Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:28:55.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

King and magnate in medieval Ireland: Walter de Lacy, King Richard and King John

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2015

Colin Veach
Colin Veach*
Affiliation:
Medieval History Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

While the reigns of England's Angevin kings, Henry II, Richard I and John, have sparked centuries of historical interest, the verdicts rendered have been as diverse as the times that produced them. Increasingly, historians have come to highlight the abrasiveness of Angevin kingship in general when discussing the great calamities of John’s reign (including the loss of Normandy in 1204, Magna Carta, and the civil war of 1215–17), before recounting John’s unique depravity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 146 , November 2010 , pp. 179 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 2010

References

1 The reigns of Henry II and Richard have recently been the subject of excellent historiographical sketches. For Henry II, see Nicholas, Vincent, ‘Introduction: Henry II and the historians’ in Christopher Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent (eds), Henry II: new interpretations (Woodbridge, 2007), pp 1–23.Google Scholar For Richard, see John, Gillingham, Richard I (New Haven & London, 2002), pp 1–14.Google ScholarHolt, J. C., King John (London, 1963)Google Scholar contains a useful historiography of John’s reign to 1963, but the period after is somewhat neglected. A short historiography of John’s reign may be found under the heading ‘the record of King John’ in Clanchy, M. T., England and its rulers, 1066-1307 (3rd ed., Oxford, 2006), pp 187–90Google Scholar, and in John, Gilling m, ‘John (1167-1216)’ in H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison (eds), Oxford dictionary of national biography (60 vols, Oxford, 2004), xxx, 169–70.Google Scholar

2 Among others, see Harper-Bill, & Vincent, (eds), Henry II: new interpretations;Google ScholarGillingham, , Richard IGoogle Scholar; Turner, Ralph and Heiser, Richard, The reign of Richard Lionheart: ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189-1199 (Harlow, 2000);Google ScholarTurner, Ralph, King John (London, 1994)Google Scholar; Church, S. D. (ed.), King John: new interpretations (Woodbridge, 1999);Google ScholarTurner, Ralph, Magna Carta: through the ages (Harlow, 2003)Google Scholar; Carpenter, David, The struggle for mastery: Britain, 1066-1284 (London, 2003)Google Scholar.

3 Turner, , King John, p. 16Google Scholar.

4 ‘He [Richard] used England as a bank on which to draw and overdraw in order to finance his ambitious exploits abroad.’ Poole, A. L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216 (Oxford, 1955), p. 350.Google Scholar More examples of this verdict may be found in Gillingham, , Richard I, pp 12–14Google Scholar.

5 Gillingham, , Richard IGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Conquering kings: some twelfth-century refections on Henry II and Richard I’ in Timothy Reuter (ed.), Warriors and Churchmen in the high Middle Ages: essays presented to Karl Leyser (London, 1992), pp 163-78.

6 See, for instance, Carpenter, , Struggle for mastery, pp 260–1.Google Scholar

7 Gillingham, , Richard I, esp. ch. 14, ‘The character of a Lionheart’, pp 254–68Google Scholar; idem, Richard Coeur de Lion: kingship, chivalry and war in the twelfth century (London, 1993); idem, ‘Conquering kings’; Turner & Heiser, Reign of Richard Lionheart.

8 Carpenter, , Struggle for mastery, p. 245.Google Scholar

9 Turner, & Heiser, , Reign of Richard Lionheart, p. 245.Google Scholar The authors go on to argue that the Aquitainian magnates were well acquainted with Richard’s domineering personality.

10 Carpenter, , Struggle for mastery, p. 258.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., p. 266.

12 A knight’s fee was an administrative unit denoting the military service owed to the lord (in this case, the king) of a territory. Theoretically, one armed knight had to be provided for each knight’s fee. The precise number of knight’s fees the de Lacys held in each realm is diffcult to ascertain. In England, Hugh de Lacy returned ffty-and-three-quarters fees of old feoffment (with a further three and a half not acknowledged as his by their holders) and fve and a half of new feoffment in the cartae baronum returns of 1166. However, from then until 1215 he and his son Walter were routinely assessed scutage on ffty-one-and-a-quarter fees (Hall, Hubert (ed.), The red book of the Exchequer (3 vols, London, 1896), i, 74, 86, 114, 2813;Google ScholarThe great roll of the pipe for the fourteenth year of reign of Henry II (London, 1890), p. 116Google Scholar; Stenton, D. M. (ed.), The great roll of the pipe for the second year of the reign of King Richard the frst, Michaelmas 1190 (London, 1925), p. 49;Google Scholareadem (ed.), >The great roll of the pipe for the sixth year of the reign of King Richard the frst, Michaelmas 1194 (London, 1928), p. 140;The+great+roll+of+the+pipe+for+the+sixth+year+of+the+reign+of+King+Richard+the+frst,+Michaelmas+1194+(London,+1928),+p.+140;>Google Scholar eadem (ed.), The chancellor’s roll for the eighth year of the reign of Richard I, Michaelmas 1196 (London, 1930), p. 92;Google Scholar cf. Wightman, W. E., The Lacy family in England and Normandy, 1066-1199 (Oxford, 1966), pp 195–200)Google Scholar. However, while the de Lacy inheritance was in wardship (1186–9) following the death of Hugh de Lacy, its custodian paid scutage on the fve-and-a-half fees of new feoffment as well (Red book of the Exchequer, i, 66). After John’s reign, Walter continued to be assessed for ffty-one-and-a quarter-fees by the sheriff of Herefordshire but was also assessed for seven fees by the sheriff of Shropshire (see, for example, Ebden, E. P. (ed.), The great roll of the pipe for the second year of the reign of King Henry III, Michaelmas 1218 (London, 1972), pp 6, 92)Google Scholar.

13 For the de Lacy’s Irish lands, see the charters of Henry II, Richard and John, which state that Meath was to be held for the service of ffty knights (Mills, James and McEnery, M. J. (eds), Calendar of the Gormanston register (Dublin, 1916), pp 6–7, 177–8))Google Scholar. The de Lacys likely had other lands in Ireland prior to 1189, with the seven fees in Fingal, County Dublin, confrmed to Walter de Lacy in 1208 being likely hold-overs from Hugh de Lacy’s term as Henry II’s custos of Dublin (Hardy, T. D. (ed.), Rotuli chartarum in Turri Londinensi asservati (London, 1837), p. 178;Google ScholarSweetman, H. S. and Handcock, G. F. (eds), Calendar of documents relating to Ireland preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Offce, London (5 vols, London, 1875-86), i, no. 382))Google Scholar.

