Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:12:55.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presidential Address: Feudal Society and the Family in Early Medieval England: IV. The Heiress and the Alien

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

J. C. Holt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The topic is doubly important. First, the heiress was one of the fluid elements in the social structure. By marriage, families forged links with each other, landless knights and ambitious officials made their way into the noble hierarchy, and established lineages renewed their military reputation or improved their access to government circles. If the bride was an heiress all this was underwritten by a territorial endowment far larger than the usual marriage-portion. She also brought to her husband title to office, all the legal and quasi-legal claims which came to be concentrated in her from her lineage, and sometimes even the family name of her forbears to be assumed, if not by him, then by the offspring of their marriage. So the heiress was special; she magnifies for us all the problems and consequences of marriage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 35 , December 1985 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1985

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 For recent studies see Duby, Georges, Medieval Marriage (Baltimore, 1978)Google Scholar; Sheehan, M., ‘Choice of marriage partners in the Middle Ages: development and mode of application of a theory of marriage’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, n.s.i (1978), 3–33Google Scholar; Searle, Eleanor, ‘Women and the legitimisation of succession at the Norman Conquest’, California Institute of Technology, Social Science Working Paper, 328 (1980), also in Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, iii (1980), 159–70Google Scholar; Brooke, C. N. L., ‘Marriage and Society in the Central Middle Ages’, Marriage and Society, ed. Outhwaite, R. B. (1981), 17–34Google Scholar; Duby, Georges, Le Chevalier, la Femme et le Prêtre (Paris, 1981Google Scholar; Eng. trans. 1983); DeAragon, Ragena C., ‘In pursuit of Aristocratic Women: A Key to Success in Norman England’, Albion, 14 (1982), 258–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goody, Jack, The development of the family and marriage in Europe (1983)Google Scholar.

2 Brooke, 23–7. See also the cases of Agnes of Ponthieu, who fled from the cruelty of her husband, Robert of Bellême (Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, iv. 300); Hildegarde, countess of Poitou, who appealed at the Council Rheims, 1119, against desertion by her husband (Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, vi. 258–60; Villard, F., ‘Guillaume IX d' Aquitaine et le concile de Reims de 1119’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médévale, xvi (1973) 295–302)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Agnes, countess of Oxford, who fought long and ultimately successfully against repudiation by her husband, Vere, Aubrey de (Complete Peerage, x. 206–7Google Scholar; App.J. 116–17; Brooke, 31–2).

3 For the fictitious marriage of Rollo see Quentin, Dudo of St, De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum, ed. Lair, J. (Caen, 1865), 169Google Scholar, repeated in Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, iii. 78; for Emma see Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, i. 157; for Adeliza see William of Jumièges, interp. Vitalis, Orderic, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. Marx, J. (Paris, 1914), 191Google Scholar, but cf. Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, ii. 136.

4 See for example the sixteenth-century register of Tewkesbury Abbey which explains the descent of Robert fitz Hamo as follows: Robert, at the summit of power, enjoying great riches and the friendship of King Henry I, had everything a man could desire but issue of his marriage, a lack which would sadden the heart of any man. So he and his wife sought a remedy through alms, pilgrimage and prayer until at last they came to pray to St Benignus at Glastonbury. They promised a 100/- of land if the Saint interceded to give them an heir and in a few days Robert's wife was heavy with child. However they cheated the Saint and as a result as long as Robert lived his wife bore female children only. Once he was dead she married at a lower status and had children of both sexes. (British Library, Add. MS 36985, f. 3v). For another example of analogous genealogical fiction see the case of Walter Espec, discussed below pp. 15–16.

5 Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, v. 200; ii. 102–4. Orderic's comment concerned Judith and Emma, sisters of Robert of Grandmesnil, abbot of St Évroult. Judith married Roger Guiscard and had at least two daughters. See Chibnall, ii 103–4n.

6 Milsom, S. F. C., ‘Inheritance by Women in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries’ in On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thome, eds. Arnold, Morris S., Green, Thomas A., Scully, Sally A. and White, Stephen D. (Chapel Hill, 1981), 60–89; cf.J.C. Holt (1983), 218Google Scholar.

