriensem episcopum sæpe dicentem audivi, 'Solutum se sacramento
quod imperatrici fecerat: eo enim pacto se jurasse, ne rex præter
consilium suum et cæterorum procerum filiam cuiquam nuptam daret extra
regnum,'" etc., etc. (p. 693).
[95] As for instance when Henry II. obtained Aquitaine with his wife.
There is, as it happens, a passage in Symeon of Durham, which may have
been somewhat overlooked, where it is distinctly stated that in the
autumn of the year (1127), Henry conceded, as a condition of the Angevin
match, that, in default of his having a son, Geoffrey of Anjou should
succeed him ("remque ad effectum perduxit eo tenore ut regi, de legitima
conjuge hæredem non habenti, mortuo _gener illius_ in regnum
succederet"). That Geoffrey's claim was recognized at the time is clear
from the striking passage quoted by Mr. Freeman from his panegyrist
("sceptro ... non injuste aspirante"), and even more so from the
explicit statement: "Volente igitur Gaufrido comite cum uxore suâ, quæ
hæres erat [here again is an allusion to her hereditary right], in
regnum succedere, primores terræ, juramenti sui male recordantes,
reg_em_ e_um_ suscipere noluerunt, dicentes 'Alienigena non regnabit
super nos'" (_Select Charters_, p. 110).
[96] Compare the style of "Alphonso XIII., by the grace of God
constitutional King of Spain."
[97] "Canonica prius electione præcedente."