Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:33:24.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temporal and Spiritual Regalia during the Reigns of St. Louis and Philip III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

Gerard J. Campbell
Gerard J. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Gregorian reform of the eleventh century mounted a massive attack on lay control over churches and church appointments, yet the degree to which this attack succeeded in attaining its objectives varied from country to country. Local conditions and personalities were important in determining the outcome of the struggle over investiture and other related questions, but neither side achieved a complete victory, because the final agreements between clerical and lay leaders were a compromise which produced the usual mixture of satisfaction and disappointment. The church gained the most substantial victory, for the smothering stranglehold of the laity over the church and churchmen was broken, nevermore to be restored in the Middle Ages. Increased spiritual freedom for the church in subsequent centuries resulted from the struggle of the mid-eleventh century. Nevertheless, the church had not broken completely from its close ties with the world of feudalism. If bishoprics, abbeys, and parish churches were not feudal possessions of kings and nobles, laymen still retained many rights reminiscent of the earlier days when laymen claimed a proprietary right over the churches in their areas. The purpose of this paper is to consider one of these remnants of earlier days: the right of regalia I will examine the right of regalia, temporal and spiritual, together with some related institutions during the reigns of St. Louis and Philip III of France.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 20 , 1964 , pp. 351 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham 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.)

References

1 Gaudemet, J. has presented a very useful treatment of the entire subject in his article “Régale (Droit de)”, Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 7, 493–532. Most of the article is devoted to the right of spiritual and temporal regalia in the various periods of French history. Gaudemet also provides enough information on this right in other parts of Europe to institute comparisons with French practice.Google Scholar

2 Lesne, E., ‘Les Origines du droit de Régale’ Nouvelle revue historique de droit français et étranger 45 (1921) 5–52; also Lesne, E., Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en Franc (Lille 1926) 2. 102-123; 172-184. What is said of a bishopric and episcopal properties should be understood to be generally applicable to abbeys as well. The main concern of this paper is with bishoprics. Temporal regalia applied to many abbeys in the area in which the kind had such rights over bishoprics. Spiritual regalia did not apply to abbeys.Google Scholar

3 Luchaire, Achille, Manuel des institutions françaises (Paris 1892)245–249; a more complete treatment is given in Phillips, G. J., Das Regalienrecht in Frankreich (Halle 1873 44ff.Google Scholar

4 Ibid. 59–60, lists the places in which the king held the regalia at the beginning of the fourteenth century.Google Scholar

5 See the striking assertion of the king's rights over church properties made in the protes sent by St. Louis to Innocent IV in 1247: ‘Dominus rex, cujus antecessores fundaverun ecclesias regni et de bonis suis eas dotaverunt specialiter pro divini cultus obsequio, iden honorifice faciendo, hoc proprium et speciale sibi et haeredibus suis retinuerunt, et sempe habuerunt in eisdem ecclesiis quae tenent de ipsis temporalia sua bona, quando temporali ecclesiarum jure humano, id est, jure regio possidentur, quod praeter spiritualia quae ta [multa] et magna servitia [habent] ad quae domino regi tenentur, istud etiam juris habe quod omnes ecclesiarum thesauros et omnia temporalia ipsorum pro sua et pro sui regr necessitate potest accipere sicut sua.’ Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi sancti Albani, Chrnica maiora, (ed. Luard, H. R., London 1882) 6. 110. For a discussion of this entire document, see my article, ‘The Protest of Saint Louis,’ Traditio 15 (1959) 405-418.Google Scholar

6 The history of episcopal elections is dealt with at length in Imbart de la Tour, P., Les élections épiscopales dans l'église de France du IXe au XIIe siècle (Paris 1890). The canonical theory of episcopal elections by cathedral chapters in the thirteenth century has been treated in Desprairies, André, L'Élection des évêques par les chapitres au XIIIe siècle (Paris 1922). The history of the progressive monopolization of episcopal elections by cathedral chapters has been described by Roland, E., Les Chanoines et les élections épiscopales du XIe au XIVe siècle (Aurillac 1909). The fullest text which presents the actual procedures followed in an episcopal election is contained in the narration of the election of Guillaume le Maire as bishop of Angers in 1291: ‘Livre de Guillaume le Maire’ (ed. Port, Celestin), Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, mélanges historiques II (Paris 1877) 209-242. Ursmer Berlière has treated of abbatial elections in ‘Les Élections abbatiales au Moyen Age’ Académie Royale de Belgique (Deuxième Série) 20 (1927) 1-100.Google Scholar