7 No statement about rules of inheritance in this period can be hard and fast. One obvious possible exception in this case is the descent of Bellême, where Mabel and her husband Roger of Montgomery succeeded to the family lands after much confusion over the rights of her father, William Talvas, and to the exclusion of his brother, Oliver, a monk of Bee, who may have been illegitimate. See Marjorie Chibnall's discussion in Orderic Vitalis, ii. 362–5 and ibid, i. 213 for a genealogical table, also White, G. H., ‘The first house of Bellême’. TRHS, 4th ser., xxii (1940), 67–99Google Scholar. There are many examples of a female effectively legitimising the succession of her husband after some break in the descent through her male relations. See the case ofMowbray, (Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107–1191, ed. Greenway, D. E., British Academy Records of Social and Economic History, n.s.i, 1972, xviii)Google Scholar, and other examples noted in J. C. Holt, ‘Politics and Property in early medieval England,’ Past & Present, 57 (1972, 31n; cf. ibid., 22n.

8 For Judith see Ellis, Henry, A General Introduction to Domesday Book (1833), i. 440–1Google Scholar; Complete Peerage, vi. 639–40. Countess Godeva, widow of Earl Leofric, was dead by 1086 (Ellis, i. 370, 426).

9 Ellis, i. 501–2.

10 The daughter of Ralph Taillebois (D.B., i. 142b) and Roger de Rames (D.B., ii. 422b).

11 For Anjou see Halphen, L.Le Comté d' Anjou au xie siècle (Paris, 1906), 133 ffGoogle Scholar. For Maine see Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, ii. 116–18. For Évreux see Complete Peerage, vii. 709, 711. For Breteuil see ibid, vii. 529–30; ix. 574 and n.

12 Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, ii. 22.

13 Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, ii. 116–18; iv. 192–8. For corrections to Orderic's genealogy see Latouche, R., Histoire du comté; du Maine pendant le xe; et le xie siécles (Paris, 1910), 113–15Google Scholar.

14 Aveley, Belvoir, Blagdon, Bourne, Brattelby, Castle Combe, Chester, Folkestone, Gloucester, Hockering, Hooton Paynel, Keevil, Malton, Much Marcle, Nether Stowey, Papcastle, Salwarpe, Stogursey, Tamworth, Wallingford and Witham.

15 Bolinbroke, Bourn, Burgh by Sands, Dudley, Hanslope, Kempsford, Meschin, Okehampton, Stainton le Vale.

16 Belvoir, Folkestone and Wallingford.

17 For disputes involving distant relationships in the female line see the quarrel between Ascelin Goel and William of Breteuil for the castle of Ivry, the one possibly the great great grandson and the other certainly the great grandson of Aubrée wife of Ralph, county of Ivry. Aubrée reputedly built the castle. If the genealogy is correct, each party claimed through a female ancestor, granddaughter and daughter of Aubrée, i.e. a niece and aunt. The argument therefore seems to have involved seniority of line versus seniority of generation, i.e. parentelic precedence. (Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, iv. 199 n.4). For a similar though milder dispute, cut short by the death of both niece in the senior and aunt in the junior line, see the case of Maine (Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, ii. 116–18, 304). For the quarrel between Robert of Ballême and Rotrou, count of Perche, depending in part on claims from the cousins, Mabel and Adeline of Bellême see G. H. White (1940), 79; Complete Peerage, xi, appendix D, I22n; Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, i. 213; ii. 362–5; iv. 397. For examples drawn from England see Holt, , Past & Present (1972), 22, n. 99Google Scholar. For descent in the female line where the division of estates was ultimately resolved see the honour of Bolingbroke, (Complete Peerage, vii. 667–75; 743–6Google Scholar) and the lands of William of Arques, tenant of the archbishop of Canterbury(Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. Douglas, D. C. (1944), 42–3Google Scholar; Round, J. H., Geoffrey de Mandeville (1892), 180, 397–8)Google Scholar.

18 Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, vi. 47.

19 Caps. 3,4. It should be noted that the charter distinguishes childless widows from those with children, leaving the latter or other relatives with the custody of land and children. It also implies that the widowed mother was less liable to remarriage.

20 For daughters see the arrangements made by Heugon, Geoffrey of Mortagne and Hugh of Crépy (Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, ii. 22; iv. 160; v. 30). For a sister see Baudri of Bocquencé (ibid., ii. 84). For a niece see Gilbert of Brionne (ibid., ii. 82).

21 See the case of Hugh de Gournay who discussed the future of his sister, Gundreda, with Henry I and, on the King's recommendation, gave her to Nigel d'Aubigny (ibid., vi. 192). This replicates the procedure envisaged in Henry's coronation charter.

22 For an heiress see Aubrée, daughter of Guitmund of Moulins-la-Marche, given in marriage by Duke William (ibid., iii. 132). For a widow see Ada, widow of Herluin the elder of Heugleville, given in marriage by Duke Robert the Magnificent (ibid., iii. 252). For more general intervention by William I and Henry I see ibid., ii. 262; iv. 158; iii. 258–60.