14 In Normandy, the de Lacy honour was held of the bishop of Bayeux for the service of two knights. Walter’s father Hugh de Lacy had purchased the honour of le Pin-au-Haras (Orne, canton Exmes) in 1172 from Robert II de Beaumont, count of Meulan, for the service of a further two knights held directly of the duke of Normandy (Wightman, Lacy, pp 215–26). Walter seems to have also held two knight’s fees of Count Robert in the honour of Pont-Audemer (Eure, canton Pont-Audemer) prior to 1204 (Wailly, Joseph-Noël de, Delisle, Leopold and Jourdain, Charles-Marie-Gabriel Bréchillet (eds), Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, tome vingt-troisieme (Paris, 1894), p. 711a)Google Scholar.

15 Historians even disagree on whether or not Richard paid any attention to Ireland. John’s biographer, W. L. Warren, has written of the anarchical effects of Richard’s complete lack of interest in Ireland, while Marie Therese Flanagan has described Richard as wielding an ‘over-riding lordship over John as lord of Ireland’. Warren, W. L., King John (London, 1961), p. 194;Google ScholarFlanagan, M. T., Irish society, Anglo-Norman settlers, Angevin kingship: interactions in Ireland in the late twelfth century (Oxford, 1989), p. 281.Google Scholar

16 Hugh de Lacy’s career can be traced in Orpen, G. H., Ireland under the Normans (4 vols, Oxford, 1912-20), i, 279–86, ii, 51–90Google Scholar; idem, Ireland under the Normans, 1169-1333 (Dublin, 2005 ed.), pp 103-6, 171-86); Flanagan, , Irish society;Google ScholarOtway-Ruthven, A. J., A history of medieval Ireland (London, 1980), pp 52–70;Google ScholarWarren, W. L., Henry II (2nd ed., London, 1991), pp 200–5, 599Google Scholar; Martin, F. X., ‘Allies and an overlord, 1169-72’ in Art Cosgrove (ed.), A new history of Ireland, ii: Medieval Ireland, 1169-1534 (dOxford, 1987), pp 96–7;Google Scholar idem, ‘Overlord becomes feudal lord’ in ibid., pp 98–126. The circumstances sur rounding the grant of Meath have been discussed most recently in Veach, Colin, ‘Henry II’s grant of Meath to Hugh de Lacy in 1172: a reassessment’ in Ríocht na Mídhe, xviii (2007), pp 67–94.Google Scholar

17 For the expedition, see Duffy, Seán, ‘John and Ireland: the origins of England’s Irish problem’ in Church (ed.), King John: new interpretations, pp 221–45;Google ScholarOrpen, , Normans, ii, 91–108 (new ed., pp 187–93)Google Scholar.

18 Gesta regis Henrici secundi Bendicti abbatis. The chronicle of the reigns of Henry II and Richard I, ad 1169–1192, known commonly under the name of Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, William (2 vols, London, 1867), i, 350.Google Scholar

19 Walter was not Hugh de Lacy’s eldest son. In an undated charter in the cartulary of St Guthlac, Hereford, Hugh makes a grant with the assent of ‘Robert de Lacy, my son and heir (Roberti de Lacy flii mei et heredis mei)’, Balliol College, Oxford, MS 271, f. 47v. Many thanks to Prof. David Crouch for drawing my attention to this source. For another grant made in conjunction with Robert, see Dugdale, William, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. Caley, John, Ellis, Henry and Bandinel, Bulkeley (new ed., 6 vols, London, 1846), iv, 597.Google Scholar

20 Pipe roll 1 Richard I, which concerns the Exchequer year 1188/9, has a custodian accounting for the de Lacy honour for three-quarters of a year, which would put the approx imate date of Walter’s seisin at the end of June 1189. Hunter, Joseph (ed.), The great roll of the pipe for the first year of the reign of King Richard the First, 1189-1190 (London, 1844), p. 145;Google Scholar see also Round, J. H., ‘The dating of the early pipe rolls’ in E.H.R., 36, no. 143 (1921), pp 321–2Google Scholar. King Henry died on 6 July 1189.

21 Turner, Ralph, ‘John and justice’ in Church (ed.), King John: new interpretations, p. 322;Google Scholar see also Holt, J. C., Magna Carta (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1992), pp 152–3.Google Scholar

22 Holden, A.J., Gregory, Stewart and Crouch, David (eds), History of William Marshal (3 vols, London, 2002), i, ll 9361–408;Google ScholarGillingham, , Richard I, p. 101;Google ScholarCrouch, David, William Marshal: knighthood, war and chivalry, 1147-1219 (2nd ed., London, 2002), p. 67.Google Scholar It is perhaps worth noting that, if the chronology of the History be believed, these gifts were made before Richard was offcially made duke of Normandy (20 July 1189) or king of England (3 Sept.).

23 Gesta regis Henrici secundi, ii, 75. ‘Praeterea idem dux omnes quos rex pater suus exhaeredavit, in pristine jura restituit.’

24 Round, J.H. (ed.), Calendar of documents preserved in France, illustrative of the history of Great Britain and Ireland, ad 918-1206 (London, 1889), no. 618Google Scholar. The grant can be dated to between 15 September and 31 December 1189 by the designation of William Longchamp as ‘bishop elect’ of Ely in the witness list. The appearance of Richard’s chan cellor in the witness list may indicate that Walter de Lacy had a strong ally at the new king’s court. William’s father, Hugh de Longchamp, held a knight’s fee of the de Lacy honour in Herefordshire (Veach, Colin, ‘A question of timing: Walter de Lacy’s seisin of Meath, 1189-94’ in R.I.A. Proc., cix (2009), sect. C, pp 173–4)Google Scholar. There is also a possibility that William’s mother was a Herefordshire de Lacy, and therefore related to Walter de Lacy (Balfour, David, ‘The origins of the Longchamp family’ in Medieval Prosopography, xviii (1997), pp 84–5)Google Scholar.

25 Flanagan, Cf., Irish society, pp 281–4Google Scholar.

26 While an historical consensus has yet to be reached on the existence or extent of Richard’s hegemony over Ireland, notable instances of his assertion of authority there came in 1194–5, in the wake of John’s rebellion; see pp̣7–9 below.

27 History of William Marshal, i, ll. 9581–618;Google ScholarCrouch, , William Marshal, p. 70Google Scholar.

28 History of William Marshal, ii, ll. 10295–320.Google Scholar For discussions of this episode, see Crouch, , William Marshal, p. 79;Google ScholarPainter, , William Marshal: knight-errant, baron, and regent of England (Baltimore, 1933), pp 106–7;Google Scholar and see below, pp 6–7.

