Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:11:14.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

King Henry II and the Earls: The Pipe Roll Evidence*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Thomas K. Keefe
Get access

Extract

English historians, conditioned by the real or imagined excesses of later Angevin monarchs, are prone to portray Henry II's administration as burdening the baronage with taxes and extra-legal levies. Even Henry II's normally sympathetic biographer, W.L. Warren, could not escape perceiving “an element of financial extortion” in Henry's dealings with the barons. Warren finds in the pipe rolls a number of assessments to regain the king's good will or to put aside his anger. Included in this list are the fines levied against Hamo of Mascy, Gervase Paynel, Adam of Port (Kingston, co. Hereford), and Gilbert son of Fergus of Galloway. These debtors had much in common. They all played a role in the revolt of Henry's sons in 1173-1174, which led, in part, to their amercement. Adam of Port had been exiled for treason prior to his participation in the revolt, while Gilbert son of Fergus, a descendent of one of Henry I's many bastards, had caused the grotesque mutilation and death of his brother which appalled his royal cousin. All in all, these men were fortunate to have been left with their lives and most of their lands intact. It simply will not do to fix blindly upon unexplained fines from the record evidence to show the extortionist tendencies of the Angevin monarchs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , Fall 1981 , pp. 191 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to The University Research Committee of Appalachian State University for its support and to Professor C. Warren Hollister for his kind encouragement and helpful suggestions.

References

1 Professor J.C. Holt, breaking with tradition, has argued recently that the early Angevin monarchy was not quite so efficient as previously thought in tapping England's financial resources: “The End of the Anglo-Norman Realm, ” Proceedings of The British Academy 61 (1976):19Google Scholar. Judging from the large increase in monies coming to the crown after 1204, Professor Holt's observation has much to recommend it. If so, John's tax measures were a drastic departure from his predeccessors, brought about by the need to reconquer his lost continental territories.

2 Henry II (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1973), p. 387Google ScholarPubMed

3 Pipe Roll 23 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 26, 1905), p. 59Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 22, 1897), p. 69Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 28 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 31, 1910), p. 142Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 25 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 28, 1907), p. 31Google Scholar. See also, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. Stubbs, William, 2 vols. (Rolls Series, 1867) 1: 47Google Scholar; Chronicles and Memorials of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Howlett, Richard, 4 vols. (Rolls Series, 1884–1889), 3:316, 356, 376Google Scholar, and passim; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, pp. 8-9; and Curia Regis Rolls, 15 vols. (Public Record Office, 1922–1972) 8:330–331.Google Scholar

4 Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, 1:41.Google Scholar

5 Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, 1:67–68, 79–80, 99, 126Google Scholar. The author of the Gesta speaks of Gilbert and his brother as “consanguineus Henrici regis Angliae, filii Mathildis imperatricis.” Their relationship is explored further in Barrow's, G.W.S.Robert Bruce (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), p. 36nGoogle Scholar. 2, and in Hollister, C. Warren and Keefe, Thomas K., “The Making of the Angevin Empire, ” The Journal of British Studies 12 (1973):5, n.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 See C. Warren Hollister's comments on the similar misinterpretation of the sole surviving pipe roll of Henry I's reign: “Henry I and the Anglo-Norman Magnates, ” Proceedings of the Battle Abbey Conference 1979 (Ipswich, 1980), pp. 94, 103.Google Scholar

7 Compare Pipe Roll 19 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 19, 1895)Google Scholar and Pipe Roll 17 John (Pipe Roll Society, NS, 37, 1965)Google Scholar with other rolls from the two reigns.

8 Robert of Torigny, Chronicles and Memorials, 4:183–185.Google Scholar

9 The earldoms as they appear in alphabetical order are: Buckingham*, Chester*, Cornwall, Derby, Devon, Essex, Gloucester*, Hereford†, Hertford, Huntingdon*, Leicester*, Lincoln†, Norfolk, Northampton, Oxford, Pembroke, Richmond, Salisbury, Surrey*, Sussex, Warwick*, Worcester†, and Yorkt†. The original seven are marked by an asterisk; the four allowed to lapse by Henry II are marked by a cross. A good short introduction to the creation of earldoms under King Stephen and Empress Matilda can be found in Davis, R.H.C., King Stephen, 2nd ed. (New York, 1977), Appendix I:129–145.Google Scholar

10 The information on knights' fees and baronial enfeoffments in this paper has been drawn from my Feudal Assessments and the Political Community Under Henry II and His Sons, University of California Press, forthcoming. The fee totals refer to both English and Welsh enfeoffments in cases where such information is available.