23 Complete Peerage, xii, pt. 1.762; Vita et Passio Waldevi Comitis, ed. Michel, F., Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, 3 vols. (Paris, 1836–40), ii. 126Google Scholar.

24 Ancient Charters, ed. Round, J. H., Pipe Roll Soc. 10 (1888), 8–10Google Scholar.

25 Complete Peerage, iv. 309–11; Appendix I, 771; Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, vi. 380.

26 Complete Peerage, iv. 311, n.b.

27 He misnamed her Matilda.

28 Cap. 3.

29 Complete Peerage, xii, pt. 1. 761–2.

30 Farrer, William. Honors and Knights' Fees, 3 vols. (Manchester, 1923–5), ii. 296–301Google Scholar. Cf. Round, J. H., Geoffrey de Mandeville, 191–3, 264–5Google Scholar. See also the Vita et Passio Waldevi which clearly refers to a marriage-portion (above, n.23).

31 Earldom of Gloucester Charters, ed. Patterson, R. B. (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar.

32 The Heads of Religious Houses England and Wales 940–1216, eds Knowles, D., Brooke, C. N. L. and London, Vera (Cambridge, 1972), 219, 222Google Scholar. There is insufficient evidence of a third younger sister said to have married the count of Brittany.

33 Complete Peerage, xi, Appendix D, 112–13 and ” nn. See especially Rotrou's grant to the abbey of Tiron made ‘assensu generis mei Helie filieque mee Philippe … Hoc concessit gener meus Helias et filia mea Philippa’.

34 Early Yorkshire Charters, i. 460–1, 466; HMC, Rutland, iv. 107, 144. 161; The Leicestershire Survey, ed. Slade, C. F. (Leicester. 1956), 90Google Scholar.

35 After much consultation I have settled on this as the best translation, inadequate though it is. Stenton chose ‘appointed law,’ which seems altogether too biblical in flavour(The First Century of English Feudalism (Oxford, 2nd edn, 1961), 39)Google Scholar. ‘Enactment’ is perhaps too legislative in tone.

36 F. M. Stenton (1960), 261.

37 Glanville, ed. G.D.G. Hall (1965), 76.

38 Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., History of English Law (Cambridge, 1898), ii. 276Google Scholar.

39 Milsom (1981), especially 69–78. The earliest surviving record of such parage is in final concords concluded in the King's court. One of these is dateable to 1174–9, before Glanville became Chief Justiciar (Curia Regis Rolls, xi. no. 869); another of less certain date also belongs to Henry II (ibid., viii. 387).

40 Statutes of the Realm, i.5. The 1236 statement also excluded the elder from the wardship of the younger, a matter not specifically discussed by Glanville.

41 B. L., Cotton Claudius D.xiii, ff. 49–59V. These are not included in Monasticon, iii. 345–53, where the Valognes charters are confined to those of the senior line.

42 Binham Cartulary, f. 53.

43 Ibid., f. 4g–4gv; F. M. Stenton (1961), pp. 38–40; 260–1. The first charter (f. 53) includes—‘Concedimus igitur et statuendo sanctimus ut monarchi …’ and ‘Quicunque ergo hanc donacionem enervare presumpserit deleatur de libro vivencium et descendet ad inferni novissima; amen.’ Compare the more elaborate anathema in the second (Stenton, 261).

44 Cartulary, Binham, ff. 51V–52, printedGoogle ScholarSaltman, Avrom, Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury (1956), 247–8Google Scholar.

45 He was the Richard de Calum or Calne who held 71½ fees of de Valognes, Robert in 1166 (Red Books of the Exchequer, i. 360)Google Scholar.

46 Binham Cartulary, f. 50V. The archbishop's letter, coupled with the clear implication of Roger de Valognes' charter, surely places Agnes as the younger sister. Milsom, (1981), 78, takes the other view to the point of doubting the existence of a younger sister.

47 Ibid., f. 51.

48 Ibid, ff. 50V, 51–51V.

49 Notifico vobis per presentia scripta in capitula fratrum ecclesie [sancte] Marie de Binham, accepta societate eorundem et beneficio loci me confirmasse predicte ecclesie de Binham dimidium partem ville que Berneya vocatur in terns, pratis, silvis, pascuis et hominibus et insuper advocacionem et dominium ecclesie ipsius ville sicut coram Theobaldo archiepiscopo inde fuit facta composicio deinde divisa et in fundo (recte funiculo) distributionis partita' (Ibid., f. 51).

