Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty 3031210670, 9783031210679

Citation preview

Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts Power, Influence, and Dynasty

Edited by Aidan Norrie · Carolyn Harris J.L. Laynesmith · Danna R. Messer Elena Woodacre

Queenship and Power Series Editors

Charles E. Beem University of North Carolina Pembroke, NC, USA Carole Levin University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE, USA

This series focuses on works specializing in gender analysis, women’s studies, literary interpretation, and cultural, political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. It aims to broaden our understanding of the strategies that queens—both consorts and regnants, as well as female regents— pursued in order to wield political power within the structures of male-­ dominant societies. The works describe queenship in Europe as well as many other parts of the world, including East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Islamic civilization.

Aidan Norrie  •  Carolyn Harris J. L. Laynesmith  •  Danna R. Messer Elena Woodacre Editors

Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts Power, Influence, and Dynasty

Editors Aidan Norrie University Campus North Lincolnshire England, UK J. L. Laynesmith University of Reading Reading, UK

Carolyn Harris University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada Danna R. Messer York, UK

Elena Woodacre University of Winchester Winchester, UK

ISSN 2730-938X     ISSN 2730-9398 (electronic) Queenship and Power ISBN 978-3-031-21067-9    ISBN 978-3-031-21068-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover Image by: Daniel Smith at Aspect Design This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

This project has been supported by a number of grants and awards. We gratefully acknowledge the Dr Greg Wells Research Award provided by the Centre for the Study of the Renaissance at the University of Warwick, which covered the costs of producing the family trees for this volume. The Department of History at the University of Warwick employed Joshua Baumring-Gledhill as a research assistant for the project, and the Institute of Advanced Study at the University of Warwick funded the project’s incomparable editorial assistant, Luke Holloway, and we are grateful for this support. I also thank my valiant and indefatigable co-editors, who enthusiastically agreed to work with me on this project (a project that ended up consuming their lives for a significant amount of time), and whose insight, patience, and camaraderie have made this project much stronger than it might otherwise have been. Aidan Norrie

vii

Praise for Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts “This book is a treasure trove for medievalists working on women’s history and the Anglo-Norman realm. It does a tremendous job in foregrounding the multiple ways royal consorts ruled (or did not rule) next to, and in collaboration with, their spouses. Each consort is brought to life through subtle discussions of themes such as upbringing, resources and their administration, intercession, and different kinds of patronage. Astutely written, the authors’ different perspectives and their critical assessment of the primary sources showcase how consortship and queenship can be fruitfully studied.” —Jitske Jasperse, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

Contents

1 The  Emergence of the Queen Consort in England, 1066–1307: Power, Influence, Dynasty  1 Danna R. Messer 2 Identifying  Queenship in Pre-Conquest England 17 Matthew Firth 3 Mathilda  of Flanders: Innovator 47 Laura L. Gathagan 4 Matilda  of Scotland: Peacemaker and Perfect Princess 67 Lois L. Huneycutt 5 Adeliza  of Louvain: Patron 83 Liam Lewis 6 Matilda  of Boulogne: Indispensable Partner 99 Heather J. Tanner 7 Eleanor  of Aquitaine: The Art of Governing119 Martin Aurell

xi

xii 

Contents

8 Margaret  of France: Conciliator Queen of England and Hungary139 Márta Pellérdi 9 Berengaria  of Navarre: Overshadowed Consort159 Gabrielle Storey 10 Isabella  of Gloucester: Heiress, Lord, Forgotten Consort179 Sally Spong 11 Isabella  of Angoulême: The Vanished Queen?197 Sally Spong 12 Eleanor  of Provence: Caring Consort and Controversial Queen217 Louise J. Wilkinson 13 Eleanor  of Castile: A Consort of Contradictions237 Abigail S. Armstrong 14 Margaret  of France: Enigmatic Consort257 Paul Dryburgh 15 Epilogue:  Shifting Sands and Changing Lands279 Danna R. Messer and Katherine Weikert Index299

Notes on Contributors

Abigail  S.  Armstrong obtained her PhD from Canterbury Christ Church University in 2019. Her thesis was a study of the daughters of Henry III of England and Eleanor of Provence. She is a postdoctoral researcher within the Collaborative Research Centre 933 at the University of Heidelberg. As part of sub-project “B10: Rolls for the King,” her research investigates the materiality of the administrative records of the nobility in late medieval England. Martin Aurell  is Professor of History of the Middle Ages at the University of Poitiers, where he is the director of the Centre d’Etudes Supérieures de Civilisation Médiévale. He studies power, kinship, and political culture in the tenth to thirteenth centuries. His books include The Plantagenet Empire, 1154–1224 (2007); The Lettered Knight: Knowledge and Aristocratic Behaviour in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (2017); and more recently, Excalibur, Durendal, Joyeuse: la force de l’épée (2021). Paul Dryburgh  is Principal Records Specialist at The National Archives with responsibility for medieval records. He is also a qualified archivist. His research interests are in kingship (particularly the reign of Edward II), government, warfare, and the economy across the British Isles in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. He is also Joint General Editor of the Pipe Roll Society, Honorary Secretary of the Lincoln Record Society, and President of the Mortimer History Society. Matthew  Firth is a researcher of early medieval English history and literature. His published works focus on England’s pre-Conquest kings and queens and their legacies, with particular interest in how these were xiii

xiv 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

transmitted, adapted, and memorialised of in the histories of later medieval writers. Laura L. Gathagan  is Associate Professor of History at State University of New York, College at Cortland, and the editor of the Haskins Society Journal. She publishes widely on Mathilda of Flanders and Anglo-Norman history. Her latest publication is “‘Audi Israel’: Apostolic Authority in the Coronation of Mathilda of Flanders,” Anglo-Norman Studies XLIII (2021). Her book project is entitled Embodying Conquest: The Queenship of Mathilda of Flanders. Carolyn Harris  is an instructor in History at the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies. She received her PhD in History from Queen’s University at Kingston in 2012. Carolyn is the author Magna Carta and Its Gifts to Canada (2015); Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe: Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette (2015), which won the 2016 Royal Studies Journal book prize; and Raising Royalty: 1000 Years of Royal Parenting (2017). Lois L. Huneycutt  received her PhD from the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she studied English political history with C. Warren Hollister and church history with Jeffrey Burton Russell. After a brief stint at the California State University at Hayward, she came to the University of Missouri, Columbia, where she has been a member of the history faculty since 1996. She is the author of many articles on medieval queenship in the central medieval period in England, Scotland, France, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Kingdom of Georgia as well as a biography of Matilda of Scotland. She is working on a comparative study of the Empress Matilda and Matilda of Boulogne. J. L. Laynesmith  is a visiting research fellow at the University of Reading. She is the author of The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship, 1445–1503 (2004) and Cecily Duchess of York (2017), as well as numerous articles on queenship and medieval noblewomen. She has taught at the universities of Oxford, York, Reading, and Huddersfield, and is researching the politics of royal adultery in early medieval Britain. Liam Lewis  is Lecturer in French at the University of Liverpool. He has also taught at the University of Oxford and the Sorbonne-Nouvelle in Paris. Alongside his research into Anglo-Norman literary cultures, his work on medieval literature, language, and sound challenges some of the

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

xv

theoretical assumptions in discussions of animality and sound by showing how medieval texts speak to modern notions of multilingualism and the environment. Danna R. Messer  is Acquisitions Editor for Arc Humanities Press and the Executive Editor for The Encyclopedia of the Global Middle Ages (Arc Humanities Press and Bloomsbury Academic). Her specialism is native Welsh queenship, and she is a contributor to both the Dictionary of Welsh Biography and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on the subject of the wives of Welsh rulers and Marcher noblewomen. Dr Messer is the author of Joan, Lady of Wales: Power and Politics of King John’s Daughter (2020). Aidan Norrie  is Lecturer in History and Programme Leader at University Campus North Lincolnshire and the Managing Editor of The London Journal. Aidan is the author of Elizabeth I and the Old Testament: Biblical Analogies and Providential Rule (2023) and has co-edited several collections, including Women on the Edge in Early Modern Europe (2019; with Lisa Hopkins), and From Medievalism to Early-Modernism: Adapting the English Past (2019; with Marina Gerzic). Márta  Pellérdi  is Associate Professor at the Institute of English and American Studies, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest. She holds a PhD in American Literature and an MA in History from Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. She has published on Jane Austen, Washington Irving, George Moore, Frank O’Connor, R.L.  Stevenson, Vladimir Nabokov, and recently, the travel writer John Paget, in various journals and edited volumes. Sally Spong  is a postgraduate researcher in the School of History at the University of East Anglia, supervised by Professor Stephen Church. Her PhD thesis is a study of the two wives of John, Count of Mortain and King of England, Isabella of Gloucester and Isabella of Angoulême. Both women were the heirs to important lordships. Her thesis explores their lives, agency, and experience through the lens of evidence taken from chronicles, Chancery Rolls, extant charters, legal documents, and religious practice, and her thesis explores their lives, agency, and experience through this lens. Gabrielle  Storey  is a historian of Angevin queenship, with a particular interest in familial relations and the exercise of power and authority. Her wider interests focus on gender and sexuality in the medieval period in Western Europe. She is working on the production of a monograph from

xvi 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

her PhD thesis, which is a comparative study of Angevin queens, focusing on co-rulership, competition, and co-operation with their royal husbands and sons. She is also producing a biography of Berengaria of Navarre, which is forthcoming. Heather J. Tanner  is Associate Professor of History at The Ohio State University. Her work focuses on elite women’s exercise of power, lordship, administration, law, and custom, as well as emotions. She is the author of Families, Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c.879–1160 (2004) and the editor of Medieval Elite Women and the Exercise of Power: Moving Beyond the Exceptionalist Debate (2019). Her book, Lordship and Governance by the Countesses of Boulogne (1160–1260), will be published by Arc Humanities Press in 2023. Dr Tanner has won several prestigious fellowships, including a National Endowment of Humanities Fellowship and Coca Cola Critical Difference grant. Katherine  Weikert is Senior Lecturer in Early Medieval European History and was the 2018–2019 University Early Career Research Fellow. She has published extensively on Anglo-Norman and early English history, with her first monograph,  Authority, Space and Gender in the Norman Conquest Era, c.900–c.1200, released in 2020. Her main areas of research examine the connections between gender, space, and authority in England and Normandy c.900–1200, female hostageships in the central Middle Ages, and the political uses of the medieval past. Louise J. Wilkinson  is Professor of Medieval Studies at the University of Lincoln. She was co-investigator of the AHRC-funded Henry III Fine Rolls and Magna Carta Projects, and has published widely on royal and aristocratic women in thirteenth-century England. Her most recent book is The Household Roll of Eleanor de Montfort, Countess of Leicester and Pembroke, 1265, Pipe Roll Society new series 63 (2020). She co-edits Routledge’s Lives of Royal Women series with Elena Woodacre. Elena  (Ellie)  Woodacre is Reader in Renaissance History at the University of Winchester. She is a specialist in queenship and royal studies and has published extensively in this area. Elena is the organiser of the ‘Kings & Queens’ conference series, founder of the Royal Studies Network, Editor-in-­Chief of the Royal Studies Journal, and co-edits the Gender and Power in the Premodern World series and the Lives of Royal Women series.

List of Figures

Fig. 0.1 Fig. 0.2 Fig. 2.1

Family tree depicting Alfred the Great’s descendants. Daniel Smith at Aspect Design House of Normandy and Plantagenet family tree. Daniel Smith at Aspect Design West Saxon dynastic succession, 899–1066

v vi 35

xvii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Consorts discussed in Chap. 2 Table 13.1 The children of Eleanor of Castile and Edward I

23 241

xix

Preface

Royal consorts have played an important role throughout English (and British) history. Yet, their lives and tenures have been treated unevenly by successive generations of scholars and popular historians. This volume, along with its three companions, aims to redress this uneven treatment. As the success of the Penguin Monarchs series has shown, there is much interest in more analytical biographies of royals—for academics and interested readers alike. While the last two decades have seen the publication of a plethora of both scholarly and popular biographies on England’s consorts, there is no single, scholarly compendium wherein all the consorts since the Norman Conquest can be consulted: it is this curious lacuna that these volumes seek to fill. In bringing together an international team of experts, we have endeavoured to create a vital reference work for scholars, students, and the wider public. While all consorts held an equal position—that is, they were all spouses of a reigning monarch—their treatment by both history and historians has varied considerably. Some, like Eleanor of Aquitaine, Margaret of Anjou, Anne Boleyn, and Prince Albert, have been the subject of countless biographies, articles, and cultural works and adaptations. On the other hand, non-experts could be forgiven for not being aware of Berengaria of Navarre, Isabella of Valois, Catherine of Braganza, or Adelaide of Saxe-­ Meiningen. Certainly, the surviving evidence for the tenures of each consort differs greatly, and other factors must be examined—it is no coincidence that each of these four ‘unfamiliar’ consorts was not the mother of their husband’s successor. Nevertheless, these volumes treat the xxi

xxii 

PREFACE

consorts as equitably as possible, offering biographies that provide an insight into how each consort perceived and shaped their role, and how their spouse and subjects responded to their reign. While all occupying the same office, each consort brought their own interpretation to the role, and by contextualising a consort’s tenure against both their predecessors and successors, these volumes illuminate some fascinating continuities, as well as some unexpected idiosyncrasies. In putting these volumes together, numerous—and sometimes competing—factors were carefully considered. On the one hand, we erred on the side of inclusivity throughout, hence the inclusion of Margaret of France, Elizabeth Cromwell, and Dorothy Cromwell—the wives of Henry the Young King, and Lords Protector Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell, respectively. There can be no doubt that these women all functioned as a consort in the ‘traditional’ sense of the term during their husband’s period in power. Conversely, we have not included Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou, or Guilford Dudley—husbands of Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, respectively. There is much more to be said on the issue of monarchical succession in England: scholars especially still have yet to really come to terms with how to conceptualise the succession when it deviates from the ‘ideal’—that is, when the deceased king (yes, king) was succeeded by his eldest son. The absence of Geoffrey and Dudley here should not be taken as an endorsement of the view that their wives did not rule England: rather, we acknowledge that regardless of the political power their wives wielded, they themselves did not function as consorts to their wives. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that they do not appear within these pages. These men certainly supported their wives—indeed, much more could be said about the ‘soft power’ they exercised—but like Sophia Dorothea of Celle and Wallis Simpson, they themselves did not serve as the consort of a reigning monarch. In addition to the biographies of the consorts, the volumes contain several thematic essays, which present cutting-edge research on specific groups of consorts, showing the value in considering them both individually and collectively. Such chapters are an important corrective to older, and in some places still engrained, notions that because most consorts were women, they were only concerned with producing heirs, gossiping, embroidery, and courtly entertainments. Such views, thankfully, are no longer in the mainstream, due particularly to the burgeoning work in the field of queenship studies. As these thematic essays and the biographies themselves show, a successful consort had to juggle multiple roles,

 PREFACE 

xxiii

including shrewd financial management, effectively overseeing diplomacy and court intrigue, dealing with political upheaval, balancing the needs of their natal family against those of the English monarchy, and of course navigating pregnancy and childbearing—all the while ensuring that they retained good relationships with their spouse and their subjects. These chapters all demonstrate—to varying degrees—that a ‘successful’ reign as monarch often correlated with a consort who was able to successfully juggle the diverse roles expected of them. The women and men whose lives are detailed in the following pages occupied a unique position at the side of their spouse. While the roles, rights, and privileges of a monarch have been understood and largely defined (although of course these have been fiercely debated and contested), the position of their consort has, and continues to be, far less regularised, and much more nebulous. These biographies show that a monarch’s consort could have a profound effect on the nation—for both good or ill—and that the role was ultimately shaped by its incumbent in ways far more significant than have been previously recognised. Aidan Norrie

CHAPTER 1

The Emergence of the Queen Consort in England, 1066–1307: Power, Influence, Dynasty Danna R. Messer

Every student of British history knows that the year 1066 was “the big one,” results of which are the shape and structure so familiar to us today in how England is often perceived and recognised. It was the year that laid the foundations of a ruling monarchy with the longevity of nigh on 1000 years. For all the trials and tribulations, individual and even successive monarchs have faced during this millennia, the institution itself has remained firmly entrenched—even the Commonwealth lasted a mere eleven years (1649–1660), with the Restoration marking a new, yet old, chapter in how England was to be ruled. As familiar as 1066 and the British monarchical institution are to us, so too are the enduring images associated with the traditional personas of both king and queen: the king wielding public power and authority, while the queen supposedly wielded “womanly” agency “behind the scenes.” But, as recent research on medieval queenship and royal studies have

D. R. Messer (*) York, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_1

1

2 

D. R. MESSER

shown, the power and authority consorts exerted during their tenures was far more than “behind the scenes.”1 In fact, it is unarguable that the role of the English consort, whether in 1066 or 2023, is one that has always been visible and public. The women who found themselves in the role of the English consort starting in the later eleventh century were cast into the public fray—if nothing else, as the visible female representation of established male power and authority, the consort’s connection to the King as wife was the most obvious manifestation of this. The Queen was the foremost direct and legitimate path to the King. That status alone ensured that any woman in such a position would remain visible in the eyes of their contemporaries, whatever activities they carried out. The recognition of a royal woman’s status as directly linked to her marital relationship with a King was nothing new in 1066. Although concubinage was common practice in early medieval England, the increased need to secure legitimate (male) successors in the name of the dynastic hegemony meant that the status of consorts who became the mothers of heirs rose. Increasingly, Christian ideals of monogamy and the Church’s push towards formal marriage (and thus the legitimisation of heirs) grew in strength and popularity, and the status of a royal consort became to be defined by her legally recognised union with the King. In pre-Conquest England, coronation ceremonies in regard to queens were rare, as Matthew Firth discusses. The crowning of Judith of Flanders as queen in 856 upon her marriage to Æthelwulf of Wessex was an unusual step, especially for the kingdom of Wessex where, traditionally, royal wives were not designated as queens. Judith’s status as a Frankish princess, and as a member of the Carolingian dynasty, precipitated the act. It was over 100 years later that another royal woman was finally crowned and anointed queen, in the person of Ælfthryth, wife of Edgar the Peaceable. Crowning 1   See, for example: Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. A.J.  Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1997); Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Women and Sovereignty, ed. L.O.  Fradenburg (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992); Lois L. Huneycutt, “Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages,” The Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History 1 (1989): 61–71; L.L.  Huneycutt, “Medieval Queenship,” History Today 39, no. 6 (1989): 16–22; J.  Carmi Parsons, Medieval Queenship (Stroud: Sutton History, 1998); Elena Woodacre, Queens and Queenship (Leeds: Arc Humanities Press, 2021); A Companion to Global Queenship, ed. Elena Woodacre (Leeds: Arc Humanities Press, 2019); The Routledge History of Monarchy, ed. Elena Woodacre, Lucinda H.S. Dean, Chris Jones, Russell E. Martin, and Zita Eva Rohr (London: Routledge, 2019).

1  THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUEEN CONSORT IN ENGLAND, 1066–1307… 

3

and anointing did not signify queenly status, however: legitimate union with the King did. The convergence of the rise in importance of formal marriage practices and the expected legitimacy of successors influenced performances of early queenship; the agency of royal women as wives became more and more determined by the principal expectation that they would produce heirs. Indeed, it is an expectation that continues to this day. Dynastic issues have always lain at the heart of monarchy, and the gradual shift in focus on the royal woman’s lifecycle from wife of a king to potential mother of a king also prompted a gradual, more organic move to better define queenship, both sacral and institutional. Even the formal terms we still use to define the different stages of queenship—“queen consort,” “queen regent,” and “queen dowager”—are heavily influenced by traditional tripartite-­tropes related to the female lifecycle: the wife, the mother, the widow. Nevertheless, queenly lifecycle stages also directly related to the agency, the office, and influence, power, and authority each consort assumed. Roles and duties, both symbolic and literal, were individualised, defined by the necessities of governance and dynastic affairs, as well as by social and cultural influences and expectations. A fluidity of evolving definitions of queenly power and authority was the result.

Governance and Queens Consort It is little wonder that the changes in how queenship was enacted pre- and post-Conquest also precipitated the rise in the visibility of the queen consort. From securing dynastic bonds and important networks via marital alliances and acts of patronage, to acting as regents, royal adjudicators, issuing their own acta, and administering their own lands and lordships, visible declarations of queenship took many forms. Arguably, in all their many guises, the myriad of roles that the medieval queen played can be characterised, by sheer definition, as governance: the act or process of governing or overseeing the control and direction of something (such as a country or an organisation). Continuing to broaden our understanding of what “governance” actually entailed in high medieval England, we develop a better awareness of how the “art of governing” was nuanced and that all the roles queens played were critical to the success or failure of the English monarchy. William the Conqueror’s wife, Mathilda of Flanders, was a decisive figure in the Norman invasion and occupation of England, as Laura Gathagan’s

4 

D. R. MESSER

chapter shows. Without her financial support, or the political alliances she fostered, the outcome of the Battle of Hastings may have been very different. The aftermath of the Norman Conquest was tumultuous, but it was within this sphere of uncertainty and newness that Norman England’s first queen, Mathilda, fostered a remit of visible governance, privileges, and prerogatives for the neoteric office of the royal consort. Mathilda’s power and influence was cemented when she was crowned and anointed queen on 1 May 1068. A sceptre and the ring of the Church symbolised her office, and the praise imparted in the imperial-style laudes regiae used in her coronation liturgy all worked to establish a queenly reign defined by political governance and active lordship. Mathilda, who was a descendant of the House of Wessex and the House of Capet, was of greater pedigree than her husband, and her lineage was fundamental to her identity as Queen of England. Influences stemming from her Ottonian ancestry on her mother’s side, in particular, provided her models of female lordship and queenship that she espoused during her marriage to William, as Duchess of Normandy, and as Queen of England. Drawing on her heritage likely played a part providing her the autonomy to be active in the governance of Norman England. There is no evidence of Mathilda acting in the traditional queenly role as intercessor. But, crucially, her visibility at the head of jurisprudence during William’s long absences in Normandy helped demarcate the role and expectation of the English Queen as an administrator of justice. Going far beyond the traditional role of the Queen as intercessor, the wielding of Mathilda’s own authority as a figure of justice, whether on her own or at William’s side, ensured that her visibility was a mainstay in cultivating the reputation and status of her dynasty. The innovative undertakings by Mathilda of Flanders as the first Norman consort laid the foundations for how English queenship was to be enacted for generations. By the time Mathilda’s son, Henry I, came to power in 1100, England had begun to settle under the new regime. It was within this landscape and shortly after his coronation that Henry took Matilda of Scotland as his first wife. As a woman of both Scottish and Anglo-Saxon royalty, Matilda of Scotland’s lineage, like that of her predecessor, was key to further boosting Henry’s authority as King of England. Matilda was crowned queen on the same day of her marriage to Henry, 11 November 1100, and it was during her tenure that the administrative characteristics of the English queenly office were further moulded. Drawing on the experiences of her mother, St. Margaret of Wessex, Queen of Scotland, known for her acts of

1  THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUEEN CONSORT IN ENGLAND, 1066–1307… 

5

piety, charity, and moral authority, Matilda was active throughout the kingdom and enjoyed significant influence in the royal court. Becoming one of Henry’s vital regal administrators, she gained power and agency by aligning secular and ecclesiastical politics through her advocacy for the Church. This advocacy, in turn, earned her further support. Examples from succeeding generations of English queens show that sponsorship and promotion of ecclesiastical institutions via the persona of the Queen largely beginning with Matilda of Scotland became a politically legitimate and long-standing practice for English queenship, a practice that fell comfortably within the realms of court hierarchy. When it came a time for her to act in Henry’s absence as queen regent—including issuing writs and other acta with royal authority—she did so with expertise and insight. She also did so with the assertiveness that it was her right to help govern, referring to the royal court as “my lord’s and mine.” As Lois Huneycutt’s chapter shows, by the time of Matilda’s death in 1118, she was Henry’s visible partner in governance; her administrative participation and widespread influence were accepted, respected, and expected. Like her predecessor, the advances of Matilda of Scotland laid foundations for how Norman queenship was practised and defined by her successors. The combined legacies of England’s first two Norman queens who assumed queenly duties and prerogatives within the judicial branch of government, becoming partners in justice with their husbands and claiming royal authority themselves, are in sharp contrast to the activities Adeliza of Louvain, a queen whose existence and influences are often marginalised when it comes to discussions on English consorts. With the death of William Aetheling in 1120, the only son by Matilda of Scotland, Henry I was left without a legitimate male successor. The King’s marriage to Adeliza of Louvain a year later was a response to the situation both he and his realm found themselves in. Although there was a thirty-five-year age gap between queen and king, Adeliza was often at Henry’s side after her coronation on 30 January 1121, but their fourteen-­ year marriage remained childless. As Liam Lewis’s chapter suggests, her childless status as queen may have had an impact on how, and even when, she is remembered. Although she did not fulfil the expected role as a royal progenitor, or play the explicit political roles that her predecessors and immediate successors did, Adeliza’s visibility in terms cultural patronage show her true forms of royal governance. Not many exist, but Adeliza did issue and attest charters as Henry’s consort and was gifted a number of tax-exempt estates to oversee. Her

6 

D. R. MESSER

tenure, however, can be largely defined through her acts of patronage focused on the cultural translation and advancement of the French language in England, through the written word. In fact, Adeliza may well have established herself as the leading progenitor of English queenly patronage and its relationship to how cultural and social memory were formed. As queen, she played a strong role in terms of overseeing both the construction and direction of how national and cultural history were to be defined and remembered. When Henry I died in 1135, the English monarchy faced its first succession crisis. Nine years earlier, when it seemed unlikely that the King and Queen Adeliza would produce an heir, Henry made an executive decision to declare his daughter by Matilda of Scotland his successor. As visible as queens consort were in various aspects of co-governing the realm, the reality of a woman ruling as queen regnant in her own right was a step too far for many. Though support for Stephen of Blois to be King was rife, his cousin, the Empress Matilda, Lady of the English, spent her life fighting for her right to rule England as sovereign. Lasting a very long, dark, and bloody fifteen years, England’s first civil war, the Anarchy (1138–1153), was an unusual period in medieval English history in which two women as contenders to the office of the Queen of England came head-to-head. For Matilda of Boulogne, a descendant of Scottish and Anglo-Saxon dynasties, her share in the governance of Stephen’s realm was similar to that of her predecessors, Mathilda of Flanders and Matilda of Scotland. Crowned on 22 March 1136, and later described by a contemporary as “a woman of subtlety and a man’s resolution,”2 Matilda was Stephen’s most powerful supporter during the civil war, providing economic, military, and jurisdictional assistance in the fight against the Empress Matilda. As Heather Tanner notes, Matilda’s authority over the lordship Boulogne as Countess gifted her significant independence and helped her procure much-needed networks and allies for their cause. She summoned troops from abroad and successfully besieged Dover Castle in 1138. When Stephen was captured by the Empress Matilda’s forces at the Battle of Lincoln in 1141, it was Queen Matilda who raised and commanded armies to liberate him. Her activities as a diplomat included organising a treaty with the King of Scotland and, more significantly, agreeing with the Empress Matilda to an exchange of prisoners—the King for the Empress’s most powerful supporter, Robert of Gloucester (her half-brother). The 2

 Gesta Stephani, ed. K.R. Potter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 122–123.

1  THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUEEN CONSORT IN ENGLAND, 1066–1307… 

7

exchange put Stephen back in power. Matilda maintained her visibly active role in the administration of English governance throughout these troubled times, also participating in the royal curia, judging lawsuits, witnessing writs and issuing acta. Queen Matilda garnered a reputation for political intelligence and generalship and was the second of four queens consort before the fourteenth century to rule as regent in the King’s absence. Though Stephen often had a tenuous grasp on power, he and Matilda remained the reigning monarchs. The death of Matilda and Stephen’s eldest son and heir apparent, Eustace, in 1153, effectively ended the Anarchy. Through the Treaty of Winchester, Stephen recognised the Empress Matilda’s son, Henry, as his successor, rather than any of the royal couple’s surviving children. It was a decision that changed the course of English monarchy and gave rise to the Angevin, or Plantagenet, Empire. Henry II became King of England on 19 December 1154 and his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, former Queen of France, was crowned Queen of England two months later. The art of governing undertaken by Eleanor of Aquitaine meant that she was a very visible and active player as queen consort on the European political stage, as Martin Auell’s chapter shows. She aggressively participated in not just one or even two, but four different royal governments from two different kingdoms—in her position as, first, a wife to the King of France, second, as a wife to the King of England, and third, as queen mother to her sons, kings Richard I and John. Eleanor is the only Queen of England from the Norman and Plantagenet era to have been the Queen of another kingdom, thus bringing to her role first-­hand knowledge and experience of the power and privileges of medieval queenship. As the heiress of the duchy of Aquitaine, Eleanor had widespread influence and personal wealth. The administration of her French lands is where she exercised the most power in the first half of her reign, particularly through her patronage of letters and arts. As Queen of England, her reign was largely defined by her motherhood. Henry’s determination to take Aquitaine under his own authority resulted in a revolt by Eleanor and their sons in 1173. Consequences for the Queen were severe, landing her in royal custody for almost sixteen years. She enjoyed limited freedom shortly before Henry’s death in 1189, but when her son Richard I came to power, Eleanor exercised true political governance in England—as queen mother. She ruled as England’s regent while Richard was in the Holy Land and assembled the extortionate funds needed to secure his freedom when he

8 

D. R. MESSER

was taken hostage by the Duke of Austria. For her son, John, she advocated for his succession and was a formidable figure of political and economic support at the beginning of his reign. The large role of queen mother and queen dowager that Eleanor played fighting to secure not only her own power, but that of her dynasty, in such an overt way, marks the start of a shift in English queenship, where the interplay between the duties and roles of the Queen started to become more determined by expectations of motherhood and wider-familial politics. Widowhood may have strengthened Eleanor’s own power and authority further, but it also weakened those of her daughters-in-law, who, too, reigned as queens of England. Like Adeliza of Louvain, the four consorts contemporary to Eleanor—Margaret of France, Berengaria of Navarre, Isabella of Gloucester, and Isabella of Angoulême—happen to be the least explored of this era. A combination of short reigns, a paucity of surviving evidence for their tenures—including lack of commentary by chroniclers—and for all but Isabella of Angoulême, childlessness, have impacted on how (and likely even when) they have been remembered. Margaret of France, daughter of King Louis IV and Constance of Castile, is unique in the line of early English consorts on two important fronts. First, she spent her entire tenure as consort as a junior Queen of England. Married to Henry II and Eleanor’s eldest son and heir, Henry the Younger, opportunities for Margaret to exercise forms of governance were hindered as she reigned in tandem with her more experienced mother-in-law. Margaret’s ability to undertake official queenly duties were also hampered further by the policies of her father-in-law. In 1170, Henry II made the decision to secure the right of his eldest son as successor via a pre-emptive coronation—the first and only time since 1066. In theory, when Henry the Younger was crowned at Westminster in 1170, England came under the rule of two kings. Nevertheless, Henry the Elder was reluctant to impart real power and wealth upon his designated heir and wife of ten years. Margaret was crowned on 27 August 1172, and the couple remained titular Queen and King until Henry the Younger’s death in 1183. As junior Queen of England, Margaret was stuck in a three-pronged struggle between three kings: her husband, her father-in-law, and her father. The position she held in both the English and French courts meant that her role as conciliator was symbolically important, especially as any children by her would have been in line to both the English and French

1  THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUEEN CONSORT IN ENGLAND, 1066–1307… 

9

thrones.3 Within this framework, she carried out a more informal role as intercessor between her natal and marital families. As Márta Pellérdi argues, the uniqueness of Margaret of France is not only defined by her junior queenship, but also by the fact that she is the only English consort to subsequently become queen of another kingdom. Widowed and consigned to the status of England’s queen dowager in 1183, Margaret married Béla III of Hungary in 1186. Contemporary sources contend that the Hungarian King was eager to marry Margaret, having heard himself of her piety and wisdom. It was in her role as Hungarian consort that Margaret undertook real queenly activities, hinting at the types of roles and authority she may have embraced as Queen of England had she been afforded the opportunity. As Queen of Hungary, she displayed power and influence through cultural patronage and political governance, and undertook a public role as a conciliator in the context of sibling rivalries surrounding the Hungarian throne—a situation all too familiar to her. As the daughter of Sancho VI, King of Navarre and his wife Sancha of Castile, Berengaria of Navarre was aware of the royal duties expected of her when she became Queen of England, on 12 May 1191. However, as Gabrielle Storey details, during her nine years as queen consort, she spent both little time with her husband, Richard I, and little time in England. She also had to contend with the fact that Eleanor of Aquitaine was made regent, rather than her, while Richard was on crusade. The combination of these factors meant occasions for her to execute her duties of office, whether as patron, intercessor, or administrator, were severely limited. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that it was during her dowager years that Berengaria truly exercised independent power, influence, and authority as a woman of royal status. As queen dowager, Lady of La Mans, and femme sole, she displayed an aptitude for diplomatic negotiation, intercession, and patronage. She was known for her piety and almsgiving, and had a reputation as a prestigious benefactor. Berengaria’s involvement in ecclesiastical disputes, protecting and defending her rights and income as dowager, is illustrative of her character. She may be an overshadowed and forgotten queen in the historiography of English monarchy, but the choices she made as Richard’s I widow—negotiating for her dower, negotiating for rights to rule Le Man, and to remain single—are indicative of her awareness that her status as a Queen of England was lifelong, 3

 Her only child, a son, was born in 1177 and died shortly after.