11 Included in this sample are barons who fought for and against Henry II in the 1173 Rebellion, those otherwise active or inactive in royal service, as well as those with great and lowly estates. They are: Baldwin Wake, Hugh Wake, Gervase Paynel, Henry II of Pomeray, Hugh of Bayeux, Henry of Lacy, Bernard II of Balliol, William II of Mauduit, Walter of Wahulle, Simon of Wahulle, Walter of Aincourt, John of Aincourt, Hugh of Dover, John of Dover, Walter Fitz Robert of Clare, William count of Aumale, John count of Eu, Henry count of Eu, Roger of Mowbray, William Archard, Maurice of Craon, Roger Merlay, William Merlay, Hugh of Lacy, Gilbert of Mountfichet, and William of Ros.

12 Douglas, , William The Conqueror (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964) pp. 83–104, 136–137, 269–271Google Scholar; Le Patourel, , The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976), pp. 286–288Google Scholar, and idem, “Normandy and England, 1066-1144” (The Stenton Lecture 1970; Reading, 1971). Hollister, C. Warren, “Magnates and Curiales in Early Norman England, ” Viator 8 (1977):63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar gives a detailed picture of the great post-Conquest barons and their relations with the crown. On the newness of the Norman aristocracy see also Musset, Lucien, “L'aristocracie normande au xie siècle, ” in La noblesse au moyen âge, xie-xve siècles. Essais à la memoire de Robert Boutruche, ed. Contamine, Phillipe (Paris, 1976), pp. 88–94.Google Scholar

13 Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, eds. Robertson, James C. and Sheppard, J.B., 7 vols. (Rolls Series, 1875–1885) 1:16.Google Scholar

14 The details of the Beaumont-le-Roger genealogy are given in Complete Peerage, eds., Cokayne, George Edward, Gibbs, Vicary, et al, rev ed., 12 vols. (London, 1910–1959) 6:643Google Scholar; 7: 527-533; 9:583-586, 664; 10:348; 12, pt. i:757-764; 12, pt. ii:361.

15 On the Angevin family network, see Complete Peerage (rev ed.) 3:428–429Google Scholar; 4:313; 5:689; 7:496; 12, pt. i:496; and 11:105-121.

16 A convenient summary of Reginald of Warenne's exchequer activity is found in Madox, Thomas, The History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, 2nd ed. 2 vols. (London 1769, reprinted 1969) 1:123, 143–146Google Scholar. The Mauduit chamberlainship of the exchequer is surveyed by Mason, Emma, The Beauchamp Cartulary Charters 1100-1268 (Pipe Roll Society, NS, 43, 1980), pp. lii–liv and 102–105.Google Scholar

17 Allowing Reginald to hold the county of Cornwall free of royal administration was a singular departure from Henry II's restoration policy, perhaps understandable in light of the close relationship between the two men. Cornwall does not begin to account to the exchequer until the earl's death in 1175. Reginald's close relationship with his nephew is suggested further by his many attestations of royal charters and writs. The most comprehensive collections of Henry II's diploma are Eyton, Robert W., Court, Household, and Itinerary of Henry II (London, 1878)Google Scholar and Recueil des actes de Henri II, eds. Delisle, Léopold and Berger, Élie, 3 vols. (Paris, 1909–1927)Google Scholar. The earl would place among the king's top ten attestors on the basis of these collections. A more precise ranking will be possible after the publication of Professor J.C. Holt's definitive edition of early Angevin charters now in progress.

18 A good recent discussion of Henry II's recruitment of administrators is Lalley, J.E., “Secular Patronage at the Court of King Henry II, ” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49 (1976): 160–184.Google Scholar

20 The Historical Works of Cervase of Canterbury, ed. Stubbs, William, 2 vols. (Rolls Series, 1879–1880) 1:217.Google Scholar

21 Pipe Roll 12 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 9, 1888), pp. 7, 14, 30Google Scholar. Richard of Lucy was the second of the two itinerant justices.