29 This topic is dealt with more fully in Veach, ‘A question of timing’, pp 165–94.

30 Gormanston reg., pp 143, 190. The territories granted were: Ratoath (parish Ratoath, barony Ratoath, County Meath), Treuthd (Treóit, parish Trevet, barony Skreen, County Meath), Mackergaling (Machaire Gaileang, barony Morgallion, County Meath), the tuath of Fithdwinterwod (?), land of Knelene (Cenél n-Enda, near hill of Uisnech, Kinalea, County Westmeath?), and the land of Knelecwre (Cenél Láegaire, baronies Upper and Lower Navan, County Meath?).

31 Grant of land in Durrow on 13 May: Niocaill, Gearóid Mac, Notitiae as Leabhar Cheanannais, 1033-1161 (Dublin, 1961), pp 38–9;Google ScholarCal. pat. rolls, 1388-92, p. 300. Grant of a carucate of land in Molloghune on 21 July: Cal. pat. rolls, 1334-38, pp 415–16; see also Duffy, , ‘John & Ireland’, p. 235. MolloghuneGoogle Scholar is most likely a rendering of Mag Cuillinn, Anglicised Moygullen, now Cooksborough, parish of Rathconnell, barony of Moycashel, County Westmeath.

32 Norgate, Kate, England under the Angevin kings (2 vols, London, 1887), ii, 314–16.Google Scholar

33 Gesta regis Henrici secundi, ii, 236;Google ScholarNorgate, , Angevin kings, ii, 314;Google ScholarGillingham, , Richard I, p. 229.Google Scholar

34 Norgate, , Angevin kings, ii, 323.Google Scholar

35 Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. Stubbs, William (4 vols, London, 1868-71), iii, 236–8;Google ScholarRadulf de Diceto decani Lundoniensis opera historica, ed. Stubbs, William (2 vols, London, 1876), ii, 112–13;Google ScholarRadulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Joseph, Stevenson (London, 1875), p. 62Google Scholar(where his release is dated to 2 Feb.).

36 Landon, Lionel, The itinerary of King Richard I, with studies of certain matters of interest connected with his reign (London, 1935), p. 86,Google Scholar places this on 29 Mar.

37 History of William Marshal, ii, ll 10295–320.Google Scholar For discussions of this episode, see Crouch, , William Marshal, p. 79;Google ScholarPainter, , William Marshal, pp 106–7Google Scholar.

38 Hargrave, B.L. MS 313; Gormanston register, pp 6, 177–8Google Scholar. Although the dating clause in B.L., Hargrave MS 313 states that the charter was issued at Nottingham, Lionel Landon has argued that this is most likely a mistake, and should be Northampton: Landon, Itinerary of King Richard I, p. 86.

39 Niocaill, Gearóid Mac, Na buirgéisí, XII–XV aois (2 vols, Dublin, 1964), i, 172–3Google Scholar.

40 ‘Walterus de Lacy recepit dominium de Media et Petrum Pipard justiciarium cum suis militibus deprehendit’: Bibliothèque Municipale de Troyes, MS 1316, f. 39. Orpen, , Normans, ii, 112 n. (new ed., p. 195 n.)Google Scholar.

41 Flanagan, , Irish society, p. 282.Google Scholar

42 Perros [Walton], Helen, ‘Crossing the Shannon frontier: Connacht and the Anglo-Normans, 1170-1224’ in T. B. Barry, Robin Frame and Katharine Simms (eds), Colony and frontier in medieval Ireland: essays presented to J.F. Lydon (London & Rio Grande, 1995), p. 126;Google ScholarEdwards, R. D., ‘Anglo-Norman relations with Connacht, 1169-1224’ in I.H.S., i, no. 2 (1938), p. 145;Google ScholarWarren, W. L., ‘King John and Ireland’ in James Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the later Middle Ages: essays in honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Blackrock, 1981), p. 30.Google Scholar

43 Orpen, , Normans, ii, 48 (new ed., p. 210)Google Scholar; Edwards, , ‘Anglo-Norman relations with Connacht’, p. 145.Google Scholar

44 For a narrative, see Martin, F. X., ‘John, Lord of Ireland, 1185-1216’ in Cosgrove (ed.), A new history of Ireland, ii: Medieval Ireland, 1169-1534, p. 129.Google Scholar

45 O’Donovan, John (ed.), Annála Ríoghachta Éireann: Annals of the kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, from the earliest period to the year 1616. Edited from MSS in the library of the Royal Irish Academy and of Trinity College Dublin with a translation and copious notes (7 vols, Dublin, 1848-51), iii, 101, s.a. 1195Google Scholar; Hennessy, W. M. (ed.), The Annals of Loch Cé. A chronicle of Irish affairs from a.d. 1014 to a.d. 1590 (2 vols, Oxford, 1871), i, 191, s.a. 1195Google Scholar; Airt, Seán Mac (ed.), The Annals of Inisfallen (MS, Rawlinson B. 503) (Dublin, 1951), p. 321, s.a. 1195Google Scholar; hInnse, Séamus Ó (ed.), Miscellaneous Irish annals, ad 1114-1437 (Dublin, 1947), p. 75Google Scholar (Mac Carthaigh’s book, s.a. 1195). Cathal Crobderg was also married to a daughter of Domnall Mór Ua Briain, which gave him an added interest in the affairs of Thomond.

46 Ann. Inisf., p. 321, s.a. 1195Google Scholar. Edwards R. Dudley asserts that this was a direct result of de Burgh’s grant of Connacht (Edwards, , ‘Anglo-Norman relations with Connacht’, p. 144)Google Scholar, while Orpen links it with the powerful position of de Burgh in Munster as he played the sons of Domnall Mór against one another in Thomond’s disputed succession (Orpen, , Normans, ii, 154 (new ed., p. 213))Google Scholar. On the balance of evidence, both are probably right.

47 A.F.M., iii, 100-1, s.a. 1195; A.L.C., i, 191, s.a. 1195; Carthy, Bartholomew Mac (ed.), Annala Uladh. Annals of Ulster, otherwise annala Senait, Annals of Senat; a chronicle of Irish affairs A.D. 431-1131: 1155-1541 (4 vols, Dublin, 1893), ii, 223, s.a. 1195;Google ScholarOrpen, , Normans, ii, 134, 155–6 (new ed., pp 204, 213).Google Scholar

48 Duffy, , ‘John & Ireland’, p. 237.Google Scholar

49 A.L.C., i, 191, s.a. 1195.

50 Orpen, , Normans, ii, 156 (new ed., pp 213–14).Google Scholar

51 Bodl., Rawlinson MS B 498, f.63, loose leaf. Translated in Charles MacNeill, , ‘The de Verdons and the Draycots’ in Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., v, no. 3 (1923), p. 170.Google Scholar

52 Harley, B.L. 1240, f. 27, no. 26, calendared in Herbert Wood, (ed.), ‘The muniments of Edmund de Mortimer, third earl of March, concerning his liberty of Trim’ in R.I.A. Proc., xl (1932), sect. C, p. 330;Google ScholarGormanston reg., p. 178 (which does not include the dating clause).