10 

D. R. MESSER

permeating her decisions and influencing her diplomatic relationships with a host of rulers. Her status as queen dowager provided her independence to govern with authority. A wife, but not properly a queen, Isabella of Gloucester is arguably the least known English consort of the medieval period. She wed John in 1189 when he was Count of Mortain and remained his partner for ten years, including his first year as king. She was never crowned, and her marriage to John was annulled within a year of his accession, at the King’s own request. Why John pressed to have his marriage to Isabella annulled is unknown. The couple remained childless during their marriage, and it may have been the prospects of a greater, intercontinental marriage that led to the annulment in May 1200. By right of marriage to John, however, Isabella was his first real consort and is why she is included here. Isabella’s whereabouts in 1199–1200, when she was technically queen through her marriage to the King, are unknown as are any activities related to this time. Nevertheless, evidence from her time as heiress of Gloucester, which includes records of patronage, intercession, and her management of her wealthy lordship, draws attention to the nature of the authority and power she held as an Anglo-Norman aristocrat. As Sally Spong notes, such demonstrations of influence across her vast patrimony are suggestive of how Isabella may have governed as a queen consort had she the opportunities to do so. Being linked to both Henry I and Charlemagne, Isabella brought her own dynastic credentials and royal legitimacy to her marriage to John. Such descent protected her status and authority, and offered security to her husband’s family. Through Isabella, John became suo jure Earl of Gloucester, but Isabella continued to make her own, independent mark as Countess. She exhibited governance through the issuing of grants and awards, using her own seal, and directing how religious patronage, in particular, was shaped. The privilege and wealth of her position as Countess of Gloucester and Mortain gave her distinct authority and influence. It was this status she drew on during the First Barons’ War (1215–1217). Isabella and her second husband, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, revolted against King John, with witness lists intimating her direct involvement. Her reticence to acknowledge the powers of the King continued for a short time into Henry III’s reign, though she eventually offered him fidelity and service. The activities she undertook during her lordship emulated patterns of royal intercession fitting to her status. Isabella’s charter history shows us not only how she manoeuvred within the expectations and activities in her

1  THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUEEN CONSORT IN ENGLAND, 1066–1307… 

11

identity as a noblewoman of the highest order, but also, and importantly, intimates the levels of influence and agency she likely would have developed if she had been given the opportunity to rule as a true queen consort. She was a legitimate heir and lord in her own right and styled herself as such. Her acta reveals a woman involved with her demesnes and her people, showing the level of education and experience she would have drawn on as queen. A tenure that began with scandal and ended in scandal has influenced how we have viewed Isabella of Angoulême, John’s second wife. As her tenure as consort, and attitudes towards queenship, were so tied to her marital relationship to John, Isabella of Angoulême was the first consort to face unfavourable criticism. Age-old tropes were used to describe her, whether as a sorceress or an adulterer, and blame her for the continued failures of her husband as king. Thought to have had her own activities stymied by the King himself, primarily through limiting her economic power, Isabella nevertheless remained a visible and vocal presence as queen consort, queen mother, and later, as queen dowager. As a queen consort, she exercised visible forms of governance. From her coronation on 8 October 1200, to crown-wearing ceremonies, and attendance at feasts and civic processions, Isabella maintained her duties as a public figurehead. She was involved in diplomatic negotiations designed both to shore up support for the English King in France and to wager peace between England and France during the tumultuous era of John’s reign. She also maintained a relationship with the papacy, which continued through her dowager years. As queen mother, Isabella took her responsibilities in maintaining dynastic interests seriously. In France, her right as suo jure Countess of Angoulême assured her visibility and authority as the future of the Tallifer dynasty. In England, her status as queen and as the mother of the future heir ensured the longevity of the Plantagenet dynasty, as Sally Spong notes. Isabella worked tirelessly to regain lost holdings, garner diplomatic support, and secure the dynastic inheritance of Poitou for her son and heir, Henry III. Her activities included waging war against uncooperative vassals, taking hostages, and entering into ecclesiastical disputes. When John died in 1216, Isabella was not appointed regent for the nine-year-old Henry. Importantly, however, Henry’s minority government recognised the authority and influence she wielded as a diplomat and as a powerful lord in her own right. Thus, as queen dowager and Countess of Angoulême,

12 

D. R. MESSER

and much like her mother-in-law, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella operated in a vice-regal capacity on behalf of her son as King. Such support for Henry was continued by his wife, Eleanor of Provence. The most influential consort of the early Plantagenet period, as Louise Wilkinson argues, Eleanor of Provence was crowned Queen of England on 20 January 1236. An active member of the royal court and within the realm, Eleanor was Henry III’s trusted counsellor and adviser, and the mother of his children. Eleanor played a crucial part of royal governance during a turbulent era. As intercessor, she was visibly active at court with petitioning and interceding with Henry and his subjects. She travelled with him on several occasions to France, as a supporter of his foreign initiatives, and she attended the peace conference that culminated in the Treaty of Paris in 1259. Like her predecessors Matilda of Scotland and Matilda of Boulogne, Eleanor was appointed Henry’s joint-regent during his absence in France and was the first consort since Eleanor of Aquitaine to be designated this accolade. She exhibited a model of queenship with her religious piety and patronage, particularly in her support for large projects such as Westminster Abbey, and, on the other end of the spectrum, her support for charities and the poor. As the first consort whose household accounts survive, it is clear that Eleanor was directly involved in raising and caring for her children, and ensuring their welfare, including when it came to the marital negotiations for her young daughters. Like Isabella of Angoulême, Eleanor was a controversial figure. She used her authority and clout as Queen and the King’s wife to help promote members of her own Savoyard family to positions of power and wealth within the English court itself. Her influence and determination to enhance her own family’s interests in England caused consternation amongst her contemporaries. Her attempts to marry the Savoyard faction to the English elite resulted in the 1258 “Petition of the Barons,” which demanded that English heiresses not be married “beneath their status.” There were also dynastic disputes that involved the promotion and advancement of Henry’s Lusignan family, his half-siblings from Isabella of Angoulême’s second marriage to Hugh X de Lusignan. Some of Eleanor’s other actions were also deemed unfavourable by contemporaries. Not only was her dower allocation increased, but she was also given the rights to profitable wardships and marriages, and the hardnosed management of her large estates by various officials affected her reputation.

1  THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUEEN CONSORT IN ENGLAND, 1066–1307… 

13

In the late 1250s, as the unpopularity of Henry’s government grew, a baronial movement took shape with the aim of restricting the power of the English King. Led by her brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, royalist opponents also targeted the power of the Queen, attacking her lands, her supporters, and the queen’s gold. Reminiscent of attitudes and commentaries regarding her mother-in-law, blame for the discord within the realm was laid squarely at Eleanor’s feet by some. Nevertheless, during the Second Barons’ War (1265–1267), by now England’s third civil war, Eleanor, much like Matilda of Boulogne, was crucial in garnering international support and opposing rebels to help her husband eventually regain authority. She held ports, subdued rebels, lobbied for French and papal support, and secured military aid from abroad to launch an invasion of England. She is also thought to have encouraged Henry to retract his agreement to the Provisions of Oxford (1258), which limited the King’s power to govern, giving it to an appointed council. As a caring but controversial queen, negative perceptions of how Eleanor wielded authority and influence, particularly with shaping royal policy, likely impacted the level of participation in political governance for her immediate successors, and last two consorts of the era. Eleanor of Castile found herself in a singular situation, spending much time of her marriage to Edward I, as queen-in-waiting, being crowned on 19 August 1274, almost twenty years after her marriage to the heir apparent. It was most unusual for a royal consort to spend equal amounts of time as a wife to an heir and as queen. An extremely educated daughter of Ferdinand III of Castile and Joan, Countess of Ponthieu, Eleanor is one of the few consorts who did not exercise explicit political agency like her forebears, nor does it seem she used her proximity to the King for diplomatic or intercessory reasons. Nevertheless, as Abigail Armstrong shows, Eleanor expressed governing influence and authority through subtler forms of intercession and diplomacy. While queen-in-waiting, she was instructed in the diplomatic act of gift-giving and royal acts of patronage by her predecessor and mother-in-­ law, providing opportunities to use her to influence to curry favour. She also secured pardons and respite for debts and military services owed by Montfortian rebels after the Second Baronial Rebellion. Once crowned queen, however, opportunities for greater involvement in governing were not supported by her husband. Thus, a large component of her reign is defined by her childbearing.

14 

D. R. MESSER

Almost always at Edward’s side on itinerary throughout the kingdom, Eleanor had at least fourteen children. It was in familial circles that she was widely active, including the marital negotiations of her children and family members, though she was more discreet than her mother-in-law in her choice of arrangements. Ultimately, Eleanor fostered alliances supportive to Edward’s authority based on ideals of loyalty rather than through personal gain. Such enterprises are particularly evocative of the reigns of Mathilda of Flanders and Matilda of Boulogne. Eleanor did display a great deal of authority and influence when it came to her lands, and the accumulation of holdings throughout her tenure was concerning to many of her contemporaries. Derided by peers for indiscretions and for accumulating and administering vast estates, and further, profiting from Jewish usury, shows the extent of the concern centred on the Queen’s consolidation of power. Nevertheless, this merging of wealth highlights Eleanor’s administrative and financial acumen in her pursuit of financial resources. As queen, Eleanor understood that her authority lay with her lands. The consolidation of Eleanor’s holdings made her power more explicit. As a consort of contradictions, Eleanor’s tenure is complex to define. The majority of the roles she undertook were expected of her as queen mother, but she also contravened convention on occasion, especially in amassing the wealth of the Queen’s holdings. The last consort of the early Plantagenet era was Margaret of France, Edward I’s second wife. Although she was the daughter of Philip III of France and his second wife, Maria of Brabant, Margaret was the second English consort not to be crowned queen. Her tenure is often overshadowed by her predecessor, Eleanor of Castile. Nevertheless, as Paul Dryburgh shows, Margaret enjoyed her own sphere of influence as Edward’s second consort, as a symbol of royal power, and “mother of the nation.” Her reign is defined by dynastic relationships and ambitions, but also intercession. Though uncrowned, visibly and in practice, her status as queen and “mother of the nation” was unquestioned. She travelled with Edward throughout the kingdom, and her attendance in Scotland while the King was on campaign further served to increase Edward’s military ambitions. Margaret earned a reputation as a patron and a parlayer for royal mercy and as a mediator between the King and his subjects that helped further this “motherly” ideal. Women and men appealed to her for intervention and for advancement. Through both the personal and economic support

1  THE EMERGENCE OF THE QUEEN CONSORT IN ENGLAND, 1066–1307… 

15

of her husband, Margaret curated a queenly affinity that was beneficial, governmentally and socially. Margaret’s devotion to her dynastic responsibilities helped her identity and status as the literal “mother of the nation.” Margaret created close ties with her children and, most importantly, step-children, strengthening familial bonds. Drawing on the potency of carefully created, close-knit family ties, she worked to maintain the relationship with her step-children, notably Edward II, while queen dowager, though her influence during her dowager years did wane. Margaret was the first English consort to gain control over her dowered lands while her husband was still alive—causing problems in how her successor (and sister) Isabella was to be dowered when she became queen on 25 January 1308. Constraints of the cultural framework and political and social culture of Margaret’s time did not inhibit her from exercising agency and influence. Embracing the ideals of the Queen as a purveyor of mercy and as “mother of the nation,” Margaret of France embraced the advancement of her family’s dynastic ambitions and objectives. She established crucial networks and was an active supporter of governance. As the heart of the royal family, Queen Margaret understood the vital role that such a position expected of her. She had the experiences and legacies of eleven earlier consorts to draw on.

Visibility There is an unarguable sense of connectivity across the board when it comes to the most important theme regarding Norman and early Plantagenet queenship. It all comes back to visibility. No queen was ever invisible, nor, importantly, did any queen consider herself to be invisible. The Queen’s visibility was vital in raising the profile of dynasties and crafting affinities. So too was it vital to acts of intercession, jurisprudence, land administration, and patronage. As queens consort, queens regent, and queens dowager, as wives and mothers, these royal women understood their roles and had to traverse varying expectations and necessities to make their marks. Understanding the rules of medieval kingship can only be achieved when we are able to recognise that the Queen held a fundamental position at the heart of the kingdom, regardless of whether or not her power was all-inclusive, or even how it was defined.4 Even if evidence is 4  L.O. Fradenburg, “Introduction: Rethinking Queenship,” in Women and Sovereignty, ed. L.O. Fradenburg (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992), 1–13.

16 

D. R. MESSER

scarce for many of these individual queens, evidence is still there and that which survives tells us the story of visibility. As  Katherine Weikert and I suggest in the book’s final chapter, invisible is not how consorts viewed themselves, nor is it how contemporaries viewed them. The thematic approaches taken here in each chapter add to this idea, offering individual and collective insights that further our understanding of the world in which these Norman and early Plantagenet consorts lived, thrived, and survived. Collectively, they show how the early stages of English monarchy itself were flexible in nature and ever evolving, and that the expectations of the Queen’s office in context were no different. Assuming visibility provides a unique insight into how the role of the English consort was constructed and evolved during an important 240-­ odd year period of England’s history—during a time when a new identity was established by new rule, new dynasties, new ambitions. Who was the true partner of the English King when it came to visible, all-encompassing governance? Surely, the main contender was the Queen.

CHAPTER 2

Identifying Queenship in Pre-Conquest England Matthew Firth

There is something of anachronism in speaking of early medieval European “queens” or “queenship.” As Janet Nelson notes, in contrast to institutional categories of male power—kingship, lordship (ecclesiastical and lay)—“it is much harder to identify anything that could be called ‘queenship’.”1 This holds broadly true of the consorts of pre-Conquest England; though considering that term describes a period of some 600 years from the sixth to eleventh centuries, the role of the consort does vary and evolve over that time. Where attested in the historical record, the earliest English consorts—wives of the kings of the various small kingdoms that comprised “Anglo-Saxon” England—had no ceremonial investiture of power nor recognised claim to formal title. Their agency was defined   Janet L.  Nelson, “Queens as Jezebels: The Careers of Brunhild and Balthild in Merovingian History,” in Medieval Women, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Blackwell, 1978), 39. 1

M. Firth (*) Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_2

17

18 

M. FIRTH

(and delimited) by their relationship to the King. As Asser, the biographer of Alfred the Great (d. 899), recounts, traditionally “the West Saxons did not allow … [a king’s consort] to be called ‘queen’, but rather ‘king’s wife’.”2 In truth, it was the relationship to the King, more so than legal status as wife, that informed access to position and power. Concubinage was common among early English kings, with unmarried consorts denied the protection of a more formal union, and thus easily set aside for political or sexual expediency. It is not until 856 that clear record is found of an anointed queen consort to an English king. This, the crowning of the Frankish Princess Judith (d. c.870) as queen to Æthelwulf of Wessex (d. 858) is cast as an extraordinary event both by Asser and by Prudentius of Troyes, who declared that Æthelwulf’s granting Judith queenly status was “something not customary before then to him or his people.”3 Indeed, the first native English Queen known to have been anointed as such was not crowned until 973. Yet it remains that many of pre-Conquest England’s consorts are identified as queens in its histories and diplomas. If coronation was not then definitional to queenship, it raises the question of what did define a queen in early medieval England. In the broader sense, that is the focus of this chapter: an analysis of the constitution of women’s royal power in pre-­ Conquest England. As Pauline Stafford argues in her pivotal study of early medieval consorts, anointing “was only one of a series of factors that could make queens influential.”4 In a narrower sense, it is important to have some perception of how queens and concubines were differentiated in the historical record and of the implications that being so defined held for the legacies of royal women. The distinction between a king’s wife and a king’s concubine was one identified by early medieval writers and speaks to a fragility of status attendant in the role of consort. The difference in status was significant enough to have political and ideological ramifications for a consort’s children and her legacy, and thus be emphasised or diminutised in line with authorial intent. The case of the mother of Æthelstan (d. 939) is illustrative. The twelfth-century historian William of Malmesbury described her as “a 2  Asser, Life of King Alfred, 12, in Alfred the Great, ed. Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge (London: Penguin, 1983), 71. 3  The Annals of St-Bertin, 856, ed. and trans. Janet L. Nelson (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991), 83. 4  Pauline Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: The King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages (London: Batsford Academic, 1983), 134.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

19

noble lady called Ecgwynn,” the first wife of Edward the Elder (d. 924).5 William’s interest in Æthelstan’s background derived from his abbey’s connection to the King: Æthelstan had patronised Malmesbury in life, gifting it lands and relics, and was interred there in death.6 For William, the significance of those honours granted his abbey depended on Æthelstan’s legitimacy as king, which in turn depended, in part, on the legitimacy of Æthelstan’s mother as a king’s wife. William’s characterisation of Æthelstan’s mother is at odds with that of Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, whose near-contemporary Gesta Ottonis describes her as “an ignoble consort” and, when contrasted with Edward’s second consort, “a woman of greatly inferior descent.”7 Hrotsvitha, an Ottonian sympathiser, intended more so to demonstrate the superior lineage of Æthelstan’s half-sister, Eadgyth (d. 946), queen consort to Otto the Great (d. 973), than to belittle Æthelstan and his mother.8 Nonetheless, her characterisation of Edward’s first consort, just as the disparate portrayal provided by William, demonstrates the malleability of a consort’s status and legacy in political narrative. The status that came from being the legitimate wife of a King was foundational to queenship in a society, where queens were rarely anointed. As Stafford notes, it was marriage that raised women to queenly authority in the absence of a coronation; at an elemental level, “queen” signified formal marriage to the King, though equally, as implied by Asser’s commentary on West Saxon queenship, it could convey much more.9 In the case of Æthelstan’s mother, though numerous scholars have asserted her status as Edward’s wife, it is a presumption derived from the political circumstances

5  William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum (G.Reg), ed. and trans. R.A.B. Mynors, R.M. Thomson, and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 2:198–199. 6  Matthew Firth, “Constructing a King: William of Malmesbury and the Life of Æthelstan,” Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 13 (2017): 69–70. 7  Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, Gesta Ottonis, in Medieval Monarchy in Action: The German Empire from Henry I to Henry VI, trans. Boyd H.  Hill (London: Allen and Unwin, 1972), 122. 8  Sarah Foot, Æthelstan: The First King of England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 30. On Eadgyth’s queenship, and the conventions of Ottonian queenship more broadly at this time, see: Simon MacLean, Ottonian Queenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 23–49. 9  Stafford, Queens, 127–129.

20 

M. FIRTH

of the time.10 William’s assertion of her status as king’s wife is often held up as evidence, yet this is not the only account he gives of the woman he names Ecgwynn. William recounts that opposition to Æthelstan’s accession to the Wessex Crown derived from his “origin as the son of a concubine.”11 Though he expresses scepticism, William does tacitly acknowledge there may be truth to this (while being sure to highlight it little diminished Æthelstan’s kingly prowess). William also relays a rumour current in his own time that Æthelstan was the child of Edward and a nameless shepherdess.12 While this latter seems a folkloric or hagiographic twelfth-century adaptation of rumours around Æthelstan’s legitimacy, with scant contemporary corroboration for William’s assertions of Ecgwynn’s status as legitimate wife or as concubine, there is little reason to accept one account over the other.13 Whatever her true status in relation to Edward, Ecgwynn’s case demonstrates that both pre- and post-­ Conquest medieval commentators perceived “wife” and “concubine” as hierarchical categories of authority and prestige, and herein lay a definitional vulnerability for royal consorts and their offspring. A queen in pre-Conquest England was, therefore, at minimum, understood to be the legitimate wife of the king, and so the term is used here, where such can be identified. “Concubine” is used of consorts (“consort” itself being a catchall term for a king’s recognised companions) whose status was less secure. As noted, concubinage was not uncommon among pre-Conquest kings, a number of whom scholars have characterised as “serial monogamists.”14 In this context, “concubine” cannot be understood as synonymous with “mistress.” These were monogamous unions 10  Foot, Æthelstan, 30; Barbara Yorke, “Edward as Ætheling,” in Edward the Elder, 899– 924, ed. N.J. Higham and D.H. Hill (London: Routledge, 2001), 33–34. 11  G.Reg, 2:131.1–2. 12  G.Reg, 2:139.1–2. 13  Where Foot and Yorke advocate for the description of Ecgwynn as a noble wife, Keynes and Stafford are more credulous of the concubine narrative. Simon Keynes, “England, 900–1016,” in The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Timothy Reuter, 7 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 3:467; Pauline Stafford, “The King’s Wife in Wessex, 800–1066,” Past and Present 91 (1981): 13. 14  See, for example: Janet L.  Nelson, “An Anglo-Saxon Queen’s Consecration,” in Medieval Christianity in Practice, ed. Miri Rubin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 330; Kathrin Prietzel, “Appetite for Power: The Anglo-Saxon regina gratia dei,” English Studies 93 (2012): 553; Sheila Sharpe, “The West Saxon Tradition of Dynastic Marriage,” in Edward the Elder, 899–924, ed. N.J. Higham and D.H. Hill (London: Routledge, 2001), 81, 86; Stafford, “The King’s Wife,” 7.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

21

recognised by tradition but, in lacking the formality of marriage, also unions that provided kings the flexibility to easily set their consort aside.15 It is no coincidence that, in England, it was most often a king’s first consort, a match made in youth before his full inheritance and power had been realised, who was identified as a concubine.16 It is also true, however, that a subsequent queen, her children, or supporters, in seeking to establish the legitimacy and pre-eminence of her progeny as heirs, may deliberately diminish the legitimacy of an earlier consort. Undoubtedly, there was a benefit to being a recognised queen consort at the time of a king’s death. Early medieval queenship in England may have been predicated on marriage to the king, but it does not follow that queenship ceased when that marriage ceased; as an institution, if it can be so defined, it had its own lifecycle. Upon her husband’s passing, a queen consort could transition into roles as queen mother, or queen regent, or queen dowager—positions all with an attendant, if reconstituted, degree of prestige and authority.17 That said, categories of queenship were and are rarely clearly delineated in practice, and queens usually fall into more than one role at any given time: mother and consort, consort and regent, regent and dowager, and so on. Further, more than one royal wife could simultaneously claim the prestige of queenship—a queen dowager and her son’s queen consort, for example. Or there might be rival consorts of a deceased king, drawing upon queenly authority and factional support to promote their sons as preferred heirs, a political dynamic characteristic of late-tenthand early-eleventh-century England. Certainly, and despite any ambiguities attendant in conceptions of queenship and royal marriage in early medieval Europe, English consorts were not without political agency. However, with few contemporary representations of queenship prior to the late-tenth century, the source, function, and limitation of that agency are not always clear. These do, however, come into focus from that time, particularly in the persons of Eadgifu (d. c.966), third consort to Edward the Elder; Ælfthryth (d. c.1000), third consort to Edgar the Peaceful (d. 975); Emma of Normandy (d. 1052), second consort to both Æthelred the Unready (d. 1016) and Cnut the 15  Margaret Clunies Ross, “Concubinage in Anglo-Saxon England,” Past and Present 108 (1985): 5–6, 11–13; Pauline Stafford, “The King’s Wife,” 7, 10. 16  Pauline Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women’s Power in Eleventh-Century England (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 73–74. 17  Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 6–7; Stafford, Queen Emma, 63–64.

22 

M. FIRTH

Great (d. 1035); and Edith of Wessex (d. 1075), consort to Edward the Confessor (d. 1066). Each of these royal women provide unique examples of pre-Conquest English queenship: Eadgifu a queen consort who experienced the vicissitudes of dynastic succession; Ælfthryth a crowned queen and queen regent who rose to prominence with her son; Emma, queen consort to two kings and queen mother to two more; Edith, a consort in a childless marriage. Among them they encompass the lifecycles of queenship in pre-Conquest England, and the various and often nebulous ways in which women’s royal power was defined and exercised, or repudiated. Moreover, they leave rich historical legacies in contemporary charters, chronicles, and biographies, legacies that were adopted and adapted within the histories and hagiographies of post-Conquest England, providing insight into the reception of pre-Conquest queenship in Anglo-Norman scholarship. However, the influential queens of the decades before the Conquest do not stand in isolation. Rather, they are exemplars of English queenship at a point in time, as it had evolved from that of their predecessors, the consorts of the earliest English kingdoms (Table 2.1).

The Evolution of the Early English Consort Pre-Conquest English consorts took on a variety of roles across spheres of political authority, as advisors to kings, as intercessors, as Church patrons, and as advocates. The role most commonly associated with the earliest consorts was as agents of Christianisation: Christian wives of pagan kings advocating for conversion. This is perhaps most prevalent in Continental portrayals of sixth- and seventh-century Frankish queenship; however, it is also a motif liberally ascribed to early English queenship by Bede in his Historia Ecclesiastica.18 The first named English queen consort to feature on the known political landscape of early medieval Britain, the Frankish Princess Bertha of Kent (d. c.612), queen to Æthelberht of Kent (d. 616), fits this mould. In a letter of June 601, Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) addresses Bertha as regina Anglorum (Queen of the 18  Lisa M. Bitel, Women in Medieval Europe, 400–1100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 114–125; Stacy S.  Klein, Ruling Women: Queenship and Gender in AngloSaxon England (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), 17–19; Máirín MacCarron, “Royal Marriage and Conversion in Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum,” Journal of Theological Studies 68 (2017): 650–655; Janet L. Nelson, “Medieval Queenship,” in Women in Medieval Western European Culture, ed. Linda E. Mitchell (New York: Garland Publishing, 1999), 184–185.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

23

Table 2.1  Consorts discussed in Chap. 2 Name

Royal husband

Bertha (d. c.612)

Æthelberht (d. 616) Kent

Eadbald (d. 640)

Unknown

Rædwald (d. c.925)

East Anglia

Earpwald (d. c.632)

Æthelburh (d. c.647)

Edwin (d. 633)

Northumbria

None

Eanflæd (d. c.685)

Oswiu (d. 670)

Northumbria

Ælfwine (d. 679) Ecgfrith (d. 685)

Cynethryth (d. c.798)

Offa (d. 796)

Mercia

Ecgfrith (d. 796)

Judith (d. c.870)

Æthelwulf (d. 858) Æthelbald (d. 860)

Wessex Wessex

None None

[Ecgwynn] (d. unknown)

Edward the Elder (d. 924) [1st consort]

Wessex

Æthelstan (d. 939)

Eadgifu (d. c.966)

Edward the Elder [3rd consort]

Wessex, Mercia

Edmund I (d. 946) Eadred (d. 955)

Ælfgifu (d. 944)

Edmund I (d. 946)

England

Eadwig (d. 959) Edgar the Peaceful (d. 975)

Eadgyth (d. 946)

Otto the Great (d. 973)

East Francia

None

Wulfthryth (d. c.1000)

Edgar the Peaceful England (d. 975) [second consort (?)]

None

Ælfthryth (d. c.1000)

Edgar the Peaceful [second or third consort]

England

Æthelred the Unready (d. 1016)

[Ælfgifu] (d. c.1002)

Æthelred the Unready (d. 1016) [first consort]

England

Edmund Ironside (d. 1016)

Ælfgifu of Northampton (d. c.1037)

Cnut the Great (d. 1035) [first consort]

England

Harald Harefoot (d. 1040)

Emma of Normandy (d. 1052)

Æthelred the Unready [second consort]

England

Edward the Confessor (d. 1066)

Cnut the Great [second consort]

England, Denmark, Harthacnut Norway (d. 1042)

Edith of Wessex (d. 1075)

Kingdom

Edward the England Confessor (d. 1066)

Crowned issue

None

24 

M. FIRTH

Angles), commends her faithfulness, and exhorts her to take a greater role in effecting the conversion of her husband.19 In his turn, Bede is circumspect around Bertha’s role in Æthelberht’s conversion. He acknowledges that her presence laid some groundwork for the mission of Augustine in 597, as “some knowledge of the Christian religion had already reached [Æthelberht],” yet reserves the active role in Æthelberht’s conversion for the papal missionaries.20 It is also of note that he eschews the title regina (queen), calling Bertha only uxor Christiana [a Christian wife].21 Bede recounts three other royal marriages between pagan King and Christian Queen from that of Bertha to c.660.22 As with Bertha, none of these women is accorded a direct role in the conversion of their husband, leading Dorsey Armstrong to conclude that the influential Christian Queen effecting her husband’s conversion is “not the story that Bede wants to tell.”23 Conversely, however, and in a parody of these unions, is the case of the Christian King of East Anglia, Rædwald (d. c.625), and his unnamed pagan wife, who both proves herself politically effectual and encourages her husband to apostacy.24 Her characterisation is reminiscent of—surely deliberately so—the biblical Jezebel, consort to Ahab of Israel.25 While historians of early medieval England, to a degree, rely on Bede as an authority for seventh-century history, such evident polemical flourishes have necessarily given rise to debate around Bede’s intent in his depictions of conversion-era queens. It seems clear that queens at this early phase of English history were understood to have some influence in the court, whether serving as advisors to their husbands, or as intermediaries between Church and King. That Pope Gregory wrote directly to Bertha to exhort her intervention has been noted; in 625, one of his successors, Boniface V (d. 625), also wrote to Bertha’s daughter Æthelburh (d. c.647), consort to Edwin of 19  Epist. 11.35, The Letters of Gregory the Great, trans. John R.C.  Martyn (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004), 778–779. 20  Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (HE), 1:25–26, trans. Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 72–79. 21  HE, 1:25. 22  HE, 2:9, 3:21, 4:13; MacCarron, “Royal Marriage,” 652–653. 23  Dorsey Armstrong, “Holy Queens as Agents of Christianization in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History: A Reconsideration,” Medieval Encounters 4 (1998): 239. 24  See HE, 2:12 for the Queen’s influence over Rædwald (in which she is called regina), and HE, 2:15 for the King’s lapse into apostacy. 25  1 Kings 16:31; 18:1–14; 19:1–2; 21:7–10.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

25

Northumbria (d. 633), the letter being preserved in Historia.26 As Gregory had implored her mother, so Boniface urged the gloriosa Ædilberga regina (illustrious Queen Æthelburh) to greater effort in seeking to convert her husband. Yet, in noting the similar content of the papal epistolae, J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, in his commentary on Historia, suggests this is evidence that neither Bertha nor Æthelburh “made progress in the conversion of her husband, let alone his people.”27 This is not, however, a consensus view of Bede’s perceptions of historical queenship, nor of the ideological underpinnings that inform his representations of the conversion queens. Opinion as to whether Bede sought to laud or to minimise the role queens played in the adoption of Christianity among the early English kingdoms has varied greatly over the past fifty years. Views range from the historical scepticism of women’s relevance to the conversion exemplified by Wallace-Hadrill,28 to the opinion, voiced by Armstrong, that Bede had little interest in extolling queens as agents of conversion,29 to that espoused by Lisa M. Bitel among others, that such Christian queens were instrumental to the success of missionary activity.30 Whatever their success in promoting Christianity in the royal court, however, there is little debate that Gregory and Bede imply a cultural expectation for queens to take an intercessory role within the royal household. Indeed, it has long been argued that early English literature (and the literatures of “Germanic” cultures more widely) enshrines a tradition of royal women serving as

 HE, 2:11.  J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 70. 28  Wallace-Hadrill, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, 70. See also: N.J. Higham, The Convert Kings: Power and Religious Affiliation in Early Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 101–102; Prietzel, “Appetite for Power,” 550. 29  Armstrong, “Holy Queens,” 238–242. See also: Stephanie Hollis, Anglo-Saxon Women and the Church: Sharing a Common Fate (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1992), 208–242; Klein, Ruling Women, 17–52; Clare A. Lees and Gillian R. Overing, Double Agents: Women and Clerical Culture in Anglo-Saxon England (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2009), 40. 30  Bitel, Women in Medieval Europe, 117–119. See also: Earenfight, Queenship, 66–68; Joan Nicholson, “Feminae Gloriosae: Women in the Age of Bede,” in Medieval Women, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Blackwell, 1978), 23; Ian Wood, “The Mission of Augustine of Canterbury to the English,” Speculum 69 (1994): 1–17. 26 27

26 

M. FIRTH

mediators and advisors to kings.31 Moreover, in identifying the queens’ alterity, in terms of both cultural origin and religion, Bede alludes to their having factional support and political agency at court. The marriages recounted by Bede accompanied political alliances between neighbouring kingdoms, and the brides came with entourages that, at least for Bertha and Æthelburh, included Christian missionaries. This suggests that such queens consort were supported at court by their compatriots and co-religionists, but more than this, they maintained a separate household.32 This aspect of Bede’s conversion queens, when considered alongside the fact that Historia alone of early English sources recalls them, implies that he may have deliberately centred these unions in his history, and not necessarily to the detriment of the royal women. It is a position that Máirín MacCarron argues convincingly in her article examining the theological underpinnings of Historia’s depiction of these “mixed marriages.” Bede was familiar with, and in places himself expounded, the patristic theological opposition to such marriages; in marrying a pagan King (or in Rædwald’s case), Bede portrays the Christian partner as placing their spiritual purity in jeopardy.33 Yet he did not believe this peril precluded marriage for, as he expounds in his commentary of 1 Peter 3:1, he held that Christian wives served as “an example of chastity and faith” to their unbelieving husbands.34 Indeed, in 1 Peter 3:1 we see the model for Bede’s conversion queens: “[husbands] may be won over without words by the behaviour of their wives.”35 By interpreting their historical queenships through this motif, Historia portrays the queens not as proselytising missionaries, though the contemporary papal correspondence does imply this expectation, but as didactic exemplars through their and their households’ Christian customs. And, of course, each king did indeed turn to his wife’s religion. Certainly, we may have wished for greater historicity and more detail on each queen’s life from Bede; however, as MacCarron states, “the cumulative effect of mixed marriages