22 The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey printed in Monasticon Anglicanum, new edition, eds. Caley, Johnet al, 6 vols. (London, 1846) 4:142–143.Google Scholar

23 Robert of Torigny, Chronicles and Memorials, 4: 235–236Google Scholar; Ralph of Diceto, Imagines Historiarum, ed., Stubbs, William, 2 vols. (Rolls Series, 1876) 1:331Google Scholar; Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:343Google Scholar; Map, Walter, De Nugis Curialum, ed. James, M.R. (Oxford, 1914), p. 305Google Scholar; Recueil des actes de Henri II, Intro:411. The Norman magnate William chamberlain of Tancarville succeeded Earl Patrick as governor of Poitou.

23 Dictionary of National Biography, 1:233–234Google Scholar; The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall, Hubert, 3 vols. (Rolls Series, 1896) 2:cclxvii–cclxxiiiGoogle Scholar; Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, 3:72–73Google Scholar; and Radulphi Nigri Chronica, ed. Anstruther, Robert (Caxton Society, 13, 1851), p. 170.Google Scholar

24 Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. Johnson, Charles (London, 1950), p. 52.Google Scholar

25 Histoirede Guillaume le Maréchal, ed. Meyer, Paul, 3 vols. (Paris, 1891–1901) 2:76–79.Google Scholar

26 See, Jones, Thomas M., War of the Generations, The Revolt of 1173-1174 (Medieval Text Association, 1980), pp. 43–46Google Scholar; Warren, W.L., Henry II, p. 124Google Scholar; Greenway, D.E., ed., Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, 1107-1191 (The British Academy, 1972), p. xxixGoogle Scholar; and Morris, John E., “The Assessment of Knight Service in Bedfordshire, ” Bedfordshire Historical Record Society 5 (1926):7.Google Scholar

27 Four levies were made in nine years under Richard I. John, in comparison, assessed eleven scutages in his sixteen year reign.

28 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 12, 1890), p. 39Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 15 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 13, 1890), p. 125Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 22 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 25, 1904), p. 3.Google Scholar

29 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 116; Pipe Roll 15 Henry II, p. 58.

30 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, pp. 21, 194; Pipe Roll 17 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 16, 1893), p. 6Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, p. 82.

31 Painter, Sidney, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, 1943), p. 34.Google Scholar

32 Pipe Roll 8 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 5, 1885), p. 71Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 39.

33 Robert of Torigny, Chronicles and Memorials, 4:196, 206Google Scholar. It seems reasonable that Henry II would have put off William of Blois' knighting as long as possible, since William, as Stephen's only surviving son, was a potential claimant to the throne. The 1158 knighting, then, must have followed shortly after William's twenty-first birthday. The question is whether he was in full control of his estates before this date. In 1157, all estates not part of Stephen's original patrimony were taken from William and returned to royal hands: idem, p. 193. Was the patrimony in the king's custody as well? Unfortunately, the pipe rolls do not help us here: see. The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Second, Third, and Fourth Years of the Reign of King Henry 11. ed. Hunter, Joseph (Record Commission, 1844), pp. 7, 9, 11, 13, 31, 61, 94–97, 128–129Google Scholar, and passim: and Pipe Roll 5 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 1, 1884), pp. 5, 11Google Scholar, and passim.

34 Pipe Roll 11 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 8, 1887), pp. 37–38Google Scholar; and Pipe Roll 33 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 37, 1915), p. 28.Google Scholar

35 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 129; Pipe Roll 18 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 18, 1894), p. 102Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, pp. 21, 37, 58, 62, 65; and Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, pp. 142-143. The debt was collected from the royal custodian assigned to Cornwall after the earl's death.

36 The known fragments from the 1170 Inquest of Sheriffs can be found in The Red Book of the Exchequer, 2:cclxvii–cclxxi, nos. 1-58Google Scholar; Tait, James, “A New Fragment of the Inquest of Sheriffs, 1170, ” English Historical Review 29 (1924):80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richardson, Helen, “A Twelfth Century Anglo-Norman Charter, ” Bulletin of the John Rylands' Library 24 (1940): 168–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “An Anglo-Norman Return to the Inquest of Sheriffs, ” Bulletin of the John Rylands' Library 27 (1942–1943):179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 The Red Book of the Exchequer, nos 1-6. Charter evidence also places Earl William in the king's company during a compaign into Brittany in July 1166. See, Recueil des actes de Henri II, 1:246–247.Google Scholar

38 The Red Book of the Exchequer, 2: no. 47. Robert of Bruecourt, the vassal in question, is shown by the 1166 survey to have held 3 knights' fees of the earldom of Hertford, suggesting a scutage rate here of 20s. on the knight's fee. See, idem, 1:404.