53 A cantred (from the Welsh ‘cantref’) was an administrative unit of land akin to (but not necessarily coextensive with) modern baronies. Unlike knight’s fees, there was no military service implied in the unit.

54 Gormanston reg., pp 143-4, 191-2. This amounted to a third of the province, and, depending on when John, Lord of Ireland, issued his own grant of six cantreds in Connacht to Hugh, was either a confrmation of John’s grant (which William’s own grant of the entire province of Connacht would have superseded) or the template for it. Reference to John, ’s grant is in Rot. chart., pp 139–40;Google ScholarCal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, no. 241. Further analysis of the grants may be found in Helen Walton, , ‘The English in Connacht, 1171-1333’ (Ph.D. thesis, Trinity College, Dublin, 1980), pp 22, 25.Google Scholar

55 Kenneth Nicholls, , ‘A charter of William de Burgo’ in Anal. Hib., no. 27 (1972), p. 121.Google Scholar The lands were Muiamet (Moymet parish, barony Upper Navan, County Meath), Clunmor (unidentifed), and Clunfadan (Clonfane in Moymet parish, barony Upper Navan, County Meath). The existence of these grants is known from de Burgh’s later bestowal of them upon William le Petit. That charter may be dated to Apr. 1204 till winter 1205–6 – that is, between the arrival of one of the witnesses, John Marshal, in Ireland (David Crouch, , Sir John, ‘Marshal (d. 1235)’ in Matthew, & Harrison, (eds), Oxford dictionary of national biography, xxxvi, 812–13)Google Scholar and William de Burgh’s death. Walter de Lacy’s absence from Ireland from 1199 to 1201, and frosty relations with de Burgh from th n on, make it all the more likely that Walter’s grant came around this period of amity, 1195–8.

56 ‘The Dublin Annals of Innisfallen’ (T.C.D., , MS 1281, s.a. 1196); A.F.M., iii, 107 n.Google Scholar; Richard Butler, , Some notices of the castle and of the ecclesiastical buildings of Trim (3rd ed., Naas, 1978), p. 10.Google Scholar

57 Gormanston reg., pp 7, 179. Although the editors of the Gormanston register favour a date of c. 1196, the dating of this letter is problematical due to the deterioration of the dating clause. It is clear that it was granted on the 22nd of a certain month between the years 1196 and 1198 at Verneuil. The grants may, perhaps, have occurred about the year 1197, when John granted the town of Limerick a charter of liberties based upon those granted to Dublin, and when his justiciar, Hamo de Valognes, began granting burgages within the town and lands in the surrounding territories to the established powers in the region: Orpen, , Normans, ii, 156–8 (new ed., p. 214);Google ScholarOtway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., p. 73.Google Scholar

58 Stenton, D.M. (ed.), The chancellor’s roll for the eighth year of the reign of Richard I, Michaelmas 1196 (London, 1930), p. 92.Google Scholar The pipe roll for this year has not survived.

59 ‘Vicecomes habet capere in manu Regis totam terram Walteri de Laci et repondere. Et Gaufridus Cambitor h.r. de exitu eiusdem terre de anno (preterito)’: Packard, S.R. (ed.), Miscellaneous records of the Norman Exchequer, 1199–1204 (Northampton, 1927), p. 18.Google Scholar

60 Wightman, , Lacy, p. 225.Google Scholar

61 For the situation in Normandy, see Gillingham, , Richard I, pp 297–8Google Scholar.

62 Ibid., p. 280.

63 Indeed, although the Welsh Brut lists Mortimer, de Sai and de Braose as being active in the march, it says nothing of Walter de Lacy: Jones, Thomas (ed.), Brut y tywysogyon or the chronicle of the princes, red book of Hergest version (Cardiff, 1955), p. 177, s.a. 1196Google Scholar.

64 Chancellor’s roll 8 I, Richard, pp xx–xxi.Google Scholar

65 Norgate, , Angevin kings, ii, 349–50Google Scholar; Gillingham, , Richard I, pp 280–1Google Scholar (where the author mistakenly dates the episode to Dec. 1197).

66 The custodians of Hereford and Bridgnorth castles were also changed. Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, iv, p. 35; Norgate, , Angevin kings, ii, 351Google Scholar n. Although Ludlow was a frequent target of seizure by the king of England, it does not seem to have been in the king’s hand immediately prior to de Lacy’s general forfeiture on this occasion.

67 Stenton, D.M. (ed.), The great roll of the pipe for the tenth year of the reign of King Richard the frst, Michaelmas 1198 (London, 1932), p. 212.Google Scholar

68 Stapleton, Thomas (ed.), Magni rotuli scaccarii Normanniae sub regibus Angliae (2 vols, London, 1840–4), ii, pp lxx, 368–9Google Scholar.

69 T.N.A., MS E 40/5924. That charter granted Alan Basset permission to allow his dogs to hunt foxes, hares and wild cats in all the king’s land.

70 Pipe roll 10 Richard I, p. 213.

71 The charter is dated 4 Dec. 1198 at L’île|d’Andely, though the editors of the Gormanston register incorrectly identify it as Angers, . Gormanston reg., pp 142–3, 190–1Google Scholar; Orpen, G.H. (review), ‘Calendar of the Gormanston register. Prepared and edited by Mills, James, late deputy-keeper of the Public Records, Ireland, and McEnery, M.J., deputy-keeper (Dublin: printed for the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 1916)’ in E.H.R., xxxi, no. 123 (1916), p. 488Google Scholar. This is also a possible occasion for John’s grant of six cantreds in Connacht to Hugh de Lacy mentioned above (p. 9n.).

72 Richard is supposed to have made a deathbed pronouncement in favour of John, . Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, iv, 83Google Scholar. Cf. Powicke, Maurice, The loss of Normandy, 1189–1204: studies in the history of the Angevin Empire (Manchester, 1961)Google Scholar, appendix i; Painter, Sidney, The reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), p. 7Google Scholar; ‘de Margan, Annales (A.D. 1066–1232)’Google Scholar in Luard, H.R. (ed.), Annales monastici (5 vols, London, 1864–9), i, 24Google Scholar.