31  Jane Chance, Woman as Hero in Old English Literature (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1986), 1–11; Earenfight, Queenship, 66–67; Lois L.  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland: A Study in Medieval Queenship (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003), 32–33; Klein, Ruling Women, 99–105. 32  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 32–34; MacCarron, “Royal Marriage,” 651–652. 33  MacCarron, “Royal Marriage,” 660–661, 664–665. 34  Bede, Commentary on 1 Peter, in Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles, trans. David Hurst (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1985), 95. 35  Also, 1 Corinthians 7:14.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

27

leading to conversion in [Historia] cannot be dismissed or ignored.”36 Bede recognised that such unions could and did form the basis for conversion. In this, the image of seventh-century queens consort he constructs is one that accords with those roles traditional to early English queenship: advisor to the king, intercessor, Church patron, and advocate. Church patronage and advocacy was a feature common to pre-­Conquest queenship; Bede’s queens foreground a long tradition of royal women’s involvement in Church reform. Women’s advocacy for the Church granted power and agency. Secular and ecclesiastical politics were inextricably entwined in pre-Conquest England and, by aligning with the nobility of the Church, gained additional support and voice at court. Thus, we find Eanflæd (d. c.685), consort to Oswiu of Northumbria (d. 670), advising her husband to found a monastery at Gilling in recompense for a political murder. She also advocated for the Roman Easter in the lead up to the Synod of Whitby, in opposition to Oswiu’s observance of the Irish tradition. Unsurprisingly, given this narrative is again found in Historia, Oswiu modified his own religious practice to conform to that of his Queen, a decision that surely granted Eanflæd additional political influence as patron of a now-ascendant faction.37 In subsequent centuries, a similar dynamic is seen in queens’ witnessing of royal charters granting land to ecclesiastical institutions, a practice that speaks both to an advocacy for the Church and to political legitimacy and authority within the court hierarchy.38 As Stafford argues, “when Church movements requiring royal patronage and backing stood at the centre of politics, royal women stood with them.”39 This is a particularly true of the tenth-century monastic reform movement. The leaders of the English Benedictine Reform—most notably Dunstan (d. 988) and Æthelwold (d. 984)—relied on queenly patronage to garner political support. Indeed, in the vitae of the sainted reformers,  MacCarron, “Royal Marriage,” 669.  HE, 3:24–25. Hild, the Abbess of Whitby who hosted the Synod, was also a royal woman, though not a Queen; daughters, female cousins, or even queens dowager often served in positions of authority in abbeys. Bede recounts Eanflæd as ending her career in this way, HE, 4:26. 38  See as limited examples, charters witnessed by Cynethryth of Mercia (d. c.798), S120 and S121 (both 780); by Sæthryth of Mercia (d. c.849), S191 (840 × 844) and S198 (844); by Eadgifu, S470 (940) and S487 (943); by Ælfthryth, S841 and S842 (both 982), the latter two as queen-mothers. Charter references as per Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, ed. P.H. Sawyer, rev. S.E. Kelly, R. Rushforth et al. (http://www.esawyer. org.uk/ [Accessed 1 May 2020]). 39  Stafford, Queens, 124. 36 37

28 

M. FIRTH

Eadgifu, third consort to Edward the Elder, is explicitly characterised as intermediary between them and the King in her capacity as queen mother.40 In her turn, while Ælfthryth’s legacy did not prove so well served in the long term, her role under the Reform as protector of England’s nunneries, her patronage of Æthelwold, and his support for her and her son Æthelred’s faction in the succession disputes of the 970s are a matter of record.41 And certainly, to a degree, the Church also advocated for queens, though not necessarily directly on behalf of an individual as in the case of Æthelwold and Ælfthryth. Rather, the Church advocated for institutional queenship. This is to say, the Church advocated for monogamy and marriage, a position theoretically favourable for consorts as it should have prompted formal union. However, it is also true that Christian ideals of marriage—as nebulous as these could be—were confronted by established traditions around the position of the King’s wife. Indeed, as Elizabeth van Houts identifies, around the time of the Conquest, polygyny “at elite level, was so ingrained that we have little or no evidence for senior clergy taking on their rulers.”42 However, it is also important not to overstate the position of the pre-Conquest Church. While, from the ninth century, as Margaret Clunies Ross has demonstrated, the Church in England increasingly opposed concubinage, it was not until the mid-eleventh century that movement towards reform truly gathered pace.43 Certainly, neither Edward nor Edgar the Peaceful in the tenth century seems to have faced significant contemporary opposition—either ecclesiastical or lay—to 40  See, for example: The Life of St. Dunstan, and Adelard, Lections for the Deposition of St. Dunstan, both in The Early Lives of St. Dunstan, ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom and Michael Lapidge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2012), 62–63, 120–123; Wulfstan, The Life of St. Æthelwold, ed. and trans Michael Winterbottom and Michael Lapidge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 16–19. See also: Pauline Stafford, “Queens, Nunneries and Reforming Churchmen: Gender, Religious Status and Reform in Tenth- and Eleventh-century England,” Past and Present 163 (1999): 3–35. 41   See, for example: Regularis Concordia Anglicae Nationis Monachorum Sanctimonialiumque, ed. Thomas Symons (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 2, 7; S806 (968); Liber Eliensis 2:31, ed. E.O. Blake (London: Royal Historical Society, 1963), 104–105. Also, Barbara Yorke, “Æthelwold and the Politics of the Tenth Century,” in Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. Barbara Yorke (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1988), 65–88. 42  Elizabeth van Houts, Married Life in the Middle Ages, 900–1300 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 215. 43  Clunies Ross, “Concubinage in Anglo-Saxon England,” 18–35; van Houts, Married Life, 204–220.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

29

setting aside their first and second consorts. Not only did such practice stand in opposition to the Church’s stance on the indissolubility of marriage, but that these women often maintained or re-exerted political authority, that their sons were able to claim legitimacy and the throne, suggests a society that rejected such an expectation. In truth, whatever agency queens were able to establish for themselves, and however they established functional authority within male-dominated political spheres, the primary expectation of queens consort was to produce heirs. Or, perhaps more accurately, to produce legitimate sons. And, in this regard, kings needed legitimate wives—queens. This returns us once more to the concubine–queen dichotomy, a dichotomy that, in practice, was only perpetuated by the Church’s position on marriage. The Church emphasised consent as the primary requirement of marriage; a dower was traditional but not universal in early medieval England, while public ceremony was not common.44 Thus, if there were no tangible evidence of marriage, no exchange of lands, or wealth, or public declaration of intent, how simple was it for a King to set his consort aside as a concubine, as a bed companion alone with no marital or dynastic legitimacy? Surely, this is the approach taken by both Edward and Edgar to their unions with their first wives. And how was a consort, so positioned, to provide evidence of consent and therefore of marriage? Nonetheless, more formal expressions of marriage that included dower or public display did occur, unions that served as an open commitment to dynastic succession as a sort of visible social contract between king and people.45 Such marriages were almost always arranged political affairs, designed to align noble families and augment influence and authority. As Nelson notes, particularly of the bride, consent was clearly nominal;46 its use to legitimise or delegitimise a union was a mere artifice. Yet recognised legitimate marriages could provide queens a degree of security and, as king’s wife, something approaching institutional office (though kings still had recourse to matters of consummation and consanguinity if truly determined to set a consort aside). But more than this, and returning to the importance of legitimate sons, the children of such unions were favoured as heirs. This is

44  Christopher N.L. Brooke, The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 128–130; van Houts, Married Life, 6–15. 45  Stafford, Queens, 63. 46  Nelson, “Medieval Queenship,” 191.

30 

M. FIRTH

particularly the case in England from the late-eighth century, when the Church began to connect rights to kingship to the legitimacy of birth. In 786, papal legates in England decreed that “the Lord’s anointed and king of the whole kingdom” must be the product of a legitimate marriage.47 This legatine report, sent to Pope Hadrian I (d. 795), recorded twenty canons issued in collaboration with Offa of Mercia (d. 796) and, in as far as the emphasis on marriage and dynasty is concerned, seem to reflect policies Offa had already adopted.48 The career of Offa’s Queen, Cynethryth (d. c.798), is one of the more remarkable preservations of the Mercian historical record. She was a regular witness to Offa’s diplomas, famously known as Dei gratia regina Merciorum (Queen of the Mercians by the grace of God), and also the only pre-Conquest queen known from numismatic evidence.49 In Cynethryth’s use of the “grace of God” formula, Kathrin Prietzel suggests her to be the first English Queen positioned as “shar[ing] in the divine ministry of her husband, rather than being the mere king’s wife.”50 Nevertheless, the pennies issued with her image and in her name as queen consort—unique in Western Europe at this time and likely in imitation of Roman imperial practice—betray Offa’s own pretentions to political authority and regional overlordship.51 It is not clear whether the public promotion of Cynethryth’s queenship reflected a genuine partnership in authority with Offa, though her naming in correspondence from Pope Hadrian, identification by Alcuin as mistress of the household, and apparent agency in contesting Offa’s legacy suggest her position was not purely ceremonial.52 47  “Report of the Legates to Pope Hadrian,” in English Historical Documents Volume 1, ed. Dorothy Whitelock (London: Eyre Methuen, 1979), 892–896. 48  Pauline Stafford, “Political Women in Mercia, Eighth to Early Tenth Centuries,” in Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe, ed. Michelle P.  Brown and Carol A.  Farr (London: Continuum, 2001), 37–38. 49  See for example, S116, S117, S118 (all 780); Gareth Williams, “Mercian Coinage and Authority,” in Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe, ed. Michelle P. Brown and Carol A. Farr (London: Continuum, 2001), 216–217. 50  Prietzel, “Appetite for Power,” 550. 51  Williams, “Mercian Coinage,” 216–217. 52  Stafford, “Political Women,” 36, 39–40. Hadrian, “Letter to King Offa, His wife and Their Offspring,” in Liber Diurnus romanorum pontificum, ed. Hans Foerster (Bern: Francke, 1958), 172–173; Alcuin of Tours, Alcvini sive Albini epistolae, nos. 62 & 101, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), Epistolae Karolini Aevi II, ed. Ernest Dümmler (Berlin, 1895), 105–106, 147–148; S1258 (781 settlement between Archbishop Æthelheard and the widowed Cynethryth [then an abbess]).

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

31

Nonetheless, central to the innovative promulgation of Cynethryth’s queenship was Offa’s preoccupation with dynasty and succession. The now-indisputable legitimacy of their marriage affirmed the legitimacy of their son Ecgfrith (d. 796). In turn, the codification of criteria for said legitimacy, and for inheriting kingship, by the papal legates was designed to exclude other claimants to the Mercian throne, thereby ensuring the continuation of Offa’s royal line.53 However, precisely when Offa conceived his dynastic strategy is not clear, and we know nothing of the occasion of Offa and Cynethryth’s marriage itself, when it occurred, what form it took, or what wealth or familial connections Cynethryth brought with her. Yet, and considering the curated image of royal union the couple maintained through Offa’s lifetime, it is reasonable to assume their marriage was canonical, formalised, and public. Ceremonial marriage, when combined with a programme of publicisation such as seen in Cynethryth’s case, would certainly serve to mark a consort as wife and queen. Moreover, in the case of those kings with more than one living consort, such recognition would distinguish one from among the others though, of course, not to the extent as could the anointing of a consort as queen. The dynastic issues, or “family politics,” that underlie the debate around the nature of marriage and the legitimacy of a king’s heirs are also those which inform the shift to crowned queenship (though other political forces are also at play in each individual case). The first English consort known to have been anointed as Queen is the aforementioned Judith, daughter of the West Frankish King Charles the Bald (d. 877), crowned queen consort to Æthelwulf of Wessex in 856. As an event, it was unusual in both the English and Frankish contexts. That the Wessex kings did not normally term their wives “queens” has already been noted; however, it was also unusual for Carolingian royal daughters to marry into other dynasties, a strategy designed to avoid the creation of alternative royal bloodlines and claims to kingship.54 Likely aware of West Saxon customs, Charles sought the protection that legitimate marriage, anointed queenship, and institutional position could afford his daughter. And it is worth recognising that it was difficult for kings to set aside wives from powerful 53  Stafford, “Political Women,” 37–39; Janet L.  Nelson, “Britain, Ireland, and Europe, c.750–c.900,” in A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland, c.500–1100, ed. Pauline Stafford (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009), 239–240; Barbara Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (1990; London: Routledge, 2003), 115. 54  MacLean, Ottonian Queenship, 17.

32 

M. FIRTH

families, whose marriages underpinned political alliances. It is for this reason that, at one end of this period, Bertha is still found resident in the Kentish court though, in the ever-shifting currents of Frankish politics, she was to become more a liability than asset to the Kentish King.55 It is also why, at the other end, Edward the Confessor proved unable to set aside his wife Edith, daughter of the powerful Earl Godwin (d. 1053), try though he did. Precisely why Æthelwulf married Judith has been much debated. Suggestions range from an Anglo-Frankish alliance against the Vikings, to an expression of either Frankish or West Saxon hegemonic authority, to a strategy designed to displace Æthelwulf’s potentially disloyal sons from his previous marriage.56 Certainly, were this latter the case, Æthelwulf ensured his paranoia came to fruition. Possibly wary that any child from this union, which had the support of the Frankish King and the Church, and the legitimacy of a coronation, would pre-empt him as heir, Æthelwulf’s eldest surviving son, Æthelbald (d. 860), rose in revolt. Æthelbald’s fears were perhaps well founded, as Judith’s coronation ordo makes clear her procreative duties as queen and wife.57 Nonetheless, Æthelbald need not have worried, for his father died less than two years later, having sired no children with Judith. Yet, the political union with Francia was so valued by the Wessex monarchy that Æthelbald himself, her stepson and the next king, married Judith, in contravention of Church teaching and to the disgust of Asser.58 Beyond political alliance, however, Æthelbald had to consider the legitimacy Judith’s crowning had bestowed on her, and whether that legitimacy was transferrable. Politically, Æthelbald could not afford an anointed queen to live in his kingdom independent of his authority, and certainly not to remarry and legitimate a rival claim to kingship. By marrying Judith, Æthelbald negated this possibility, while her claim to legitimacy as Queen served to augment Æthelbald’s own status as heir. Certainly, there is no evidence that Judith’s identification as queen ceased upon Æthelwulf’s

 Higham, Convert Kings, 88–90.  For a summary of the various arguments, see: Joanna Story, Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia, c.750–870 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 240–243. 57  Coronatio Iudithae Karoli II filiae, in MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum II, ed. Alfred Bonetius and Victor Krause (Hannover, 1897), 424–425. 58  Asser, Life of King Alfred, 17; Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, 152. 55 56

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

33

death; no second coronation was required to affirm her status in Æthelbald’s court. The coronation of Judith may have served its purpose from her father’s perspective, affording her status and protection in a foreign court, yet it did not fulfil any dynastic aspirations on the West Saxon side of the Channel. Æthelbald died, childless, in 860. Judith would return to Francia and precipitate a political crisis by eloping with the Count of Flanders. In England, Viking activity continued unabated, and responsibility for dynastic succession fell to Æthelbald’s youngest brother, Alfred the Great, and his children. Judith’s story serves to remind the extent to which a queen’s status in pre-Conquest England—whether as crowned queen or as king’s wife—rested on her relationship to royal men. Judith’s first marriage was negotiated between her father and Æthelwulf (a man fifty years her senior), her second marriage was an opportunistic political manoeuvre by her stepson, while her third marriage became a political flashpoint only as it occurred without reference to her father. Her coronation may have brought her legitimacy and office, but her agency was subordinated to the men in her life. Yet queenship had evolved from the time of Bertha to the time of Judith. The political space in which royal women could exercise power remained narrow, yet Church concerns around marriage and political concerns around dynasty opened new avenues for the exercise of agency and the demonstration of status. Judith’s coronation is another step in this evolution, and whatever its success as a political strategy, it did set a precedent for the anointing of English queens consort in the century prior to the Norman Conquest.

Political Agency and the Lifecycle of Queenship I: Eadgifu and Ælfthryth The first native English Queen known to have been anointed as such was Ælfthryth in the year 973. Her coronation, at the height of the Benedictine Reform movement, formed a part of the pageantry surrounding her husband Edgar’s second crowning at Bath. The event reflected a broader reshaping of the Wessex monarchy as one with imperial pretentions and, moreover, as a Christian institution closely associated with English ecclesiastical communities. Commentators such as Mary Blanchard and Barbara Yorke have, rightly, cautioned against reading Ælfthryth’s role in these events as placing her on parity with Edgar. Few, if any, of the innovations

34 

M. FIRTH

that attached to her role as queen consort are likely to have been her own; the coronation ordo, as Judith’s, specifies her role as the King’s bed companion.59 Ælfthryth’s own influence as Queen reaches its zenith in the reign of her son Æthelred. Yet her crowning set an example for her successors and remains an important moment in the evolution of early English queenship. Moreover, like Cynethryth before her, Ælfthryth’s queenship was declared in other ways. She was a regular witness to Edgar’s charters. She was a known intermediary with the King, at times receiving gifts for performing in that role. She was a landholder, the Queen’s dower having increasingly become a traditional prerogative through the tenth century, likely allowing the maintenance of a parallel household.60 And, as codified in the Regularis concordia, she was patron and protector of the kingdom’s female religious houses.61 This latter role, an apparent innovation of the English Benedictine Reforms, served in some part to codify those roles English queens had fulfilled by custom and, combined with Ælfthryth’s anointing, redefined English queenship into the eleventh century. Ælfthryth’s queenship is not only remarkable for the shift towards institutional office that crowning and codification of duties marked, but for its longevity and agency in the aftermath of the King’s death. Ælfthryth exemplifies the lifecycles of the early English queen. She was most likely Edgar’s third consort, though the patchy record of Edgar’s earlier consorts means this is contested; nonetheless, Ælfthryth had been Edgar’s wife for around a decade before the famous Bath coronation.62 Edgar is one of pre-Conquest England’s most frequently identified “serial monogamists,” and in marrying Ælfthryth, he set aside a consort named Wulfthryth (d. c.1000) who likely came from a noble family based in Wiltshire. Wulfthryth withdrew to Wilton Abbey to become its abbess shortly after, no doubt with Edgar’s blessing, thus solving the problem of 59  Mary Elizabeth Blanchard, “Beyond Corfe: Ælfthryth’s Roles as Queen, Villain, and Former Sister-in-law,” Haskins Society Journal 30 (2018): 12; Barbara Yorke, “The Women in Edgar’s Life,” in Edgar, King of the English, 959–975: New Interpretations, ed. Donald Scragg (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014), 147–149; Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, 60–61. 60  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 56–57; Stafford, Queen Emma, 110–116, 123–128. 61  See, for example, S766 and S767 (both 968), S771 (969) and S779 (970)—Ælfthryth witnesses as regina after the King, archbishop and bishops; also, Regularis Concordia Anglicae Nationis Monachorum Sanctimonialiumque, ed. Thomas Symons (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 2, 7. 62  Yorke, “The Women in Edgar’s Life”; Stafford, “Queens, Nunneries,” 3n1.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

35

Fig. 2.1  West Saxon dynastic succession, 899–1066

an unwed consort potentially remarrying.63 It is clear that, in Ælfthryth, Edgar saw a political match to his liking in the complicated world of late ninth–tenth-century English political families, marrying her shortly after the death of her first husband (Fig. 2.1).64 It appears Edgar soon sought to legitimate his marriage to Ælfthryth in a way he had not with his previous consorts. In 966, around two years after their initial marriage, Ælfthryth witnessed the re-foundation charter of New Minster, Winchester, as legitima prefati regis coniuncx (legitimate wife of the aforementioned king), her infant son Edmund (d. 971) as clito 63  The Vita of Edith, 2–4, trans. Michael Wright, in Writing the Wilton Women, ed. Stephanie Hollis (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 26–28. Also, S766, S767 and S799 (974) for grants made to Wilton during Wulfthryth’s tenure as abbess, the last referencing her by name. 64  For a discussion of Ælfthryth’s rise to queenship, see: Blanchard, “Beyond Corfe,” 4–8.

36 

M. FIRTH

legitimus prefati regis filius (ætheling and legitimate son of the aforementioned king). Edgar’s elder son, and Ælfthryth’s stepson, Edward (d. 978), witnessed after his half-brother as eodem rege clito procreatus (ætheling begotten of that same king).65 The implication of the document, that the children of Edgar’s third marriage were his heirs, is clear, as is Ælfthryth’s primacy in the role of King’s wife. However, as Yorke notes, it is necessary to bring some scepticism to such a reading of the charter.66 It cannot be proved that it was so composed with Edgar’s consent; Winchester would prove to be a centre of support for Ælfthryth in the years after Edgar’s death in 975, with its influential reforming bishop, Æthelwold, one of Ælfthryth’s most effective political allies. Moreover, whatever the intent implied in the charter, whether derived from Edgar or not, and whatever the intent of Ælfthryth’s coronation in 973, it was not her sons who ascended the throne in 975. Rather, with the backing of Archbishop Dunstan, that other influential agent of the Benedictine Reform, it was Edward who took his father’s crown, with Ælfthryth relegated to the periphery of political power. Ælfthryth’s political exile of the years 975–978 does not stand alone in the historical record of pre-Conquest consorts. Indeed, there is one particularly pertinent earlier exemplar, that of Eadgifu, third consort to Edward the Elder. Eadgifu and Ælfthryth would, for a short time, have shared status at the court of Edgar, the former as queen (grand)mother, the latter as queen consort. Eadgifu too witnessed the New Minster charter, her last known public act just as it was Ælfthryth’s first known witnessing, the document in this way serving to emphasise the transition from one dominant royal woman to another. It also emphasises the legitimating nature of motherhood. Eadgifu’s authority and right to witness in 966 was not born of her status as queen consort to a king then-dead some forty years, but as queen grandmother to Edgar, the mother of his father King Edmund (d. 946). In turn, though Ælfthryth witnessed as the King’s legitimate wife, her authority and right to serve as witness appears to have accompanied the birth of a son. Eadgifu witnessed charters at a rate and regularity unrivalled by any other tenth- or eleventh-century consort: not, however, through the reign of her husband. Rather, she witnessed as mater regis (mother of the King) over fifty times through the reign of two sons (Ælfthryth witnesses as mater regis sixteen times, and  S745.  Yorke, “The Women in Edgar’s Life,” 148–149.

65 66

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

37

regina—queen—twenty times).67 Like Ælfthryth, Eadgifu’s authority reached its zenith as queen mother. Yet there is little evidence for Eadgifu’s actions during the years 924–939, after Edward’s death and during the reign of her stepson, Æthelstan. Here, Eadgifu drops from the historical record, likely absent from court during his kingship. The ascension of her teenaged son Edmund to the throne upon the death of the childless Æthelstan brought her back to prominence. The lifecycle of Eadgifu’s queenship—indeed the very nature of the woman as far as can be divined, and the challenges she faced—is closely paralleled by Ælfthryth and her queenship. The complex nature of Edgar’s relationships reflects those of his grandfather Edward, the other English king most frequently accused of serial monogamy. Ælfthryth and Eadgifu were both third queens, and both held status as the queen consort at court at the death their husbands. Yet both were set aside by their husband’s successor, no matter any conceptual issues around the legitimacy of union for earlier consorts, or the legitimacy of birth for their children. The queens are also similar in their support for the Benedictine reformers, and particularly in their advocacy for, and generosity to, Æthelwold, who likely granted them factional support in any struggle to return to court with their sons.68 These were not women to sit idle in their exile, and recognising the vulnerability of their position, they took steps to make the accession of their sons more likely. And, of course, both did indeed return to the centre of power with their teenaged sons as kings and significantly augmented influence. Eadgifu and Ælfthryth featured prominently in their sons’ reigns as they sought to shore up support at court. In Eadgifu and her faction, we may see the origin of the denigration of Æthelstan’s mother and Eadgifu’s predecessor as Edward’s consort, Ecgwynn. Another potential example of the fragility of reputation, and of Eadgifu’s political manoeuvring to the expense of her rival consorts, may be a charter dating 942 × 946 in which Edmund grants lands to the bishop of Rochester.69 The witness list places Eadgifu, mater regis, after the King and his brother, but before the archbishops of Canterbury and York and various other members of the 67  See Blanchard, “Beyond Corfe,” 11 for a tabular breakdown of witnessing activity by consorts from 900 to 1066. 68  See, for example: S806; Liber Eliensis, 2:31; Wulfstan, The Life of St. Æthelwold, 10. See also Yorke, “Æthelwold,” 74, 81–86. 69  S514.

38 

M. FIRTH

ecclesiastical hierarchy. In turn, Ælfgifu (d. 944), Edmund’s consort, is styled as concubina regis (King’s concubine) and placed after both the archbishops and bishops. This despite the chronicler Æthelweard fashioning her as queen some thirty years later, and the tradition he reports that sees Ælfgifu become a saint.70 There is nothing unusual in Eadgifu’s witnessing the charter in terms of either address or position; in contrast, Ælfgifu’s placement and description in the witness list is otherwise unprecedented. This does not bode well for the authenticity of the charter; though, whether the anomaly arises because the document is a forgery, or because Eadgifu was influencing the charter’s composition, is unclear. Nonetheless, the witness list may preserve something approaching historical reality—a dominant queen dowager, reclaiming authority at court, diminishing the role of her son’s consort in the determination that her position not again be usurped. And Eadgifu does appear to have had some success in this, retaining her status in Eadred’s (d. 955) court when he succeeded his brother Edmund to the throne. Yet, if Eadgifu had sought to reduce Ælfgifu’s own status as consort, it does not appear to have been wholly successful. Chroniclers like Æthelweard affirm that Ælfgifu was considered to have been legitimate queen consort, and her own children Eadwig (d. 959) and Edgar claimed the crown as the next two heirs to the kingship. With the rise of her grandsons, Eadgifu’s influence was to diminish. Eadwig relegated her once more to the periphery of royal power, and though Edgar proved more amicable towards his grandmother, she was never brought into his advisory circle. While Eadgifu’s return to court in 939 with her son Edmund seems to have been untroubled—so untroubled as to warrant the suggestion that Eadgifu may have allied with Æthelstan before his death—the return of Ælfthryth and Æthelred in 978 came under a cloud.71 Æthelred took the throne in the shadow of the assassination of his brother, murdered, according to the most contemporary accounts, by anonymous members of a faction seeking to bring the younger brother to power.72 Little blame attaches to Æthelred for this deed—he was around 10 years of age—the 70  The Chronicle of Æthelweard, 4:6, ed. and trans. Alistair Campbell (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962), 54. 71  Yorke, “The Women in Edgar’s Life,” 148–149. 72  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (ASC) 978, ed. and trans. Michael Swanton (London: Phoenix Press, 2000), 122–123; Byrhtferth of Ramsey, Vita S. Oswaldi, 4:18, in The Lives of St. Oswald and St. Ecgwine, ed. and trans. Michael Lapidge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 137–141.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

39

clear implication is that certain magnates saw greater opportunity for personal enrichment in having a child on the throne. Ælfthryth’s legacy, however, carries the taint of her potential involvement in the event.73 Edward’s assassination occurred on lands owned by Ælfthryth, on the back of a factionalised succession dispute between the two brothers, and was the catalyst for Ælfthryth’s return to power. As Levi Roach highlights, though Ælfthryth was not implicated in the murder at the time, her authority as regent must surely have been undermined as the “beneficiar[y] of such a nefarious act.”74 It is not difficult to see how post-Conquest observers may have formed the view of her involvement in the plot. Yet, as Theresa Earenfight argues, there is a degree to which such narratives reflect the views of those who “feared and resented such a politically active and important woman.”75 Underlying this fear, in Stafford’s words, are “the great stereotypes of Western gender constructs,” and as I have argued elsewhere, an inherent misogyny tied to the nature of the sources that gave expression to these rumours.76 King Edward, known as “the Martyr,” was to attract a saint’s cult, and the first account of Ælfthryth’s treachery is found in his earliest saint’s life (1070 × 1080). This in turn informed her transmission into the histories of post-Conquest England, where the Queen is reduced to the stock hagiographical figure of the anti-saint, plotting against Edward’s life with, in the recounting of William of Malmesbury, “a step-mother’s hatred and a viper’s guile.”77 All of this is anachronistic commentary by post-Conquest writers. Contemporary evidence points to a Queen skilled in politics, who allied with key Church leaders, took seriously her duties to England’s convents, was a generous patron to the Church, an advisor to the King, an intercessor for lay and ecclesiastical nobility alike, and, as Andrew Rabin has identified, an advocate for the rights of female litigants.78 She was, undoubtedly, active and ruthless in protecting her son’s interests in his minority, but this 73  For a discussion of Ælfthryth’s evolving reputation at the hands of Anglo-Norman writers, and that of Cynethryth whose reputation suffered a similar fate, see: Matthew Firth, “The Character of the Treacherous Woman in the passiones of Early Medieval English Royal Martyrs,” Royal Studies Journal 7, no. 1 (2020): 1–21. 74  Levi Roach, Æthelred the Unready (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 76–78. 75  Earenfight, Queenship, 106–107. 76  Firth, “The Character,” 6–9; Stafford, “Queens, Nunneries,” 3. 77  G.Reg, 2:162. 78  Andrew Rabin, “Female Advocacy and Royal Protection in Tenth-century England: The Legal Career of Queen Ælfthryth,” Speculum 84 (2009): 261–288.

40 

M. FIRTH

is surely fundamental to the roles of queen mother and queen regent. It remains that, in her own time, Ælfthryth exercised an agency that demonstrated the evolving status of English queenship as an increasingly institutionalised office in the hierarchy of the English court. In the words of Lois L. Huneycutt, the reforms that first Eadgifu and then Ælfthryth had supported through the tenth century “served to elevate both the importance of canonical marriage and the role of the consecrated queen.”79 Ælfthryth’s two most famous successors, Emma and Edith, too would benefit from the increasing agency that came with English queenship.

Political Agency and the Lifecycle of Queenship II: Emma of Normandy and Edith of Wessex Emma of Normandy’s first marriage, to Æthelred in 1002, was a diplomatic union attached to an alliance between England and Normandy in the face of Scandinavian raids. Æthelred’s reign was a fractious period in English history; the political cloud under which he took the throne, combined with his youth and the resurgent threat of Viking attack, left the kingdom ill-equipped to deal with the raids. In 1013 the Danish King Sveinn Forkbeard (d. 1014) turned this to his advantage and seized the English throne, forcing the royal family to flee to Emma’s familial court and the protection of her father the Duke of Normandy. Sveinn’s death in 1014 brought Æthelred, Emma, and their children Alfred and Edward (later “the Confessor”) back from their exile, though only briefly. In 1016, besieged by Sveinn’s son Cnut, Æthelred died in London. A year later Emma married Cnut, with whom she would have two children, including the future King Harthacnut, whose succession to the English throne she would promote in the years after Cnut’s death in 1035, over the claims of her elder children with Æthelred. Emma was crowned Queen on her marriage to Æthelred.80 Unlike Judith before her, remarriage to her husband’s successor required a second coronation. Though, as Æthelbald before him, the young Cnut surely anticipated his marriage to an anointed Queen of the English would serve to legitimate his own rule. The coronation ordo, adapted from that used for Ælfthryth in 973, now emphasised the Queen’s partnership in royal

 Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 52.  S 909 (1004).

79 80

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

41

power.81 It is unknown if this was the same ordo used for Edith’s coronation; Ælfthryth’s anointing, and Emma’s second coronation accompanied those of their husbands, and this is reflected in the ordines. Edith, in contrast, married Edward two years after his own coronation in 1043, though her anointing as Queen at that time is attested by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.82 Edith’s marriage was, as Emma’s, a political union. Edith’s father, Earl Godwin, held sway over the entirety of Wessex, and his power rivalled that of Edward. Whether these unions—either the conjugal between Edward and Edith, or political between Edward and Godwin—were ever truly amicable is not known. However, Edward and Edith’s marriage was childless through to 1051, in which year Edward moved against the entire Godwin family. Whether the crisis was brought about because of Edward’s desire for an heir and thus, in the tradition of his forebears, a desire to set Edith aside, or whether any number of political issues brought the Godwin family into disfavour, the result remained the same for Edith. She was repudiated by Edward and sent to a nunnery. Such an act, even in the light of their failure to produce an heir, may not have been well received. The Chronicles record that Edward “put aside the Lady who was consecrated his queen,” the specificity of the entry and the apparent distinction between the terms seo hlæfdige [Lady] and cwen [Queen] (the latter being anointed) imply judgement on the act.83 It is also an interesting use of language. Up to Emma’s reign, seo hlæfdige was the most common Old English term for the King’s wife. In turn, cwen, the source of the modern English “queen,” was less frequently used of individuals, though increasingly associated with the Latin regina. As more queens began to be anointed to the office in the eleventh century, it seems, in the eyes of this chronicler at least, that a clear linguistic distinction needed to be made between a king’s wife and an anointed queen.84 However, the judgement of the chronicler aside, Edward was not able to hold the Godwins at bay, and returning from exile in 1052, Earl Godwin ensured his daughter’s reinstatement as queen consort. The marriage would remain childless.