39 Earl Walter Giffard seems to have kept himself away from court in Henry I's and Stephen's reigns as well, attesting few, if any, charters. See, Hollister, C.Warren, “Henry I and the Anglo-Norman Magnates, ” Proceedings of the Battle Abbey Conference 1979, pp. 98 and 186 n. 21Google Scholar; Davis, R.H.C., King Stephen, p. 132Google Scholar; and Leedom, J.W., “The English Settlement of 1153, ” History 65 (1980):362CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Earl Aubrey III of Ver, however, was quite active on the Angevin and later the Blois side in the civil war of Stephen's reign, see Leedom, p. 363 and Davis, p. 140. Earl Aubrey's activities under Henry II merit further study, seeing as how he survived the thirty-five year reign with so little notice.

40 Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:51 n. 4, 61, 71.Google Scholar

41 Henry II settled the matter of Richmond when he had his son Geoffrey engaged to Conan's daughter and heir, Constance. After the two had married, both the earldom of Richmond and the more important duchy of Brittany became Angevin fiefs. On this, see Warren, W.L., Henry II, pp. 563–564Google Scholar. As far as the earldom of Huntingdon is concerned, King Malcom IV of Scotland and his brothers, King William and Prince David, all held the honor at one point in Henry's reign. Following William's and David's participation on the losing side in the 1173 revolt, Huntingdon was assigned to Simon III of St. Liz earl of Northampton, whose family had an hereditary claim to the honor. After Simon died in 1184 without leaving any direct heir, Huntingdon returned to the Scottish House. See, Fantosme, Jordan, Chronicles and Memorials, 3:232, 284, 296, 298, 372Google Scholar; and Sanders, I.J., English Baronies, A Study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086-1327 (Oxford, 1963), p. 118Google Scholar. Huntingdon's rather complex history in and out of royal custody is the reason why the earldom's appearance in the tables is as a single entry, not as a fief of the individual earls.

42 The Red Book of the Exchequer, 1:322–323Google Scholar, and Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 10.

43 The Red Book of the Exchequer, 1:269–270Google Scholar, and Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 119.

44 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 38; Pipe Roll 15 Henry II, p. 125; Pipe Roll 16 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 15, 1892), p. 106Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, p. 3.

45 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 10; Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, p. 52; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, p. 5; Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, pp. 17-18.

46 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 99. As was pointed out earlier, most of these assessments came during the earl's minority.

47 Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, p. 109; Pipe Roll 19 Henry II, pp. 67, 104.

48 Pipe Roll 29 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 32, 1911), pp. 153–154Google Scholar and passim.

49 Brown, R. Allen, “Framlingham Castle and Bigod, 1154-1216, ” Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History: Proceedings 25 (1950): 130–132Google Scholar, and Pipe Roll 11 Henry II, p. 7.

50 Pipe Roll 11 Henry II, p. 7.

51 Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 22.

52 Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, p. 70; see also, pp. 62, 65-66.

53 Rannulph of Glanville, Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie qui Glanvill vacatur, ed. Hall, G.D. (NMT, 1965), p. 108.Google Scholar

54 For example, see Warren, W.L., Henry II, p. 386.Google Scholar

55 The other inheritances for which a relief could have been demanded are: Hereford (1156), Essex (1166), Salisbury (1168), Leicester (1168), Hertford (1173), Sussex-Old Buckenham (1176), Norfolk (1177), and Devon (1188).

56 Pipe Roll 31 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 34, 1913), p. 149.Google Scholar

57 Pipe Roll 31 Henry II, p. 149.

58 Pipe Roll 32 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 36, 1914), p. 121.Google Scholar

59 Pipe Roll 34 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 38, 1925), p. 108.Google Scholar

60 Ralph of Diceto, Imagines Historiarum, 1:371.Google Scholar

61 These are: Berkhampstead, Boulogne, Buckingham, Eye, Haughley, Lancaster, Peverel of Nottingham, Peverel of London, Rayleigh, Tickhill, and Wallingford.