73 Aquitaine remained in the hands of Richard’s aged mother Eleanor, which effectively made it John’s as well: Painter, , Reign of King John, pp 1–2Google Scholar.

74 Ralph of Coggeshall, pp 99–100; Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, iv, 89–90; Mathaei Parisiensis chronica majora, ed. Luard, H.R. (7 vols, London, 1872–83), ii, 454–5Google Scholar; Adam, of Eynsham, , Magna vita sancti Hugonis episcopi Lincolniensis, ed. Dimock, J.F. (London, 1864), p. 293Google Scholar; Norgate, Kate, John Lackland (London, 1902), p. 65Google Scholar; Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 15Google Scholar.

75 Ralph of Coggeshall, p. 100; Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 68Google Scholar; Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 16Google Scholar.

76 Hillaby, Joe, ‘Colonisation, crisis-management and debt: Walter de Lacy and the lordship of Meath, 1189–1241’ in Ríocht na Mídhe, viii, no. 4 (1992–3), p. 9.Google Scholar

77 Walter was with John on 3 and 6 Sept. 1199 at Rouen, (Rot. chart., pp 23–4Google Scholar; Gormanston reg., p. 163Google Scholar), but is absent from royal charters on the king’s subsequent journey to Anjou, Aquitaine and England: Hardy, T.D., ‘Itinerary of King John’ in Hardy, T.D. (ed.), Rotuli litterarum patentium in Turri Londinensi asservati (London, 1835)Google Scholar. When John returned to Normandy, Walter reappeared in royal witness lists on 3 June 1200 at Caen, (Rot. chart., pp 66–7)Google Scholar, and twice on 4 June at Falaise (B.L., Lansdowne MS 229, f. 23; Rot. chart., p. 69, calendared in Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 121). It should be noted that Walter is totally absent from the witness lists of John’s pre- 1199 charters. See the useful table in Vincent, Nicholas, ‘Jean, comte de Mortain: le futur roi et ses domaines en Normandie 1183–1199’ in Héricher, Anne-Marie Flambard and Gazeau, Véronique (eds), 1204: la Normandie entre Plantagenêts et Capétiens (Caen, 2007), pp 57–9Google Scholar.

78 Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, iv, 148–51; Rymer, Thomas (ed.), Foedera, conventiones, litterae, et cujuscunque generis acta publica, inter reges Angliae et alios quosvis imperatores, reges, pontifices, principes, vel communitates (4 vols, London, 1816–69), i, pp i, 79–80Google Scholar. For more on the treaty and its far-reaching consequences, see Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp 134–8Google Scholar; Gillingham, John, ‘Historians without hindsight: Coggeshall, , Diceto, and Howden, on the early years of John’s reign’ in Church (ed.), King John: new interpretations, pp 22–3Google Scholar. For a more optimistic view of the treaty, see Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 74Google Scholar; Warren, , King John, pp 54–5Google Scholar.

79 Rot. chart., pp, 53, 61. Henry was also granted £20 a year and the third penny of Herefordshire.

80 Davis, R.H.C., ‘Treaty between William earl of Gloucester and Roger earl of Hereford’ in Barnes, P.M. and Slade, C.F. (eds), A medieval miscellany presented to Doris Mary Stenton (London, 1960), pp 139–46Google Scholar; Wightman, , Lacy, pp 185–8Google Scholar.

81 Rot. chart., pp 66–7. The de Lacy lands in Herefordshire lay just east of the grant.

82 Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 44Google Scholar; Barrow, Julia, ‘Giles de, Briouze (c.1170–1215)’ in Matthew, & Harrison, (eds), Oxford dictionary of national biography, vii, 672–3Google Scholar. This also made Giles the lord of Walter de Lacy for land in Hamme (Holme Lacy) and Onibury, Herefordshire. Red book of the Exchequer, i, p. 279; Colvin, H.M., ‘Holme Lacy: an epis copal manor and its tenants in the 12th and 13th centuries’ in Ruffer, Veronica and Taylor, A.J. (eds), Medieval studies presented to Rose Graham (Oxford, 1950), pp 15–40Google Scholar.

83 Turner, Ralph, ‘Briouze, William (III) de (d. 1211)’ in Matthew, & Harrison, (eds), Oxford dictionary of national biography, vii, 674–7Google Scholar.

84 Rot. chart., p. 80.

85 The importance of the agreement to de Braose is clear from the stipulation that Walter should not alienate any of his English or Norman lands without de Braose’s consent, and his proffer of twenty marks and a palfrey so that King John might confrm Walter’s charter. Hardy, T.D. (ed.), Rotuli de oblatis et finibus in turri Londinensi asservati (London, 1835), p. 81Google Scholar; Rot. chart., p. 80; Stenton, D.M. (ed.), The great roll of the pipe for the third year of the reign of King John, Michaelmas 1201 (Lincoln, 1936), p. 87Google Scholar.

86 It also excluded the gift of bishoprics and abbeys, the Ostmen’s cantred, the Holy Island, and ‘the Irish and those that are with them’. Rot. obl. et fn., pp 94, 99 (quote p. 99); Rot. chart., p. 84; pipe roll 3 John, p. 8. Corresponding entries in Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, nos 145–7, 165.

87 Hardy, Thomas Duffus (ed.), Rotuli de liberate ac de misis et praestitis, regnante Johanne (London, 1844), p. 19Google Scholar; Richardson, H.G. (ed.), The memoranda roll for the Michaelmas term of the frst year of the reign of King John (1199–1200), together with fragments of the originalia roll of the seventh year of King Richard I (1195–96), the liberate roll of the second year of King John (1200–01) and the Norman roll of the ffth year of King John (1203). With an introduction by H.G. Richardson (London, 1943), p. 19Google Scholar (liberate roll); Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 45Google Scholar.

88 Hillaby, , ‘Colonisation, crisis-management and debt’, p. 10Google Scholar. For the status of Ludlow castle, see Vincent, Nicholas, The Lucys of Charlecote: the invention of a Warwickshire family, 1170–1302, Dugdale Society occasional papers, 42 (2002)Google Scholar; Painter, Sidney, ‘English castles in the early middle ages: their number, location, and legal position’ in Speculum, x, no. 3 (1935), p. 329Google Scholar; Eyton, R.W., Antiquities of Shropshire (12 vols, London, 1854–60), v, 270–1Google Scholar.

89 Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, iv, 163; Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 80Google Scholar; Painter, , Reign of King John, pp 48, 84Google Scholar.