 Stafford, Queen Emma, 174–178.  ASC, 1045. 83  ASC, 1051. 84  For discussions of the Old English cwen and seo hlæfdige, and Latin regina and domina, see: Klein, Ruling Women, 61–64; Stafford, Queen Emma, 56–64. 81 82

42 

M. FIRTH

Emma’s husbands had relatively less trouble setting aside their consorts, for she was second wife to both. While any potential succession disputes involving the children of Æthelred’s first marriage to Ælfgifu (d. 1002) became moot as the last heir died shortly after Cnut’s conquest, the ambitions of Cnut’s first wife, Ælfgifu of Northampton (d. c.1037), were more problematic. Cnut had reigned over England, Denmark, and Norway before his death, and in 1035, his son with Emma, Harthacnut, was serving as his father’s proxy in Denmark. Immediately succeeding to that kingship, the political situation in Denmark denied Harthacnut an opportunity to return to claim the English Crown. Ælfgifu and her son Harald Harefoot moved to fill that void, and Harald was crowned King. Emma, then in residence in the royal centre of Winchester, was deprived of her wealth (likely the royal treasury) and fled to Flanders in 1037.85 Emma’s exile, as it had been in 1013/14 was short lived. Harthacnut joined her in 1039, likely intent upon invasion to force the issue of English succession; however, in 1040 news arrived of Harald’s death, alongside an invitation to return and claim the throne.86 Emma and Harthacnut sailed to England that summer with sixty Danish warships; Harthacnut was crowned, and Emma returned to the centre of power, this time as queen mother. Her place by Harthacnut’s side is attested by the presence of her name next to the King’s in four of the five diplomas attributed to his reign.87 In turn, Ælfgifu disappears from the historical record. Thus, the pattern of the King’s final consort, pushed to the periphery on his death only to return to power with her son later in life, held true for Emma. It must be noted, however, that much of what we know of Emma’s life comes from a biography she commissioned during her time in Flanders, known as Encomium Emmae Reginae. Here, once again, was a politically astute woman, aware of her vulnerable position and taking steps to secure her son’s succession and her own power. It would be going too far to characterise the Encomium solely as a praise narrative, though it is not far from it. Here it is Emma who convinces Harthacnut to claim his English inheritance; it is she who gets Edward to return to his half-brother’s side that the three might rule together in harmony (an apparently optimistic 85  ASC 1035, 1037; Encomium Emmae Reginae, 3:1, ed. Alistair Campbell (1949; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 38–41; Timothy Bolton, “Ælfgifu of Northampton: Cnut the Great’s ‘Other Woman’,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 51 (2007): 265–267. 86  ASC, 1039, 1040; Encomium, 3:8–13. 87  S993–997 (1040 × 1042).

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

43

assessment of Edward’s attitude).88 It is also of note that Emma engages in the traditional denigration of her predecessor’s legitimacy. Ælfgifu is characterised as a concubine who, unable to produce a son for Cnut, took a servant’s child to pass off as her own, naming it Harald. Yet the vicissitudes of both women, their rises and falls, serve as a reminder that queenly power, whether exercised as consort, as mother, or as dowager, was relational to the King, dependent on the King’s own fortunes and his goodwill. Early-eleventh-century English queens may have been publicly marked as such by crowning, have held status to involve themselves in politics, in patronage and intercession, in public affairs, but queenly status remained fragile—as it had ever been. And, in Emma’s case, she did not have the goodwill of Harthacnut’s successor. Why Edward moved against his mother in 1043, depriving her of her lands and wealth, remains unclear, though the Chronicles offer some clue, suggesting Emma “withheld it too firmly from him.”89 Eadgifu and Ælfthryth had guided young kings, mere teenagers. In taking the crown, Harthacnut had been as young as 20. The guiding hand of an experienced Queen would surely have served these kings well. Yet, as Stafford notes, “few if any early medieval queens maintained an important position beside a full-aged king securely established.”90 It was, for example, Æthelred’s coming into his majority that brought the end of Ælfthryth’s influence at court. Taking the throne at around 40 years of age, with the support of a faction under Godwin’s control, it is unlikely Edward required or desired the support of his mother. By moving against her, he simultaneously brought significant wealth under the central control of the Crown, negated an alternative royal power base, and perhaps enacted some revenge for his mother’s seeming “rejection” of him upon marrying Cnut and in advocating for his younger half-brother’s succession. Edith was destined for a different path in her dowagerhood. Earlier generations of queens had relied to some extent on the legitimating nature of motherhood to exercise authority, many reaching their political apex in the reign of their sons. However, with no children, Edith had to seek legitimacy elsewhere. The nature of queenship had changed from the time of her predecessors though, and Edith had her coronation, her powerful family, and the public performance of her office to fall back on. Despite  Encomium, 3:8–13.  ASC, 1043. 90  Stafford, Queen Emma, 248–250. 88 89

44 

M. FIRTH

her setback in 1051, Edith served as a prominent witness to over thirty of Edward’s charters. She was a significant landholder at the time of the Conquest, seemingly a capable administrator of Edward’s household, and served in the traditional queenly roles of advisor, intercessor, and Church patron.91 As with Emma, however, some caution is required in assessing Edith’s life, as much of what we know comes from a work she commissioned: The Life of King Edward. Edith can take great credit for Edward’s later saintly status, and indeed for shaping her own legacy as a part of it—the work she commissioned is Edward’s earliest biography and a source for many others. Here she is depicted as beautiful, as educated, and as accomplished, a partner in rule: in short, regal. Yet she is also depicted as pious, a characteristic integral to the reshaping of the couple’s failure to produce an heir. In The Life, theirs was a chaste marriage, an unconsummated marriage; Edith chose a pious life as the loving companion of her celibate husband, an image of their union to which no blame attached to her for the lack of an heir.92 Yet, with no heir, it was her brother who took the English throne upon Edward’s death in 1066. He in turn would be dead on the battlefield at Hastings before the year was out. Edith likely retired to Wilton Abbey thereafter, an institution she had patronised and helped rebuild.93 This is another familiar pattern of pre-Conquest queenship. Wulfthryth’s retirement to Wilton has already been noted, Ælfthryth too retreated to a nunnery at Wherwell late in life, Eanflæd in seventh-century Northumbria and Cynythryth in eighth-century Mercia were likewise said to have retired to a monastic life on the death of their husbands. In each case, the Queen retreated to an establishment they had patronised in their time as queen consort. Here were the fruits of their patronage of the Church—places of refuge where a queen dowager could live in relative comfort, but away from the intrigues of court and the possible complications of being an unwed queen dowager. Edith died in 1075, her body was taken in honour to Winchester and interred next to that of her husband: the last pre-Conquest King and 91  Pauline Stafford, “Edith, Edward’s Wife and Queen,” in Edward the Confessor: The Man and the Legend, ed. Richard Mortimer (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2009), 119–138. 92  The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster, ed. Frank Barlow, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 14–15, 22–25. 93  Stephanie Hollis, “St Edith and the Wilton Community,” in Writing the Wilton Women, ed. Stephanie Hollis (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 252–254.

2  IDENTIFYING QUEENSHIP IN PRE-CONQUEST ENGLAND 

45

queen consort laid to rest side-by-side.94 From the time of Bertha to the time of Edith, the nature of English queenship had much changed. The Christian idea of marriage had been increasingly emphasised; canonical marriage became associated with the legitimacy of birth; queens began to be anointed, at times as partners in royal power; certain queenly duties were codified. With the increasingly public and institutionalised nature of “queen” as an office came an opportunity for royal women to exercise authority in public affairs, most clearly attested in the diplomas of tenthand eleventh-century kings. Yet there was also continuity. Royal marriages—even where the status of a consort as a king’s wife is unclear—largely remained politically affairs; queenly authority retained a relational dependence on the king, with the fragility of status that entailed; the exercise of the queenship occurred within the familiar roles of King’s advisor, of intercessor, of Church patron and advocate. Individual queens and specific events may have left their mark on the story of early English queenship, but it is ultimately a tale of both continuity and change. And, even as the English Crown passed into Norman hands, it would remain as such.

 ASC, 1075.

94

CHAPTER 3

Mathilda of Flanders: Innovator Laura L. Gathagan

Mathilda of Flanders was the first Norman Queen of England, the “Conquest queen.” An innovator by nature and necessity, she was the first Queen of England who was also Duchess of Normandy; she created and shaped a dual role characterised by robust, public governance. Unlike the English queens before her, Mathilda expanded the office of queenship to include new privileges and prerogatives, not just in theory but also in practice. She was the first mover of a series of powerful Anglo-Norman queens, laying the foundation for her daughters and granddaughters to rule. Mathilda was neglected by the “story sources” of chronicles and narratives, nonetheless she appears everywhere in the masses of documentary evidence she left behind. The extant charters, surveys, and legal agreements reveal her expressing a new kind of regality as royal judge. Mathilda was born c.1030, the only daughter of Adela of France and Baldwin V of Flanders. Her mother Adela was the daughter of Robert the Pious, King of France (996–1031) and Queen Constance of Arles. Mathilda’s father Baldwin was distantly related to the last Ottonian Empress—Cunigunde—through his mother, Ogive of Luxembourg,

L. L. Gathagan (*) State University of New York, Cortland, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_3

47

48 

L. L. GATHAGAN

Cunigunde’s niece. This connection, while more distant than her ties to the French throne, was crucial to Mathilda’s identity. Mathilda’s Ottonian pedigree influenced her choices not in the least because it was thoroughly embraced by her mother, Adela. Capetian queenship was relatively weak in this period and the Countess of Flanders seems to have looked to Ottonian Germany for a model of active lordship more readily than her own natal court.1 Likewise, royal blood from her Capetian line may have been crucial to Mathilda’s status but German imperial strategies and approaches are revealed by the innovations she adopted as the first Norman Queen of England.

Marriage and Family Mathilda married William the Bastard sometime between 1051 and 1052. Her royal blood was no doubt the primary consideration of their union; he had none.2 Mathilda’s marriage to someone without the benefit of legitimacy, even if a Duke, has puzzled historians.3 If one examines the union more closely, however, there were distinct advantages from Mathilda’s perspective. William was a loyal vassal to her royal uncle, Henry I of France. William’s star was certainly ascendant. His victory at Val-ès-­ Dunes in 1047 quashed the rebellious factions in Normandy and allowed him to claim his birth right.4 William’s illegitimate birth, moreover, may have given Mathilda an advantage. Women with royal identity had an innate status borne by blood that provided legitimacy, stability, and support for their lower-ranking husbands. Her visibility was vital in raising the profile of a dynasty. Mathilda’s royal blood allowed her to take part in 1  Constance was Robert’s third wife—he had annulled his previous two marriages. Robert attempted to annul his marriage to Constance as well but was unsuccessful. Penelope Ann Adair, “Constance of Arles: A Study in Duty and Frustration,” Capetian Women, ed. Kathleen Nolan (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 9–26. 2  Contemporaries were quite aware that status was higher than William’s and noted it. William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi, ed. R.H.C.  Davis and Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 30–31. 3  A thirteenth-century chronicle claimed that William had attacked Mathilda for refusing his proposal because he was a bastard. The tale was debunked in the nineteenth century. W.H. Blaauw, “Remarks on Matilda, Queen of William the Conqueror, and her Daughter Gundrada,” Archaeologia 32 (1847): 108–125. 4  William’s father, Duke Robert the Magnificent, died while on pilgrimage when William was about 9. His minority was difficult and dangerous, threatened by enemies outside of Normandy and the barony within it. Henry I of France was his most powerful supporter.

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

49

lordly administration in a very public way. For both Mathilda and her mother, marrying down a rung or two on the social ladder provided them with the opportunity to exercise a greater measure of autonomy. Mathilda’s active role in government might be a result of her marriage to a man of lesser status.5 The balance of power in their marriage would also be affected by Mathilda’s immediate family, who were powerful allies. The counts of Flanders were famously cash-rich, standing as they did between Eastern and Western trade routes, their topography spider-webbed with navigable waterways. Mathilda’s father particularly was merchant-friendly and passed legislation that would encourage mercantile success.6 The Peace and Truce of God were also initiated in Flanders—a key socio-political movement— that Baldwin backed early on and William imported into Normandy. A marriage to Mathilda brought William a host of benefits; to Mathilda it brought the possibility of an active political life should she choose to claim it. Whatever circumstances caused Mathilda to look upon the connection with favour, the papacy did not. Leo IX forbade their union in 1049.7 Later chroniclers and historians assumed that consanguinity was the underlying motive for the prohibition, but the contemporary sources are not explicit. Baldwin V’s stepmother, Eleanor of Normandy, was William’s aunt. There was no blood relation but it was a close connection and could have been grounds for the ban. Pope Leo IX doubtless had political reservations and Baldwin’s enmity against Leo’s patron, Emperor Henry III, made throwing an obstacle in his way attractive.8 There was also a contingent of aristocrats in Rouen who openly opposed the marriage.9 The famous theologian, Lanfranc, then prior of the monastery at Bec, made no 5  Adela’s active role in the administration of Flanders has been noted by historians. Her significant charter activity both during Baldwin’s life and after his death, points to a robust influence. Penelope Adair, “Ego et Uxor Mea: Countess Clemence and Her Role in the Comital Family and in Flanders” (PhD thesis, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1995). 6  History of the Low Countries, ed. J.C.H. Blom and E. Lamberts (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999), 36–38. 7  Anselm of St. Remi, “Historiae dedicationis ecclesiae s. Remegii,” Patrologia Latina Cursus Completus: Series Latina, 221 vols. (Paris, 1878–1974), 142:1424–1438. Hereafter, PL. 8  David Nicholas, Medieval Flanders (New York: Longman Press, 1992), 49. 9  The contingent included Archbishop Mauger, William’s uncle. Milo Crispin, “Vita Lanfranci,” PL, 150:19–98.

50 

L. L. GATHAGAN

secret of his disapproval. He eventually softened, however, and contemporaries claim he made the case for their marriage to the papal curia. When papal acknowledgement finally came, the price may have been the foundation of “his and hers” abbeys in Caen: St. Stephen’s for monks, Holy Trinity for nuns. Mathilda’s abbey of Holy Trinity was not simply a sop in exchange for papal approval. It would become a favoured project and the focus of much of her time and energy. The abbey church was already standing at its dedication in 1066—clear evidence that she had already begun laying the foundation long before the papal edict came through. Holy Trinity, Caen was Mathilda’s footprint on the landscape of Normandy, the nest she feathered for her daughter Cecelia (who would become its second abbess), and her final resting place and memoriam. It still stands today. The specific details of their marriage may never be unravelled but two essentials truths about Mathilda emerge from these events. First, Mathilda would not be dissuaded from marrying William regardless of the obstacles: the pope, Lanfranc, or even the Norman aristocrats she would eventually govern. Her penance for papal disobedience, moreover, became—in her hands—the only female royal necropolis Normandy had ever seen. Holy Trinity was the wealthiest female house in Normandy and an active Benedictine monastery for over 900 years. Mathilda approached her monastic foundation as an opportunity instead of an imposition. She unapologetically poured energy and treasure into her abbey, resulting in a community more celebratory than penitential. Her active patronage of Holy Trinity and her lordship as duchess were carried out through numerous pregnancies. Mathilda bore at least nine children between 1051 and 1069; four boys—Robert, Richard, William, and Henry—and at least five girls—Adelida, Cecelia, Constance, Mathilda, and Adela. A tenth child, Agatha, is mentioned only in Orderic Vitalis’ Historia.10 He leaves Agatha out, however, in his first attempt at listing Mathilda’s children and seems to confuse her with Adelida.11 Her namesake daughter, Mathilda, is neglected by all the narratives of the period. We only know daughter Mathilda through documentary sources. She grants property in Domesday Book and appears in the mortuary roll of

10  The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 2:224–225. 11  Orderic, History, 2:104–105.

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

51

Holy Trinity where prayers for her are requested.12 The disinterest in even the most highly placed women by clerical chronicles of the central Middle Ages—the narrative story sources of the period—is confirmation that they do not suffice when examining medieval women. Mathilda’s union to William the Bastard would have profound political consequences in medieval Europe. The Norman Conquest of England, indeed, might never have happened without the support of Mathilda and the alliances she provided. On the death of King Henry of France, his son Philip I gained the throne. Philip was a minor and his guardianship was awarded to Baldwin V as a result of his connection through Adela. Thus, with Baldwin and Adela at the helm of Flanders and the Île-de-France, neutrality—if not overt approval—allowed ducal resources to be diverted to the English project.

Governance and Queenship If Mathilda’s familial connections were crucial to the success of the invasion, her active role in the governance of Normandy was even more so. In the fall of 1066, a raft of charter activity demonstrates the arrangements for her rule in William’s absence, signed at the ducal courts of Bayeux, Fecamp, and Caen.13 Her titles in these documents become more elaborate, including a gift for the cathedral at Avranches, given “with the favor of Mathilda, my most revered wife.”14 The most extravagant of these is the formal dedication charter of Holy Trinity dated 18 June 1066, four months before the invasion. Mathilda is styled “Countess Mathilda, daughter of the most noble Baldwin, Duke of Flanders” and her signature heads a list of twenty-three autographs; the great barons and churchmen of Normandy were arranged—physically and metaphorically—under her

12  Domesday Book: A Complete Translation, ed. Ann Williams and G.H. Martin (New York: Penguin, 1992), 118 Hampshire, 1:49b (hereafter DB); Rouleaux des Morts du IXe au XVe siècle, ed. Léopold Delisle (Paris, 1886), 181–182. 13  Recueil des Actes des Ducs de Normandie, ed. Marie Faroux (Caen: Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 1961), nos. 227, 228, 230, at 435–438 and 441–442. 14  “Hanc vero donationem, favente Mathilde, mea reverentissima conjuge.” Faroux, Actes, 440.

52 

L. L. GATHAGAN

authority.15 Evidence of their partnership is further indicated in Mathilda’s construction of a deluxe vessel for William’s own use, the Mora, decorated by a golden child.16 As she ruled Normandy, her bespoke ship carried William to England: a literal expression of Mathilda’s support and an object lesson in the necessity of her cooperation in their most daring undertaking. Her physical presence at the invasion was not possible— Mathilda was almost certainly pregnant with daughter Adela, her mother’s namesake. Mathilda’s extraordinary gift, however, represented her. As an object, the ship raises fascinating possibilities about how it might have signified her on the voyage towards Hastings. After the success of the Norman Conquest, Mathilda was both Duchess and Queen. Her coronation and anointing on Pentecost, May 1068, changed her very nature and the basis for her authority. She was now a “persona mixta,” as her anointing elevated her to a new kind of quasi-­ divine status.17 Her coronation liturgy contained a host of other new “traditions” designed to showcase Mathilda’s power, including a unique imperial-style laudes regiae acclamation, performed in an English queen’s coronation for the first time.18 The symbols of her office included a sceptre and the ring of the Church.19 These elements allowed Mathilda to position herself as a partner in both royal and ducal administration. In the words of Orderic, “Queen Mathilda was now a powerful ruler, with vast

15  “Mathilda comitissa, nobellissimi ducis Flandrensium Balduini filia,” Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant et de la reine Mathilde pour les abbayes Caennaises, ed. Lucien Musset (Caen: Memoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, Archives du Calvados, 1967), 57. See also: David Bates, “The Origins of Justiciarship,” Anglo-Norman Studies 4 (1982): 1–12. 16  Elisabeth van Houts, “The Echo of the Conquest in the Latin Sources: Duchess Matilda, Her Daughters, and the Enigma of the Golden Child,” in The Bayeux Tapestry: Embroidering the Facts of History, ed. P. Bouet, B. Levy, and F. Neveux (Caen: Presses universitaires de Caen, 2004), 135–153. 17  “Henceforth, by virtue of his unction, the King was not merely a layman as before, but … a persona mixta, for he partakes of the character of a clerk as well as a layman.” Percy Ernst Schramm, A History of the English Coronation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937), 138; Laura L. Gathagan, “The Trappings of Power: The Coronation of Mathilda of Flanders,” Haskins Society Journal 13 (2004): 24. 18  Gathagan, “Trappings,” 23–25. 19  Mathilda bequeathed her crown and sceptre to Holy Trinity, BnF ms. Latin 5650, 24v. The episcopal sapphire was still on her finger when her body was exhumed in 1562. Sir Joseph Ayloff, “The Body of King Edward I,” Archeologia 3 (1770): 391.

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

53

resources at her command.”20 Mathilda stood, with William, at the head of a new Norman dynasty. Their sons, Robert Curthose, William Rufus, and Henry I, would be dukes of Normandy and kings of England. The upheaval of the Conquest, moreover, provided fertile soil for Mathilda to expand the privileges and responsibilities of queenship. Mathilda would set the pattern for the queens who would rule after her. English queenship would transform through her advances; her expansion and formalisation would affect the office of queen for centuries. One of the chief amongst these developments was her participation in justice.

Royal Justice: The Cases Mathilda was an integral part of royal justice, handing down judgements alone to men and women, both lay and clerical. Records of her activity can be found throughout contemporary documentary sources like Domesday Book, the famous land survey initiated by William after the Conquest. Though it was completed in 1086, after Mathilda’s death, traces of her remain in the survey’s terse entries. For example, in Hampshire: In Somborne Hundred William (the Balistarius, or William the Archer), held Compton. Aldred brother of Odo claims one virgate of land from this manor. He states that he held it in 1066, and he was dispossessed after King William crossed the sea. He established his right in front of the queen. Hugh de Port is witness to this, and the men of the whole hundred.21

Mathilda’s judicial role is clear even in the short passage. She alone handed down judgement in Hugh de Port’s favour, presiding over the case in front of the “whole Hundred” of Somborne; a subdivision of the county of Hampshire where the case was brought. Other Domesday entries lay out more fully Mathilda’s role in English judicial process. A case in Warwickshire between Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester and Archbishop Ealdraed of York, for instance, allows for a more detailed examination involving an estate of over fifteen hides, easily thousands of acres: 20  “Reginae Mathildi licet potenter regnaret, et innumeris opibus abundaret.” Orderic, Historia, 2:284. 21  DB, 118. Also reprinted in English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I: Volume I, ed. R.C. Van Caenegem (London: Selden Society, 1990), no. 35; Robin Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 157.

54 

L. L. GATHAGAN

Before 1066 Brictwin held 7 ½ hides in Alveston. Archbishop Ealdraed (of York) had the full jurisdiction of this land, and the market rights and church tax, and all the other forfeitures except those four that the King has throughout his whole kingdom. His sons Leofwin, Edmer, and four others testify thereto, but they do not know from whom he held this land, whether from the church or from Earl Leofric, whom he served. They state however that they held it themselves from Earl Leforic, and could turn where they would with the land. Brictnoth and Alfwy held the remaining 7 ½ hides before 1066, but the County does not know from whom they held. Bishop Wulfstan however states that he established his claims to this land before Queen Mathilda in the presence of the four Sheriffdoms, and he has King William’s writ for it, and also the witness of the County of Warwick.22

The Warwickshire case was originally heard in front of four “sheriffdoms” or counties. The entry features Mathilda’s judgement of Wulfstan’s claim first, moreover, before William’s writ is mentioned as evidence. This record presents a dispute between two bishops, not laymen as in the Somborne case, and brings forward evidence of Mathilda performing justice in front of an enormous crowd of witnesses. The details hidden behind these terse entries repay examination. Domesday Book presents significant challenges for the historian because its entries are brief and descriptions cursory. A close reading of the text, however, draws the evidence into better focus. The way Domesday scenes were framed by their compilers reveals a narrative voice, in the person of the defendant, in the midst of asserting her/his rights. In both of the Domesday cases above, the defendant uses a previous court hearing to substantiate his claim. The court hearings in question involve two crucial elements that characterise Mathilda’s judicial activity: her royal authority and a multitude of witnesses—either the “men of the entire hundred” or the entire county—who observe Mathilda’s final decision. The text underscores the reality that medieval court proceedings were very public, well-­ attended affairs. The medieval law court was manifestly different from today’s. It was much larger and far noisier. The abbot of Bury St. Edmonds complained that some court proceedings were attended by “all the inhabitants of the land.”23 While this may be hyperbole, a typical eleventh-century inquest  DB, 652; Van Caenegem, Lawsuits, no. 59; Fleming, Domesday, 250.  Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St. Edmunds, ed. D.C. Douglas (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), 3. 22 23

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

55

combined different types of assemblies together resulting in massive crowds. For instance, the local courts of the hundred and the county courts of the shire would often meet simultaneously to argue over land disputes. Criminal cases could be included in these hybrid sessions  as groups of shires and boroughs, headed by different districts, met together.24 Great meetings of the Five Boroughs are described in English charters in Edward the Confessor’s day; Westminster Abbey assessed its rights before nine different hundreds together.25 County assemblies could host seven or eight thousand people.26 These assemblies continued after the Conquest. In addition to the royal commissioners, the sheriffs and the reeves whose presence was required, at least eight men from every hundred attended as well.27 The jurors of the hundred, of course, had to have been present, as their testimony was crucial to adjudicating any dispute. English counties each had an average of 128 jurors, all of whom were required to attend.28 Royal officials brought their underlings and assistants, as did sheriffs. Abbots and bishops like Wulfstan of Warwickshire, mentioned in the case above, invariably brought their full households with them, and sometimes the entire monastic population of the abbey.29 Imagine for a moment how these scenes of royal justice took place during Mathilda’s reign. Her royal retinue would have included at least one chamberlain, her household staff, her clerks, and a suitable royal military guard.30 In attendance for both the defendant and the plaintiff would be as many witnesses and supporters as they could gather, ranging from the necessary players to the merely curious. Peasants, reeves, sheriffs, the newly minted Norman nobility, and their more desperate, displaced English counterparts all literally rubbed shoulders. Even if we allow for some exaggeration on the part of contemporary sources, it is unmistakable that when property was under dispute, ‘more was more.’  Fleming, Domesday, 13–15.  Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, ed. Peter Sawyer (London: Royal Historical Society, 1968), n. 1123. 26  Fleming, Domesday, 16. 27  Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, Subjicitur Inquisitio Eliensis, ed. Nicholas E.S.A. Hamilton (London, 1876), 97. 28  C.P. Lewis, “The Domesday Jurors,” Haskins Society Journal 5 (1993): 18. 29  Fleming, Domesday Book, 15. 30  Mathilda of Flanders employed at least four chamberlains in England: Humphrey, Reginald, Gerard, and John. Laura L. Gathagan, “Embodying Power: Gender and Authority in the Queenship of Mathilda of Flanders” (PhD thesis, City University of New  York, Graduate Center, 2001), 138. 24 25

56 

L. L. GATHAGAN

Historians describe royal inquests in this period as a close approximation of the Christian “final judgement,” for which the Domesday Book was named. Relics of saints were held high for the swearing of oaths. Compurgation and trial by ordeal necessitated hot fires, blazing and smoking, to heat iron rods and to boil water. The incredible noise, the press of bodies from the greatest men to the lowliest peasant, the arguments, and heated denials; these were the features of eleventh-century law courts.31 It was over this din and confusion that Mathilda of Flanders presided alone and handed down judgement. At the apex of this spectacle, the physical, human face of absolute royal power was hers. Apart from Domesday Book, examples of Mathilda’s juridical activity were recorded in the archives of monastic houses. One case concerned Abingdon Abbey was recorded in the abbey chronicle sometime between 1072 and 1073: A royal reeve from the manor of Sutton, in the neighbourhood of this church, called Alfsi, has violated the old rights of the church in the plains and the woods, which were surrounded protectively by peasants, frequently and barbarously, by often harassing men and beasts and forcing them to perform transport services for the King and by ordering to cut as many virgates as he wanted in the woods of Bagley and Cumnor. The abbot restrained his audacity with such a strong hand that from that time onwards no one followed the example of that man. In the first place, when the said reeve had demanded that oxen of the church should help in the transport of lead, requisitioned for the King’s use, to the royal manor of Sutton, the abbot hit him with the stick he happened to be carrying, threw the lead onto the ground, and returned the oxen to the church. In the second incident, when the reeve returned from the wood of Bagley with heavy carts, the abbot seized the load of wood, and forced the reeve to flee on horseback, and to wade through the water near the mill adjacent to the bridge over the river Ock, wet up to his neck, because he avoided the bridge out of fear for the abbot. However, the man who had been hit went and complained to the Queen, who was settled in those days at Windsor and weighed judicial matters in place of the King who was in Normandy, about the injury which he had suffered: the abbot, losing no time in preventing a royal inquiry, paid a sum of money to atone for what he had done to the royal official. He (the abbot) also put an end to tyrannical exactions by officials to the advantage of posterity, for in that royal assembly it was laid down after discussion and the testimony of numerous wise people, the church in Abingdon should in  Fleming, Domesday, 16–17.

31

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

57

no way suffer this sort of exaction, but on the contrary, enjoy perpetual freedom. This liberty which was then proclaimed is famous and freely defended until this day.32

The complaint of Abingdon is a fascinating glimpse into the competing rights and privileges of royal agents and local monastic lords. For the purposes of this study, however, the compelling element of the testimony was Mathilda’s relative permanence, established as the source of royal justice in Windsor.33 William’s absence in Normandy necessitated Mathilda’s judicial activity “in his place,” but her authority in the seat of justice was unquestioned. According to the record, the abbot hurriedly paid damages to the royal reeve to avoid Mathilda’s judgement, but regardless of these evasive efforts, he was brought before her royal assembly. His charge was read in court before Mathilda and, no doubt, after consideration of the damages paid, she eventually determined in the abbot’s favour. The evidence shows Mathilda dispensing justice alone, without William’s presence. The abbey chronicle attempts to paint the abbot as a fearless victor in the case who ended injustice “for posterity.” The record shows him, however, scrambling to make amends quickly in order to avoid provoking Queen Mathilda. She did rule in his favour, but not before the reader glimpses his panicked reaction to a day in Mathilda’s court. The evidence above shows Mathilda in the seat of justice, alone, as queen. She issued verdicts for criminal cases, family law, property disputes, and matters of clerical authority. She also sat in judgement with William by her side. Together they presided over ecclesiastical synods, the royal court in England, and the ducal court in Normandy.34

Queenly Intercession versus Juridical Authority How can we compare Mathilda’s activity to her contemporaries? Adjudicatory activity by early English queens was rare but one could have provided a model for Mathilda (see Matthew Firth’s chapter). Queen  Van Caenegem, Lawsuits, 12.  “Sed cum ab eo qui caesus fuerat, penes reginam, per hos dies Wildesore constitutam, querimonia de illata sibi injuria moveretur, quae regis vice, Normanniae degentis, justitiam rerum ingruentium impendebat, abbas nil moratus regium inde praevenit examen, et pecunia exsoluit quicquid in regis officiali fuerat commissum.” Van Caenegem, Lawsuits, 12. 34  Mathilda presided over the great Primacy Debate and synod between Canterbury and York. For the resulting charters, see: Bates, Regesta Regum, 307–314. 32 33

58 

L. L. GATHAGAN

Ælfthryth (964–975) wife of Edgar the Peaceable (959–975) was described in contemporary sources as something like a “super abbess,” a religious superior over female monastic houses in England, responsible for defending them all.35 Ælfthryth embraced a judicial role as an advocate or forspeca for female religious.36 Thus, she moved between two spheres of the early English world—the sole woman who could enter the male legal world of the English to represent voiceless nuns. This separation was underscored, however, not weakened by the idea that only one special royal woman could span it.37 The cases in which Ælfthryth acted, moreover, record explicitly that it was her gender that allowed her to advocate for monastic women. There are seven cases extant for her and only one involves a male claimant—the abbot of Bury St. Edmonds.38 What Ælfthryth offered in these cases was mediation—an intervention that was an institutionalised adjunct to the royal court.39 Ælfthryth’s formalised juridical activity is the first inkling of such a role for English queens. Mathilda’s immediate predecessor, Queen Edith of Wessex (1045–1066), is recorded on two occasions acting as a witness.40 Both involved protecting the interests of widows. She is once mentioned as forespeca over a will involving a widow. Queen Emma of Normandy, first consort to King Æthelred (1014–1016) and then Cnut of Denmark (1017–1035), held significant authority. Her role as the sinew of continuity between Æthelred and Cnut was a necessary one. Even at her most powerful, however, Emma seems excluded from matters of justice. Cnut’s absence occasionally required a regency committee that maintained royal law in his stead, but this group did not include Emma. His letter of 1020 instructed Earl Thorkell to uphold God’s law in the king’s absence “with

35  Regularis concordia Anglicae, ed. Thomas Symons (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 2. Simon MacLean, “Monastic Reform and Royal Ideology in the Late Tenth Century: Ælfthryth and Edgar in Continental Perspective,” in England and the Continent in the Tenth Century, ed. David  Rollason, Conrad  Leyser, and Hannah  Williams (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), 255–274. 36  Andrew Rabin, “Female Advocacy and Royal Protection in Tenth-Century England: The Legal Career of Queen Ælfthryth,” Speculum 84, no. 2 (2009): 261–288. 37  Rabin, “Ælfthryth,” 281. 38  Rabin, “Ælfthryth,” 273–277. 39  “In a sense, this practice follows a long-standing royal tradition of intervening in disputes outside the king’s jurisdiction in order to encourage settlements useful to the monarch.” Rabin, “Ælfthryth,” 276. 40  Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, 158.