62 Thus Richard of Hummet, the Norman constable, received fiefs taken from the earldom of Buckingham and Giffard lands in England and Normandy. These same fiefs passed on to his son and successor as constable, William. The value of the English fiefs alone exceeded £94 sterling annually. See, Pipe Roll 13 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 11, 1889), p. 112Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 29 Henry II, p. 86; and Recueil des actes de Henri II, 2:nos. 466 and 549.

63 William (b. 1153-d. 1156), Henry (b. 1155-d. 1183), Richard (b. 1157-d. 1199). Geoffrey (b. 1158-d. 1186), John (b. 1166-d. 1216); and Matilda (b. 1156), Eleanor (b. 1161), and Johanna (b. 1165). Henry II also fathered two natural sons: Geoffrey bishop elect of Lincoln, chancellor of England, later archbishop of York; and William, future earl of Salisbury.

64 Robert of Torigny, Vatican MS R. printed in Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Bouquet, M.et al, 24 vols. (Paris, 1738–1904) 13: 300.Google Scholar

65 The Maurienne marriage proposal is discussed at length by Jones, Thomas, War of the Generations, pp. 87ff.Google Scholar

66 Torigny, Robert, Chronicles and Memorials, 4:268.Google Scholar

67 Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:124–125Google Scholar. The terms of the agreement are fully discussed in Earldom of Gloucester Charters, ed. Patterson, R.B. (Oxford, 1973), p. 5Google Scholar. Henry I had made a similar arrangement when he married his son Robert to Mabel, daughter of Robert fitz Hamon, and made her the heiress to the disadvantage of her sisters: Monasticon, 2:60–61Google Scholar. I owe this point to the kind advice of C. Warren Hollister.

68 William of Newburgh, Historia Anglorum in Chronicles and Memorials, 1:301–302.Google Scholar

69 Pipe Roll 29 Henry II, p. xxvii; Pipe Roll 33 Henry II, p. 109; The Great Roll of the Pipe for the First Year of the Reign of Richard the First, A.D. 1189-1190 (sic), ed. Hunter, Joseph (Record Commission, 1844), pp. 12–13Google Scholar; and Pipe Roll 2 Richard I (Pipe Roll Society, NS, 1, 1925), pp. 127, 129, 130.Google Scholar

70 Pipe Roll 13 Henry II, p. 152.

71 The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, p. 142 col. 2 refers to Geoffrey III as the eldest son of Geoffrey II of Mandeville, the first earl of Essex and the founder of the abbey. Round, John Horace in his Geoffrey de Mandeville (London, 1892), pp. 228–231Google Scholar and passim supposed that Ernulf of Mandeville was the eldest son and natural heir to Essex but had been disinherited as the result of outrages committed against the Church during the civil war by both him and his father. I am inclined to follow Painter, Sidney, Feudalism and Liberty: Articles and Addresses of Sidney Painter, ed. Cazel, Fred A. Jr. (Baltimore, 1961), pp. 216–217 n. 37Google Scholar, in his argument that Ernulf was a bastard of Geoffrey II and therefore not the rightful heir to the earldom.

72 The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, p. 143, col. 2.

73 The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, p. 143, col. 2.

74 Domesday Book, 1:fos. 36, 62, 129b, 132, 139, 159b, 227; 2: fos. 57b, 100, 106b, 411. In 1086, the value of the Mandeville lands exceeded £740. This places the family among the top ten wealthiest lay landholders in England. See, Hollister, “Magnates and Curiales in Early Norman England, ” Table A.