90 Orpen, , Normans, ii, 185–6 (new ed., pp 225–6)Google Scholar; Martin, , ‘John, Lord of Ireland’, p. 131Google Scholar; Edwards, , ‘Anglo-Norman relations with Connacht’, p. 148Google Scholar; Walton, , ‘The English in Connacht, 1171–1333’, pp 27–8Google Scholar; Crooks, Peter, ‘“Divide and rule”: factionalism as royal policy in the lordship of Ireland, 1171–1265’ in Peritia, xix (2005), pp 279–80Google Scholar.

91 Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 28Google Scholar; Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 141Google Scholar.

92 This was centred on the manors of Lassy (Calvados, canton Condé-sur-Noireau) and Campeaux (Calvados, canton Le Bény-Bocage). Hardy, T.D. (ed.), Rotuli Normanniae in turri Londinensi asservati (London, 1835), p. 59Google Scholar. This led W. E. Wightman mistakenly to conclude that Walter’s lands had been sequestrated by John, in 1202. Wightman, , Lacy, pp 223–4Google Scholar.

93 Rot. Norm., p. 74 (Feb. 1203).

94 Stenton, D.M. (ed.), The great roll of the pipe for the fifth year of the reign of King John, Michaelmas 1203 (London, 1938), pp 63, 70Google Scholar. It is unclear whether the elder William or his son of the same name is meant in the entry. At least some of de Braose’s English and Welsh holdings had been demised to his son by this point. See Rowlands, Ifor, ‘William de Braose and the lordship of Brecon’ in Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, xxx (1982), pp 123–33Google Scholar; Holden, Brock, ‘King John, the Braoses, and the Celtic fringe, 1207–1216’ in Albion, xxxiii, no. 1 (2001), pp 11–13Google Scholar.

95 Orpen, , Normans, ii, 191–2 (new ed., pp 227–8)Google Scholar; Walton, , ‘The English in Connacht, 1171–1333’, p. 32Google Scholar. For the relevant events of 1202–3, see A.L.C., i, 23–7, 229, s.a. 1202, 1203; Ann. Inisf., pp 331–3, s.a. 1202, 1203; Murphy, Denis (ed.), The Annals of Clonmacnoise being annals of Ireland from the earliest period to A.D. 1408, trans. Mageoghagan, Conell (Dublin, 1896), pp 217–18, s.a. 1202Google Scholar; A.F.M., iii, 129–33, s.a. 1202; Misc. Irish annals, p. 83 (Carthaigh, Mac’s book, s.a. 1202)Google Scholar.

96 Rot. litt. pat., pp 31-2; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, nos 181-2.

97 A submissive de Burgh delivered hostages to Meiler, who then departed; A.L.C., i, 229-31, s.a. 1203; Ann. Clon., p. 219, s.a. 1202; Ann. Inisf., p. 333, s.a. 1203. De Burgh may subsequently be seen in the company of John, King by Oct. 1203. Cal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, no. 187Google Scholar; Walton, , ‘The English in Connacht, 1171-1333’, p. 33Google Scholar.

98 Hardy, , ‘Itinerary of King John’; Norgate, John Lackland, p. 99Google Scholar.

99 Rot. chart., pp 133–4; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, i, nos 199, 201. The committee was composed of Walter de Lacy, Geoffrey Luterel, Henry archdeacon of Stafford (Henry of London, the future archbishop of Dublin) and William le Petit.

100 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, no. 205.

101 Rot. litt. pat., p. 39; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, no. 209.

102 Walton, , ‘The English in Connacht, 1171-1333’, p. 33Google Scholar; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, no. 187.

103 Rot. litt. pat., pp 39-41; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171-1251, nos 213-15.

104 Seán Duffy, ‘The frst Ulster plantation: John de Courcy and the men of Cumbria’ in Barry, , Frame, & Simms, (eds), Colony & frontier in medieval Ireland, pp 1–27Google Scholar remains the best source for the career of John de Courcy. For his downfall in particular, see the section entitled ‘The downfall of John de Courcy’ in Orpen’s chapter on the baron. Orpen, , Normans, ii, 134-44 (new ed., pp 204–8)Google Scholar; Martin, , ‘John, lord of Ireland’, p. 135Google Scholar; Warren, , ‘King John & Ireland’, p. 34Google Scholar; McDonald, R.A., Manx kingship in its Irish Sea setting: King Rǫgnvaldr and the Crovan dynasty (Dublin, 2007), pp 125–9Google Scholar; Crooks, , ‘“Divide & rule”‘, pp 281–2Google Scholar.

105 A.F.M., iii, 137, s.a. 1203; A.L.C., i, 233, s.a. 1203; Ann. Clon., p. 220, s.a. 1203; Misc. Irish annals, p. 83 (Carthaigh, Mac’s book, s.a. 1203)Google Scholar; A.U., ii, 241, s.a. 1204 [rect. 1203]. Walter Bower claims that John de Courcy was Hugh de Lacy’s lord, which, though not unlikely, is far from certain. Bower, Walter, Scotichronicon: in Latin and English, vol. iv: books vii and viii, ed. Corner, D.J., Scott, A.B., Scott, W.W. and Watt, D.E.R. (Aberdeen, 1994), p. 461Google Scholar.

106 Rot. litt. pat., p. 45; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 224.

107 Wightman, , Lacy, p. 215Google Scholar.

108 Rot. litt. pat., p. 45b; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 227.

109 Rot. litt. pat., p. 45; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 225 (quote).

110 Powicke, , Loss of Normandy, pp 456–7Google Scholar; Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 27Google Scholar; Norgate, , Angevin kings, ii, 408Google Scholar; Norgate, , John Lackland, pp 90–1Google Scholar.

111 The progress of the dispute may be followed in A.L.C., i, 233–5, 235, s.a. 1204, 1205; A.F.M., iii, 139–41, s.a. 1204; A.U., ii, 241, 243, s.a. 1204, 1205; Misc. Irish annals, pp 83, 85 (Mac Carthaigh, ’s book, s.a. 1203, 1204)Google Scholar; Ann. Clon., p. 220, s.a. 1204; Richard Butler, (ed.), Jacobi Grace, Kilkenniensis: annales Hiberniae [Grace’s annals] (Dublin, 1842), pp 21–3, s.a. 1204Google Scholar; Bernadette Williams, (ed.), The annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn (Dublin, 2007), p. 138, s.a. 1204Google Scholar; Gilbert, J.T. (ed.), Chartularies of St Mary’s abbey, Dublin; with the register of its house at Dunbrody, and annals of Ireland (2 vols, London, 1884), ii, 308–10, s.a. 1204Google Scholar; Joseph Stevenson, (ed.), Chronica de Mailros [chronicle of Melrose] (Edinburgh, 1835), p. 105, s.a. 1204Google Scholar; George Broderick, (ed.), Cronica regum Mannie & Insularum (Belfast, 1979), f. 41vGoogle Scholar; Rot. litt. pat., p. 47; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 234. This original safe conduct was later extended (on 8 Feb.); Rot. litt. pat., p. 50; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 253.