7 Luchaire, , 31–32.Google Scholar

8 H. F. 13. 735. Louis VII indicated that he gave permission for the chapter of Bourges to elect as archbishop anyone but Pierre de Châtre; this, however, did not prevent his election and confirmation by Innocent II. Louis refused to receive him, and his case became a source of trouble between the king and the pope.Google Scholar

9 Teulet, A. et al. edd., Layettes du Trésor des Chartes (5 vols. Paris 1862-1909) 2. no. 3353. The king was sensitive about Châlons because of the trouble which he had had over the election of the previous bishop, Geoffrey de Grandpré.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., 2. no. 2940. In this case the dean and chapter were pointing out to the king that they had asked such permission before they elected Geoffrey de Grandpré.Google Scholar

11 March 1246, Ibid., 2. no. 3472.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., 3. no. 3906, October 1250.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 3. no. 4102, 9 June 1254.Google Scholar

14 Olim, 1. 35, 12 May 1258.Google Scholar

15 Philip Augustus had granted such an exemption to the dean and chapter of Mâcon in 1209, Gallia Christiana, 4. Instrumenta c. 288. In the Layettes and Delisle's, L. Cartulaire Normand (Paris 1852), there is considerable evidence of bishoprics and abbeys asking permission to elect. From these sources I have been able to compile a list of fifteen bishoprics which were obliged to seek the licentia eligendi: Angers, Auxerre, Avranches, Châlons-sur-Marne, Coutances, Évreux, Laon, Le Mans, Meaux, Nevers, Rheims, Rouen, Séez, Térouanne Troyes. All of these were north of the Loire. While this list is undoubtedly incomplete, it does give a good indication of the general area in which the king's rights were concentrated. Besides these bishoprics, many abbeys were subject to the obligation; most of the available evidence concerns abbeys in the North, the majority of which were Benedictine.Google Scholar

16 Roland, , op. cit. (n. 6 supra) 176–179.Google Scholar

17 E. g., Gallia Christiana 12. Instrumenta c. 74, June 1257, Henry, archbishop of Sens, did liege homage to the king for the house of Noolon.Google Scholar

18 Ordonnances des Rois 1. 60, June 1248.Google Scholar

19 Langlois, C., Le Règne de Philippe III le hardi (Paris 1887) 438, pièces justificatives, no XVIII.Google Scholar

20 Cange, Du, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis 3. 488 s.v. fidelitas. Google Scholar

21 Lottin, René, ed. Chartularium insignis ecclesiae Cenomanensis (Le Mans 1869), 20.Google Scholar

22 Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 927.Google Scholar

23 Layettes, 2. no. 2246; 4. no. 5554.Google Scholar

24 Kleinclausz, A., Histoire de Lyon (Lyon 1939) 1. 183.Google Scholar

25 Gaudemet, Jean, La Collation par le roi de France des bénéfices vacants en régale des origines à la fin du xive siècle (Paris 1935) 63–66.Google Scholar

26 Olim, 1. 570–571.Google Scholar

27 This was ten pounds of Paris. Since 1191 the office of seneschal was open, and the king claimed for himself the revenues which this official usually received.Google Scholar

28 Olim, 1. 573.Google Scholar

29 Olim, 1. 624–625.Google Scholar

30 1266, Olim, 1, 654.Google Scholar

31 Olim, 1. 570.Google Scholar

32 1276, Olim, 2. 77. Note that the schedule of payments is slightly different here. I*** the case of Guillaume d'Auxerre, ten pounds were specified for the chamberlain; here five pounds went to the chamberlain and five pounds were divided among his assistants. I the former case, it might have been assumed that this type of division would be made by the chamberlain himself after he received the ten pounds.Google Scholar

33 Olim, 2. 162.Google Scholar

34 Olim, 2. 182–183.Google Scholar

35 H. F. 21. 254.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., 255.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., 258.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., 259.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., 24. 296.Google Scholar

