Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:27:02.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Norman Church and the Angevin and Capetian Kings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2005

DANIEL POWER
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Sheffeld, Sheffeld S10 2TN; e-mail: d.j.power@sheffield.ac.uk

Abstract

The Norman Church has sometimes been depicted as welcoming the Capetian conquest of Normandy in 1204. Its relations with the last Angevin dukes of Normandy, Richard the Lionheart and King John, certainly showed signs of serious tension, especially the election dispute at Sées (1201–3), but there is also ample evidence of continuing co-operation between the dukes and the Norman Church. Prior to 1204, moreover, Philip Augustus of France had done very little to win over the Norman Church. It is demonstrated here that he was far less generous to the religious houses of south-east Normandy, which he had annexed in 1200, than has hitherto been believed. Most of the alms recorded in fiscal accounts for the Évrecin testify to the patronage of the local aristocracy, not the kings of England and France.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2005 Cambridge University Press

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

ADE=Archives Départementales de l'Eure, Évreux; ADSM=Archives Départementales de la Seine-Maritime, Rouen; AN=Archives Nationales, Paris; CDF=Calendar of documents preserved in France, ed. J. H. Round, London 1899; GC=Gallia christiana, ed. D. Sammarthani and others, Paris 1715–1865; MRSN=Magni rotuli scaccarii Normanniæ, ed. T. Stapleton, London 1840–4; RHF=Recueil des historiens des gaules et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet and others, Paris 1738–1904
This article is based upon a paper given at a conference on ‘The Plantagenets and the Church’ in Cambridge in September 2001; the author is grateful to its organiser, Professor Nicholas Vincent, and the other participants, as well as to this JOURNAL's anonymous reader, for their comments. He also wishes to thank the British Academy for its generous support of the research upon which this article is based, and Marc-Antoine Dor for permission to consult his École des Chartes thèse.