Ácidos Grasos Poliinsaturados

Three kings in our period of study made succession arrangements via agreements with a rival heir. It is to these that we now turn.

Fraternal agreements

As noted above, William the Conqueror did not have oaths sworn to a designated heir. Between 1087 and 1102, no king of England or duke of Normandy had any legitimate male heirs. In 1091 and 1101, Duke Robert made agreements with his royal brothers about the succession to both Normandy and England.180 _{In 1091, that between Rufus} and his elder brother included the provision that if Robert died without legitimate sons, Rufus was to be heir of all Normandy; if the king died, Robert was to be heir of all

177 _{He reports that ‘the knights willingly but secretly consented to Count John; however the clergy, more} fearful by nature, were not so bold to swear in words of either master’ (‘militia comiti libenter sed latenter consentiebat; clerus vero, natura meticulosior, neutrius audebat iurare in verba magistri’) (ibid., p. 30). That Devizes states that the clergy were not bold enough to swear implies that the militia did swear to John. That Devizes account has the clergy unwilling to swear ‘to either master’ may suggest that at this political juncture, John was seeking submissions as a rival regent to Longchamp.

He also states that it was reported to Longchamp ‘that Gerard de Camville, a factious man and prodigal of faith, had done homage to Count John, the king’s brother, for Lincoln castle’ (‘nuntiatur illi quod Girardus de Camvilla, homo factiosus et fidei prodigus, homagium fecerat Iohanni comiti fratri regis de castello Lincolnie’) (ibid., p. 30).

178 _{Howden, Chronica, IV, 83.}

179 _{John’s actions of 1191 are in stark contrast to 1193, where he seems to have been attempting to usurp} the realm. See Church, King John, pp. 53–57.

180 _{It is possible that oaths were used in the agreements between Alfred and his brothers about who ought} to succeed to what in the late tenth century. For these agreements, see Alfred’s will (S1507; translated in Alfred the Great: Asser’s ‘Life of Alfred’ and Other Contemporary Sources, trans. by Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge (Harmondsworth, 1983), pp. 174–78.

England. Twelve men from each side swore to keep the agreement.181 _{In 1101, Robert} Curthose launched an invasion of Henry I’s kingdom. Before any fighting, the brothers came to a similar arrangement to that of 1091.182 _{Again, there was a provision that} whoever survived the other would be heir to England and/or Normandy, provided neither had a legitimate heir.183 _{Again this was ratified ‘mid aðe’ by twelve men from each} side.184 _{The Norman succession practice of having elites swear a loyalty commitment to a} designated heir was not used. Instead these were treaties confirmed by oaths by representatives.

The agreement between Stephen and Henry, 1153

We see more detailed succession arrangements made between King Stephen and Duke Henry in 1153. On 17 August 1153, Stephen’s eldest son Eustace died. Although the king had another son, William, this death paved the way for a peace process with Duke Henry to move forward. It seems that Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and Henry, brother of the king and bishop of Winchester, were the main negotiators.185 _{A peace was} made at Winchester on 6 November.186 _{Later, at Westminster, Stephen issued a ‘charter’} containing details, though not necessarily all the details, from the agreement.187

This charter begins by recording that Henry had been made successor (‘successorem’) to the kingdom and Stephen’s heir (‘heredem’).188 _{In return, Henry ‘did homage and security with}

181 _{ASC(E) 1091 (p. 226). John of Worcester’s account is very similar to the Peterborough Chronicle (JW,} III, 58–59)). William of Malmesbury states that the treaty was ratified by oath from both sides (William of Malmesbury, GRA, I, 448–51). See also Robert of Torigni, GND, VIII.3 (II, 204–07); OV, IV, 236–37. 182 _{ASC(E) 1101 (p. 237). Orderic Vitalis and John of Worcester mention the agreement but not the} succession or the oaths (OV, V, 318–21; JW, III, 98–99)).

183 _{ASC(E) 1101 (p. 237).} 184 _{ASC(E) 1101 (p. 237).}

185 _{HH, pp. 770–71. The Peterborough Chronicler says that ‘the archbishop and the wise men’ came} between king and duke, whilst John of Hexham and the author of the Gesta Stephani only mention Henry of Winchester’s role (ASC(E) 1153 (p. 268); John of Hexham, Historia, p. 331; GS, pp. 240–41).

186 _{The contemporaneous Robert of Torigni gives 6 November as the date (Robert of Torigni, Chronica,} p. 177). Henry of Huntingdon tells us that the peace was made at Winchester, before Christmas (HH, pp. 770–71). Gervase of Canterbury, writing much later and heavily relying on Henry of Huntingdon’s work for his account, gives the more precise, but probably wrong ‘end of November’ (‘mense Novembri, in fine mensis’) (GC, Chronica, p. 156).