40 Brussel, , Nouvel Examen de l'usage général des fiefs en France (Paris: 1727, 2 vols.) 1. 469, note a.Google Scholar

41 H. F 21. 282.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., 22. 739.Google Scholar

43 Brussel, , 1. 470, note.Google Scholar

44 H. F. 22. 663.Google Scholar

45 Layettes, 3. no. 2045.Google Scholar

46 30 January 1252, Layettes, 3, no. 3976.Google Scholar

47 Martène, et Durand, , Thesaurus novus anecdotorum (5 vols. Paris 1717) 1, 1001–1002 Google Scholar

48 Auvray, Lucien, ed., Les Registres de Grégoire IX (Paris: 1896-1955) no. 5983; Layettes 2, no. 3150; Berger, Élie, ed., Les Registres d'Innocent IV (Paris 1884-1919) nos. 287, 316 Google Scholar

49 Berger, Élie, Saint Louis et Innocent IV (Paris 1893) 42.Google Scholar

50 de Sainte-Marie, Anselme, Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France (3rd edition, 9 vols. 1726-1733) 2. 314–319. d'Arbois de Jubainville, H., Histoir des ducs et des comtes de Champagne (6 vols., Paris 1859-1866) 4. 274-75.Google Scholar

51 1259-1260, Layettes, 5, no. 704.Google Scholar

52 13 June 1270, Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 795.Google Scholar

53 Ibid., no. 856.Google Scholar

54 E.g., Olim, 1. 275, 466-467, 842-843, 856-857, 885; 2. 57, 59, 122, 157, 183, 193, 210; Delisle, L., Essai de restitution d'un volume perdu des Olim (Paris 1863) nos. 306, 400, 451, 504.Google Scholar

55 As we have seen above, the amount reported in 1278 for Sens was slightly higher, i. e., 61 1. 19s. 6d.Google Scholar

56 1267, Olim, 1. 678–679.Google Scholar

57 Brussel, 1. 543.Google Scholar

58 E.g. Reg. Innocent IV, no. 1151; Brussel, 1. 472; Olim, 1. 570, 622-623. When Phili III was crowned, the archbishopric was vacant and the regalia in the king's hands; the bailli of Vermandois made the burghers of Rheims contribute to the expenses of the king crowning. The archbishop had customarily paid the expenses and then compensated himself from his people. On this occasion, the see was vacant and affairs were in disorder. The expenses ran up to 5000 pounds or more. (Varin, Pierre Joseph, Archives administratives de lville de Reims (Paris 1839) 1. pt. 2, 919-923. An appeal to Paris was of no avail and the burghers had to pay the sum.Google Scholar

59 Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 887; Brussel, 1. 472; Reg. Innocent IV, no. 6131 Olim, 1. 18; 2. 122.Google Scholar

60 Olim, 1. 247–248.Google Scholar

61 E.g. Varin, , Arch. Admin. 1, pt. 2, 989–992; Olim, 2. 59.Google Scholar

62 Olim, I, 52.Google Scholar

63 Layettes, 4. nos. 4822, 4907; Olim, 1. 561-562.Google Scholar

64 Layettes, 3. no. 3976.Google Scholar

65 Layettes, 4. no. 5296; H. F. 21. 255.Google Scholar

66 E.g. Layettes, 2. no. 2206; Brussel, 1, 471; Langlois, Charles, Inventaire d'anciens royaux dressé par Robert Mignon (Paris 1899) 54–55, nos. 239-241.Google Scholar

67 Isambert, , Recueil général des anciennes lois Françaises (Paris 1822) 1. 158–160.Google Scholar

68 E.g., Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 306; Boutaric, E., Les Actes du Parlement de Paris (Paris 1863) 1. 1994; Delisle, , Fragments inédits du registre de Nicolas de Chartres, 20-21; 53-54, 54-55.Google Scholar

69 Layettes, 2. nos. 1983-1984; Potthast 20652; Langlois, Charles, Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 55-56, nos. 249-253.Google Scholar

70 Layettes, 5, no. 704.Google Scholar

71 Reg. Innocent IV, no. 3640.Google Scholar

72 Olim, 1. 570–571. See also, Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon. 58, no. 270.Google Scholar

73 Luchaire, Achille, Manuel des institutions françaises (Paris 1892) 512, n. 2. Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 50, no. 210: ‘Creditur quod capitulum habet litteras regias de quittancia regalie ibi.’ Google Scholar