50 Ibid, f. 55.

51 Ibid., f. 50.

52 Ibid., ff. 52V, 56; Curia Regis Rolls, vii. 286.

53 See n. 49 above where the grant of the advowson was made insuper. There is no specific mention of the advowson in the charters of either Walter or Roger de Valognes.

54 Binham Cartulary, f. 56–56V; Curia Regis Rolls, xv. no. 521.

55 Binham Cartulary, f. 59V.

56 This argument has to assume that Walter Bernard's charter was occasioned by circumstances not revealed in the cartulary. Another interpretation might be that the partition had reached the third generation, that the junior line performed homage to the senior and that the senior line's confirmation was now sought. Unfortunately, although it is clear that the senior line was now in the third generation, I have not been able to establish that this was true of the junior line. Moreover, the charter is a quitclaim not a confirmation and embraces other grants besides that of Walter de Valognes. In any case such an interpretation would not necessarily mean that parage had been intended ab initio. Notions derived from parage may have crept in as Glanville's doctrine took hold.

57 Round, J. H.. Studies in peerage and family history (1907), 115–129Google Scholar; Sanders, I. J., English Baronies (Oxford, 1961), 124–5Google Scholar.

58 Red Book of the Exchequer, i. 274; 297–8.

59 Early Yorkshire Charters, vii. 7–9.

60 Red Book of the Exchequer, i. 225; 430–2; Books of Fees, 97, 425.

61 Farrer, W., Feudal Cambridgeshire (Cambridge, 1920), 159–166Google Scholar, Eyton, R. W., Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols. (1853–1860), ix. 64–77Google Scholar.

62 Early Yorkshire Charters, x. 13–19.

63 For Peverel see Red Book of the Exchequer, i. 366–9, 372. For Trussebut see Pipe Roll 6 Richard, 154; Pipe Roll 13 John, 31, Book of Fees, 157, 191.

64 For Peverel see Eyton, , Shropshire, ix, 72–7Google Scholar; Sanders, I. J., Baronies, 19Google Scholar.

65 See in particular the relief of Gilbert Pecche of 200m. in 1241, which included 50m. for a third of Bourn (Excerpta e Rotulis Finium, ii. 17). Gilbert represented the senior coparcener. Compare the direct statement concerning Agatha, youngest of the Trussebut sisters that she held Kirk Deighton, part of the Trussebut inheritance, in chief of the Crown (Cat. Inq. p.m., i. no. 97; Yorkshire Inquisitions; no. 11).

66 Earldom of Gloucester Charters, 5.

67 Public Record Office, D L, 10/29, PiPe Roll 10 Richard, 139.

68 Cartularium Abbathiae de Rievalle, ed. Atkinson, J. C. (Surtees Society, 1889), 263–4Google Scholar.

69 Pipe Roll 2–3–4 Henry II, 140, 146.

70 Rot. Chartarum, 32b.

71 For Helmsley see Early Yorkshire Charters, x. 15. For the division of Old Wardon see Farrer, William, ‘The Honour of Old Wardon’, Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, xi (1927), 6ff; Sanders (1960), 133Google Scholar.

72 Pipe Roll 7 Henry II, 12; Pipe Roll 8 Henry II, 42; Red Book of the Exchequer, i. 335–6.

73 Rotuli de Dominabus, 11, 45; Sanders (1960), 133.

74 This could well help to explain the division of Walter Espec's estates. The descendants of his two elder daughters shared his inheritance of Old Wardon. Robert de Ros, descendant of the youngest, received merely one fee of Old Wardon, but took all Walter's acquisitions. Robert probably got the lion's share on other grounds, but the distinction between inheritance and acquisition explains how the shares were defined. That Robert was descended from the youngest daughter is generally accepted. See Beds. Historical Record Soc, xi. 4; Early Yorkshire Charters, x. 144.

75 For the relationship between partition and previous marriage-portions and actions arising therefrom see Milsom (1981), 81 ff.

76 Glanville, ed. Hall. 75–6. For a straightforward example see the arrangements envisaged for the earldom Devon, 1200 (Rot. Chartarum, 52b).

77 See the case of the succession to William of Buckland, 1218 (Bracton's Note Book, ed. Maitland, F. W., 3 vols. London 1887, i. no. 12)Google Scholar, discussed with other possible cases by Milsom (1981), 66.