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

59

the power of us both” but Cnut refers to Thorkell, not to Emma.41 There is no mention of the Queen either in the body of the missive, or in the address to the archbishops and nobles “to whom I have entrusted the councils of all my kingdom.”42 No evidence remains that links Emma to the exercise of royal justice. I would argue, moreover, that when early English queens offered legal assistance, it was an example of a common queenly tradition: intercession. Traditional models of queenly arbitration centred on intercession.43 Royal women’s mediation served an important purpose; it provided a way for a king to be merciful, and still save face, when his consort appealed to him. The intercession of the queen had unimpeachable biblical roots. The story of Esther was regularly featured as a model of queenly dignity.44 Esther’s rags-to-riches rise and her secret Jewish identity were not the only compelling elements of the Old Testament story; her intercession on behalf of her people made for great drama. Esther was a medieval favourite and she became the pattern card for medieval queenship “par excellence,” second only to Mary the Queen of Heaven (see Danna R. Messer’s and Katherine Weikert’s Epilogue). By the twelfth century, moreover, Esther gained a permanent place in queenly inauguration rites.45 Esther-­style mediation on behalf of supplicants was clerically approved ideology, but by its very nature, it was an enacted disruption.46 Queenly intercession was a break in law’s practice even if codified and scripted.47 Her intervention

41  English Historical Documents, Volume I, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 1996), 459–460. 42  Whitelock, Documents, 460. 43  John Carmi Parson, “The Queen’s Intercession in Thirteenth-Century England,” in The Power of the Weak, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 147–177. 44  Lois L. Huneycutt, “Intercession and the High Medieval Queen: The Esther Topos,” in Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 130. 45  The Third English Ordo compares her to Esther, a “partner in royal power.” The Pontifical of Magdalene College, ed. Henry A.  Wilson (London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1900), 96–98. 46  Kristen Geaman, “Queen’s Gold and Intercession: The Case of Eleanor of Aquitaine,” Medieval Feminist Forum 46, no. 2 (2010), 17. 47  John Carmi Parsons, “The Intercessionary Patronage of Queens Margaret and Isabella of France,” in Thirteenth Century England, VI: Proceedings of the Durham Conference (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1995), 145–156.

60 

L. L. GATHAGAN

“softened the king’s anger,” yet she remained outside formal authoritative legal praxis 48 Mathilda of Flanders, by contrast, left no evidence of intercession during her reign. Instead of mediating between royal justice and petitioners, she herself was the royal judge. She sat both with William and alone, always a full participant in royal oversight of dispute resolution. Mathilda operated royal justice from her own court, as at Windsor where evidence shows she was “established,” not in a parallel legal arena. Her juridical activity was not a disruption of the regular practice of “kingly” justice—it was precisely the same justice. Instead of acting to temper the king’s ire, Mathilda’s own anger was to be avoided, just as the abbot of Abingdon attempted to do. His bid to circumvent her justice—and her displeasure— by rushing to pay off his accusers was in vain. When the possibility of Mathilda’s anger loomed, the abbot did his best to evade it. Mathilda performed queenly justice that was equal in effectiveness to William’s kingly version. In this arena, she set the pattern for later English queens, as mentioned above; her daughters and granddaughters would also sit in judgement. If Mathilda of Flanders was the prime mover of English queenly justice, as I argue here, what model might she have followed? I suggest that Mathilda drew from two sources that allowed her to imagine her place on the seat of justice: one practical and one ideological. The first was the legal praxis of female abbatial authority with which she was familiar. The second was the ideological foundation of the Ottonian empresses for whom she was named. The concept of spiritual jurisdiction was foundational to medieval justice. And increasingly under Mathilda and William’s rule, clerical courts would mete out justice to religious (clerics, monks, and nuns) and to those tenants whose lands were held from abbeys and churches.49 This last element of Norman justice is key to understanding Mathilda’s judicial practice, because both abbesses and abbots had jurisdiction over their tenants that included judicial privileges. The judicial function of abbesses has been the focus of precious little study and even recent historiography has failed 48  Parsons, “Intercession,” 157. Parsons quotes a fourteenth-century Franciscan exemplum, translated by Eileen Power. Miracles of the Virgin Mary, trans. C.C. Swinton Bland (London: Routledge, 1928), xiv. 49  See: Mark Hagger, Norman Rule in Normandy, 911–1144 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2017), 453–455.

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

61

to gain traction. Yet recognising and examining female abbatial authority has the potential to revolutionise modern conceptions about medieval women and law.50 In Mathilda’s own monastery, moreover, the abbesses regularly performed justice.51 This is especially important for Mathilda’s experience of judicial procedure as she herself arranged for her abbess to hold such judicial privileges.52 The abbey’s monastic properties in the city of Caen had a wide reach; the number of tenants who looked to the abbess for justice was notable. Furthermore, a later thirteenth-century manuscript provides undeniable evidence that the abbess of Holy Trinity had her own jail. The prison was located in Ouistreham, a coastal city to the north of Caen. In a brief vidimus, or notice, issued in 1292, the “Baillif de Caen” appears before the abbess of Holy Trinity and apologises for removing a man from her jail in Ouistreham. The bailiff promises to return him at once, as the abbess has jurisdiction over the prisoner.53 The abbesses of Holy Trinity, then, were the judges responsible for not only their tenants in Caen, but also those ranging all over Upper Normandy.54 The laconic tone of the vidimus regarding the abbess’ prison indicates this was nothing out of the ordinary, thus raising a number of questions. The centre of the abbey’s jurisdiction was the city of Caen. Did they have facilities to imprison malefactors there? How many other abbesses across northern Europe ran their own prisons? The focus of the current study does not allow for in-depth investigation. Sufficient for the purposes at hand is the evidence that Mathilda herself was deeply engaged in the furtherance and

50  Gary Macy, “The Ordination of Women in the Early Middle Ages,” Theological Studies 59 (2000): 492–493. Macy analyses the Romano-Germanic pontificals. For twelfth-century developments, see: Gary Macy, “Abelard, Heloise and the Ordination of Abbesses,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 1 (2006): 16–32. 51  Louis Thomassin, Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina, circa benefica et beneficiaries, Part I, Book III, xlix, no. 4 (Mainz, 1787), 535; Donald Hochstetler, A Conflict of Traditions: Women in Religion in the Early Middle Ages, 500–840 (New York: University Press of America, 1992), 154–155. 52  The manuscripts specifically state the abbesses of Holy Trinity had “pleanria justicia”— full rights of justice—over the properties they held. John Rylands Library, ms. BMC 67, 68 and 71 (hereafter JRL). 53  JRL, ms. BMC 66. 54  Holy Trinity held significant portions of Ouistreham, including the right to first refusal on virtually everything the market had on offer. The busy commercial town was a seaport with all the attendant possibilities for crime and graft. JRL, ms. BMC 63.

62 

L. L. GATHAGAN

extension of her abbesses’ juridical entitlements.55 Mathilda supported her nuns as they fought for these against competing juridical authorities inside Caen, including the abbot of St. Stephen’s across town.56 Mathilda brought her royal status to bear on debates about the nuns’ jurisdiction.57 Thus, Mathilda’s own experience of abbatial justice allowed for a thorough understanding of how female authority engaged the law. Female abbatial justice was demonstrably different from royal justice. But in her own court, the abbess was judge. Mathilda’s familiarity and significant engagement with female abbatial authority suggests that this was a model she could access. Women’s abbatial justice was also a distinctly Ottonian model.58 Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg, was in charge of imperial affairs when her nephew, Otto II, was on campaign. She convened assemblies “of all the nobility as one” regularly in his absence.59 During one such assembly, when Matilda was absent from her monastery, trouble arose. Otto’s daughter Liutgard, who was being educated at Quedlinburg, was abducted. Abbess Matilda sent armed men to retrieve her and either kill or capture the perpetrators, but these attempts failed. So, the abbess once again convened an assembly and demanded the presence of both the kidnappers and Liutgard. They came. Before the “great multitude,” the criminals begged forgiveness, penitent and barefoot, bringing Liutgard with them.60 Abbess Matilda exacted recompense, and Liutgard was returned to Quedlinburg. This episode would have been well understood by the abbesses of Holy Trinity and Mathilda of Flanders herself. The Abbess

55  These are outlined in BnF ms. Lat 5650, 18v–20r, dated sometime before 1081, an update of Holy Trinity’s great foundation charter; BnF ms. Lat 5650, 1r–8v. Printed in Musset, Actes, 28–30 and 199–200; Bates, Regesta, 271–286. 56  William handed over ducal lands to the abbess and nuns to save St. Stephen’s from losing significant property to them. The three charter versions tracing out this dispute are BnF ms Lat 5650, folios 15r–16v, and Archive de Calvados, H/1830/3 and H/1830/4. Musset, Actes, 52–57 and Bates, Regesta, 297–301. 57  Mathilda’s acquisition of land and jurisdiction for the nuns—literally in the monks’ backyard—would ignite the dispute mentioned above. BnF ms Lat 5650, folios 15r–16v. 58  Laura Wangerin, “Representation of Ottonian Women: Politics and Sanctity in the Tenth Century,” presented at the International Medieval Congress, Leeds, 2014. Many thanks go to Dr Laura Wangerin for an early unpublished draft of this article. 59  Ottonian Germany: The Chronicle of Thietmer of Merseburg, trans. and ed. David Warner (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 180–181. 60  Warner, Ottonian Germany, 181.

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

63

Matilda was a judge who commanded troops and wielded—at least metaphorically—a sword. One assumes she also had a prison. Like Ottonian imperial women, Mathilda of Flanders founded a necropolis for the Norman royal house. As mentioned above, Mathilda’s mother Adela actively promoted her links to the Ottonian imperial family. Adela commissioned her own copy of the vita of St. Adelaide, the first Ottonian empress and wife of Otto I.61 The Epitaph of St. Adelaide has little in the way of miracles but much in the way of daring adventures. Otto I’s empress and third wife was first married to Lothar of Italy but was widowed young. On his death, Adelaide is imprisoned instead of ruling in his place as she had planned; the wealthy heiress was a valuable commodity. She escapes the villains, on the run with only her maid, and hides in ditches to evade capture. She finally finds safety, marries Otto I, and spends the rest of her life active in imperial administration, lordship and, notably, juridical affairs. Adela seems to have embraced with special fervour this part of her genealogy. Mathilda herself carried a renowned Ottonian name; St. Mathilda was Adelaide’s mother-in-law and the first Ottonian queen. St. Adelaide named her own daughter Matilda, who became the renowned Ottonian princess-abbess of Quedlinburg whose judicial power is demonstrated above. Countess Adela had only one daughter. By her naming conventions, she chose to underscore her Ottonian imperial bloodline at the expense of her French royal blood.62 Mathilda of Flanders, moreover, chose the name Adelaide for her first daughter. Learning these stories at her mother’s knee undoubtedly set Mathilda on course for an active political career. These two strands—Ottonian identity and her experience of Norman legal practice—positioned Mathilda to re-orient the expectations and approach to queenly justice in England. Mathilda had the models of the Ottonians and her own mother’s experience from which to draw. She had the experience of Norman legal praxis that accommodated women as abbatial judges—indeed, the abbesses of her own foundation operated this way. Mathilda also had opportunity. The English queens who ruled before Mathilda had abbatial models of women’s judicial authority available to them. There were royal English 61  For lives of the Ottonian Empresses, see: Sean Gilsdorf, Queenship and Sanctity: The “Lives” of Matilda and the “Epitaph” of Adelheid (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2004). 62  “Among the aristocrats of the Carolingian and post-Carolingian world, the naming of children was serious business.” Jean Dunbabin, “What’s in a Name? Philip, King of France,” Speculum 68, no. 4 (1993): 946–968.

64 

L. L. GATHAGAN

nunneries of great wealth and influence—Barking, Shaftesbury, Wilton, Reading—founded by queens on queen’s land. They had rights to abbatial justice at least in the thirteenth century.63 English queens had roots in the Regularis Concordia, promulgated under Ælfthryth, placing women’s religious houses in her special care. But there seems to be no tradition of royal women adjudicating court cases. The queens that immediately preceded Mathilda—Emma and Edith—were vulnerable in ways she was not. Circumstances outside of their control compromised their ability to rule as Mathilda did. Queen Edith was exiled from court by Edward the Confessor, most certainly as a prelude to divorcing her. Her re-instatement against his will was a triumph in her retelling but her continued childlessness made her vulnerable.64 Her powerful natal family, the Godwines, were the source of her strength and also her weakness. When King Edward turned against them, she fell, too. Edith, moreover, was herself the subject of legal inquiry; she was implicated in the murder of Gospatric, an enemy of her brother, Tostig. She also took a compurgation oath on her deathbed against charges of adultery.65 Moving back chronologically to Emma, she was active politically. Especially during her second marriage to Cnut, she was a crucial part of the peace-making process that allowed his rule. But in both of her marriages, Emma was a second or even third wife. Cnut did not repudiate his first union with Ælfgifu of Northampton even as he and Emma were joined in marriage and crowned together. Emma’s status as queen was weakened by this previous union.66 She was involved in royal government but not a source of royal justice. When Cnut’s joint rule of Norway and England required a regency, Emma does not appear to have taken part. Mathilda of Flanders, by contrast, filled that role.67 The Norman Conquest resulted in a new cross-Channel kingdom that demanded joint rule. Mathilda, the innovator, responded and carved out a new kind of queenship: sacral, lordly, and juridical. She was the head of government in  Thomassin, Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina, 535.  Life of King Edward who Lies at Westminster, ed. Frank Barlow, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, 21–22. 65  Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, 118. 66  Emma insisted that Ælgifu was a concubine, but nevertheless, Cnut continued to rely on her to rule Norway with their son, Swein. Laura L. Gathagan, “Family and Kinship,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of William the Conqueror, ed. Benjamin Pohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 143–162. 67  David Bates, “The Origins of Justiciarship,” Anglo-Norman Studies 4 (1982): 1–12. 63 64

3  MATHILDA OF FLANDERS: INNOVATOR 

65

Normandy during the invasion of England and afterward cooperated in the  dispensation of royal justice, either with William or without him. Furthermore, Mathilda’s approach to justice, I contend, was shaped by Norman legal processes. As queen, her assumption of judicial authority over court proceedings, both secular and sacred, can be seen as a natural outgrowth of Norman practice. Her experience of women as head of their own courts was a distinctly abbatial one, and was familiar to early English Benedictine communities, too. There were abbatial courts in England and all over the Continent that dispensed justice to their tenants and the religious in their care. When Ælfthryth took on the role of an abbess for the whole of England, she was closer to sitting in justice than either Emma or Edith ever did as queen. But even Ælfthryth did not embody royal justice. She was a conduit to it but did not hand down sentences herself. Before Mathilda, English royal women did not direct justice. In her queenship, England saw something wholly new.

The Innovator Mathilda died on 2 November 1083. Her tombstone remains in the choir of Holy Trinity, Caen. Her celebrated bloodline—and her active life—take centre stage: The lofty structure of this splendid tomb Hides great Mathilda, sprung from royal stem; Child of a Flemish duke; her mother was Adela, daughter of a king of France, Sister of Henry, Robert’s royal son. Married to William, most illustrous king, She gave this site and raised this noble house, With many lands and many goods endowed, Given by her, or by her toil procured; Comforter of the needy, duty’s friend; Her wealth enriched the poor, left her in need. At daybreak on November’s second day She won her share of everlasting joy.68

68  Mathilda’s epitaph can be seen at Holy Trinity, now called the Abbayes-aux-Dames, in Caen, France. It is also recorded in Orderic, History, 4:44–45.

66 

L. L. GATHAGAN

William the Conqueror, her royal husband, merits one line of her epitaph. Her children—all nine (or ten) of them—merit no mention at all. Mathilda’s work at the head of jurisprudence radically changed the prerogatives of queenship in England. After her reign, a queen’s exercise and influence in the judicial branch of government become part of their assumed duties. Anglo-Norman queens became partners in justice with kings. Mathilda’s successors, Matilda of Scotland (consort of Henry I, see Lois L.  Huneycutt’s chapter) and Matilda of Boulogne (consort of Stephen, see Heather J. Tanner’s chapter), each sat in justice and claimed royal authority alone.69 What can we say, then, about Mathilda’s innovations in justice? Anglo-­ Norman judicial assemblies have been seen as ritualised re-enactments of the Conquest. Historians have postulated that in this legal, non-military venue, without force of arms, the Norman victory over the English population was repeatedly revisited.70 In a thousand juridical decisions, Norman mastery was codified. If the law court was a re-staging of the Conquest, it is a short step to position Mathilda at its head, leading legal battles over the English. As the Mora represented Mathilda on the shores of Hastings, so also, the Conquest was symbolically re-enacted on the field of law with Mathilda of Flanders as its champion and queen.

69  For Matilda of Scotland, see: Van Caenegem, Lawsuits, no. 189; Heather J.  Tanner, “Queenship: Office, Custom, or ad hoc? The Case of Queen Matilda III of England (1135–1152),” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, ed. Bonnie Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 133–158. 70  Fleming, Domesday, 17.

CHAPTER 4

Matilda of Scotland: Peacemaker and Perfect Princess Lois L. Huneycutt

At the time of her death in 1118, the Warenne chronicler eulogised Matilda of Scotland in the following manner: “From the time when England was first subject to kings, of all the queens none was found like her, nor will a similar queen be found in coming ages, whose memory will be held in praise and whose name will be blessed for centuries.”1 This encomium follows a lengthy passage describing the elaborate funeral service for Matilda, queen consort to England’s Henry I, who died on 1 May 1118. Matilda has continued to be remembered as Matilda bona regina, or “Matilda the Good Queen,” and has, as the chronicler predicted, been held up as the very model of the perfect Queen. Agnes Strickland, the nineteenth-century biographer of England’s queens consort, wrote that 1  Elisabeth M.C. van Houts and Rosalind Love, ed. and trans., The Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2013), 66–67.

L. L. Huneycutt (*) University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_4

67

68 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

Matilda’s cognomen implies that she not only possessed “the great and shining qualities calculated to add lustre to a throne, but that she employed them in promoting the happiness of all classes of her subjects, affording at the same time a bright example of the lovely and endearing attributes that should adorn the female character.”2 Modern scholarly treatments have nuanced these near-hagiographic treatments, but Matilda remains an exemplum of ideal medieval queenship, renowned for her learning, piety, charitable works, and governing and diplomatic abilities as well as a personal life virtually unmarked by scandal and characterised by a co-operative and harmonious partnership with Henry I.3 Thus, an examination of the life of the woman originally named Edith, but known best as Matilda of Scotland, illuminates not only the circumstances of her life and reign, but also allows scholars to interrogate the ideals for good queenship in the opening years of the twelfth century.

Early Life, Education, and Marriage The princess born to Margaret, Queen of Scotland, and her husband Malcolm III, in the late summer or early autumn of 1080 was their first daughter after four sons. Margaret and her siblings were among the last living descendants of Alfred the Great at the time of the Norman Conquest. Although she and her family had been living at the court of Edward the Confessor before his death, they fled to Scotland for safety soon after, and by c.1070, Margaret and Malcolm were married. The Norman Conquest was a new and uncertain thing in the eleventh century, and the couple staked a claim to the English throne by giving their children names deliberately invoking the pre-Conquest monarchs. The boys were Edward, Edmund, Æthelræd, and Edgar, and the new Princess was baptised Edith, a name that honoured St. Edith of Wilton, daughter of King Edgar, as well as Edward the Confessor’s Queen. Twelfth-century sources tell us that 2  Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest Compiled from Official Records and Other Authentic Documents Private as Well as Public, 8 vols. (London: George Bell and Sons), 1:107. The chapter on Matilda of Scotland is by Agnes’s sister and collaborator Elizabeth Strickland. See: Una Pope-Hennessy, Agnes Strickland, Biographer of the Queens of England, 1796–1874 (London: Chatto & Windus, 1940), 319. 3  The scholarship on both Matilda and her mother Margaret is voluminous, but see: Catherine Keene, Saint Margaret, Queen of the Scots: A Life in Perspective (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); and Lois L. Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland: A Study in Medieval Queenship (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003).

4  MATILDA OF SCOTLAND: PEACEMAKER AND PERFECT PRINCESS 

69

William the Conqueror’s Queen Mathilda of Flanders (see Laura L. Gathagan’s chapter) and their son Robert Curthose stood as godparents to the baby, and that at her baptism, the infant grabbed onto a corner of the English Queen’s headdress and pulled it off her head and onto her own, which was seen as a good omen predicting that the baby would herself become a Queen.4 Where this ceremony would have taken place and therefore, where Edith was born is a bit of a mystery. Malcolm and Curthose were together in Falkirk to negotiate a peace settlement in late summer 1080. Mathilda of Flanders’ whereabouts between July 1080, when she was in Normandy, and February 1081, when she was in Salisbury, are unknown, but she was probably at William’s Christmas court at Gloucester in 1080–1081.5 The most likely place for Margaret to have given birth would have been in her chambers at Edinburgh Castle. We do not know whether mother and child came to meet the English Queen and her son in England, or whether Robert and Queen Matilda came to Edinburgh. William’s consort is not otherwise known to have travelled to Scotland, but the fact that after Edith, Margaret and Malcolm stopped using names from the English royal family for their later children bespeaks a firm peace and a new understanding brokered between Malcolm and representatives of William I, perhaps calling upon the abilities of William’s able Queen as well as his often-­ feckless son. From her saintly mother’s vita, which is rich in details of domestic life in the Scottish palace, we learn about Edith’s earliest family experiences. The author presents Margaret and Malcolm as a loving couple and includes several tender scenes of spousal affection. When it comes to her children, Margaret was loving but strict, referring to her children as “mea viscera,” literally, “my insides,” or even “my guts.” The vita claims that she “poured out care to them not less than herself,” teaching them good manners, having them “brought to her often,” and teaching them Scriptural lessons appropriate to their ages.6 Edith spent a relatively short time in Scotland 4  Elisabeth van Houts accepts the story as a “charming tale” revealing of a “gossipy tradition about the role of the queen passed through three generations of women.” Elisabeth van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900–1200 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 73. 5  See: William M. Aird, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy (c.1050–1134) (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008), 92. My thanks to Dr Laura L. Gathagan for her insights on the movements of Mathilda of Flanders. 6  “Life of St Margaret,” paragraph 9, in Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 166.

70 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

with her parents before being sent south along with her sister Mary to be educated at Romsey Abbey in Hampshire. The most likely scenario is that the girls left in 1086 along with Margaret’s sister Christina, who was going to join the Romsey community.7 Romsey was an old, distinguished foundation where both English and Norman elite families sent their daughters for education in Scripture, patristics, languages, literature, and the “domestic arts” they would need to run large and complex households should they not choose to take monastic vows. Edith’s years in the monastic communities were not happy ones. She later described how she spent her childhood “in fear of the rod of my Aunt Christina,” who made her “smart with a good slapping and the most horrible scolding, as well as treating me as being in disgrace,” and made her wear a nun’s habit. “That hood I did indeed wear in her presence,” the Princess later testified before an ecclesiastical council called to determine her eligibility for marriage, “but as soon as I was able to escape out of her sight, I tore it off and threw it in the dirt and trampled on it. That was my only way of venting my rage and the hatred of it that boiled up in me.”8 Before 1093, Edith left Romsey and moved to Wilton Abbey, another ancient English foundation with long ties to the royal family. There, Edith would have had the value of her bloodline and relationship to the English royal family reinforced at every turn. Edward the Confessor’s widow Edith had retired to Wilton before her 1075 death, and there would certainly have been women with first-hand memories of the Queen to share with Edith of Scotland. Also among Wilton’s renowned former inhabitants was St. Edith, whose relics young Edith would have seen, and whose feast she would have celebrated every year. The poet Muriel, who corresponded with a wide circle of ecclesiastic admirers, lived at Wilton during Edith’s girlhood. The poet Serlo of Bayeaux confessed that he hesitated to send Muriel his verses for fear of the scorn of her community, “fertile with verses,” which speaks to Wilton’s reputation for learning and culture.9 While at Wilton, Edith continued to wear monastic apparel if the occasion warranted, and on two separate occasions, visitors to Wilton observed her 7  Robert L.  Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1954), 44. 8  Eadmer of Canterbury, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. Martin Rule (1866; London: Rolls Series, 1964), 122. 9  The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the Twelfth Century, ed. Thomas Wright, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1872), 2:233–234.

4  MATILDA OF SCOTLAND: PEACEMAKER AND PERFECT PRINCESS 

71

wearing a habit in the summer of 1093, when Malcolm and Margaret had evidently found a suitable potential husband for their elder daughter. The period between summer 1093 and March 1094 marked a dramatic turning point in Edith’s life, as well as for Scotland itself. Over the course of that period, at least one proposed marriage for her fell through, her father was killed, her mother died, and her uncle seized the Scottish throne and “drove out all the English,” presumably including Edith and her siblings.10 The sequence of events can only be speculatively laid out. On 11 August 1093, England’s William II and Malcolm were together in Durham, and afterward William requested that Malcolm come to Gloucester for a meeting. While William was on the way to Gloucester, he stopped at Wilton Abbey but left abruptly after seeing Edith veiled. Then, when Malcolm arrived at Gloucester in late August, possibly on the 24th, William refused to see him. Malcolm himself then went to Wilton, and seeing Edith veiled, angrily ripped off the offensive headdress, tore it to shreds, and according to Hermann of Tournai, trampled on it. He exclaimed that he had never intended for his daughter to become a nun, and he took her with him when he left the monastery, presumably returning her to Scotland. Hermann has Malcolm shouting that he would rather have had her marry Alan Rufus than become a nun, an outburst that has been interpreted vastly differently by scholars trying to reconstruct the course of events over those months. Alan was the Breton Count of Richmond and one of the wealthiest men in England, and Malcolm and Margaret may have agreed to marry their daughter to him. Sometime during the summer Alan also arrived at Wilton and carried away the resident Princess Gunnhildr, daughter of King Harold Godwinson, evidently intending to marry her, but whether his visit was before, after, or in between William’s and Malcolm’s is impossible to ascertain. We simply do not know why both kings visited the monastery, whether Count Alan arrived intending to marry Edith, but was prevented from doing so or he changed his mind and carried off another royal princess instead, or even whether he ever intended to marry her at all. Nor do we know why William and Malcolm visited Edith during the same week. There have been suggestions that William Rufus had agreed to marry Edith and was outraged at seeing her veiled, thinking that Malcolm was

10  Michael Swanton, ed. and trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (New York: Routledge, 1996), sub anno 1093, MS E, 228.

72 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

trying to entangle him in a canonically problematic marriage with a nun.11 Some have seen Malcolm’s outburst about Alan as straightforward, in that he was planning on marrying Edith to Alan, while others have argued that it was a sarcastic outburst along the lines of “I would rather have her kidnapped by Alan than become a nun.” There are three twelfth-century accounts of the “veil incident,” each written by an author with an interest in shaping the narrative for his own ends.12 Several scholars have offered plausible sequences of events and interpretations of the sources, but none of them is definitive or provable.13 Whatever happened, Edith left Wilton in her father’s company unmarried, and the departure of both Edith and Gunnhildr left Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, outraged enough to write to the Bishop of Salisbury, ordering him to compel “the lost daughter of the King of Scots, whom the devil caused to cast of the veil of religion,” and who was persisting “shamelessly to wear secular clothing,” to return to the monastery.14 Anselm adds that he had consulted the King, suspecting that he had been complicit in Edith leaving the monastery, but was relieved to find out that the King’s only interest in the girl was to see that she was fed.

11  I discuss the events of the summer of 1093 in detail in Matilda of Scotland, 21–25. The suggestion of William Rufus as a bridegroom for Matilda comes from E.A. Freeman, The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry I, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1882; reprint New York: AMS Press, 1970), 2:282–283, 598–603. Frank Barlow accepted Freeman’s judgment with reservations, see Barlow, William Rufus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 314–315, and Emma Mason accepted it uncritically in Mason, “William Rufus: Myth and Reality,” Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977): 1–20. 12  See Alexandra Locking, “The Story of the Veil: Matilda of Scotland, Controversy, and Imagination in Anglo-Norman Historiography,” The Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History 31 (2019): 133–161. The medieval accounts are by Eadmer of Canterbury, Historia Novorum in Anglia, 121–126; William of Malmesbury, William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. and trans. R.A.B. Mynors, R.M. Thomson, and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998–99), 1:754; and Hermann of Tournai, Liber de restauratione ecclesie Sancti Martini Tornacencis, ed. R.B.C.  Huygens (Turnout: Brepols, 2010), 53–55. 13  In addition to the previously cited sources, see also: Eleanor Searle, “Women and the Legitimisation of Succession at the Norman Conquest,” Anglo-Norman Studies 3 (1980): 159–170; and Richard W. Southern, Saint Anselm and His Biographer: A Study of Monastic Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 185–187. 14  Anselm of Canterbury, S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia, ed. Francis S. Schmitt, 6 vols. (Edinburgh: Nelson, 1946–1961), 4:44–45 (nos. 168, to Gunnhildr, and 169, to Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury.

4  MATILDA OF SCOTLAND: PEACEMAKER AND PERFECT PRINCESS 

73

If Malcolm and Edith returned to  Scotland, she would have been reunited with her mother only for a short time before Malcolm and her older brother Edward were killed on 13 November 1093.15 Margaret died three days later, soon after receiving the news of their deaths. From then until 1100, we can only speculate about Edith’s whereabouts. At some point before 1100, she received and rejected a marriage proposal from William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey.16 When Edith shows up in the sources as a potential bride for Henry I in 1100, she is no longer called Edith, but rather Matilda. The timing of, and reasons for, the name change are unclear, but surely the new name was at least a partial nod towards honouring Henry’s mother Mathilda of Flanders. What the sources are clear on is that Henry, desperate to secure his new throne, was insistent on marrying the Scottish Princess descended from the line of Alfred the Great, and it appears that she was no less insistent on marrying the King.

Peaceweaver, Patron, and Politician William of Malmesbury, who began writing his chronicle at the Queen’s request, tells us that Henry and Matilda were long acquainted, and that he loved her so much that he was willing to overlook the fact that she brought only a modest fortune to the marriage.17 If it was a love match, it was one where, as E.  A. Freeman wrote, “policy and inclination argued for the same conclusion.”18 Henry’s hold on the throne was precarious following his brother’s sudden accidental death. At the time of William’s death, their older brother Robert, Duke of Normandy, whose claim to the throne was at least as strong as Henry’s, and his bride were returning from the First Crusade. Marriage to a descendant of the line of Alfred the Great, with its possibility of future offspring from the “rightful kingly line” was guaranteed to appeal to Henry’s English subjects, and the marriage brought the added possibility of securing the northern border against Scottish incursions.

15  For the circumstances of Malcolm’s death, and Matilda’s later reaction, see: Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 22, 25. 16  Orderic Vitalis, 4:272. 17  “Cuius amori iam pridem animum impulerat, paruipendens dotales diuitias, dum modo diu cupitis potiretur amplexibus.” William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, 1:714. 18  E.A. Freeman, The Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry I, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1882, repr. New York, 1970), 2:330.

74 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

However, rumours persisted that Matilda was a runaway nun, ineligible for marriage, and Archbishop Anselm, himself newly returned to England after being exiled to the Continent during the previous reign, was reluctant to marry the couple. According to Anselm’s personal secretary Eadmer, Matilda requested a meeting with the Archbishop, where she explained that she had only been sent to the monastery for education, never intending to take vows, and that she had never willingly worn monastic dress. Anselm sent envoys to Wilton and the Bishop of Salisbury to confirm her claims, and they returned saying that they found nothing to contradict her story. Anselm then summoned an ecclesiastical council that agreed that she was “free to dispose of her person in whatever way she legally wished.” They also cited Archbishop Lanfranc’s earlier ruling that women who took refuge in monastic settings and wore monastic robes shortly after the Conquest to avoid violence were free to leave their communities once the threat had subsided if they had not taken vows.19 Following the verdict, Anselm agreed to marry the couple and crown Matilda as England’s Queen on St. Martin’s Day, 11 November 1100, after which she was presented to “all the nobles and people of the realm” for acclamation.20 Coming as it did within living memory of the Conquest, the marriage between Matilda and Henry, with its possibility of uniting the blood of the conquered with that of the conquerors in the next generation, made Matilda a living embodiment of the ancient “peaceweaver” queen whose presence, network of kin and allies, and skilful negotiation of social relations often worked to help smooth tensions among rival men and families. In the next generation, the monastic historian Ælræd of Rievaulx would call her “another Esther in our own time,” alluding to the Biblical Queen whose courage saved her oppressed people from extinction.21 Matilda, who was fully aware of the power of her descent from the old line of kings, patronised traditional English arts and commissioned texts designed to record and glorify the English past. Of these, the first was probably the  Eadmer, Historia novorum, 123.  “Totam regni nobilitatem populumque.” Eadmer, Historia novorum, 125. 21  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 6, 35, 39. See also Huneycutt, “Intercession and the High-Medieval Queen: The Esther Topos,” in Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 126–146; and “‘To Proclaim her Dignity Abroad’: The Literary and Artistic Network of Matilda of Scotland, Queen of England 1100–1118,” in The Cultural Patronage of Medieval Women, ed. June Hall McCash (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996), 155–175. 19 20

4  MATILDA OF SCOTLAND: PEACEMAKER AND PERFECT PRINCESS 

75

text now known as the Life of St. Margaret, commissioned early in her reign, presumably from her mother’s confessor Turgot, in order that she might “have a full account” of the virtues of the mother that she had “scarcely known.” This didactic text not only portrays the happy family life discussed earlier, but also shows Margaret as personally pious and very active in the affairs of the kingdom. She built churches, provided for the physical needs of pilgrims, supervised a palace workshop where splendid liturgical garments were produced, and even presided over an ecclesiastical council designed to bring Scottish practices in line with those of the universal church.22 Matilda’s devotion to her mother’s memory must have been well known; eight of the nine surviving poems known to have been written for the Queen mention her mother.23 Her artistic patronage included gifting precious liturgical items created in the English style to Continental bishops, and patronising poets and musicians who sang her praises abroad. Matilda’s interest in her lineage also prompted her to ask William of Malmesbury to produce a genealogical record illustrating her relationship to Malmesbury’s founder St. Aldhelm, and later, to write a full history of the kings of England from its founding.24 Matilda remained close to her natal family. Her gifts to ecclesiastical foundations were as likely to request prayers for the souls of her parents and siblings as they were for her husband and children.25 By 1103, her youngest brother David had joined Henry’s retinue, and Matilda later helped to arrange his marriage to the widowed Countess of Huntington sometime before Christmas 1113.26 Like any medieval queen, Matilda was expected to produce an heir to secure the succession. She was in the early stages of what seems to have been a difficult pregnancy when her brother-in-law Robert invaded England in the summer of 1101; upon learning that the Queen was “in childbed” in Winchester, however, Robert called off his proposed siege of  For the dating, purpose, and authorship of the vita, see: Keene, Saint Margaret, 81–93.   See: Elisabeth M.C. van Houts, “Latin Poetry and the Anglo-Norman Court, 1066–1135: The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio,” The Journal of Medieval History 15 (1989): 39–62. 24  Rodney Thomson, “William of Malmesbury as Historian and Man of Letters,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 29 (1978): 387–413. 25  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 119. 26  See: Judith Green, “David I and Henry I,” Scottish Historical Review 75 (1996): 1–19; and Richard Oram, David I: The King who Made Scotland (Stroud: The History Press, 2008), 64–65. 22 23

76 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

the castle, eventually giving up his claim to England entirely in return for an annual payment from Henry. The Queen gave birth to a daughter, who was also given the name Matilda, in February 1102, and the same year was able to persuade Robert to renounce the annual payment owed to him by the terms of the earlier treaty.27 In the autumn of 1103, she gave birth to a son, William. His birth was hailed as a fulfilment of a deathbed prophecy of Edward the Confessor, who is said to have predicted a season of suffering for England that would only be relieved when “a green tree shall be cut through the middle, and the part cut off, being carried the space of three acres, shall without any assistance become united again to its stem, burst out with flowers, and stretch fort its fruit as before, from the sap again uniting.”28 Commentators interpreted the three acres as the reigns of Harold, William I, and William II, the reunification of the stem representing the marriage of Henry and Matilda, and now with a son born, the tree flowering and bearing fruit. William was evidently Matilda’s last child.29 William of Malmesbury explains the lack of further children as a conscious choice on Matilda’s part in that she was “satisfied with a child of either sex,” and desired no more of them.30 Within a few years, the court of Henry I and Matilda of Scotland was proving to be a quite different place from that of his brother, and not all of Henry’s subjects were happy with his marriage to the pious and dutiful English Princess. Some barons began to “openly libel” Henry with “sarcastic remarks,” and refer to him and his Queen as “Godric” and “Godiva,” names deliberately chosen to emphasise their “Englishness.” If these barbs were intended to negate Matilda’s influence at court, they were remarkably unsuccessful, because throughout her reign, Matilda acted as a true partner to Henry, present when decisions were made, and empowered to make them herself in Henry’s absence. Matilda’s hand can be seen in addressing almost every political or ecclesiastical crisis during the first eighteen years of Henry’s reign.

 Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 74; Aird, Robert Curthose, 215–217.  Barlow, Vita Ædwardi Regis, 75–76. 29  William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, 1:758. 30  William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, 1:754–756. Various commentators throughout the centuries have posited other children born to Matilda. Some seem entirely fanciful, and in some cases, such as that of the late-twelfth-century chronicler Gervase of Canterbury, they mistakenly attribute one or more of Henry’s bastard children to Matilda. See: William Stubbs, ed., Chronica Gervasi, 2 vols. (London: Rolls Series, 1870), 1:91–92. 27 28

4  MATILDA OF SCOTLAND: PEACEMAKER AND PERFECT PRINCESS 

77

With Robert at least temporarily pacified, Henry’s attention turned to the “Investiture Controversy,” a series of differences between papacy and the secular leaders that ultimately re-defined the roles of ecclesiastical authority and royal power in European kingdoms. The chief issue in 1100 was the papal attempt to eradicate lay investiture, the practice of emperors, kings, and other leaders of placing candidates of their choice in important ecclesiastical positions such as bishoprics or the abbacies of important monastic foundations. The reform papacy had seen too many instances of corrupt leaders selling these often-lucrative offices to unqualified men uninterested in performing their spiritual duties, and had forbidden secular leaders from placing, or “investing” candidates into office. Since these rulers and leaders depended on their churchmen, who often held vast amounts of land of the rulers, as both personal advisors and governmental functionaries, it was important to the secular leaders to have loyal and able candidates in place. They were understandably reluctant to give up a privilege and practice that they argued had served everyone well for centuries. Henry’s father, for instance, had asked the renowned canon lawyer and theologian Lanfranc, Abbot of Bec in Normandy, to take the archbishopric of Canterbury after the Conquest, and he and William had worked together well throughout William’s reign. Lanfranc’s successor Anselm had, during his Continental exile in the reign of William II, attended the Council of Rome, where he had received direct orders from the papacy to discontinue allowing lay investiture in England. Matters came to a head in the new realm when Henry insisted on filling three vacant bishoprics with candidates of his choice, and when he was unable to get these bishops-­ elect canonically consecrated, he sent Anselm to Rome to seek advice from the Pope about next steps. The Queen made her sympathies clear by signing one of the King’s charters as “Matilda the queen and daughter of Archbishop Anselm” shortly after Anselm’s departure.31 Throughout the years that Anselm and Henry were at odds, the Queen corresponded with Anselm, at first requesting personal and spiritual advice, but becoming increasingly more politically active as she began to act as an intercessor between King and primate, keeping Anselm apprised of Henry’s likely actions and advising him on how best to approach the King. When Henry seized Canterbury’s revenues, she persuaded him to grant Anselm a personal allowance for his Continental expenses and at one point assured him 31  “Matilldis reginae et filiae Anselmi archiepiscopi.” Thomas Hearnes, ed., Textus Roffiensis (Oxford, 1720), 227.

78 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

that “the king is better disposed to you than most people might think,” and also assured him that “with the help of God, and with me suggesting,” Henry, “may become more welcoming and compromising toward you.”32 Anselm also seems to have had a hand in a letter from the Pope to Matilda, urging her to beg the King to relent, and promising to support him against his enemies if he did.33 Matilda became part of Henry’s “select and stable body of English-­ based vice regal administrators,” who served as his advisors while he was present, and who acted in his absence when he was away. As queen, Matilda fully participated in governing the realm, issuing writs and other documents with the same authority and in the same format as the King’s.34 She issued at least thirty-three charters on her own, some dealing with the demesne lands over which she presided as Lord and others acting in her official role as queen consort. She also regularly attested Henry’s charters, usually first in the list of witnesses, and in some cases, served as the liaison between the King’s court where decisions were made, and the royal chancery, where they were recorded.35 Matilda also interceded, not only between the King and Archbishop, but also between the King and other functionaries and petitioners. Several of Henry’s charters granting favours or rights to both individuals and institutions include phrases acknowledging the Queen’s influence, such as in a gift to the nuns at Malling, where Henry had recorded that he had conceded and confirmed the gift “for love of, and at the request of, my wife, Queen Matilda.”36 The Queen most likely involved in the negotiations for the marriage of her daughter to Henry V, King of the Romans. A surviving letter from the Emperor to his future mother-in-law refers to her as his helper (adiutrix), thanks her 32  “Est enim illi erga vos animus compositior quam plerique homines aestiment, qui deo annuente et me qua potero suggerente vobis fiet commodior atque concordios.” Anselmi opera omnia, 5: 248–249 (no. 320). 33  Anselmi, Anselmi opera omnia, 4:292 (no. 252). 34  C.  Warren Hollister, “The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I,” in Monarchy, Magnates, and Institutions (London: Hambleton Press, 1986), 230. Originally published as: C. Warren Hollister and John W. Baldwin, “The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I and Philip Augustus,” American Historical Review 83, no. 4 (1978): 867–905. See also: David Bates, “The Origins of the Justiciarship,” Anglo-Norman Studies 4 (1981), 1–12. 35  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 79–80. 36  “Hoc concedo et confirm pro amore et deprecatione uxoris mee Mahaldis regine.” Calendar of the Charter Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 6 vols. (London: HSMO, 1903–27), 5:56–57.

4  MATILDA OF SCOTLAND: PEACEMAKER AND PERFECT PRINCESS 

79

for previous favours, and expresses his expectation of relying on her help in the future. “We have,” he wrote, “from experience come to understand your zeal in all those things we ask from you lord,” and later refers to messengers that he had sent “to both of you.”37 The negotiations were successful, and the younger Matilda was betrothed to the Emperor, leaving England in 1110 to complete her education in Germany in anticipation of her future marriage.38 Only a few of the Queen’s many public activities between about 1107 and 1116 can be precisely dated. Two charter attestations survive to confirm that she travelled to Normandy following Henry’s success at the Battle of Tinchebrai in September 1106, returning to England before Easter of 1107.39 She continued to confirm charters, hear court cases, preside over the exchequer, led a council to decide whether to accept a papal legate into England, and made ceremonial appearances at events such as the translation of the relics of St. Æthelwold at Winchester in 1111.40 Her exercise of authority was accepted, expected, and routine, and she worked with full authority, referring to “my judiciary,” describing the royal court as “my lord’s and mine,” and once affirmed that the monks of Worcester Cathedral were under royal protection, enjoying “the firm peace of the king and me.”41 She worked in tandem with other officials, including Anselm until his 1109 death, Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, thereafter, and increasingly, her son William, whom she and Henry were grooming to succeed his father. It is rare that evidence about medieval childrearing practices survives, which make the mention in the annals of Merton Priory of Matilda bringing along 6- or 7-year-old William on an 1110 visit to play on the grounds in hopes of creating pleasant memories that would lead to future patronage especially valuable. William began attesting his mother’s documents in 1115, and in the 37  Klaus Nass, ed., Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Codex Udalrici, Teil 1 und 2, 2 vols. (Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2017), 1: no. 142. 38  Marjorie Chibnall, The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother, and Lady of the English (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 9, 15–17. 39  Regesta regum anglo-normannorum, ed. C. Johnson and H.A. Cronne, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956–98), 2:64 (nos 808, 809). 40  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 86–89. 41  Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 88. See: RRAN, 2:993, 1000; R.R. Darlington, ed., The Cartulary of Worcester Cathedral Priory, Register I (London: Pipe Roll Society, 1968), 26 (no. 40).

80 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

following year, he and Matilda jointly issued three writs concerning a ship that had been seized from the monks of St. Augustine’s Canterbury.42 Although Matilda was unquestionably an astute, able consort, her reputation as the “perfect princess” rests more on her personal piety and ecclesiastical patronage than it does on her administrative savvy. One story, narrated by her brother David to his friend Ælræd of Rievaulx, tells of young David entering the Queen’s chambers to find her washing and kissing the scabrous feet of a group of lepers who had been brought to the palace. When David objected that he did not think Henry I would relish the idea of kissing her if he had known where her lips had been, she reprimanded him by saying that the lips of the heavenly King were to be preferred over any earthly one.43 Matilda also founded the hospital of St. Giles to house fourteen lepers, and donated to a similar institution in Chichester. Attracted to works of practical charity, she was an early patron of the Augustinian canons, who often tended to the physical needs of the poor. She founded an Augustinian priory in London, whose dedication to the Holy Trinity echoed her mother’s foundation at Dunfermline as well as Mathilda of Flanders’ foundation in Caen. The Queen also erected London’s first public bathhouse on what became Queenhithe and paid for several bridges linking London with the surrounding countryside. In addition, she gave many other gifts including a large, elaborate candelabrum to Cluny, liturgical garments and money for a new roof and bells to Chartres cathedral, and paid for improvements to Abingdon Abbey. Matilda’s generosity was tempered by an early tendency to overtax her tenants, including her ecclesiastical tenants, to pay for musicians and poets at court. This behaviour led William of Malmesbury to complain that she suffered from a “desire for glory” (cupiditas gloriae), and drew a rebuke from Anselm, who wrote that he had heard that, “concerning the churches in your care, you are behaving other than is right for them and for your soul.” According to the Archbishop, Matilda should strive to be known as “a mother, a nurse, a kind mistress, and a Queen.”44 Matilda took Anselm’s advice and even learned to manipulate maternal imagery to her advantage. Anselm later wrote to her thanking her for 42  M.L. Colker, “Latin Texts Concerning Gilbert, Founder of Merton Priory,” RRAN 2, 1189–1191. 43  Ælræd of Rievaulx, Genealogica Regum Anglorum, Patrologia cursus completes, series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–64), 195: col. 736. 44  Anselmi opera omnia 5:284 (no. 346), and William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum, 1:756.

4  MATILDA OF SCOTLAND: PEACEMAKER AND PERFECT PRINCESS 

81

volunteering to act as an adoptive mother to his nephew and namesake.45 She also promised Gilbert the Sheriff, founder of Merton Priory, to treat him as her adoptive son as long as she lived when she heard that his own mother had recently died.46 Herbert Losinga, Bishop of Norwich, wrote that the Queen had been “a very mother to me,” when he was experiencing financial distress, and called her as “the common mother of all England.”47

Death, Burial, and Legacy Although there are some hints of an illness sometime between 1111–1113, there is nothing in the sources to suggest that Matilda was suffering from any chronic conditions before her 1118 death. William of Malmesbury reported that she “shared the lot of her relations, who almost all departed this life in the flower of their age.”48 By the time that Matilda died on 1 May 1118, she had rectified her earlier missteps, and could be universally eulogised as “Matilda the Good Queen,” the “assiduous visitor of the sick, a continual reliever of the poor, a co-sufferer with prisoners, a minister to the pregnant, and not only a consoler of the lepers, but one who was a most humble washer of them, and who in everything showed herself to be a most humble servant of Christ.”49 The monks of Holy Trinity Aldgate claimed that Matilda had desired to be buried in her foundation, but ultimately she was laid to rest in Westminster Abbey, near the tombs of Edward the Confessor and Queen Edith. The Warenne Chronicler narrated the elaborate commemorations of her passing, including the epitaph on her tomb, “Here lies the distinguished second queen Matilda, who surpassed both young and old in her time. She was for all a pattern of morals, and life’s adornment.”50 Except for a brief time following the ­drowning  Anselmi opera omnia, 5: 248–251 (nos. 320 and 321).  M.L. Colker, “Latin Texts Concerning Gilbert, Founder of Merton Priory,” Studia Monastica 12 (1970): 241–272. 47  Herbert Losinga, Epistolae Herbert de Losinga, prima episcopi Norwiencis, ed. Robert Anstruther (Caxton Society, 1846; repr. New York, 1969), no. 25. 48  William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, 1:758. 49  Gerald Hodgett, ed., The Cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldgate (London: London Record Society, 1971), 223. 50  “Hic iacet insignis regina secunda Matildis, temporis ipsa sui superans iuuenesque senesque. Morum norma, decus vite, fuit omnibus una.” Warenne Chronicle, 66–67. Translation mine. 45 46

82 

L. L. HUNEYCUTT

of her son William in 1120 and the subsequent civil war between her daughter and King Stephen following King Henry’s 1135 death, the judgments of her contemporary commentators have held. Though it was a generation later than expected, Matilda did bring the bloodline of the early English monarchy back to the English monarchy. Because of Matilda of Scotland’s marriage to Henry I, every English monarch since her grandson Henry II has been a descendant of Alfred the Great. And while she was not the first to serve the crown in a vice-regal capacity, or provide for the kingdom through works of practical charity, or patronise the arts, she fulfilled each royal duty so well that she remained “the pattern of the perfect princess” throughout the medieval period, and is indeed remembered as an exemplary Christian, wife, mother, and Queen.51

 For Matilda’s posthumous reputation, see: Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland, 145–150.

51

CHAPTER 5

Adeliza of Louvain: Patron Liam Lewis

In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, here begins the Bestiary that Philippe de Thaon composed in the praise and memory of Queen Adeliza of England. —Le Bestiaire, Philippe de Thaon

The epigraph to this chapter is a striking dedication of a medieval text composed in memory of Queen Adeliza of Louvain.1 Appearing at the beginning of the first extant bestiary written in French, it signals Adeliza’s role as a participant in a culture of patronage, and as the object of admiration and praise from one of her subjects. And yet, it simultaneously tells us very little, in the sense that such dedications are formed by literary tropes. 1  “In nomine sancte ed individue Trinitatis Bestiarius incipit quem Philippus Taonensis fecit in laude et memoria regine Anglie Aelidis,” Bestiari medievali, ed. Luigina Morini (Torino: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1996), 112. Translation my own.

L. Lewis (*) University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_5

83

84 

L. LEWIS

The little that we can construct of the life of Adeliza of Louvain and her time as Henry I’s second Queen (1121–1135) comes to us through the ages in the form of dedications alongside chronicles, charters, and endowments. Adeliza’s character and political personality remain tantalisingly obscure—a passive and gentle figure, perhaps, or a shrewd political maneuverer later in life? Since it is possible to justify both of these interpretations, we are faced with important questions about how to reconstruct the character of a historical queen and what her legacy as queen consort can tell us about her life.

A New Queen of England Adeliza’s story as an English consort begins with her marriage to Henry I on 29–30 January 1121, at Windsor.2 The court she entered had recently suffered a number of significant losses. In 1118, Henry I’s first wife, Matilda, had died of an unspecified illness, leaving behind a considerable legacy of patronage, religious piety, and skilled administration as queen regent while Henry was away in Normandy (see Lois L.  Huneycutt’s chapter). Two years later, on 25 November 1120, Henry’s only legitimate son, William Ætheling, perished in a Channel crossing after striking a rock, an event that has come to be known as the “White Ship disaster.” This event was to become a defining image of grief and divine punishment during Henry’s reign, severely disrupting his alliance with Anjou.3 The King thus found himself in a difficult period both personally and politically. He needed to secure his own line of succession through marriage and heirs and to consider political strategy for the future. Adeliza entered the English court as a young woman through marriage to the King in January 1121, but she would have been well-equipped for life as a member of a royal family due to her own illustrious heritage. Her precise birth date is unknown but is generally accepted to have been just after the turn of the century, as she is described as puellam virginem (a young woman of marriageable age) by chroniclers when she married 2  John of Worcester, Florentii Wigorniensis Monachi, Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Benjamin Thorpe, 2 vols. (London: Sumptibus Societatis, 1849), 2:75; and Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. Martin Rule (London, 1884), 290–93. 3  For Henry of Huntington’s claim that the sin in question was sodomy, see: Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, ed. T.  Arnold (London: Rolls Series, 1879), 242.

5  ADELIZA OF LOUVAIN: PATRON 

85

Henry, who was in his late forties.4 She was the daughter of Godfrey, Count of Louvain (1095–1139), Duke of Lower Lotharingia (1106–1128), an ancestor of the ducal line of Brabant, and his first wife Ide, daughter of Henri III, Count of Namur. Godfrey was an ally of Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, who was Henry I of England’s own son-in-law by marriage to Matilda, his daughter. Henry’s advisors could only have encouraged that he further strengthen his diplomatic ties with the German Empire, especially at a time when his relations with Charles of Flanders were “invariably hostile”; Henry I had fought against both the Count of Flanders, Baldwin VII, and the French King in 1118. Baldwin’s cousin, who succeeded to the county, was hostile to Baldwin’s mother, now remarried to Godfrey of Louvain.5 By marrying Adeliza, Charles became one of Henry’s most significant enemies, but the fact that the King of England was related by marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor, whose own lands bordered Flanders, offered a greater sense of security. Contemporary chroniclers propose alternative reasons for the marriage, suggesting that it was due to a desire for children, and because Adeliza had the necessary morals and character to become Queen of England.6 John of Worcester writes that Henry sought a new marriage to avoid shame or sin (“inhonestum”), a charge related to the King’s notorious reputation for sexual relations outside of marriage.7 These remarks should be placed within the wider context of the twelfth century, which saw no more than eight years without a queen consort in England, including the period 1118–1121, between the death of Henry I’s first wife and his remarriage.8 It would thus have been unthinkable for Henry not to have sought a new wife, and it is highly likely that the marriage was a decision made after much discussion and deliberation amongst Henry’s chief advisors.9 The marriage and subsequent coronation reinforced Adeliza’s standing as a legitimate English Queen, drawing authority from both the English  John of Worcester, Chronicon, 2:75.  Robert Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings: 1075–1225 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 40. 6  Orderic Vitalis, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 6:308; and William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, printed in De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London: Rolls Series, 1889), 2:528. 7  John of Worcester, Chronicon, 2:75. 8  Bartlett, England, 35. 9  Bartlett, England, 145. 4 5

86 

L. LEWIS

and dynastic paths.10 This is evident in the Westminster writs that commemorated the souls of Henry’s brother and father, his recently dead son, and his mother (see Laura L.  Gathagan’s chapter) and first wife.11 The foundation of Reading Abbey, a former nunnery re-established by Henry as a male house in the same year as the marriage, may have been an act of piety and penance in order to wash royal hands of “the stain of holding church property.” The foundation took place in a context in which “royal sins were to the fore,” as Henry mourned the death of his heir and prepared for his new marriage by turning his attention to the foundation of a religious institution.12 After Henry’s death, Adeliza gave the manor of Aston (in Hertfordshire) to the abbey of Reading, and granted the monks lands and an annual payment of 100 shillings to commemorate the anniversary of Henry’s death—including a later gift for perpetual lights to burn before the King’s tomb.13 The carved capital from the abbey’s cloister, dating to the earliest stages of its construction, is a representation of Mary as Queen, a symbol of the Virgin mother (see Danna R. Messer’s and Katherine Weikert’s chapter): “intercessor par excellence, crowned queen by her son, to bring together all the meanings of the year 1121: queenship, fertility, purity and penance.”14 These themes were essential to the symbolic role that Adeliza had inherited as queen consort.

Patron of Cultural and Social Memory There is little documentation of Adeliza’s participation in the governance of the realm as Queen. This is a significant contrast to her predecessor, Matilda of Scotland, and perhaps indicates a shift in the type of support required by Henry during the latter part of his reign as Henry’s government became more centralised and the need for administration by the royal family diminished. Although Adeliza attested a few of her husband’s 10  Pauline Stafford, “Cherchez la femme, Queens, Queens’ Lands and Nunneries: Missing Links in the Foundation of Reading Abbey,” History 85, no. 277 (2000): 23. 11  Regesta Regum Anglo-Normanorum, ed. Henry W.C. Davis et  al., 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 2:155–156 (nos. 1247–1252). 12  Stafford, “Cherchez la femme,” 5, 14. 13  Reading Abbey Cartularies, ed. B.R. Kemp, 6 vols. (London: Royal Historical Society, 1986), 1:301, 353, 403–405 (nos. 370, 459, 534–535). See: Bartlett, England, 601. 14  Stafford, “Cherchez la femme,” 24, 26. See also: George Zarnecki, “The Coronation of the Virgin on a Capital from Reading Abbey,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950): 3.

5  ADELIZA OF LOUVAIN: PATRON 

87

charters, and accompanied Henry to Normandy in 1125, 1129, and probably 1131, she never served as a regent, and she does not appear as part of the King’s curia.15 Laura Wertheimer makes the astute observation that she may not have had the possibility to take on an active political role because Henry did not separate from her for long periods of time in the first decade of their marriage, presumably because he was focused on producing an heir.16 This would make her absence in governance due to circumstances, rather than any lack of interest on Adeliza’s part or trust in her ability to govern. The latter is especially important because her distinguished Continental heritage suggests that, at the time of her marriage, she would have been educated and prepared for her role as consort. Although nothing is known of her early education, Adeliza’s upbringing as daughter of the Count of Louvain would have placed her in good stead for the types of political and cultural demands to be placed on her as consort. Literary patronage is important to Adeliza’s story today and her participation in a culture of patronage can be traced back to her predecessor’s legacy, and through a number of key references.17 Her name features in literary dedications written in the French of England. This is well-­ attested and in itself is not surprising considering the advent of Anglo-­ Norman as a literary language during the first half of the twelfth century. The Anglo-Norman poet Philippe de Thaon (active c.1121–1134) wrote a bestiary dedicated to “Aliz” (Adeliza). The dedication survives in the earliest extant manuscript from the last half of the twelfth century and in another witness from around the year 1300. That Adeliza’s name is connected so strongly to a bestiary written in the French of England demonstrates that the royal patronage of vernacular literature was key to developments in elite literary circles and religious piety during this period. Bestiaries were works composed from the ninth to thirteenth centuries deriving from the late antique Physiologus, typically relating the natures of animals, birds, and stones, and attributing to these allegorical behaviours a specific point of Christian doctrine or moral teaching. One other version  Regesta, 2:85, 192, 202, 206, 227, 250 (nos. 1391, 1427, 1467, 1489, 1587, 1701).  Laura Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain and Anglo-Norman Queenship,” Haskins Society Journal 7 (1995): 104; and C. Warren Hollister and John W. Baldwin, “The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I and Philip Augustus,” American Historical Review 83, no. 4 (1978): 223–245. 17  M. Dominica Legge, “L’influence littéraire de la cour d’Henri Beauclerc,” in Mélanges offerts à Rita Lejeune, ed. Fred Dethier, 2 vols. (Gembloux: Éditions J.  Duculot, 1969), 1:683. 15 16

88 

L. LEWIS

from the thirteenth century survives, but is dedicated to “Alienore” (Eleanor of Aquitaine), wife of Henry II (see Martin Aurell’s chapter).18 The original dedication to Henry I’s second Queen, Adeliza, and the subsequent re-dedication of the bestiary, is indicative of how consorts were tied to shifting expressions of patronage in French texts during this period. A culture of literary patronage, linked to shifts in social networks and chamber reading, flourished under twelfth-century queens who exercised influence over literary and religious cultures in this way.19 French was a language of culture in England during this period, more so than a spoken language. It was highly conventional for authors to seek the patronage of royal consorts to “sustain the precocity of Anglo-Norman literary production.”20 The bestiary would have been a good candidate for a commission if this had been Adeliza’s intention, as it would have placed her at the forefront of the communication of different types of secular and religious knowledge. A prologue to the bestiary written in French tells us about the textual culture to which Adeliza’s name is now ascribed.21 The prologue expands on some of the material from the Latin dedication in my epigraph, emphasising a process of translatio to explain the transmission of knowledge into the vernacular and a link between the name of the Queen and the same word in Hebrew. By highlighting the transmission of textual knowledge from Hebrew and Latin into the French language (“en franceise raisun”), Philippe raises the status of French as a language fit for a Queen: Philippe de Thaon has translated the Bestiary, an authoritative book, into the French language for the honour of a jewel, who is a very handsome woman. And she is courteous and wise, of good and sizeable conduct. She 18  For “Aliz,” see the “Bestiaire” in British Library, MS Cotton Nero A V, and Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, MS Gl. kgl. S. 3466 8°. For “Alienor,” see: Oxford, Merton College Library, MS 249. 19  Geoff Rector, “‘En sa chambre sovent le lit’: Literary Leisure and the Chamber Sociabilities of Early Anglo-French Literature (c.1100–1150),” Medium Aevum 81, no. 1 (2012): 88–125; and Lois L. Huneycutt, “Images of Queenship in the High Middle Ages,” Haskins Society Journal 1 (1989): 61–71. 20  Susan Crane, “Anglo-Norman Cultures in England, 1066–1460,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 45. See also: Ian Short, “On Bilingualism in Anglo-Norman England,” Romance Philology 33, no. 4 (1980): 467–479. 21  Elizabeth Dearnley, Translators and their Prologues in Medieval England (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2016), 27–28.

5  ADELIZA OF LOUVAIN: PATRON 

89

is called Adeliza, and is crowned Queen, Queen of England, may her soul never be troubled! And hear this concerning her name, which we find in Hebrew: “Aliz” is a name that means “praise of God.” In Hebrew, justly, “Aliz” means praise of God. I dare not give thanks, that I may become envious, but may she always be remembered, and praised every day.22

In accounts of Adeliza’s literary connections it is often assumed that she was Philippe’s patron, although there is no evidence of a specific commission as there is with the Voyage of Saint Brendan, discussed below. Nevertheless, Philippe’s attention to Adeliza, and his panegyric tone, imply that the patronage of cultural translation and the promotion of the French language in written works produced in England was important to the Queen. Simultaneously, the prologue to the bestiary demonstrates the position of the consort in the Anglo-Norman dynasty’s construction of a cultural heritage now expressed in French as well as Latin and English. The types of text and cultural ideologies associated with Adeliza of Louvain provide insight into how we construct the life and activities of a queen consort. Whether or not she actively commissioned the bestiary by Philippe de Thaon is less important than the attribution of the text to her and the connections this forms between literacy, patronage, and the promotion of her as a new English Queen with access to the prestigious French language. The patronage network in which Adeliza participated was based not only on the translation of works into the French vernacular, but also on the construction of social memory—an area that may have been of particular importance to a consort with Continental origins. Kathleen Thompson argues that Adeliza’s network provides the earliest insight to “the social and political impact of a foreign queen on national as well as local history.”23 Alongside Philippe de Thaon’s bestiary, another early Anglo-Norman text, a “saint’s life” recounting the voyage of Saint Brendan, reinforces Adeliza’s connection to literature with religious themes. This work, composed c.1106–1121, is an adaptation of the 22  “Philippe de Thaün | en franceise raisun | ad estrait Bestiaire, | un livere de gramaire, | pur l’onur d’une gemme, | ki mult est bele femme, | E est curteise e sage, | de bonis murs e large: | Aliz est numee, | reïne est corunee, | reïne est d’Engleterre; | sa ame n’ait ja guere! | E oiez de son non | qu’en ebrieu trovon | Aliz si nons est, | loënge de Dé est; | en ebreu, en vertè, | est Aliz laus de Dé.| Ne os fere luenge, | qu’envirie ne me prenge, | meis ele seit remenbré | e tuz joris mes loé.” Morini, Bestiari medievali, 112–114. Translation my own. 23   Kathleen Thompson, “Queen Adeliza and the Lotharingian Connection,” Sussex Archaeological Collections 140 (2002): 57.

90 

L. LEWIS

immensely popular Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis, and is the first extant literary work to be composed in Anglo-Norman.24 It is also probably the first French poem to be written in what was later to become the standard verse form of romance, the octosyllabic rhyming couplet. This poem is dedicated to Adeliza in the first line of three of the four extant manuscripts that preserve the prologue of the poem. The author of this text names himself as “li apostoiles danz Benedeiz” (the missioner Dom Benedeit). Here Benedeit mentions that the translation into French (“en romanz”) has been commissioned by the Queen herself: My lady Adeliza the Queen, through whom divine law will prevail and secular law be strengthened, and through whom this great war will be brought to an end, by virtue of the military power of Henry the King and the wise counsel you embody, the missioner Dom Benedeit greets you a thousand times and more. He has undertaken the commission you gave him in accordance with his ability and put into writing in the vulgar tongue, as you commanded, the story of the holy abbot, Saint Brendan.25

The other manuscript preserving the prologue to the poem has a variant, dedicating the text to Mahalt, that is Maud or Matilda, Henry’s first wife, rather than to “Aaliz.”26 We are thus confronted with a similar problem as that presented by the bestiary. It is possible that the difference here was a scribal amendment relating to either Henry’s first and better-known Queen, or perhaps even to his daughter Empress Matilda, although the latter is very unlikely.27 Ian Short and Brian Merrilees have suggested the 24  For the Navigatio, see: Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis from Early Latin Manuscripts, ed. Carl Selmer (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1989). 25  “Donna Aaliz la reïne, | Par qui valdrat lei divine, | Par qui creistrat lei de terre | E remandrat tante guerre | Por les armes Henri lu rei | E par le cunseil qui ert en tei, | Salüet tei mil e mil feiz | Li apostoiles danz Benedeiz. | Que comandas ço ad enpris | Secund sun sens e entremis, | En letre mis e en romanz, | Esi cum fud li teons cumanz, | De saint Brendan le bon abéth.” Benedeit, The Anglo-Norman Voyage of St Brendan, ed. Ian Short and Brian Merrilees (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1979), 30 (ll. 1–13). Translation from The Voyage of St Brendan: Representative Versions of the Legend in English Translation, ed. W.R.J. Barron and Glyn Burgess (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002), 74. 26  The dedication to “Mahalt” is in the late-twelfth or early-thirteenth-century Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawl. D 913, which is probably not the oldest of the manuscripts to contain the Voyage. See: Benedeit, The Anglo-Norman Voyage, 4–8. 27  Benedeit, The Anglo-Norman Voyage, 4–5. See: Clive R.  Sneddon, “Brendan the Navigator: A. Twelfth-Century View,” in The North Sea World in the Middle Ages: Studies in the Cultural History of North-Western Europe, ed. Thomas R. Liszka and Lorna E.M. Walker (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001), 225–227.