112 Rot. chart., p. 139; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 240. The price of the grant is recorded as 550 marks (Rot. obl. et fn., p. 227; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, i, no. 239).

113 Rot. chart., pp 139–40; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 241.

114 See above, p. 7.

115 Rot. litt. pat., p. 54; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 260. The entries on the charter rolls are cancelled with the explanation that the charters were brought back by Ralph of Cirencester, and torn at a manor of the English justiciar, Peter, Geoffrey fitz. Rot. chart., p. 140Google Scholar; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 241.

116 Gormanston reg., p. 142; Rot. chart., p. 151; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 263.

117 A.L.C., i, 235, s.a. 1205. The Annals of Clonmacnoise record his death in rather col ourful terms under 1204. Ann. Clon., p. 220, s.a. 1204. Empey contends that he did not die until the early months of 1206. Empey, C.A., ‘Burgh, William de (d. 1206)’ in Matthew, & Harrison, (eds), Oxford dictionary of national biography, viii, 794–5.Google Scholar

118 Hardy, T.D. (ed.), Rotuli litterarum clausarum in turri Londinensi asservati (2 vols, London, 1833–44), i, 77Google Scholar; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 310; A.F.M., iii, 147–9, s.a. 1205; Ann. Clon., p. 221, s.a. 1205. Although both sets of annals place the assault in 1205, it is much more likely to have been over the winter of 1206–7 because King John’s response to it is dated 12 Feb. 1207.

119 Rot. litt. pat., p. 69; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 315.

120 A.L.C., i, 237, s.a. 1207; A.F.M., iii, 157, s.a. 1207; Ann. Clon., pp 221–2, s.a. 1207.

121 Rot. litt. claus., i, 77; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 312 (crossbowmen). Rot. litt. pat., p. 69; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 315 (letters to Meath and Leinster).

122 Rot. litt. pat., pp 69–70; Rot. litt. claus., pp 79–80.

123 Rot. litt. pat., p. 70; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 324.

124 Rot. litt. claus., p. 81; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 325.

125 For this view, see Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 146Google Scholar; Crouch, , William Marshal, pp 102–5Google Scholar; Crooks, , ‘“Divide and rule”‘, pp 282–3Google Scholar. Sidney Painter, however, acknow ledges that ftz Henry had been at odds with the vassals of the Marshal and de Braose, ‘supported by the lord of Meath’, from the end of 1206 Sidney Painter, , William Marshal: knight-errant, baron, and regent of England (Baltimore, 1933), pp 145–6.Google Scholar

126 History of William Marshal, ii, ll 13349–423. See also: Orpen, , Normans, ii, 208–9 (new ed., p. 234)Google Scholar; Crouch, , William Marshal, pp 101–2.Google Scholar

127 For an excellent analysis of the Marshal’s dispute with Meiler and the underlying issues involved, see Flanagan, M.T., ‘Defning lordships in Angevin Ireland: William Marshal and the king’s justiciar’, in Frédéric Boutoulle, (ed.), Les seigneuries dans l’espace Plantagenêt (c. 1150– c. 1250): Actes du colloque organisé à Bordeaux et Saint-Emilion les 3, 4 et 5 mai 2007 (Bordeaux, 2009), pp 44–59Google Scholar. For the dispute over Uí Failge in particular, see Orpen, , Normans, ii, 209–10 (new ed., p. 235)Google Scholar; Painter, , William Marshal, pp 153–5Google Scholar; Crouch, , William Marshal, pp 102–3Google Scholar.

128 For the progress of William Marshal’s dispute with the justiciar, see A.F.M., iii, 155, s.a. 1207; Ann. Clon., p. 221, s.a. 1207; History of William Marshal, ii, ll 13429–574; Flanagan, , ‘Defning lordships in Angevin Ireland’Google Scholar; Orpen, , Normans, ii, p. 210 (new ed., p. 235)Google Scholar; Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 77–8Google Scholar; Painter, , William Marshal, pp 155–6Google Scholar; Crouch, , William Marshal, pp 102–5Google Scholar.

129 Rot. litt. pat., p. 74.

130 They were together at Winchester on 23 May, Worcester on 23 Aug., Bristol on 17 Sept., and Windsor on 25 Oct. Rot. chart., pp 167, 169–71, 173; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 330.

131 Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., p. 78.Google Scholar

132 Rot. chart., pp 171–4; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, nos 339–48, 353–4, 356. The witness lists of the majority of these grants contain an irregular order, in which the Irish barons precede the great earls of Chester and Winchester.

133 Rot. litt. claus., p. 98; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 363. For identifcation, see H.|Orpen, G., ‘Motes and Norman castles in Ireland’ in E.H.R., xxii (1907), p. 452.Google Scholar

134 History of William Marshal, ii, ll 13745–86; Rot. litt. claus., i, 103; A.F.M., iii, 155, s.a. 1207; Ann. Clon., p. 221, s.a. 1207.

135 History of William Marshal, ii, ll 13672–5.

136 Rot. litt. pat., p. 79; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 374. This is independent of John’s later mandate to the mariners of the Cinque Ports to muster on 1 June (Trinity Sunday), which was later postponed to 21 September (St Matthew’s day). Rot. litt. pat., pp 80, 81b, 83b–86.

137 History of William Marshal, ii, ll 13867–88. The History says that the news arrived ‘not before Lent’, which would place it between 11 Feb. and 29 Mar. 1209. However, as Orpen contends, it most likely arrived before John’s settlement with William Marshal on 7 March (discussed presently): Orpen, , Normans, ii, p. 216 (new ed., p. 237)Google Scholar.

138 Rapprochement: Rot. litt. claus., i, 105; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 375. Charter, for Leinster, : Rot. chart., p. 176.Google Scholar

139 The fall of de Braose is commented on in almost every study of King John or medieval Ireland, but for more on the dispute in particular, see Holden, , ‘King John, the Braoses, and the Celtic fringe’Google Scholar; Melissa Pollock, , ‘Rebels of the west, 1209–1216’ in Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 50 (2005), pp 1–30Google Scholar; Rowlands, , ‘William de Braose’Google Scholar. I also hope to examine the confict elsewhere.

140 Rot. litt. claus., i, 110. The hostage named was ‘Hugh de Lacy’, but this was almost certainly not Walter’s brother, the earl of Ulster. The mandate lacks the comital title, and, more importantly, such an order regarding an earl would have been tantamount to Hugh’s arrest.