78 See above, 15–16.

79 Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11–20 (Pipe Roll Society, N. S. xxxiii, 1957) no. 564.

80 Milsom (1981), 71–2.

81 Farrer, , Feudal Cambridgeshire, 160Google Scholar.

82 Henry II to Hamo Pecche, Geoffrey of Waterville and Hugh of Dover—‘Precipio quod juste et sine dilatione reddatis Abbatie Salop… terram suam de Crugeltona quam Hamo Peverellus cujus heredes vos estis eis dedit’ (Eyton, , Shropshire, ix. 67)Google Scholar.

83 The Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, ed. Rees, Una (2 vols., Aberystwyth, 1975), i. nos. 29–31Google Scholar.

84 Compare the charters of Hugh of Dover, Gilbert Pecche and Geoffrey and Asce-line de Waterville (Eyton, , Shropshire, ix. 67Google Scholar, 72, 76). For analogous action in a yet further generation, between co-heiresses of Asceline de Waterville, see ibid. ix. 77, 79.

85 In the case of Espec the descendents of one of the families, Bussy, now represented by heir's general in the next generation, viz. Builly and Wake, were parties to an action in 1198–1200 concerning the church of Old Wardon against the abbot of Old Wardon. One of the other original participating families, Trailly, figured in this but not as a party and the action was resolved against the heir's general of Bussy, (Beds. Historical Record Soc, xi. 9–11)Google Scholar. In the case of Trussebut, Cecily, and Agatha, made fine for land in Newsome in 1197 (Early Yorkshire Charters, x. 48–9)Google Scholar; all three co-heirs combined in litigation against Puiset, Henry du concerning Market Weighton in 1204 (Curia Regis Rolls, x. 42)Google Scholar; and sometime after 1227 Hilary, who was not the senior, confirmed a gift to the Temple by her dear nephew, Robert de Ros, who died in retirement as a Templar, (Early Yorkshire Charters, x. 42)Google Scholar.

86 The bounds appear in their earliest form in the charter of Agnes de Valognes' husband Geoffrey Tresgoz and in greater detail in the confirmations of her daughter and son-in-law (Binham Cartulary, ff. 51, 50V, 51V).

87 Ibid., ff. 50V, 51V.

88 Mortimer, R., ‘The family of Ranulf Glanville’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, liv (1981), 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 14–15.

89 Bailey, S. J., ‘Ranulf de Glanville and his children’, The Cambridge Law Journal (1957), 163–181Google Scholar, especially 173–6. See also Myres, J. N. L., ‘Notes on the History of Butley priory, Suffolk’ Oxford Essays in medieval history presented to H. E. Salter (Oxford, 1934), 190–206Google Scholar, especially 190–3, which traces the descent of the patronage of Butley in the senior line.

90 Complete Peerage, v•. 120–22.

91 In the event the conflicts of Stephen's reign increased the flow of acquisitions but this could not have been foreseen when the statutum decretum was agreed, as I suggest, 1130–35.

92 So Elizabeth Williams in Fell, Christine, Women in Anglo-Saxon England (1984), 175–9Google Scholar, to whom I should not attribute my assessment of the audience. TheLais are ed. Ewert, A. (Oxford, 1947)Google Scholar.

93 Assize of Northampton, cap. 9.

94 Ed. J. H. Round, Pipe Roll Society, 35 (1913). The Rotuli are the returns made by the justices of the evidence presented in court. See Round ibid, pp. xvii-xix. They are not, as they are sometimes presented, a record of Exchequer administration, although they were used by the Exchequer for the subsequent management of the estates of some heiresses.

95 Poole, A. L.. Obligations of Society in the XII and XIII centuries (Oxford, 1946), 97–100Google Scholar; Painter, Sidney, Studies in the history of the English feudal barony (Baltimore, 1943) 66–72Google Scholar.

96 Cap. 3.

97 The terminology of the Pipe roll and the coronation charter is identical. Only one entry on the roll, a proffer of Williams Maltravers, associates a woman with hereditas (Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, 87). She was his wife.

98 Ibid., 37.

99 Ibid., 34.

100 A. L. Poole (1946), 100–103; Stenton, D. M., The English Woman in History (1957), 38–40Google Scholar.

101 A. L. Poole (1946) 99–100; Holt, J. C., Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965), 107–8Google Scholar.