5  ADELIZA OF LOUVAIN: PATRON 

91

“great war” of this passage refers to “political expectations in the period immediately following Henry’s defeat of his brother in 1106 and his conquest of Normandy,” hence the conclusion that it was Matilda who was the original patron of the text.28 However, it is impossible to conclude whether this poem refers to an actual war, or is evidence of a conventional eulogy. As such, there is not enough evidence to suggest that Matilda commissioned this work simply based on her reputation as a patron of the arts. If Adeliza had suggested a sea narrative saint’s life for Henry’s court following the White Ship disaster, this would have been an intriguing choice, perhaps suggestive of the importance of religious piety in the cultural context of the time.29 The recognition of the office and status of the Queen being lauded was more important than the specification of a particular woman. Nonetheless, whomever the original commissioner was, the extant evidence of three scribes referring to Adeliza as patron contributes to a strong association between her and the formation of cultural memory. According to the contemporary Anglo-Norman chronicler Geoffrey Gaimar, Adeliza commissioned a long volume (“un livre grant”) on Henry, supposedly composed with music by a poet named David, none of whose works survive to the present day. Gaimar mentions this as the reason why he himself does not write the history of Henry I.30 Gaimar mentions a copy of this text owned by another woman of prestige: [Adeliza] had a large book made [of David’s work], the first verse of which she had notated in music. … Lady Constance owns a written copy of it, which she often reads in her chamber; and, for the copying of it she paid a mark of silver, duly assayed and weighed. The material of which this book was composed has achieved some circulation and reached several places.31

Although no version of the biography supposedly commissioned by Adeliza survives today, Gaimar’s insistence that such a text in “vers”  TheVoyage of St Brendan, 5.  The Voyage of St Brendan, 67. 30  Ian Short, “Gaimar’s Epilogue and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Liber vetustissimus,” Speculum 69, no. 2 (1994): 322–343; and Ian Short, “Patrons and Polyglots: French Literature in Twelfth-Century England,” Anglo-Norman Studies 14 (1991): 237. 31  “Ele en fist fere un livre grant, | le primer vers noter par chant. … Dame Custance en ad l’escrit | en sa chamber sovent le lit; | e ad pur l’escrire doné | un marc d’argent ars e pesé | En plusurs lius est espandu | del livre ço ke feit en fu.” Geffrei Gaimar, Estoire des Engleis: History of the English, ed. Ian Short (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 351–353. 28 29

92 

L. LEWIS

(“metrical lines,” often used to describe vernacular song) was read attentively by a certain Lady Constance is highly suggestive of the fact that the text did exist at one time. This also fits with Gaimar’s own writing in the French vernacular, which has been described as “history designed for the consumption of the secular aristocracy who patronised him,” thus incorporating aspects of moral instruction and romance for entertainment.32 Alongside her potential commissions of vernacular texts, Adeliza is also mentioned in Latin poetry. In Philippe de Thaon’s bestiary, French and Latin are used together in the same text, including for the prologues dedicating the text to Adeliza. An “anonymous” poem, Anglorum regina tuos, was quoted by Henry of Huntingdon for the occasion of her marriage to Henry.33 The Latin poem has its roots in a tradition of panegyric writing dedicated to noblewomen.34 It is possible that the original author of the poem quoted by Henry of Huntingdon above was Hildebert of Lavardin, the Archbishop of Tours, who acted as Adeliza’s spiritual advisor.35 Hildebert of Lavardin was a French ecclesiastic and theologian who was Bishop of Le Mans and Archbishop of Tours. He offered Adeliza consolation for not having borne children to the King. It is not known how she took Hildebert’s advice that instead of bearing the King children, she could bring forth the poor to the King of the angels.36 Never having children with Henry I was likely of importance to the Queen, as she did not fulfil an expectation to bear heirs to the throne and ensure the continuity of the royal dynasty. While not being Queen mother did secure her some political stability in the sense that she did not have to manage competition between her children, it is important to ask whether her childless status remains a factor as to why she has been so little recognised or even remembered as a consort. Besides supporting a culture of memory and perhaps even the creation of royal identity, Adeliza’s literary patronage also suggests that religion  Estoire des Engleis, xiv.  A.G. Riggs, “Serlo of Wilton: Biographical Notes,” Medium Aevum 65 (1996): 96–101. 34  The poem, probably by Henry of Huntingdon himself, begins: “Anglorum regina, tuos, Adelina, decores, | Ipsa referre parans, Musa stupore riget. | Quid diadema tibi pulcherrima? quid tibi gemmæ?” See: Henrici archidiaconi huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, ed. Arnold Thomas (London: Rolls Series, 1879), 243. 35  Elisabeth M.C. van Houts, “Latin Poetry and the Anglo-Norman Court 1066–1135: The Carmen de Hastingæ Proelio,” Journal of Medieval History 15, no.1 (1989): 52. 36  Hildebert of Lavardin, Patrologia cursus completus, series latina, ed. J.-P.  Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–1864), 171:189–191, ep. I.xviii. 32 33

5  ADELIZA OF LOUVAIN: PATRON 

93

was as important to her as it was for her predecessor, Matilda, although she expressed it on a more earnest and private level. According to the Waltham chronicler, Adeliza was instrumental in placing a boy of five, who would later become the Waltham chronicler himself, in the school of the Church of the Holy Cross. The chronicle provides an important source for some of the Queen’s activities, and attests to how the payments given at Adeliza’s discretion for the Waltham chronicler’s education as a young boy would later serve her own interests in the writing of cultural history.37 Likewise, C.M. Kauffmann has suggested that Adeliza commissioned the Shaftesbury Psalter not long after the death of her husband, and that the production of this manuscript may have been supervised by her chaplains.38 These strands of evidence point to Adeliza’s active participation in the support of writing and textual communities, including the patronage of texts that served to cement Henry’s legacy on parchment. Adeliza’s participation in literary culture thus highlights her role in maintaining the cultural memory of the King and supporting the modernising of English literary culture by commissioning works in the promising new lingua franca of Western Europe—French. Literary patronage, in its broadest terms, seems to have been of interest to Adeliza throughout her time as consort. In contrast to later medieval women, who often became patrons when their husbands died, Adeliza may have largely ceased the function of patron following Henry’s death, although the poet Serlo of Wilton was in her service after this time.

Lady of Arundel Adeliza settled in Arundel in the 1130s and could be found there after the death of the King, who died at the hunting lodge of Lyons-la-Forêt near Rouen on 1 December 1135. After Henry’s death, Adeliza continued to hold the title regina, even when she later married William d’Aubigny, son of Henry’s butler William d’Aubigny pincerna, who was made Earl of Arundel by King Stephen, for whom he had fought during the Anarchy.39 37  The Waltham Chronicle: An Account of the Discovery of our Holy Cross at Montacute and its Conveyance to Waltham, ed. and trans. Leslie Watkiss and Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 64. 38  C.M. Kauffmann, “British Library, Lansdowne Ms. 383: The Shaftesbury Psalter?,” in New Offerings, Ancient Treasure: Studies in Medieval Art for George Henderson, ed. Paul Binski and William Noel (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 2001), 272. 39  Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 109.

94 

L. LEWIS

The date of her second marriage to William d’Aubigny is unknown, but Kathleen Thompson suggests sometime before autumn 1139.40 The number of children they had together is contested. Contemporary chronicler Robert of Torigni suggests three in one account (William, Godfrey, and Adeliza) but in another four (William and three siblings). Scholars Lois L.  Huneycutt and Agnes Strickland account for seven children, but Thompson traces only five potential siblings: William and Godfrey, Adeliza wife of John, Count of Eu, Reinier, and Olivia, buried at Boxgrove.41 Adeliza was a prominent landowner by the time the King died. Alongside Arundel, she held the manor of Aston in Hertfordshire, probably given to her as part of her marriage portion. She received an exemption from the land-tax known as the geld for land exploited directly rather than occupied by tenants. In 1130 the list for these exemptions shows property in Lincolnshire, London, and Devon, as well as “a moderate estate in south-east England, concentrated in Essex, with smaller clusters in nearby Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, and further lesser properties in Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, and Middlesex.”42 Her property in Devon brought in over £50 per annum and she received £13 from Ashleworth in Gloucestershire as a gift from the King. The largest component of her endowment may have been the entire county of Shropshire, which she was given in 1126. Evidently, therefore, Adeliza would have had the types of funds at her disposal to support multiple projects, the type of which we have seen above. Although detailed evidence is lacking of her involvement in administration, such significant land holdings demonstrate that she was active in this domain, continuing the legacy of her predecessors. The status of queenship required the Queen’s involvement and adjudication concerning the lands she held as a royal figure. Unlike Matilda, her predecessor, Adeliza did not leave behind a legacy of founding major religious houses. However, she did make benefactions to the following: the canons at Waltham Abbey in Lincolnshire and Osney near Oxford (both of which she received as a portion of her dower), 40  Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 60. See also: Judith A. Green, The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 300. 41  For Torigni, see: Chronicle, 246, 271. See also: Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 63n58; Lois L.  Huneycutt, “Adela, Countess of Blois (c.1067–1137),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/161; and Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, 6 vols. (London, 1882), 1:197. 42  See: Bartlett, England, 42–43.

5  ADELIZA OF LOUVAIN: PATRON 

95

Chichester Cathedral, the black monks of Eynsham, the crusading Order of Templars, the Cistercians of Waverly in Surrey, the Abbey of St Sauveur in the Cotentin in Normandy, and a small priory at Pynham close to Arundel castle.43 Adeliza also added to the endowment of Reading Abbey, originally founded by Henry and which remained an important institution to English royals, later enjoying the support of Empress Matilda and her son, the future Henry II. Adeliza herself granted Reading the churches of Berkeley Hernesse.44 She also made gifts to monastic communities, founded a leprosarium in Wilton, and made numerous donations to religious institutions for the benefit of Henry’s soul between 1136 and 1141.45 Adeliza and her step-daughter Empress Matilda also confirmed the gift of a church in Hernesse to Master Serlo, one of Adeliza’s clerks, who witnessed her grant of Aston manor to Reading in 1136.46 The Queen came into possession of the lordship of Berkeley in the later 1140s after holding an estate in Ashleworth by gift of Henry I in the 1130s. Her charter to Reading “reads like the charter of a person in possession of the lordship,” further emphasising the need to situate Adeliza in the context of land administration. It is addressed to Simon, Bishop of Worcester, and to “all her faithful ministers and all clerks and laymen, French and English, of Berkeley Hernesse.”47

Political Mediator One of the most significant events in Adeliza’s political career occurred after Henry’s death, and once she had taken up residence at Arundel. It is at this time that Adeliza safely navigated a complex political manoeuvre that defined her later life. Adeliza and her husband William found themselves in a politically delicate situation when the Holy Roman Empress Matilda, Henry’s daughter, sailed to England in September 1139 to challenge King Stephen’s throne. Matilda was housed at Arundel for a short period after landing in Sussex, and Robert of Torigni reports that William

43  Bartlett, England, 45. Full details of evidence for Adeliza’s land ownership are given in Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 109. 44  Stafford, “Cherchez la femme,” 5, 14. 45  Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 110–111. 46  B.R. Kemp, “The Churches of Berkeley Hernesse,” Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 87 (1968): 105–106. 47  Kemp, “The Churches of Berkeley Hernesse,” 104.

96 

L. LEWIS

d’Aubigny had sent her an invitation to stay with them.48 There may have been tensions between the queen dowager and the new King, Stephen, who sought to recover some of Adeliza’s property for his own wife, another Matilda.49 Although it is often suggested that Adeliza sought to make peace between Stephen and his cousin in 1139 when Matilda came to the shores of England, it may equally have been the case that “the queen dowager had welcomed her step-daughter to England after having been deprived of some or all of the queen’s traditional lands by King Stephen.”50 The Empress may have sought to restore Waltham to Queen Adeliza, giving the latter a difficult choice to make between fidelity to the new King and the support of her own stepdaughter, to whom she had sworn an oath to accept as Henry’s heir at the great council of 1126–1127.51 However, while Matilda’s main champion, Robert of Gloucester, was trying to raise the country to Matilda’s cause, King Stephen besieged Arundel and Adeliza surrendered her to him, negotiating safe conduct for Matilda from Arundel so that she could join her brother Robert. There is no reason to suspect that Adeliza and William were anything other than loyal to Stephen for the remainder of the civil war. There are competing interpretations of Adeliza’s actions in this sequence of events, from William of Malmesbury’s plainly misogynist “female fickleness” to John of Worcester’s suggestion that Adeliza feared Stephen’s majesty since, according to Worcester, she “swore an oath that his enemies had not come to England on her account but that she had simply given them hospitality as persons of high dignity once close to her.”52 Adeliza was Matilda’s stepmother but she also likely knew Stephen personally, having attested a charter with him previously.53 Wertheimer suggests that Adeliza’s rank as dowager queen may have given her a position of ­“authority and relative neutrality” that made it possible for her to receive 48  William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella: The Contemporary History, ed. Edmund King, trans. K.R. Potter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 60; and Robert of Torigny, Chronicle, in Chronicles of the Reign of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 4:137. 49  Waltham Chronicle, 79. 50  Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 60 51  Regesta, 3 (no. 918); and David B. Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen 1134–54 (Harlow: Routledge, 2000), 109. For the oath, see: John of Worcester, The Chronicle of John of Worcester 1118–1140, Being the Continuation of the “Chronicon Ex Chronicis” of Florence of Worcester, ed. J.R.H. Weaver (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), 27. 52  William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, 35; and John of Worcester, Chronicle, 55. 53  Regesta, 2:227 (no. 1588).

5  ADELIZA OF LOUVAIN: PATRON 

97

the Empress with impunity while arranging her safe departure from Arundel.54 Adeliza’s decisions at this time demonstrate her capacity for political manoeuvring in order to protect the interests of herself and her family, including their estates. The ability to mediate in such situations was a defining expectation of a woman of her status and position, and demonstrates a knowledge likely stemming from her upbringing as a child and her time spent as Henry’s Queen. The maintenance of family and Lotharingian connections was clearly of importance to Adeliza. The lives of two of her ladies, Juliana and Melisende of Rethel, are briefly described by contemporary writers.55 Adeliza may have made a deliberate effort to surround herself with her own Lotharingian community during the early period of her life in England and after Henry’s death. Her brother, Jocelin of Louvain, ancestor of the Percies, was subinfeudated with the barony of Petworth, which accounted for a substantial sum of money, approximate to 221/2 knights’ fees in 1166, and he attested the Queen’s first act in favour of Reading.56 According to Thompson, his arrival at court shortly after Henry’s death “sheds an interesting sidelight on the Queen’s reference in the 1136 act to ‘all the offspring of the most noble King Henry,’” suggesting a tolerant attitude on the Queen’s part to Henry’s illegitimate children, which in turn may have helped her to help her own bastard brother.57 Adeliza’s chancellor on arrival to England was another Lotharingian named Godfrey, who was appointed to Bishop of Bath by the King in 1123.58 Her second chancellor Simon, also from Louvain, became Bishop of Worcester in 1125 and remained so until his death in 1150.59 These actions demonstrate “mutual support amongst the Louvain community in England,” which would have provided political protection for Adeliza as queen dowager.60

 Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 114.  Both are discussed in detail by Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 58–59. 56  Regesta, 3:208 (no. 568). 57  Kathleen Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 60; and “The Early Descent of the Honour of Petworth,” Sussex Archaeological Collections 124 (1986): 262–263. 58  John of Worcester, Chronicle, III: Annals from 1067 to 1140 with the Gloucester Interpolations and the Continuation to 1141, ed. and trans. P. McGurk (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1998), 154. 59  “Annales de Waverleia,” in Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard (London: Rolls Series, 1864–69), 2: 219. 60  Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 57. 54 55

98 

L. LEWIS

Shaping a Legacy Although it is often noted that Adeliza did not have children with Henry, by the 1150s Adeliza was the mother of a large family and her descendants formed a line of earls in West Sussex until the middle of the thirteenth century.61 She did, however, perform her function as Queen in other ways: as a patron and benefactor, as a land owner, and as a political mediator. The former of these has left a considerable and lasting legacy. There is some uncertainty about the exact date of Adeliza’s death, which was sometime during March or April 1151 at Afflighem Abbey in Brabant, when she would have been in her late forties.62 Her brother Joscelin’s act in favour of Reading indicates that Adeliza was buried in Reading Abbey near her first husband, Henry I.63 However, there is also a tradition that she was buried at Afflighem, the house at which her father had been buried and where her brother had become a monk. It is possible that her body was buried at Reading but that some internal organs returned to Afflighem.64 The competing claims to her burial place indicate that Adeliza’s role as queen consort has not been lost to history. Rather, her fulfilment of the symbolic function of this role during a time of increasing political, linguistic, and social change reinforced her standing as a balanced political figure. Her patronage of the arts and to cultural memory, as well as her endowments to religious institutions, left a subtle but lasting impression on the cultural history of Anglo-Norman England. Adeliza of Louvain is an example of a consort who entered the English royal family from the outside, and worked to bring stability to the realm.

 Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 57.  Her death is noted by the Margam chronicler in Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard (London: Rolls Series, 1864), 1:14. 63  Stafford, “Cherchez la femme,” 5. 64  Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 82; and Thompson, “Queen Adeliza,” 63n57. 61 62

CHAPTER 6

Matilda of Boulogne: Indispensable Partner Heather J. Tanner

Matilda of Boulogne, like her predecessors Mathilda of Flanders and Matilda of Scotland, shared in the governance of the realm (see Laura Gathgan and Lois L.  Huneycutt’s chapters).1 Her power as Queen derived from her anointment and custom, enhanced by charisma, family status, and lordship of her extensive lands. As such, she had influence, authority, and power. Like the first two Anglo-Norman queens, she participated in the royal curia, witnessed royal writs and acta, interceded for ecclesiastics and nobles, judged lawsuits, fostered the good governance 1  See: Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 131–136; Laura L.  Gathagan, “Embodying Power: Gender and Authority in the Queenship of Mathilda of Flanders” (PhD thesis, City University of New York, 2002); Lois L. Huneycutt, Matilda of Scotland: A Study in Medieval Queenship (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003); and Laura Werthheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain and Anglo-Norman Queenship,” Haskins Society Journal 7 (1995): 101–115.

H. J. Tanner (*) The Ohio State University, Mansfield, OH, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_6

99

100 

H. J. TANNER

of the Church, and governed in the King’s absence. She learned from the examples of Henry I’s Queens, Matilda of Scotland and Adeliza of Louvain (see Liam Lewis’s chapter), and the Life of St. Margaret, which illustrated the ideal queenly behaviour of her grandmother.2 In addition to her experience as a member of the royal court, her position as lord of the honour of Boulogne provided her with an independent power base and allowed her to create a network of friends and allies.3 This stood her and Stephen in good stead throughout the reign and is in contrast to their cousin and rival, Empress Matilda, who could draw upon her experience of queen consort in Germany but who lacked land and an established network of friends in England prior to 1139.4 Like her predecessors, Matilda fulfilled her queenly duties well: she offered wise advice in the curia, witnessed royal acta, judged suits, extended patronage, interceded for others, and served in the Exchequer, and as a diplomat. What made her integral to Stephen’s successes was her political acumen; she was “a woman of subtlety and a man’s resolution.”5 She pursued her and her family’s goals by utilising gender expectations—she persuaded, rather than demanded. She enforced her commands and her judgments, she conducted sieges, but she did not display anger. Her forces raged; she did not. She was wise, just, courageous, and merciful in the exercise of lordship and defence of her family. As a result, she earned the praise of, and avoided condemnation from, her contemporaries, and more often than not, she achieved her goals, earning a reputation of being a good queen.

Heiress of Boulogne: Matilda’s Early Life and Youth The only known child of Mary of Scotland and Eustace III, Count of Boulogne, Matilda (1103/1105–3 May 1152) grew up as the heiress to her father’s estates, the honour of Boulogne in England and the counties  Lois L.  Huneycutt, “The Idea of the Perfect Princess: The Life of St. Margaret in the Reign of Matilda II, 1100–1118,” Anglo-Norman Studies 12 (1990): 81–97. 3  Patricia Dark, “‘A Woman of Subtlety and a Man’s Resolution’: Matilda of Boulogne in the Power Struggles of the Anarchy,” in Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages, ed. Brenda Bolton and Christine Meek (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 147–164. Dark analyses her and Stephen’s relations with Geoffrey de Mandeville in the context of the local balance of power in Essex. 4  Marjorie Chibnall, Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 50. 5  Gesta Stephani, ed. K.R. Potter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 122–123 (hereafter GS). 2

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

101

of Boulogne and Lens in northern France. Her family was a distinguished one: on her mother’s side, she came from the Wessex and Scottish royal families and her aunt Edith-Matilda was Queen of England; on her paternal side, her uncles were the first two kings of the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem, and her father just missed becoming the third. Her childhood and youth were spent learning how to govern and to run a household. She was aided in this not only by her mother (d. 1115), but also her grandmother, Ida of Lorraine (d. 1113), and her aunt Queen Matilda (d. 1118). Unlike her cousin Empress Matilda (1102–1189), Matilda spent her youth at the royal court of Henry I and Matilda of Scotland, observing the means of successful lordship, establishing political friendships and herself as the future Countess and Lady of the Boulonnais honour.6 Her future husband, Stephen of Blois, too spent his youth at Henry’s court, becoming both an Anglo-Norman courtier and magnate.7 In 1125, her father, in conjunction with Henry I, negotiated her marriage to Stephen of Blois, Count of Mortain and Lord of the Honours of Eye and Lancaster. The marriage moved Stephen and Matilda to the centre of Anglo-Norman political life and made them one of the most prominent lords in southeast England.8 From the beginning, the young couple governed together—issuing coins using both of their images, granting charters and making gifts, and negotiating the challenges of Flemish, French, and English royal politics.9 The first decade of their marriage was busy with the affairs of their scattered lands from the English-Scottish border to southern England, from northern France to southern Normandy, as well as the raising of their children. Eustace (c.1127–August 1153) and Baldwin (c.1131–1136) were born in the first couple of years after their marriage; the next three children were born between 1134 and 1136: Matilda (1134–1139), William (December 1135–October 1159), and Mary (1136–1182).

 Lois L. Huneycutt, “Becoming Anglo-Norman: The Women of the House of Wessex in the Century after the Norman Conquest,” in Forgotten Queens in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Political Agency, Myth-Making, and Patronage, ed. Valerie Schutte and Estelle Paranque (London: Routledge, 2018), 28–30. 7  Edmund King, “Stephen of Blois, Count of Mortain and Boulogne,” English Historical Review 115, no. 461 (2000): 274. King argues that Stephen did not join Henry’s court until c.1113 when he was knighted. 8  King, “Stephen of Blois,” 279. 9  Heather J. Tanner, Family, Friends, and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c.879–1160 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 321–322. Of the fifteen surviving acta (1125–1135), nine were issued jointly; Matilda issued two on her own and Stephen four. 6

102 

H. J. TANNER

The year of their marriage (autumn of 1125) also marked the return of their cousin, Empress Matilda, to Anglo-Norman politics. Empress Matilda returned to her father’s court following the death of her husband, Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, and embarked on the process of becoming reacquainted with the Anglo-Norman political world, while reacquiring her native language.10 After a year in Normandy, Henry and Empress Matilda returned to England in the late autumn of 1126, with thoughts about the succession weighing heavily on Henry’s mind. Soon thereafter, he began consulting his main advisors about his plan to name his daughter as heir to the throne, thereby excluding his nephew, William Clito. All in attendance at the January 1127 London court swore to uphold Empress Matilda’s succession. Some did so with more enthusiasm—such as Robert of Gloucester and King David of Scotland—and others with less—including Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, and Stephen of Boulogne-Mortain.11 Henry’s relationship with William Clito was one marked with contention. The assassination of Charles, Count of Flanders, on 2 March 1127 prompted Louis VI to name Clito the new Count of Flanders, thereby heightening Henry’s concerns about the succession and his nephew. As such, Henry promptly began backing other candidates and urged Stephen and Matilda home to take the lead in the campaign against William Clito. Although Clito campaigned fiercely in Boulogne, Stephen’s stalwart defence prompted William to negotiate a three-year truce.12 At the same time that Henry sent Stephen and Matilda to fight against William, he also sent Robert of Gloucester, his illegitimate son, and his daughter, Matilda, to Normandy to finalise her betrothal to Geoffrey of Anjou. This marriage (June 1128) stabilised the southern Norman border and William Clito’s death in July 1128 allowed Stephen, Matilda, and Henry to create amicable ties with his successor, Thierry, Count of Flanders.13 10  Catherine Hanley, Matilda: Empress, Queen, Warrior (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 45. 11  King, “Stephen of Blois,” 289; Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 52; The Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. R.R. Darlington and P. McGurk, trans. Jennifer Bray and P. McGurk, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 3:178–179 (hereafter JW); William of Malmesbury, The Historia Novella, ed. K.R. Potter (London: T. Nelson, 1955), 8–9 (hereafter HN). News of this prompted the French King to marry William Clito to his sister-in-law, giving her as a dowry the French Vexin. 12  David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, 1135–1154 (Harlow: Longman, 2000), 25–28, for discussion of the succession question in 1127–1128. 13  King, “Stephen of Blois,” 283–284.

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

103

Empress Matilda’s marriage, however, also created a conflict for Stephen and Matilda. Her dowry—the castles of Domfront, Exmes, and Argentan— was close to Mortain, and the Angevin Count’s ally William Talvas, now Count of Ponthieu (on the southern border of Boulogne) was the dispossessed heir of the county of Mortain. The difficulties—personality, age, and production of heirs—in Empress Matilda’s new marriage between 1128 and the spring of 1133, however, may have mitigated some of their disquiet about the consequences of the union14 and Matilda and Stephen remained loyal allies of Henry, routinely attending Henry’s festive courts between 1126 and 1135.15

From Curiales to Rex and Regina The Angevin marriage and the possibility of the Count of Anjou ruling England and Normandy was one that worried a fair number of Henry’s nobles, not just Stephen and Matilda.16 The hope was that Henry would live long enough for his grandson to inherit the throne, rather than the spectre of a female monarch or rule by an Angevin king consort. In addition to the preference to rule by men, Empress Matilda faced other challenges as the heir to England. First and foremost, she had only spent about a year in England and had no lands. This limited her ability to distribute patronage and build political friendships outside the royal family and court. Second, her marriage to an Angevin count enmeshed her in not only the struggles between Blois-Anjou, but also the southern

14  Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 55–58; Hanley, Matilda, 49, 54–56. Empress Matilda was 25 years old and at the betrothal Geoffrey was 13 years old. Robert of Torigni writes of Matilda’s disobedience, suggesting that she was not happy with her father’s choice. The couple separated for almost a year before living together again. Their first child, Henry, was born in March 1133; their second son, Geoffrey, was born shortly thereafter, May 1134. In addition to the political difficulties this match produced for Matilda and Stephen, it was also a blow to Stephen’s brother, Theobald of Blois as the counts of Blois and Anjou were longstanding rivals. 15  King, “Stephen of Blois,” 291–292. 16  King, “Stephen of Blois,” 290–291; Jean A. Truax, “Winning over the Londoners: King Stephen, the Empress Matilda, and the Politics of Personality,” The Haskins Society Journal 8 (1996): 48–50; Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 54. Chibnall argues that there was no longstanding enmity between Normans and Angevins, but there was concern over Geoffrey’s role in governance.

104 

H. J. TANNER

Norman-Maine-Anjou alliances and counter-alliances.17 Thus, despite her cousinage with Stephen and Matilda, her marriage made it unlikely that they would work together, not only because of Mortain and William Talvas, but also Stephen’s close relationship with his brother, Theobald of Blois.18 For Theobald, it would be a disaster to see the Angevin Count as Duke of Normandy, and it is likely that Stephen, Theobald, and younger brother Henry discussed how to defend their interests and power between 1128 and 1135. At Henry I’s death, he, Geoffrey, and Empress Matilda were enmeshed in a conflict over the King’s refusal to surrender his daughter’s dowry or associate either her or her husband in the governance of Normandy.19 This conflict, Robert Patterson argues, led Robert of Gloucester and the Norman magnates to form a regency council, setting aside the 1127 oath, to determine the succession, including discussions with Theobald of Blois.20 Stephen and Matilda were in Boulogne, awaiting the birth of their fourth child, when the news of Henry’s death arrived. Stephen swiftly sailed from Wissant to London. London was not just the capital—it was, as Jean Truax has demonstrated, a place that Matilda and Stephen had fostered extensive political friendships as well as economic ties.21 The honour of Boulogne was centred in Essex, with significant estates in East Anglia and Kent. As Countess 17  C. Warren Hollister, Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London: Hambledon Press, 1986), 279, 281, 286; Robert B.  Patterson, The Earls, the King, and the Chronicler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 129–131; Daniel Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), ch. 11. Robert of Gloucester was a prominent southern Norman landholder through his wife’s inheritance; Patterson, The Earl, 57–63. 18  Crouch, The Reign, 28–29. William of Malmesbury’s tacit recognition that Stephen had not been consulted by Henry about his daughter’s marriage and the speed of Stephen’s response at the news of Henry’s death support his interpretation of the brother of Blois’ reaction to Empress Matilda’s marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou. Stephen and Matilda developed their alliances with the counts of St. Pol, Guines, Hainaut, and Flanders during this period; Tanner, Families, 238–240. This allowed them to curtail the count of Ponthieu and buttress Theobald’s position too. 19  Truax, “Winning,” 49–50. 20  Patterson, The Earl, 127–128; Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 54–58. 21  Truax, “Winning,” 52–59. Truax focuses on Stephen but indicates that the basis of these friendships was the honour of Boulogne. For the importance of political friendships, see: C. Stephen Jaeger, Ennobling Love: In Search of a Lost Sensibility (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 6; Gerd Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 66–67.

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

105

of Boulogne, Matilda was hereditary patron of St. Martin-le-Grand, an institution that routinely produced royal clerks, and one where both Stephen and Matilda protected the canons through judicial decisions and confirmation charters.22 Prominent London citizens are among the witnesses of Stephen’s acta, and Matilda mortgaged land to Gervase of Cornhall, Justice of London.23 They both were patrons of Holy Trinity Aldgate, a favoured house of Londoners.24 William of Malmesbury noted that Stephen’s “easy manners and readiness to sit, joke and eat, even with humble people, had gained their affection to an unbelievable extent.”25 Unsurprisingly, the citizens acclaimed Stephen’s arrival and held a council that elected Stephen King as “it was their own right and peculiar privilege.”26 Supported by his brother, Henry, Bishop of Winchester, and Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, Stephen went to Winchester to secure the treasury. William of Corbeil, Archbishop of Canterbury, formerly prior of St. Osyth’s Chich in the honour of Boulogne, was a friend and agreed to crown Stephen.27 Stephen’s swift and decisive actions had secured his position as King, but the Anglo-Norman nobility were loosely aligned in two factions. Stephen’s supporters included Robert, Bishop of Salisbury, and his family; the Beaumont twins (Waleran of Meulan and Robert of Leicester), William of Ypres, as well as his and Matilda’s kin. Empress Matilda enjoyed the support of her half-brother Robert of Gloucester and his men, her uncle David of Scotland, and Brian fitzCount. The first two years of Stephen’s reign went well; however, by 1139, a civil war broke out, and it would last for nineteen years. The first phase of the Civil War, 1139–1142, was hard fought and in 1141 it appeared that Empress Matilda would oust Stephen. Her missteps allowed Stephen and Matilda to regroup. Between 1142 and 1150, neither Stephen nor Empress Matilda made significant inroads 22  Heather J. Tanner, “Queenship: Office, Custom, or Ad hoc? The Case of Queen Matilda III of England (1135–1152),” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, ed. John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 144; Truax, “Winning,” 53–54. 23  Truax, “Winning,” 53–59. 24  Tanner, “Queenship,” 144; Truax, “Winning,” 55. Matilda interceded on behalf of Holy Trinity Aldgate; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154, ed. H.A. Cronne and R.H.C.  Davis, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 3:189 (no. 506) (hereafter RRAN3). 25  HN, 18. 26  GS, 6. 27  King, “Stephen of Blois,” 293–294.

106 

H. J. TANNER

upon their opponents militarily; the Empress secured the papacy’s refusal to recognise Eustace as heir but not dethrone Stephen. As both heirs, Eustace and Henry, came of age in 1150, each side sought a decisive victory. Eustace’s death in August 1153 led to the negotiated succession of Henry as Stephen’s heir.

Stephen’s Wise and Good Queen Matilda arrived in England for the Easter court of 1136 where she was crowned, thereby entering into shared royal power. As the ordo stated, she would govern the people by her “virtue and foresight (reginae virtutis providentia gubernanda).”28 Matilda, pregnant with her fifth child, remained in London overseeing the royal government, including the Exchequer, while Stephen went on circuit.29 Matilda routinely witnessed Stephen’s charters, accompanied him on the 1137 Norman campaign, and presided with her husband over the splendid courts of Easter, Whitsun, and Christmas between 1136 and 1139.30 It was at the first Easter court that she and Stephen betrothed their daughter Matilda to Waleran of Meulan, a key magnate in their efforts to secure their rule in England and Normandy.31 She was also probably involved in proposing and arranging two marriages that helped secure the loyalty of two magnates; the widowed Queen Adeliza to William d’Aubigny, royal butler and Earl of Lincoln (by 1138) and Aubrey de Vere to Beatrice de Bourboug, heiress to the county of Guines (1136).32

28  Three Coronation Orders, ed. J.  Wickham Legge (London: Henry Bradshaw Society, 1900), 61–64. 29  Tanner, “Queenship,” 138–139. 30  Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. Thomas Arnold (Wiesbaden: Kraus Rpt., 1965), 267 (hereafter HH); P.E. Schramm, History of the English Coronation, trans. L.C.W. Legge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937), 31–32; 43. 31  The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969–1978), 6:457 (hereafter OV). 32   Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 110; Tanner, Family, 239. These marriages strengthen Stephen’s authority in Sussex and Oxfordshire. As Wertheimer argues, Adeliza and William remained loyal to Stephen throughout his reign; Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 113–114. Adeliza took the oath to support Empress Matilda’s succession in 1127 and she received her at Arundel castle upon her arrival in England in 1139. How willing Adeliza’s reception was of her former stepdaughter is unclear; Robert of Gloucester “was admitted with a strong body of troops.” GS, 87.