75 For the Mandeville claim to the custodianship of the Tower of London, see Hollister, C. Warren, “The Misfortunes of the Mandeville's, ” History 58 (1973):18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the authorities cited therein. The author of The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey mentions the reservation of the Tower of London but goes on to say that Earl William received the rest of his estates un-impared. This was not the case. In an earlier passage the author recounts Henry II's anger with Geoffrey III because of his refusal to co-habit with the wife the king had chosen for him, who just happened to be one of Henry's cousins. The woman in question is unnamed. Following a divorce, she was remarried promptly to Ansel of Camdeaveine count of St. Pol (d. 1174). For her marriage portion, Henry II took the liberty of confiscating £100 worth of land, 3 knights' fees, and the manors of Waltham and Walden from the earldom of Essex. This was done, no doubt, as retribution for the insult to the royal family's honor. In time, Geoffrey III and Henry II were reconciled, as the earl's later career suggests. For further details, see The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, pp. 142-143; Complete Peerage, 5:117ffGoogle Scholar; The Red Book of the Exchequer, 1:345Google Scholar; and Pipe Roll 30 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 33, 1912), p. 144.Google Scholar

76 William of Mandeville is among the top five attestors of Henry II's charters, see above note 17.

77 Pipe Roll 20 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 21, 1896), p. 135Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, p. 211; Pipe Roll 23 Henry II, p. 207; Pipe Roll 25 Henry II, p. 120; Pipe Roll 26 Henry II (Pipe Roll 29, 1908) p. 148Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 27 Henry II (Pipe Roll Society, 30, 1909), p. 152Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 28 Henry II, p. 150; Pipe Roll 29 Henry II, p. 160; Pipe Roll 31 Henry II, p. 233; Pipe Roll 33 Henry II, p. 210.

78 Pipe Roll 23 Henry II, p. 207; Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:287Google Scholar; Eyton, , Court, Household and Itinerary, p. 274.Google Scholar

79 Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, 1:271–275Google Scholar. The Gesta Henrici Secundi, 2:45–46Google Scholar mentions William Marshal as one of the envoys sent by Henry II to Philip of France in 1188 to warn the French monarch that any further aggression on his part would result in Henry's renunciation of his fealty for the Angevin French dominions. This report goes far to support the story related by the Marshal's biographer almost forty years later.

80 Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:87Google Scholar and Landon, Lionel, The Itinerary King Richard I (Pipe Roll Society, NS, 13, 1935), pp. 11–23.Google Scholar

81 Pipe Roll 13 Henry II, pp. 106, 164; Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, pp. 39, 44, 202; Pipe Roll 15 Henry II, pp. 126, 128; Pipe Roll 16 Henry II, p. 72; Pipe Roll 17 Henry II, p. 72; Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, pp. 124, 133; Pipe Roll 19 Henry II, p. 43; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, pp. 135, 136; Roll 22 Henry II, pp. 29, 71, 72; Pipe Roll 23 Henry II, pp. 47, 48, 149, 150; Pipe Roll 24 Henry II, (Pipe Roll Society, 27, 1906), pp. 37, 104Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 25 Henry II, pp. 33, 55, 86; Pipe Roll 26 Henry II, p. 39; Pipe Roll 29 Henry II, p. 138; Pipe Roll 30 Henry II, pp. 46, 47, 117, 118, 132, 140; Pipe Roll 31 Henry II, pp. 16, 19, 57, 65, 137; Pipe Roll 34 Henry II, pp. 89, 92, 84. These assessments represent those levied against William's private holdings, as is the case where figures are cited for other earls elsewhere in this paper, and do not account for such items as the farm of the English lands of the count of Flanders which were placed in William's custody from time to time by Henry II: see following note and note 89.

82 The third penny for Essex alone brought in £40 10s., 10d. annually: Pipe Roll 13 Henry II, p. 152. For other monies paid to William, , see Pipe Roll 20 Henry II, pp. 49, 73, 75, 87Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, pp. 2, 3, 19, 43, 78, 144, 146, 150, 151, 156, 157; Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, pp. 5, 10, 121; Pipe Roll 23 Henry II, pp. 117, 154; Pipe Roll 24 Henry II, p. 47; Pipe Roll 25 Henry II, pp. 52 and 128. Again, this sum does not include whatever profits Earl William might have taken from the custodianship of the lands of the count of Flanders.

83 Ralph of Diceto, Imagines Historiarum, 2:3.Google Scholar

84 The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, ed. Appleby, John T. (NMT, 1963), p. 10.Google Scholar

85 See Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 142Google Scholar; The Red Book of the Exchequer, 1:430–432, 434Google Scholar; Early Yorkshire Charters, 7:90–96Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 14 Henry II, p. 90; Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, p. 62; and The Chancellor's Roll 8 Richard I (Pipe Roll Society, NS, 7, 1930), p. 185Google Scholar. See also for Holderness, English, Barbara, The Lords of Holderness 1086-1260 (Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar

86 Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, p. 144, col. 1.