74 Olim, 1, 678–679; Brussel, 1. 470, note.Google Scholar

75 H.F. 21. 282; Olim, 1. 466-467; Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 451. Olivier-Martin, F., ed., Registres de Martin IV, no. 159.Google Scholar

76 H. F. 21. 254; Olim, 2. 157, 193.Google Scholar

77 Gallia Christiana 12, Instrumenta 147.Google Scholar

78 H.F. 19. 498–499.Google Scholar

79 Lot, F. et Fawtier, R., Histoire des institutions Françaises au moyen âge (Paris 1962) 3. 249.Google Scholar

80 Quantin, Maximilien, Recueil de pièces pour faire suite au cartulaire général de l'Yonne, xiiie siècle (Auxerre et Paris 1873) lvii.Google Scholar

81 Reg. Innocent IV, no. 2386.Google Scholar

82 Lebeuf, Jean, Mémoires concernant l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile d'Auxerre (2 vols. Paris 1743) 1. 400.Google Scholar

83 Brussel, 1. 292-293; Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 63–66. Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 50-51, no. 211: ‘Dicitur tamen quod modo non habet rex regale ibi, quia quittati sunt pro excambio vel ex alia causa. Sciatur et habeatur deliberatio super hoc.’ Google Scholar

84 Lebeuf, 1. 480, 571, 600, 650.Google Scholar

85 H.F. 24. preuves, 296.Google Scholar

86 H.F. 23. 739.Google Scholar

87 Brussel, 1. 469, note a. Luchaire claims that Philip Augustus renounced his regalian rights in Rouen. (Op. cit. 512, n. 2.) He quotes Delisle, , Catalogue des Actes de Philippe-Auguste, no. 1042. The reference is faulty because the act cited has nothing to do with Rouen or the regalia. In the same work (no. 1109) there is a declaration by Vivien, bishop of Coutances, (around 1208) to Philip Augustus that during the vacancy of the see of Rouen the administration of the temporal and spiritual affairs of the archbishopric belonged to the cathedral chapter. This document was been printed by Abbé Lecanu (Histoire des évêques de Coutances [Coutances 1839] 165-166.) When Philip heard this claim, he designated thirteen knights to conduct an inquest; the results showed Vivien to be in error. There was evidently no difficulty in getting the chapter to accept this decision, for in 1222 they wrote to the king and told him of their election of a new archbishop and asked him to return the regalia. (Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 298.) Google Scholar

88 Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 512; Layettes, 3. no. 4077; 4. no. 5593; Lecanu, , Histoire du diocèse de Coutances et Avranches (2 vols. Coutances 1877-1878) 1. 315.Google Scholar

89 Layettes, 3, no. 3914; Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 937; Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 69.Google Scholar

90 Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 272.Google Scholar

91 Layettes, 2. no. 2176; 4, no. 4843; Brussel, 1. 472; Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, nos. 390, 844.Google Scholar

92 Olim, 1. 275, 900-901.Google Scholar

93 Layettes, 3, no. 4498; 4, no. 5652; Brussel, 1. 472; Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 43.Google Scholar

94 Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, nos. 795, 856.Google Scholar

95 Layettes, 3, no. 3975; Brussel, 1. 472; H. F. 22. 663.Google Scholar

96 d'Achery, Luc, Spicilegium (Paris 1723) 3. 623.Google Scholar

97 Lottin, René, Chartularium insignis ecclesiae Cenomanensis, 20; Layettes, 2, nos. 2146, 2315; 3. no. 4450; 4. nos. 5619, 5620; Gallia Christiana 14, Instrumenta 142.Google Scholar

98 Gallia Christiana, 4 Instrumenta, c. 197 Google Scholar

99 Reg. Innocent IV, no. 1056; on the other hand, Robert Mignon found no accounts for Langres, Langlois, Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 72, no. 429: ‘Nihil.’ Google Scholar

100 Gallia Christiana 4, Instrumenta 288; Brussel, 1, 306-307, note.Google Scholar

101 For example in 1262 the archbishop of Lyons notified the king that a new bishop of Mâcon was elected and confirmed, but the archbishop did not use the formula usually used when the king's men had been administering the regalia, Layettes, 4, no. 4768.Google Scholar