141 This was for King John’s role in the disputed succession to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. For more on the interdict, see Norgate, , John Lackland, pp 127–30Google Scholar; Painter, , Reign of King John, pp 151–202Google Scholar; Warren, , King John, pp 154–73Google Scholar; Cheney, C.R., ‘King John and the papal interdict’ in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxxi, no. 2 (1948) pp 295–317Google Scholar; idem, ‘King John’s reaction to the interdict on England’ in R. Hist. Soc. Trans., 4th ser., xxxi (1949), pp 129–50.

142 Foedera, i, pp i, 107–8; Rot. litt. pat., p. 81; Rot. litt. claus., i, 112–13; Roger of Wendover’s fowers of history. Comprising the history of England from the descent of the Saxons to a.d. 1231 formerly ascribed to Matthew Paris, ed. J. A. Giles (2 vols, London, 1849), ii, 49. See also Holden, , ‘King John, the Braoses, & the Celtic fringe’, p. 15.Google Scholar

143 Walter’s charter: Rot. chart., p. 178; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 382. De Braose’s settlement: Foedera, i, pp i, 107–8. The dates of John’s presence at Hereford may be found in Hardy, , ‘Itinerary of King John’Google Scholar.

144 Protection while there: Rot. litt. pat., p. 84; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 383. He was granted licence to construct a mill at Drogheda on 3 June. Rot. litt. pat., p. 84; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 384.

145 Monicat, M.J. and Boussard, M.J. (eds), Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste roi de France publié sous la direction de M. Charles Samaran membre de l’institut, tome III, années du reègne XXVIII à XXXVI [1er Novembre 1206–31 Octobre 1215] (Paris, 1966), no. 1079, pp 161–2Google Scholar. The original letter is now in the Vatican Library, MS Ottobon 2796, f. 74v. It was frst edited in Archives des missions scientifques et litteraires, 3rd series, vi (1880), p. 334.

146 Painter, , Reign of King John, pp 253–5Google Scholar. The letter forms t and c are very similar for this period, so ‘Latiaco’ should likely be ‘Laciaco’.

147 Holt, J.C., The northerners: a study in the reign of King John (Oxford, 1961), pp 207–8Google Scholar; A.|M.|Duncan, A., ‘John king of England and the kings of Scots’ in Church, (ed.), King John: new interpretations, pp 258–9Google Scholar.

148 Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, iii, no. 1079, pp 161–2; William of Tudela, and anonymous, The song of the Cathar wars: the history of the Albigensian Crusade, ed. and trans. Janet Shirley, (Aldershot, 1996), p. 28Google Scholar; Nicholas Vincent, , ‘England and the Albigensian Crusade’ in Weiler, Björn K.U. and Rowlands, Ifor W. (eds), England and Europe in the reign of Henry III (1216–1272) (Aldershot & Burlington, 2002), p. 73.Google Scholar The pair remained on the crusade even after their crusading vows had been completed. Roger des Essarts held half a knight’s fee at Tronchay beside Rouen (Troncheium juxta Rothomagum), of the fee of Breteuil. Les Essarts (Eure, canton Damville) was part of Simon de Montfort, ’s demesne. Recueil des historiens, tome xxiii, p. 714 e, fGoogle Scholar; Lucien Merlet, and Auguste Moutié, (eds), Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Notre-Dame des Vaux de Cernay de l’Ordre de Citeaux au diocese de Paris, tome premier, 1118–1250 (Paris, 1857), p. 188.Google Scholar For more on Roger des Essarts, see Melissa Pollock, , ‘Franco-Scottish politics: Crown and nobility, 1160–1296’ (Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews, 2005) pp 22–3, 24, 30, 47Google Scholar; Painter, , Reign of King John, p. 254.Google Scholar

149 ‘Annales prioratus de Dunstapilia (a.d. 1–1297)’ in Luard, H.R. (ed.), Annales monastici (5 vols, London, 1864–9), iii, 33–4, s.a. 1210Google Scholar.

150 Pollock, , ‘Rebels of the west’, p. 13.Google Scholar De Montfort was also titular earl of Leicester: Norgate, , John Lackland, p. 252.Google Scholar

151 Duncan, , ‘John king of England & the kings of Scots’, pp 260–1.Google Scholar

152 Ibid., p. 260; Norgate, , John Lackland, pp 133–4Google Scholar; Roger of Wendover’s fowers of history, ii, 249 (quote); Matthaei Parisiensis, monachi sancti Albani, historia Anglorum, sive, ut vulgo dicitur, historia minor. Item, ejusdem abbreviatio chronicum Angliae, ed. Frederic Madden (3 vols, London, 1866–69), ii, 119; The historical works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. William Stubbs (2 vols, London, 1879–80), ii, 103.

153 Ibid., ii, 49; Matthaei Parisiensis historia Anglorum, ii, 119.

154 Foedera, i, pp i, 107; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 408.

155 Martin, , ‘John, Lord of Ireland’, p. 140.Google Scholar

156 Unless one counts William de Braose’s supposed burning of a mill and three cottages (‘unum molendinum, & tres bordell’ combussit ‘) while the king was in Ireland (Foedera, i, pp i, 107–8; Joseph Bain (ed.), Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Offce, London (4 vols, Edinburgh, 1881–8), i, no. 480)).

157 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 402.

158 Misc. Irish annals, p. 87 (Mac Carthaigh’s book, s.a. 1210).

159 Ibid., p. 87 (Mac Carthaigh’s book, s.a. 1210). For the king’s progress, see Orpen, , Normans, ii, 247–50 (new ed., pp 249–51)Google Scholar. A list of the barons of Meath who submitted to King John in 1210 is reprinted, with a photographic reproduction of the original document, in Handbook and select calendar of sources for medieval Ireland in the National Archives of the United kingdom, ed. Paul Dryburgh and Brendan Smith (Dublin, 2005), pp 269–71.

160 Grace’s Annals, p. 24, s.a. 1210; Chartularies of St Mary’s, ii, 311, s.a. 1210; ‘The book of Howth’ in Cal. Carew MSS, 1600–23, 121; ‘Collectanea de rebus Hi[ber]nicis ab ann: 1131 ad ann 1537’(B.L., Add. MS 4792, ff 160–2, s.a. s).

161 Orders for the restoration of his English lands: Rot. litt. pat., p. 99; Rot. litt. claus., i, 134.

162 Meath, : Rot. litt. pat., p. 191Google Scholar; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 596. Ulster, : Rot. litt. pat., p. 134Google Scholar; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, i, no. 550.

163 Foedera, i, pp i, 144.