187 _{RRAN, III, no. 272, pp. 97–99. J. C. Holt points out that it is not a treaty and that although it refers to} itself as a ‘charter’, it is not a ‘charter’ as we usually understand it, as it granted nothing specific and had no beneficiary. In Holt’s words it was ‘a formal promulgation of terms previously agreed’. See J. C. Holt, ‘1153: The Treaty of Winchester’, in The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. by Edmund King (Oxford, 1994), pp. 291–316 (293–95). Since the document terms itself a ‘charter’, I will continue to refer to it as the charter of Westminster.

188 _{For the charter, see RRAN, III, no. 272, pp. 97–99. The charter is addressed to archbishops, bishops,} abbots, earls, justices, sheriffs, and barons.

Gervase of Canterbury, writing much later and heavily using Henry of Huntingdon’s account (he copies the report of the Oxford homages), reports that at London, after the Winchester agreement,

an oath’ to Stephen (‘dux … homagium mihi et sacramento securitatem fecit’).189 _{The charter} explains what this commitment involved: ‘that he will be faithful to me and he will protect my life and honour as far as he is able, through the agreements arranged between us’ (‘scilicet quod fidelis mihi erit et vitam et honorem meum pro posse suo custodiet, per conventiones inter nos prolocutas’). The charter goes on to state that ‘I [Stephen] did security with an oath to the duke, that I will protect life and honour to him as far as I am able’ (‘ego etiam securitatem sacramento duci feci, quod vitam et honorem ei pro posse meo custodiam’).190 _{Stephen did} not do homage to Henry. The commitment contains a similar clause about protecting life and honour, but omits the clause about being faithful (fidelis). This seems to be what swearing securitas amounts to here. Stephen’s son, William, did an unspecific securitas to Henry alongside liege homage (‘Willelmus autem filius meus ligium homagium et securitatem duci Normannie fecit’). It is made explicit that this commitment meant that William now held his lands from Henry: ‘dux ei concessit ad tenendum de se omnes tenuras quas ego tenui antequam regnum Anglie adeptus essem, sive in Anglia, sive in Normannia, sive in aliis locis.’ This use of tenurial bonds appears to be unique in the arrangements within our period for designated heirs.191

Similar interlocking commitments were made by the followers of each faction. The charter states that ‘the earls and barons of the duke who had never been my men … did homage and an oath to me’ (‘comites et barones ducis qui homines mei nunquam fuerant … homagium et sacramentum mihi fecerunt’). The followers of Henry who had done homage to Stephen before ‘did fealty to [him] as to a lord’ (‘ceteri vero qui antea mihi homagium fecerant, fidelitatem mihi fecerunt sicut domino’). We can infer from this that they were forgiven for rebelling and their re-submission was symbolically done with the swearing of fealty. Interestingly, there is no explicit renewal of homage. In return for this, the charter states that ‘my earls and barons did liege homage to the duke, saving my fealty whilst I am alive and hold the kingdom’ (‘comites etiam barones mei ligium homagium duci fecerunt, salva mea fidelitate quamdiu vixero et regnum tenuero’). That they would ‘save my fealty’ does not detract

Stephen ‘ordered that Henry be proclaimed lord of the whole of England’ (‘dominumque totius Angliae praedicari eum praecepit’) (GC, Chronica, 156). It is possible that a technical title was used for this specific situation, akin to the use of domina for Matilda noted above. Though Gervase was writing much later, and in the wake of the use of the dominus title by Richard and John, his terminology may be accurate. John Gillingham has suggested to Garnett that Archbishop Theobald could have been one of Gervase’s sources. See Garnett, Conquered England, p. 266, n. 34.

189 _{George Garnett has pointed out that the homage given by Henry therefore involved no tenure (Garnett,} Conquered England, p. 267).

190 _{It is curious that vita et honor are to be protected ‘to him’ (‘ei’), rather than ‘his life and honour’ (vitam et} honorem eius) being protected, though the significance of this, if there is any, is not clear.

from what appears to amount to an imbalance in the treaty. The king’s men were explicitly to hold Henry as their liege lord, above the king, whilst Henry’s men merely did normal homage to the king, seemingly keeping Henry as liege lord. George Garnett has noted that this suggests the opposite of the expected tenurial pyramid with the king at the top.192 _{The commitments of both sides also contained an extra security clause. If} either the king or the duke reneged from the agreement, their men would be free from their service to them until they corrected their error.193 _{This was part of the force behind} the agreement.

On the ecclesiastical side, ‘the archbishops and bishops of the kingdom of England and the abbots did fealty with oath to the duke at my order’ (‘archiepiscopi vero et episcopi de regno Anglie atque abbates ex precepto meo fidelitatem sacramento duci fecerunt’). George Garnett has pointed out that this broke entirely both with English custom and papal ruling: prelates, once they had been consecrated, swore fidelitas to no laymen, except the king. He also points out that a papal ruling must have allowed this, as Theobald, heavily involved in the negotiations, was papal legate.194

These arrangements were different from those made in 1091 and 1101. In a sense, they were similar to the succession practice used by Henry I and earlier Norman dukes. Special types of homage were made to a designated heir by political elites. However, the circumstances were clearly different. In 1153, the arrangements were as much about keeping the peace in the present as guaranteeing a future succession. Stephen was around 60 years of age, but no one could have foreseen his death in 1154. Indeed, the charter states that

the citizens of the cities and the men of the castles, which I have in my dominion, did homage and security to the duke according to my order, saving my fealty whilst I am alive and hold the kingdom.