102 Magna Vila Sancti Hugonis, ed. Douie, Decima L. and Farmer, Hugh, 2 vols. (1961), ii. 20–27Google Scholar.

103 It is succinctly stated in the first record of the action in 1194 (Rot. Curiae Regis, i.78).

104 Ibid., i. 452.

105 Rot. de Oblatis et Finibus, 240.

106 Rot. Curiae Regis, i. 78, 452.

107 Rot. de Oblatis et Finibus, 20.

108 Ibid, 40, 240.

109 Ibid., 240–1.

110 Rotuli Hundredorum, i. 294; Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis, ii. 27n. I am indebted to the careful annotation of the editors for much of the detailed record of the case.

111 The exact proportion would be difficult to calculate because family relationships are not always stated in the record of the proffers on the Pipe or Fine roll. My impression of the Fine rolls of the early years of John's reign is that roughly 50% of the proffers involved some family relationship. This is likely to be an underestimate.

112 Wightman, W. E., The Lacy Family in England and Normandy 1066–1194 (Oxford, 1966), 68–73Google Scholar.

113 Pipe Roll 6 Richard, 163; Doris M. Stenton (1957), 36.

114 Rot de Oblatis et Finibus, 226, 287; Curia Regis Rolls, iii. 257; A. L. Poolc (1946), 98.

115 Complete Peerage, vii, Appendix J, 743–6.

116 Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, no, 114.

117 The Letters of Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Clover, H. and Gibson, M. (Oxford, 1979), no. 53 (1077–89)Google Scholar.

118 Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, ii. 268; cf. William of Poitiers, ed. Raymonde Forville, 232.

119 Orderic Vitalis, ed. Chibnall, iii. 166.

120 Ibid., vi. 16.

121 For Nigel d'Aubigny, William d'Aubigny of Belvoir, Miles of Gloucester, William Maltravers and William Pont de L'Arche see above pp. 7 n., 9, 21, 23. William d'Aubigny married Maud, daughter of Bigod, Roger (Complete Peerage, i. 233)Google Scholar; Pain Fitzjohn married Sybil, daughter of Hugh de Lacy (Wightman, 175–83); Eustace fitz John married first Beatrice, daughter and heiress of Ivo de Vescy and, secondly Agnes, sister and co-heiress of FitzNigel, William, constable of Chester (Complete Peerage, xii. pt. ii. 273–4)Google Scholar. For general comment see Southern, R. W.Medieval Humanism and other Studies (Oxford, 1970), 214–20Google Scholar.

122 Gaimar, Geffrei, L'Estoire des Engleis, ed. Bell, A., Anglo-Norman Text Society, 14–16 (1960)Google Scholar, especially lines 96–167. For the Lai d'Haveloc, Havelok the Dane and other derivations see Loomis, L. H., Medieval Romance in England (New York, 1963), 103–114Google Scholar.

123 Enforced marriage and misalliance are themse in the Roman a'Eneas, Orsan de Beauvais, Raoul de Cambrai and Daurel and Beton but without any emphasis on disparagement. In Chretien of Troyes' Yvain Laudine de Landuc is eager to secure the hand of Yvain because such a marriage will be no disgrace for the daughter of a duke (ed. T. Reid, lines 1815–18), but that scarcely present disparagement as a burning issue. I am indebted to Dr Peter Noble for bringing these sources to my attention.

124 Magna Vita S. Hugonis, ii. 26.

125 A. L. Poole (1948), 97–8; Painter, S., The reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), 217–19Google Scholar.

126 Pipe Roll 6 Richard, 238.

127 Pipe Roll 7 Richard, 177, 222, 246.

128 I by-pass here the letter of 1212 of William the Lion of Scotland conceding the marriage of his son Alexander to King John ‘ita quod non disparagetur’ since it is of doubtful authenticity. See Stones, E. L. G., Anglo-Scottish Relations 1174–1328 (1965), 12–13Google Scholar; Regesta Regum Scottorum, ii. ed. Barrow, G. W. S. (Edinburgh, 1971), no. 505Google Scholar.

129 Complete Peerage, x. 358.

130 Ibid., v. 122–3, 124 n.b.

131 Ibid., v. 127, 132.

132 Sir Christopher Hatton's Book of Seals, ed. Lloyd, L. C. and Stenton, D. M. (Oxford, 1950), no. 298Google Scholar.

133 Complete Peerage, iv. 316.

134 Chronica Majora, iii. 87–8.

135 Chronica Majora, v. 323.

136 , H. M. C., Rutland, iv. 55–6Google Scholar.

137 Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1947), i. 61–6Google Scholar.

138 Painter, S., The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), 218Google Scholar.

139 Chronica Majora, iii. 101–2.