87 Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae Sub Regibus Anglie, ed. Stapleton, Thomas, 2 vols. (London, 1840–1844), 1:111, 112, 116, 118, 120, 121Google Scholar: “Comes Willelmus pro Gisoricio et Valle Rodolii, … .In lib ipsi Com dccc. li … de .m. li. qas ht p ann p custod cast°ru de Gisorc et Neelfa, et Dangu, et Novo Cast° sup Etta, et Valle Rodol.” Stapleton was convinced that the “Comes Willelmus” of these entries was William III of Aubigny, the second earl of Sussex, and this identification was followed by later authorities such as SirPowicke, Maurice, The Loss of Normandy, 2nd ed. (New York, 1961), p. 69Google Scholar and Delisle, Leopold, Recueil des actes de Henri II, Intro, p. 472Google Scholar. However, all the evidence points to William II of Mandeville earl of Essex and count of Aumale's custodianship of the castles. Gervase of Canterbury specifically mentions William II of Mandeville as the defender of Gisors in 1187. The Gesta Henrici Secundi tells us that the constable of Gisors in 1186 was Henry of Ver, “Consanguineus Willelmi de Mandevil Comitis Aubemarl.” This same Henry of Ver is named in the Foundation Book of Walden Abbey as the earl's cousin and a member of his household. He is found attesting the earl's English charters and was related through Rohese of Ver. William's mother. All of this suggests very strongly that the “Comes Willelmus” of the 1184 Norman roll was none other than our William II of Mandeville. See, Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1: 354–355Google Scholar; Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, 1:347Google Scholar; The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, p. 145, col. 1ff. Professor J.C. Holt informs me that several of William II of Mandeville's private charters support this conclusion. Further evidence comes from the Norman roll irself. A William son of Ade is pardoned £100 in one entry for the remainder of the tallage of Drincourt due from “Comes Willelmus.” The sons of Ade of Waltham, who took their name from the Mandeville manor, appear frequently in the English Pipe Rolls under the county of Essex. Another of the entries shows Geoffrey of Say, the son of William's aunt Beatrice of Say, in debt for some victuals he had gotten from the munition of Gisors. And finally, the sum of 20m. is noted as having been paid out to “Comes Willelmus” in reimbursement for the money he had lent for the liveries of the knights of the garrison of Arras. This last entry certainly pertains to our William of Mandeville, who had gone to the aid of the count of Flanders in 1184 when Philip of France threatened to invade the count's territories: see Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, 1:111, 117Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 22 Henry II, p. 5; Pipe Roll 21 Henry II, p. 72; and Ralph of Diceto, Imagines Historiarum, 2:32.Google Scholar

88 Ralph of Diceto, Imagines Historiarum, 2:35ffGoogle Scholar. Gesta Henrici Secundi, 2:4–5Google Scholar; Eyton, , Court, Household and Itinerary, p. 266Google Scholar. Earl William and Count Philip had remained close friends after the earl entered Henry II's service, even though they often found themselves on opposing sides in the constant warfare of the times. These two boyhood companions went crusading together in 1177-1178, spending the entire year in each others company: Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:159Google Scholar and Ralph of Diceto Imagines Historiarum, 1:423.Google Scholar

89 Pipe Roll 27 Henry II, pp. 10, 51, 64, 110; Pipe Roll 28 Henry II, pp. 60-61, 14, 50, 123, 150; Pipe Roll 29 Henry II, pp. 7, 62, 71, 86, 100; Pipe Roll 30 Henry II, pp. 14, 69, 95; Pipe Roll 31 Henry II, pp. 81, 105, 110; Pipe Roll 32 Henry II, pp. 111, 70, 102; Pipe Roll 33 Henry II, pp. 67-68. Round, John Horace, Peerage and Family History (London, 1901), pp. 171–177Google Scholar discusses the English lands of the counts of Flanders.