102 Layettes, 2. no. 2137.Google Scholar

103 There are many documents that present the facts of this case. The whole question is explored by Gaudemet, Jean, ‘Les origines de la régale réciproque entre Lyon et Autun,’ Mémoires de la société pour l'histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays bourguignons, comtois et romands 5 (1938) 21–48.Google Scholar

104 Olim, 1. 881–882.Google Scholar

105 Devic, C. et Vaissette, J., Histoire Générale de Languedoc (Revised Edition, Toulouse 1879) 1447.Google Scholar

106 Gallia Christiana 2, Instrumenta 24; Brussel, 1. 469, note a; Layettes, 2, no. 2755.Google Scholar

107 Delisle, , Frag. du Reg. de Nic. de Chart. 56–57; Olim, 2. 183-185.Google Scholar

108 Layettes, 3. nos. 3894, 3906; Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 60 no. 293.Google Scholar

109 Gallia Christiana 4, Instrumenta 197.Google Scholar

110 H.F. 21. 258.Google Scholar

111 Brussel, , 1. 469, note a.Google Scholar

112 Olim, 1. 399.Google Scholar

113 This whole question has been dealt with by Devic, et Vaissette, , (Op. cit.) 6. 838–839.Google Scholar

114 Layettes, 3, no. 4102.Google Scholar

115 Ibid. no. 4119.Google Scholar

116 Ibid. no. 4268.Google Scholar

117 Olim, 1. 35.Google Scholar

118 Layettes, 3, no. 4505.Google Scholar

119 Devic et Vaissete, 7. 533.Google Scholar

120 Ibid., 6. 838, note 3.Google Scholar

121 To the king: Reg. Grégoire IX, no. 4189; to the prelates: de Marca, Pierre, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii (Frankfurt 1708) 1187–1188.Google Scholar

122 Boutaric, E., Saint Louis et Alfonse de Poitiers (Paris 1870) 436.Google Scholar

123 Devic, et Vaissette, , 8. 1196.Google Scholar

124 Potthast 21231.Google Scholar

125 Devic et Vaissette, 5. 1443. Robert Mignon found no accounts for Béziers, Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 71, no 412.Google Scholar

126 Ibid. 5, 1262–1264, this is a vidimus in 1464 by Louis XI of Louis VII's grant.Google Scholar

127 Layettes, 3, no. 4208.Google Scholar

128 Ibid. 5, no. 780.Google Scholar

129 Ibid. no. 781.Google Scholar

130 Ibid. 783.Google Scholar

131 Gallia Christiana 6. 547.Google Scholar

132 Brussel, , 1. 287, note.Google Scholar

133 Ibid., 288–289, note.Google Scholar

134 Olim, 1. 829, 880-881; 2. 107-108; Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 295.Google Scholar

135 Mansi, , 24, c. 90, cap. XII.Google Scholar

136 Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 15.Google Scholar

137 The best treatments of this problem are contained in Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants , and Mollat, G., 'L'Application du droit de régale spirituelle en France du xiie au xive siècle, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 25 (1929) 425–446; 645-676.Google Scholar

138 Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 20.Google Scholar

139 H.F. 19. 488–489.Google Scholar

140 Gallia Christiana 12, Instrumenta 147; H.F. 19. 498-499.Google Scholar

141 Feb. 1208, Gallia Christiana 12, Instrumenta 283-285.Google Scholar

142 Gaudemet has suggested that Innocent might have shown some moderation here because he needed Philip's support against Otto IV, Lot, et Fawtier, , Histoire des institutions françaises au moyen âge, 3. 253.Google Scholar

143 ‘Vita Sancti Ludovici, auctore Gaufrido de Belloco,’ H.F. 20. 12.Google Scholar

144 Ordonnances des Rois, 1. 60.Google Scholar

145 Ibid. 11. 347.Google Scholar

146 Layettes, 2, no. 2468.Google Scholar

147 Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 28.Google Scholar

148 Layettes, 2, no. 3213.Google Scholar

149 Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 29.Google Scholar

150 Layettes, 2, no. 2880; Potthast 10819.Google Scholar

151 Boutaric, , Actes du Parlement, 1. CCCXIX; Baluzius, Stephanus, Miscellanea (2nd edition, 4 vols. Lucca 1761) 3. 101.Google Scholar