192 _{Ibid., p. 274.}

193 _{Concerning Henry’s followers, it is unclear from the text whether this was only to apply to those who} had previously done homage to Stephen or to apply to all of his men. As all of Stephen’s men explicitly made the same commitment, it is reasonably safe to assume that all of Henry’s men would have as well. It should be borne in mind that the charter was merely recording what had happened (or was to happen), rather than being the legal commitment itself. The Latin is more-or-less the same for the respective commitments: ‘et si dux a premissis recederet omnino a servitio ejus ipsi cessarent, quousque errata corrigeret’; ‘simili lege quod si ego a predictis recederem omnino a servitio meo cessarent, quousque errata corrigerem’. George Garnett notes of this that ‘the diffidation which had been one of the most notable characteristics of relations between kings and barons during Stephen’s reign, had been institutionalized as a means of enforcing the agreement’ (ibid., p. 273).

cives etiam civitatum et homines castrorum que in dominio meo habeo ex precepto meo homagium et securitatem duci fecerunt, salva fidelitate mea quamdiu vixero et regnum tenuero.

Stephen’s continuing reign was stressed.

This passage also notes a wider swearing than we have seen elsewhere in this chapter. Indeed, the cives civitatum and the homines castrorum seem to mean a wider group than a few urban elites or representatives and castellans. ‘Those who guard’ (‘illi … qui … custodiunt’) the Angevin-controlled castle of Wallingford also did homage to Stephen and gave pledges about keeping fealty to him. Specific arrangements were also made for the Tower of London, the ‘motte’ of Windsor, the ‘motte’ of Oxford, the ‘fortification’ (‘firmitatem’) of Lincoln, the castle of Winchester, and the fortification of Southampton, all of which entailed the appointed castellan swearing to hand the castle to Henry if Stephen died.195 These military arrangements emphasize that this was a peace pact as well as a succession arrangement.

Chronicles

No chronicler gives a full account of all the different oaths recorded in the charter, although a number of chroniclers picked up on the homages done. The Peterborough Chronicler states that ‘all did [Henry] homage and swore to keep the peace’ (‘alle diden him manred 7 suoren þe pais to halden’), but does not mention any homages to Stephen.196 Conversely the author of the Gesta Stephani only mentions homages being done to the king.197 _{Henry of Huntingdon’s account does not mention any homages as part of the} peace agreement, but states that on 13 January 1154 there was an assembly at Oxford where ‘the leading men of the English, at the king’s command, presented to the duke the homage and the fealty owed to a lord, but the honour and faith due to the king were to be preserved while he lived’ (‘igitur ibi principes Anglorum iussu regis hominium et domino debitam fidelitatem duci simul exhibuerunt, regi tamen honorem debitum fidemque dum viveret conservaturi’).198 _{It seems likely that some, and perhaps all, of the homages recorded in the} Westminster charter were done not at Winchester in 1153, but at Oxford in early 1154. The Peterborough Chronicler has Henry being received in Winchester and London after

195 _{Henry, bishop of Winchester, was responsible for Winchester and Southampton. He did not swear, but} pledged in the hand of the archbishop of Canterbury. The significance of the verb affidare is not clear. 196 _{ASC(E) 1153 (p. 268).}

197 _{GS, pp. 240–41.}

198 _{HH, pp. 770–73. The Peterborough Chronicler seemingly implies that the homages to Henry were done} at Winchester and/or London, although the writer is not explicit (ASC(E) 1153 (p. 268)).

the agreements were made. In this account, homages and oaths to keep the peace also come in the wake of the agreement.199

William of Newburgh, writing much later and deriving much of his account from Henry of Huntingdon, reported, uniquely among the chroniclers, that Stephen’s son William ‘did homage to the duke’ and that likewise ‘the duke gave satisfaction to him after the agreement had been introduced’ (‘Willelmus autem regis filius junior jubente patre duci hominium fecit; dux quoque illi pactis interpositis satisfecit’).200 _{In contrast to these accounts, Robert of} Torigni reports that, on the day of the peace at Winchester, 6 November 1153,

the king himself and the bishops and the rest of the powerful ones confirmed with oath that the duke, after the king’s death, if he survived him, would hold the kingdom peacefully and without contradiction.

rex et episcopi et ceteri potentes sacramento firmarent quod dux post mortem regis, si ipse eum superviveret, pacifice et absque contradictione regnum haberet.201

This was a report of what the oaths upholding the agreement amounted to, rather than what they necessarily were.202 _{Such incidents must be kept in mind when considering} what precisely was sworn to heirs (or kings). When we are reliant on narrative evidence, as we have been for our first two chapters, we cannot know the precise details of what was sworn. The same can also be said of other sources. The words that each swearer spoke might vary slightly, and there may have been negotiations at councils over what each person was to swear.