90 “Senescallo Normanniae, Guillelme Radulphi filio, et Comite Guillelmo de Mandevilla ante constrictus, de munitionibus Normanniae cunctis, siquid de ipso sinistrum forte contigerit, filio suo juniori Johanni reddendis”: Gerald of Wales, Opera, eds. Brewer, J.S.et al, 8 vols. (Rolls Series, 1861–1891), 4:369Google Scholar. On Henry II's intentions for John, , see my “Geoffrey Plantagenet's Will and the Angevin Succession, ” Albion 6 (1974):271.Google Scholar

91 The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, p. 10; The Foundation Book of Walden Abbey, p. 144 col. 1.

92 The circumstances under which Henry came into possession of his continental dominions are discussed in Hollister, and Keefe, , “The Making of the Angevin Empire, ” pp. 19–22.Google Scholar

93 Richard of Poitiers, after recounting Henry's several continental lordships, remarks, “but in consideration of the honor and reverence of the royal name he is called king of the English, ” Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 12:417Google Scholar. Thus, royal status gave Henry a place high above that of a mere, if immensely wealthy, continental prince.

94 John of Salisbury, Opera Omnia, ed. Giles, J.A., 5 vols. (Oxford, 1848), 2:114.Google Scholar

95 It is well-known that the pipe rolls do not cover all royal receipts and expenditures, that from time to time monies were paid directly to the king or into his chamber, see Richardson, H.G., “Richard Fitz Neal and the Dialogus de Scaccario, ” English Historical Review 43 (1928): 161–171, 321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The Chamber Under Henry II, ” ibid., 69 (1954):596-611; and J.E.A. Jolliffe, “The Camera Regis Under Henry II, ” ibid., 68 (1953):1-21, 337-362. Thus, some royal-baronial transactions not recorded by the pipe rolls are mentioned by other sources. For example, a thirteenth century court record states that Henry of Lacy promised Henry II 1000m. to resolve a succession dispute over the honor of Pontefract: Curia Regis Rolls, 13:66–67Google Scholar. A promise, however, is not evidence of payment. On the other hand, the sum of 2000m. is said to have been paid the king by Hugh bisop of Durham, “so that his castles might stand and that he might again know the king's love”: Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:160Google Scholar. Such a transaction, in light of the bishop's suspected sympathies with the 1173 rebels, is not unreasonable, but again the full details elude us. The same chronicle reports a payment of 1000m. on October 9, 1176 by Gilbert son of Fergus of Galloway to regain the king's love after Gilbert's involvement in the murder of his brother: Gesta Henrici Secundi, 1:126Google Scholar. Yet, turning in this case to the 1178-1179 pipe roll, we find Gilbert debited with £1000, not 1000m.: Pipe Roll 25 Henry II, p. 31. Were there two separate assessments, or did the Gesta simply confuse pounds with marks, indicating a single, unpaid assessment? There is no way to tell. Similarly, Ralph of Diceto has Hugh Bigod earl of Norfolk paying 1000m. to regain the king's good will following the 1173 rebellion: Imagines Historiarum, 1:384–385Google Scholar, a figure in excess of the £466 recorded by the pipe roll: see note 52 above. Caution, then, must be used in approaching transactions between the king and barons reported by sources other than the pipe rolls where they can be traced.

The above especially applies to the some £5000 worth of baronial debts due the royal financier William Cade allegedly collected by Henry II after Cade's death in 1165: see Jenkinson, Hilary, “William Cade, A Financier of the Twelfth Century” English Historical Review 28 (1913):522–527Google Scholar, and by the same author, “A Money-Lender's Bonds of the Twelfth Century, ” in Essays Presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. by Davis, H.W.C. (Oxford, 1927), pp. 190–120Google Scholar; see also Round, John Horace, “The Debtors of William Cade, ” English Historical Review 28(1913):522–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The list of debtors is made up largely of court officials and those with access to Henry II's court. It would seem that these individuals borrowed from Cade or sought mortgages from him just like Henry II himself. There are many possible explanations for such heavy borrowing running from the high cost of sustaining oneself in royal service to the need for ready money to pursue some profitable investment. Whatever the explanation, it is doubtful that Henry would have collected such debts from the officials, earls, or others in his service. In the final analysis, the pipe rolls offer the surest, certainly the most comprehensive, evidence of royal-baronial financial dealings.

96 Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, ed. Stubbs, William, 9th edition revised by Davis, H.W.C. (Oxford, 1913), cl. 44, p. 343.Google Scholar