152 Reg. Innocent IV no. 6972.Google Scholar

153 Olim, 1. 35.Google Scholar

154 Guiraud, Jean, Les Registres d'Urbain IV (Paris 1901-1929) no. 2448.Google Scholar

155 27 November 1263 Ibid. no. 2243.Google Scholar

156 18 or 23 December 1266, Jourdan, Edouard, Les Registres de Clément IV (Paris 1893-1945) no. 1159.Google Scholar

157 13 September 1267, Gallia Christiana 10, Instrumenta 66.Google Scholar

158 Matthaei Parisiensis 6. 99–112.Google Scholar

159 Sextus, Lib. III, tit. IV, cap. II; Friedberg, 2. 1021.Google Scholar

160 11 March 1268, Martène et Durand, 2. 580; Potthast 20288.Google Scholar

161 13 June 1268, Martène et Durand, 2. 607–608.Google Scholar

162 Ibid. 2. 608.Google Scholar

163 Potthast 20561. It is possible that Gregory X did not have much enthusiasm for Clement's decree, or it may have been that widespread complaints had arisen because of it. At any rate, during the Second Council of Lyons (1274) the decree was modified. Henceforth the ordinary collator of a benefice was authorized to make an appointment to the office if, after a month, it remained vacant, Mansi, 24. 95, cap. XXI; Sextus, Lib. III, tit. IV, cap. III; Friedberg, 2. 1021.Google Scholar

164 Olim, 2. 125.Google Scholar

165 Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 346. In 1209 Richard, bishop of Amiens, had declared to Philip Augustus that prebends which became vacant during regalia were reserved to the future bishop, Phillips, 76.Google Scholar

166 Clim, 2. 106.Google Scholar

167 Possibly some of the trouble that arose over the prebend of Laon can be explained by the circumstances on the international scene when Nicholas was elected. Philip and Alphonse, king of Castille and Leon, were at the point of war and Nicholas was desperately anxious to prevent a clash. He was obviously quite angry with Philip; it is worthy of note that before he had sent Philip a formal notice of his election, Nicholas wrote to both kings to try to avoid a conflict, Potthast 21259-21260. He also wrote to the Master General of the Dominicans and the Minister General of the Franciscans and told them to use persuasion and even excommunication and interdict against the kings, if that would be necessary, Potthast 21261. This was all the more unusual because Nicholas, no friend of the Angevins, had sent notice of his election to Charles of Anjou in the beginning of December, Potthast 21258.Google Scholar

168 23 August 1278, Gay, Jules, ed, Registres de Nicolas III, no. 298: ‘Nam cum canonicatus et prebende collatio spirituale jus indubitanter existat et per eam spiritualia utpote jus eligendi prelatum et alia similia conferantur nec pro eo quod personis secularibus forsan ex privilegio sit concessa vel in eis per patientiam tolerata desinat spirituale jus esse, non est dubium quando laici ad se ilium asserunt pertinere non esse a plenitudine apostolice potestatis exempta nec ab ejusdem libera in omnibus spiritualibus administrationem subtractam.’ Google Scholar

169 Ibid. no. 299.Google Scholar

170 Ibid. no. 300 Google Scholar

171 Langlois, C., Le Règne de Philip III le Hardi 230, note 2.Google Scholar

172 11 October 1285, Prou, Maurice, Registres de Honorius IV, no. 488.Google Scholar

173 Lecanu, , Histoire du diocèse de Coutances et Avranches 1. 315.Google Scholar

174 Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants 36–39.Google Scholar

175 E.g. Phillips, , 76.Google Scholar

176 Mollat, , 675–676.Google Scholar

177 Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Maiora 6. 110.Google Scholar

178 Gaudemet, , Collation de bénéfices vacants, 21–22. Howell, Miss Margaret (Regalian Right in Medieval England [London 1962] 187–200) has discussed this question from the English standpoint and concludes: ‘From the king's point of view advowsons of churches were feudal perquisites; they were in every way an integral part of the temporalities of the see. It may be argued that the claim to present to prebends, one of the most highly valued of all the king's sede vacante rights, cannot possibly be included in this category. But what is significant is that the king strove hard to force the claim into this category, that he classed it with the claim to advowsons of churches as annexed to the temporalities and that he would not allow a bishop to collate to a prebend until he had done fealty for the temporalities.’ Google Scholar