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

107

Although the first two years witnessed great successes, by 1138 there was a growing factionalism in Stephen’s court. Stephen’s friendship with Waleran of Meulan led to the prominence of the Beaumont “affinity” at court and a lessening in the influence of his brother Henry and Roger of Salisbury. As David Crouch argues, this meant a shift away from the methods and political vision of Henry I that Roger had help coordinate.33 Stephen’s approach became less diplomatic, which prompted an outbreak of rebellions in the summer of 1138. Advised by his wife at the Northampton council (Easter week), Stephen devised a “complex military strategy” to deal with the three major rebellions.34 While he tackled Bedford, Waleran and William of Ypres campaigned against Gloucestershire rebels, and Queen Matilda led the siege of Dover, held by the Earl of Gloucester’s man. The choice of Matilda to lead at Dover stems from her political friendships in Kent and Boulogne. Orderic Vitalis’ description of her siege of Dover in 1138 says that “[Matilda] called upon her friends, kinsmen, and dependents from Boulogne … who gladly obeyed their lady” to blockade the port while she led the land forces besieging the city.35 Having successfully defeated the rebels and preserving royal control of trade and mercenaries through Wissant, Matilda convinced Stephen to make peace with her uncle, King David of Scotland. David had been campaigning in the north of England and although initially successful, he was defeated at the Battle of the Standard.36 As part of this peace, Ada, daughter of Stephen loyalist William II de Warenne and half-sister of Waleran of Meulan, was married to the Queen’s cousin, Henry of Scotland.37 Stephen, guided by the Beaumont-Clare clique of advisors, began to reshape the  Crouch, Reign, 68–69.  Crouch, Reign, 78. 35  OV, 6:520 and Crouch, Reign, 79. Rebecca Slitt, “The Boundaries of Women’s Power: Gender and Discourse of Political Friendship in Twelfth-Century England,” Gender and History 24 (2012): 6. Slitt argues that chroniclers rarely use the language of political friendship to describe powerful women’s actions. Jean A.  Truax examines the roles of AngloNorman women in warfare in “Anglo-Norman Woman at War: Valiant Soldiers, Prudent Strategists, or Charismatic Leaders?,” in Circle of War in the Middle Ages: Essays on Medieval Military and Naval History, ed. Donald Kagay and L.J.A. Villalon (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999), 121. 36  “The Chronicle of Richard of Hexham,” in Chronicles in the Reign of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 4 vols. (London: Longman, 1884–1889), 3:178; Tanner, “Queenship,” 139. 37  Victoria Chandler, “Ada de Warenne: Queen Mother of Scotland (c.1123–1178),” The Scottish Historical Review 60 (1981): 119–122, esp. 121–122. 33 34

108 

H. J. TANNER

administration, expanding the number and role of earls, and removing Bishop Roger’s control of the royal administration.38 The chroniclers do not reveal the Queen’s role in or view of these changes. With the Empress Matilda’s arrival in England (late September 1139), Queen Matilda continued to govern in conjunction with her husband, while he campaigned against the Empress’ forces.39 She also remained involved in building alliances. In February 1140, she strengthened French royal support of her husband through negotiating, with her brothers-in-­ law, the marriage of their eldest son Eustace to Constance, Louis VII’s sister.40 Matilda and Bishop Henry met in Bath with Robert of Gloucester to negotiate—unsuccessfully—a peace in August 1140.41 The Queen also preserved the Scottish peace by protecting her cousin Henry from the planned ambush of Ranulf of Chester and smoothed over a conflict with Thierry of Flanders through gifts to a favoured abbey of Clairmarais.42

Peritus et Virtus The year 1141 was the turning point in the war and Stephen’s reign, and one that highlights Queen Matilda’s political acumen and skill at managing the gender expectations of her contemporaries. On 2 February 1141, Stephen was captured while besieging Lincoln, and within the week was imprisoned at Bristol castle. As Stephen Church has argued, his capture produced a political conundrum—as Stephen was not dead, had his reign ended? Empress Matilda and her supporters saw his defeat as a sign that she “had gained the right to the kingdom.”43 The news of Stephen’s  Crouch, Reign, ch. 5.  Tanner, “Queenship,” 147–148 (charts 6.1 and 6.2). 40  John of Hexham, Continuatio Historia regum Symeonis monachi, ed. Thomas Arnold, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1881), 2:300 (hereafter JH); Richard of Hexham, Chronicle, 3:176, 178; Tanner, “Queenship,” 139. Waleran and Theobald had held preliminary discussions in Christmas 1138; Crouch, Reign, 95. 41  William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, 1:44; continuator of Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, 2:125; HN, 44–45; Hanley, Matilda, 130. David Crouch suggests that Adeliza of Louvain had received Empress Matilda to her castle of Arundel in order to negotiate a peace; Reign, 109–110. Laura Wertheimer argues that Adeliza may have been forced to receive Empress Matilda who was accompanied by a significant military force; Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 112–114. 42  JH, 2:306; HN, 44; Les Annales de Saint-Pierre de Gand, 166; and RRAN 3, 71–73 (nos. 194, 195, and 200). Tanner, Families, 222–223. 43  “Utpote regum sibi iuratum, sicut sibi videbatur.” JW, 3:292–293. 38 39

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

109

c­ apture reached his Queen within a week. Throughout February letters were exchanged between Empress Matilda and Henry, Bishop of Winchester, in which she presented her argument that she was now Queen.44 The obstacles to this declaration were that Stephen had been anointed, had not been deposed by the Pope, and was not dead; therefore, he was still king. Meeting on 3 March in Winchester, Henry proffered the title of domina Anglorum (Lady of the English), and called a legatine council to convince his ecclesiastical colleagues and the magnates to recognise Empress Matilda as ruler of England.45 Henry had sent for the Londoners to attend as well. Between private negotiations and a public oration, Henry convinced the ecclesiastics to accept Empress Matilda as their domina. On the last day of the council (7–10 April 1141), the London delegation, led by pro-Empress men but including royalists, among which was Queen Matilda’s clerk, arrived. Into Bishop Henry’s carefully choreographed assembly, the Queen’s messenger presented her letter: The legate, having read the letter to himself, fulminated against it and one of its witness [Christian] who then with splendid boldness read the letter before that audience … the queen earnestly begs all the assembled clergy, and especially the bishop of Winchester, her lord’s brother, to restore to the throne that same lord, whom cruel men, who at the same time are his own men, have cast into chains.46

The Queen’s letter succeeded in bolstering the Londoners’ reluctance to acquiesce to a new ruler; they left the council without accepting the Empress’ rule, thereby providing her time to continue to rally Stephen’s men. Empress Matilda made a slow progress towards London, stopping at Reading Abbey and Oxford, gathering the oaths of allegiance as she went, 44  For a discussion of Empress Matilda’s actions in the spring of 1141, see: Chibnall, Empress Matilda, ch. 5. 45  When the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops arrived, they refused to recognise Empress Matilda without Stephen’s permission to do so. Empress Matilda gave them leave to visit Stephen who gave them leave to recognise his cousin as their lady. The title indicated that she was not yet Queen but in the process of becoming Queen of England. For example, prior to her coronation Adeliza “in regni domina electa,” JW, 16; Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 106. 46  Stephen D. Church, “Succession and Interregnum in the English Polity: The Case of 1141,” Haskins Society Journal 29 (2018): 189; HN, 94–97.

110 

H. J. TANNER

although primarily from lesser nobles.47 William of Malmesbury praised her reliance of Robert of Gloucester, who personally and through envoys “affably” won over Stephen’s adherents with “many promises, intimidating the opposition or urging it to peace.”48 Queen Matilda continued to bring together nobles loyal to Stephen, aided by William of Ypres and her men in the honour of Boulogne. In mid-May, Geoffrey de Mandeville, castellan of the Tower of London, abandoned Stephen’s cause. At this point, Queen Matilda withdrew from the city but without her daughter-­ in-­law, Constance, who Geoffrey held hostage.49 Geoffrey’s defection led to Aubrey de Vere the Younger and Hugh Bigod also offering their allegiance to the Empress. All were prominent Essex and East Anglian lords, whose power in the region was curbed by Queen Matilda’s honourial holdings.50 In light of the changed circumstances, a second delegation of Londoners met with Empress Matilda at St. Albans to negotiate her entry into London. Although the royal castle at Windsor was still loyal to Stephen, Empress Matilda arrived in Westminster in early June 1141. In Kent, Queen Matilda continued to gather a royal army. The chroniclers, pro- and anti-Stephen, portray each woman as acting as good lords—listening to counsel and marshalling their forces. Queen Matilda pled her cause with earnestness and deference. Empress Matilda, although elated at the turn of events, took counsel and treated Stephen’s adherents diplomatically. The Queen’s actions were described without judgmental language and reveal that even those hostile to her cause did not assess her actions negatively.51 The Empress was portrayed as elated, obliquely alluding to feminine emotionalism and pride, but controlling it and acting “properly.” Nevertheless, as she began to govern from London, Empress Matilda’s decisions brought contemporary criticism. She rejected Bishop Henry’s plea to recognise his nephew Eustace’s claim to his parents’ lands prior to

47  Crouch notes that Waleran of Meulan was at Worcester harrying the Empress’ men and that only lesser lords were switching allegiance until mid-June; Crouch, Reign, 173–174. 48  HN, 55–56. 49  William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, 1:44–45. 50  Dark, “A Woman,” 156–158; Crouch, Reign, 176. Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke, also defected at this time. 51  Crouch makes this point, but without discussing the aspect of good lordship; Reign, 177–178.

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

111

December 1135, as well as similar requests by Stephen’s adherents.52 She was characterised as acting arbitrarily and haughtily, ignoring the advice of Robert of Gloucester and other longstanding allies. As such, her actions were the opposite of the key characteristics of political friendship—loyalty, generosity, and wise counsel.53 Her interactions with the Londoners were contentious. She refused to mitigate her financial demands and their request to adopt the laws of King Edward.54 When Queen Matilda’s envoys arrived in London to plead for Stephen’s release and Eustace’s lawful inheritance, the domina rejected the request harshly.55 The chroniclers’ depiction of Empress Matilda focus on her failure to be a good lord—she was unjust, arbitrary, greedy. Her behaviour was not seen as royal sternness but vindictive.56 As William of Malmesbury states, “all the barons had kept faith with her, but she had broken hers, being unable to show restraint in the enjoyment of what was hers.”57 The author of the Gesta Stephani states, Some former adherents of the king, who had agreed to submit themselves and what was theirs to her, she received ungraciously and at times with unconcealed annoyance; others she drove from her presence in fury after insulting and threatening them. By reckless innovation she lessened or took away the possessions or lands of some, held on a grant from the king, while the fees and honours of the very few who still adhered to the king, she confiscated altogether and gave them to others; she arbitrarily annulled any grant fixed by the king’s decree [to laymen or the church] … she repeatedly sent them [King David, Robert of Gloucester and Henry of Winchester] away with contumely, rebuffing them by arrogant answer, and refusing to harken to their words.

Into the delicate process of rewarding her followers and establishing her authority in the areas loyal to Stephen, Empress Matilda failed to call upon the advice of even her closest supporters and advisors, and alienated 52  HN, 56–57; William speculates that she may have promised Stephen’s lands to others and that the legate was “enraged by this affront”; JW, 3:296–297. 53  Slitt, “The Boundaries,” 1. 54  Florence of Worcester, Chronicon, 2:132; HH, 275; GS, 134. 55  GS, 122–123. 56  Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 62–63, 104. 57  HN, 57–58. Henry of Huntingdon states “But she was elated with insufferable pride at the success of her adherents in the uncertain vicissitudes of war, so that she alienated from her the hearts of most men.” HH, 280.

112 

H. J. TANNER

those she needed to win over by unilaterally annulling all royal acts since her father’s death.58 The question of inheritance and dispossession bedevilled both Stephen and Empress Matilda, having its roots in Henry I’s punishment of rebels.59 Empress Matilda’s response to Stephen’s former adherents was a poor strategy to win new followers and her contemporaries perceived it as bad lordship. As other historians have suggested, she may have been following her father’s model, ruthless and stern.60 This may have worked if she had acted with the advice of her leading magnates and without losing her temper. As Marjorie Chibnall stated, “conduct acceptable in a powerful king … was not acceptable in the ‘Lady of the English’.”61 The chroniclers, both for her and against her, refer to her intemperate behaviour—frowns, loud voice, harshness, annoyance, arrogance. Her anger was not seen as just, royal wrath (ira), but furor (rage) and a reflection of her feminine nature: “emotionally unstable, moody, subject to emotional outburst, unpredictable, [the] cause of social upheaval.”62 Added to this, she acted in ways that her society thought unwomanly— lacking mercy, graciousness, quietness, or “modest gait.” For her male contemporaries, already leery of female monarchs, it was disastrous.63

 GS, 120; HN, 57; JH, 309–310.  Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 8–87. 60  Hanley, Matilda, 119–120, 237–250; Charles Beem, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 54–55. 61  Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 63. 62  Lisa Perfetti, “Introduction,” in The Representations of Women’s Emotions in Medieval and Early Modern Culture, ed. Lisa Perfetti (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2005), 1–22; Richard E.  Barton, “Gendering Anger: Ira, Furor and Discourses of Power and Masculinity in the Eleventh and Twelfth centuries,” in In the Garden of Evil: The Vices and Culture of the Middle Ages (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005), 371–392; Gerd Althoff, “Ira regis: Prolegomena to a History of Royal Anger,” in Anger’s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara Rosenwein (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 59–74; Richard E.  Barton, “‘Zealous Anger’ and the Renegotiation of Aristocratic Relationships in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century France,” in Anger’s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara Rosenwein (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 153–170; and Stephen D. White, “The Politics of Anger,” in Anger’s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara Rosenwein (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 127–152. 63  Hanley argues that Empress Matilda’s pursuit of power for herself rather than for her son was the primary cause of her failure in 1141, which was aggravated by the misogyny of her society; Hanley, Matilda, 167. Beem argues that her contemporaries expected to act like a queen regent or queen consort, not as a king. Beem, Lioness, 55–56. 58 59

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

113

Her cousin and opponent quickly acted upon these political faux pas. Queen Matilda gathered her army to attack Westminster, joined by Londoners, and chased Empress Matilda and her forces to Oxford.64 At Oxford, Empress Matilda made generous grants to shore up the loyalty of key magnates during an elaborate court, and accepted the submission of Waleran of Meulan, who then left England to save his Norman lands.65 The Empress then turned to punishing Henry by retaking Winchester. Queen Matilda worked to win back adherents to Stephen’s cause: Forgetting the weakness of her sex and a woman’s softness, she bore herself with the valour of a man; everywhere by prayer or price, she won over invincible allies; the king’s lieges, wherever they were scattered throughout England, she urged persistently to demand back their lord with her; and now she humbly besought the Bishop of Winchester, legate of all England, to take pity on his imprisoned brother and exert himself for her husband. And the bishop moved both by the woman’s tearful supplications, which she pressed on him with great earnestness.

William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, Robert of Torigni, John of Worcester, and Orderic Vitalis at no point in their accounts criticise Queen Matilda; in fact, Henry and Robert gloss over the events of 1141 with a critique of Empress Matilda’s arrogance and do not mention Queen Matilda at all.66 William, John, and the Gesta Stephani author all portray her pleas for her son and husband as done with proper decorum, rather than angry demands. Her command of the royal army and government also were reported without commentary. Queen Matilda avoided condemnation not only because she was defending her male kinsmen and their property, but also because she did so through judicious use of society’s expectations of “womanly” behaviour—she pled for mercy, she urged, she listened to advice, and she persuasively advocated.67 Her use of military force (in London and Winchester), gifts (for example, the grants made to Geoffrey de Mandeville), and diplomacy were done with the  GS, 120–126; HN, 56–57; JW 3:296.  Crouch, Reign, 181–183. 66  RT, 4:141 (Howlett). 67  Rebecca Slitt, Katherine Hanley, and Charles Beem argue that Queen Matilda’s treatment by the chroniclers reflect her utilising her power for her male family members rather than herself; Slitt, “The Boundaries,” 6; Hanley, Matilda, 237–250; Beem, Lioness, 56. This is certainly a factor but it does not take into account Matilda’s exercise of good lordship, political friendship, and manipulation of societal norms. 64 65

114 

H. J. TANNER

counsel of her and Stephen’s men.68 She drew upon her friends in London, her vassals throughout the honour of Boulogne, and upon her husband’s adherents to protect her family. She adroitly used her political friends to recover control of London and advance her cause. Unlike her cousin, Queen Matilda was perceived by her contemporaries as a good lord; she was adept at utilising society’s gender expectations to achieve her goals— she was “a woman of subtlety and a man’s resolution.”69 Queen Matilda quickly brought an army to Winchester, aided by supplies and men from London. The chroniclers focus on the devastation in Winchester and the surrounding areas, again without criticism of Queen Matilda.70 Geoffrey de Mandeville, Aubrey de Vere, Ranulf of Chester, and others renewed their adherence to the Queen and Stephen.71 By mid-­September, the Empress decided to retreat to the southwest. While she escaped, Robert of Gloucester was captured at the Battle of Stockbridge. Robert was brought before Queen Matilda before being escorted to Rochester castle by William of Ypres. John of Worcester relates that the Queen tried to persuade Robert to return to Stephen’s allegiance, promising him a great role in the administration of the kingdom.72 When this failed, she turned to negotiations with his wife Countess Mabel, though these were hampered by Robert’s objections to each proposal. In Rochester, some of the magnates tried threatening him with lifelong imprisonment in Boulogne; however, unlike the Empress,

68  For a reassessment of the grants made by Stephen, Queen Matilda, and Empress Matilda to Geoffrey de Mandeville, see: Dark, “Matilda of Boulogne in the Power Struggles of the Anarchy”; and Edmund King, “A Week in Politics: Oxford, July 1141,” in King Stephen’s Reign (1135–1154), ed. Paul Dalton and Graeme J.  White (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2008), 66–71. 69  GS, 122–123. 70  HN, 59–60, 67; GS, 126–134; JW 3:298–302; HH, 740; JH, 310–311. The Anonymous of Béthune praises Matilda as a “very good and simple woman” and for not giving in to tears at the news of Stephen’s capture but rather heading straight to “her lord’s great treasury and shared it out widely … she summoned knights from all the lands where she could get them and assembled so great a host as to besiege the Empress [et al] at Winchester.” Histoire des Ducs de Normandie et des Rois d’Angleterre, ed. Francisque Michel (Rouen, 1839), 66. 71  Liber Eliensis, ed. E.O. Blake (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1962), 323. Earls of Warenne, Pembroke, Arundel, Essex (Geoffrey de Mandeville), and Oxford (Aubrey de Vere) are listed among Queen Matilda’s forces. 72  JW, 3:301–302; HN, 61, 68, 70; GS, 136.

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

115

Matilda did not shackle her prisoner, demonstrating queenly mercy and good lordship.73 Throughout, Queen Matilda utilised gender expectations: she offered mercy and reconciliation, while her men used threats. In contrast, “[Empress] Matilda had shown at the height of her power that she had neither the political judgment nor the understanding of men to enable her to act wisely in a crisis.”74 Ultimately, Queen Matilda, Empress Matilda, and Countess Mabel negotiated an exchange of prisoners. In early November 1141, the Queen and a son served as surety for Robert’s release as did Robert’s son, William, for Stephen’s.75 Upon his return to London, Stephen and Matilda held a council and laid out a complaint against his men who had deserted him.76 Brother Henry eloquently defended his actions and was restored to favour as were others. At the Christmas court of 1141 in Canterbury, Stephen was crowned anew, after a cleansing ceremony, and Matilda entered the church wearing her gold crown.77

Indispensable Partner From 1142, Stephen and Matilda’s dominion was limited in the Midlands and the north, and  non-existent in the west; they lost Normandy by 1144.78 Empress Matilda and Robert focused their energies on a new 73  HH, 740. Writing seventy-five years later, the Anonymous of Béthune portrays a tougher Matilda: “the earl of Leicester [Gloucester] was taken and then led before the Queen in her tent. When the earl saw the Queen, he had great fear, and cried out, ‘Mercy!’ and he fell to his feet in great humility.” Matilda “started to laugh, and she said: ‘My lord earl, the empress came here by your counsel to this land, and by your aid my own lord is now a prisoner. You have been both very wise and very detached so as to hurt us and to help the empress. Now, be wise and help yourself; because, by the faith that I owe my husband (and my God grant my wish to see him again!), you’ll never eat nor drink before I have my lord back or am indeed sure that I’ll have him back.” Histoire des ducs, 78–79. Steven Isaac discusses Matilda and Empress Matilda in “Enough Facts to Forge a Memory: Queen Matilda III in 1141,” in Gender and Memory in Documentary Culture, 800–1200, ed. Laura L. Gathagan and Charles Insley (forthcoming). 74  Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 115. 75  Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 115; Hanley, Matilda, 127–128. 76  Church, “Succession,” 197–198. 77  King, “A Week,” 71; Gervase of Canterbury, Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs (London: Longman, 1879), 1:123–124. 78  See: Crouch, Reign, chs. 11–12. Crouch argues that the magnates tended towards neutrality and pursuit of local advantage rather than support either side of the conflict. Stephen turned away from his experiment of relying on the earls as local administrators and relied primarily on “new men” or his loyal curiales, like William Martel and Richard de Lucy.

116 

H. J. TANNER

strategy of fighting to establish her son Henry as King of England. In a similar fashion, Stephen and Queen Matilda sought to secure the kingdom for Stephen and their son Eustace.79 As Stephen travelled to campaign against the Empress’ forces between 1142 and 1148, he transacted government business, leaving his Queen to govern London and the southeast.80 Like her aunt, Matilda of Scotland, Stephen’s Queen most likely oversaw the Exchequer and collection of royal revenues, as well as the exercise of royal and honourial justice. Her presence in London allowed her to not only oversee royal governance but also to ensure the continued trade between London and Dover, Wissant and Calais, which provided mercenaries and money vital to Stephen’s efforts to defeat Empress Matilda. In June 1142, Queen Matilda was in Boulogne and Lens, raising troops, money, and support.81 She was also part of the negotiations for peace in late 1146, which came to nothing.82 She probably arranged the marriage of Aubrey III de Vere to Eusemia de Cantelo, after his marriage to Beatrice of Guines ended.83 Matilda carried out the queenly duty of intercession, especially on behalf of ecclesiastics. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to seek her aid in resolving the York archbishopric controversy; and Pope Eugenius III to gain her and Stephen’s acceptance of Robert, Bishop of London, who had been appointed by Empress Matilda.84 Matilda also interceded on Theobald of Canterbury’s behalf after Stephen exiled him for attending the Council of Reims (March 1148).85 The death of Robert of Gloucester (October 1147) and Empress Matilda’s departure for Normandy (early 1148) led to a rebalancing of royal governance. Matilda continued to advise and witness royal acta, as well as intercede in ecclesiastical matters. Eustace was associated more in the governance and military campaigning, in England as well as in  Chibnall, Empress Matilda, 115.  Fifty-six percent of Matilda’s charters and her attestations of Stephen’s charters that specify a location are dated in London or within a forty-mile radius of the city; none are farther than eighty miles from London; Tanner, “Queenship,” 141. 81  Judith Green, “Financing Stephen’s War,” Anglo-Norman Studies 14 (1992): 91–114; RRAN3, 9–10 (no. 26). 82  GS, 186. 83  RRAN3, 87 (no. 242). 84  The Letters of Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. Bruno Scott James (London: Burns Oates, 1953), 267–268; J-P. Migne, Patrilogia Cursus Completus: Series Latina, 221 vols. (Paris, 1878–1974), 5:180, col. 1249. 85  Gervase of Canterbury, Opera Historica, 1:135. 79 80

6  MATILDA OF BOULOGNE: INDISPENSABLE PARTNER 

117

Normandy (1150–1152).86 Their efforts to get papal approval for his coronation, following the French royal practice, began in 1149. Queen Matilda accompanied Bishop Henry, providing him safe passage into Vermandois.87 However, over the next three years, their efforts at the papal curia failed. Stephen and Matilda held a great council in London (Easter 1152), where the magnates and barons swore an oath to Eustace as heir to the throne, but the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to crown him.88 From 1147, Matilda was based in Canterbury, overseeing the building of Faversham Abbey, which would serve as her family’s mausoleum. She also established their youngest child, Mary, as abbess of Lillechurch. Queen Matilda fell ill at Castle Hedingham (Essex), while visiting her friend Eusemia, Countess of Oxford, after the Council of London.89 Her confessor from Holy Trinity Aldgate was called to her bedside, and it is likely that Stephen and Eustace were at her side when she died. Her body was carried via London to Kent, where she was buried at Faversham. Queen Matilda was an integral to Stephen’s successes during his reign; she was his indispensable partner.90 She complemented his bravery and military skill with her abilities to administer, negotiate, and build political friendships. She was one of the few Anglo-Norman women to be described as utilising friendship in the chronicles, as well as in a few of her charters.91 Matilda employed the models provided by her aunt Matilda of Scotland, her mother Mary, and her grandmother Ida. She learned to administer estates, foster allegiance and alliances, and work within the gender 86  Crouch, Reign, 243–253; Heather J. Tanner, “Reassessing King Stephen’s Continental Strategies,” Medievalia et Humanistica 26 (1999): 101–117. 87  Crouch, Reign, 248. 88  “Annales de Waverleia,” in Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard, 5 vols. (London, 1865–1866), 2:234; Crouch, Reign, 245–246. 89  Matilda likely played a role in Aubrey III’s marriage to Eusemia after the dissolution of his marriage to the Countess of Guines in 1146; RRAN3, 87 (no. 242) and William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 9 vols. (London: Longman, 1817–1830), 9:101 (Colne Priory). RRAN3, 188, (no. 505); Cartulary of Holy Trinity Aldgate, ed. G.A.J. Hodgett (London: Records Society, 1971), 234. 90  Crouch summarises her career thus, “Queen Matilda was a great queen. She had been regent, diplomat, and even a war leader for her husband, and had been accomplished in all that she did.” Crouch, Reign, 260. 91  Slitt, “The Boundaries,” 4, 6. Wertheimer notes that Adeliza addressed Alexander Bishop of Lincoln as amico karissimo in a charter addressed to him; Reading Abbey Cartularies, ed. B.R. Kemp, 2 vols. (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1986), 1:405 (no. 536); Wertheimer, “Adeliza of Louvain,” 107.

118 

H. J. TANNER

expectations of her peers. These women provided her the skills of good rule and queenship as understood by her contemporaries. She knew how to win loyalty and to be just and stern within society’s expectations of feminine demeanour; skills her cousin, Empress Matilda, learned too late to win the civil war. Queen Matilda’s political acumen, skill, and courage were key throughout her and Stephen’s reign, but especially in 1141. Her death deprived Stephen not only of a beloved wife but also of a wise and capable advisor, administrator, diplomat, and warrior.

CHAPTER 7

Eleanor of Aquitaine: The Art of Governing Martin Aurell

Eleanor of Aquitaine is one of the most famous queens of medieval Europe.1 This renown is as much for her remarkable life story as it is for the legend that the collective imagination has forged around her person in the intervening centuries.2 Eleanor’s 80-year-long life, much of it spent in positions of authority, is inextricably intertwined with power: political, militaristic, and familial. Whatever contemporaries might have believed, Thank you to Sharon Bennett Connolly for her translation of the original draft of this chapter.  See, for instance, three recent and complete biographies: Jean Flori, Aliénor d’Aquitaine: la reine insoumise (Paris: Payot, 2004); Ralph V.  Turner, Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, Queen of England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009); Yannick Hillion, Aliénor d’Aquitaine (Paris: Ellipses, 2015). 2  Michael R. Evans, Inventing Eleanor: The Medieval and Post-Medieval Image of Eleanor of Aquitaine (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014). 1

M. Aurell (*) University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_7

119

120 

M. AURELL

Eleanor’s gender in no way excluded her from the royal government of her two husbands and two sons. On the contrary, she used the influence that marriage and motherhood gave to a queen to sway their decisions as part of her art of governing. As many of the other chapters in this volume attest, this power is more informal in nature, rarely enshrined in written law. Legally, however, Eleanor laid claim to her paternal inheritance of Aquitaine, which she fought to govern independently, sometimes in opposition to her successive husbands. Like many of her predecessors and successors, widowhood further strengthened her authority. The determination and the tension her expression of power engendered are, for many, at the heart of the reason that she continues to fascinate to this day. Eleanor was likely born in 1124, the first child of William X, Duke of Aquitaine (and Count of Poitou), and Aénor de Châtellerault. Eleanor was followed by Petronilla, born c.1125, and William, who died aged four in 1130. Aénor died around the same time as William, and Eleanor’s father was abandoned by his second wife. William died in 1137 and Eleanor, aged about 13, inherited a vast duchy that stretched from the Pyrenees to the Loire and from the Atlantic Ocean to the Massif Central. Evidently, whoever married Eleanor would control this immense territory on her behalf. Four months after her father’s death, on 25 July, Eleanor married Louis, son of the French king Louis VI (the Fat). A week later, the couple learned that the elder Louis had died, and the couple were crowned King and Queen of France. In the 15 years of their life together, Eleanor made her mark on the Capetian government, but their marriage only produced two daughters—Marie, born 1145; and Alix, born 1150—and the couple, who had been close in the early years of their marriage, drifted apart. Louis was eventually able to obtain an annulment for the marriage on grounds of consanguinity in March 1152. Within two months of the annulment, Eleanor married Henry II, Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou, soon to be King of England. As King and Queen of England, and for Eleanor, as Duchess of Aquitaine, the couple found themselves in control of a large conglomerate of principalities, often dubbed “the Plantagenet Empire.” On the face of it, succession to the Empire was secure as Eleanor and Henry had had nine children together, six of them boys. It was through motherhood that Eleanor exercised her strongest influences. The most (in)famous event occurred in 1173, when, at her instigation, three of her sons took up arms against their father, in a struggle for independent authority. Henry, however, crushed the revolt and for Eleanor, the punishment was harsh. The

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

121

King kept her captive until his death in 1189: it was only widowhood that set her free. As queen dowager, Eleanor played a leading role in the government of her son Richard the Lionheart, who was also set to succeed her as Duke of Aquitaine, whilst he was on crusade. During the King’s four-­ year absence, shortly after his coronation, it was Eleanor who ruled the kingdom in his stead. And when Richard died suddenly in 1199, it was Eleanor who assured the succession of her youngest son John to the English throne. It was Eleanor who helped him defend his domain against Philip Augustus, King of France. Eleanor died in Poitiers, in 1204, as the French dismembered the Plantagenet Empire.

The Emergence of Influence As a young girl, Eleanor found herself dispossessed of power, influence, and agency. Similar to the situations of other young aristocratic women during the Middle Ages, she was subject to the authority of her father who, with his advisers, would eventually choose her husband. Schooled at a young age by her mother Aénor de Châtellerault,3 and after her death around 1130 by ladies-in-waiting and tutors, Eleanor’s education prepared her for the future responsibilities that were to come with her marriage to the King of France. Such studies included Latin, which certainly allowed her to follow religious services and to recite the hours. It was also the language of administration in which all acts of government, judicial decisions, and accounting documents were still written. It was an education that Eleanor benefited from. Later in life, she exchanged letters in Latin, certainly thanks to her secretaries who would format them. Among her correspondents were popes Alexander III and Celestine III and Hildegarde of Bingen, the famous German mystic and polymath, who offered her solace in a time of need: “Your mind is like a wall which is covered with clouds, and you look everywhere but have no rest. Flee this and attain stability with God and men, and God will help you in all your

3  Histoire de l’abbaye de Nieul-sur-l’Autize depuis sa fondation (1068) jusqu’à sa sécularisation (1721), ed. Charles Arnauld (Niort: Clouzot, 1865), 78–79. See also: Alfred Richard, Histoire des comtes de Poitou, 778–1204, 2 vols (Paris: Picard, 1903), 1:45.

122 

M. AURELL

tribulations. May God give you his blessing and help in all your works.”4 Eleanor was also a dedicatee of the Latin translation, made in Sicily, of Cleopatra’s Gynecea, a Greek treatise on obstetrics.5 The vernacular, however, was easier for her. Several authors in the French d’oc or d’oil languages had, in fact, dedicated their works to her: the Limousin troubadour Bernard de Ventadour, the Anglo-Norman zoologist Philippe de Thaon, the hagiographer nun of Barking, and the historians Wace and Benoît de Sainte-Maure.6 The future Queen of France and England was clearly educated in a courtly environment which was one of the most intellectually stimulating of the time and where poetry in the vernacular was given precedence. Her grandfather, William IX (1086–1127) is the first troubadour whose poems have survived and under the patronage of her father, William X, the minstrels Cercamon and Marcabru composed songs.7 At this time, the ducal palace at Poitiers was frequented by bards from Wales such as Bledri ap Cydifor who helped spread the Arthurian legend on the Continent.8 Eleanor continued her family’s patronage of the arts as Duchess of Aquitaine and her contemporaries attributed a real love for letters and the arts to Eleanor. In this, she is joined by Henry, from the House of Anjou, one of whose anti-Capetian mottos was: “An illiterate king is a crowned donkey!” It is possible that Eleanor commissioned, for her own devotions, the superb psalter produced in Paris at the end of the twelfth century.9 Eleanor also requested to be depicted with a prayer book in the recumbent

4  “Mens tua similis est parieti, qui est in vicissitudine nubis, et undique circrumspicis, sed requiem non habes. Istud fuge et sta in stabilitate cum Deo et hominibus, et in omnibus tribulationibus tuis Deus adiuuabit te. Deus benedictionem et auxilium suum in omnibus operibus tuis tibi det.” Hildegardis Bingensis Epistolarium, ed. Lieven Van Acker and Monika Klaes-Hachmoller (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 78. 5  Elisabeth M.C. Van Houts, “Les femmes dans le royaume Plantagenêt: genre, politique et nature,” in Plantagenêts et Capétiens: confrontations et heritages, ed. by Martin Aurell and Noël–Yves Tonnerre (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 95–112. 6  Flori, Aliénor, 394–413. 7  Les Poésies de Cercamon, ed. and trans. Alfred Jeanroy (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1922); Marcabru, A Critical Edition, ed. and trans. Simon Gaunt, Ruth Harvey, and Linda Paterson (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2000). 8  Martin Aurell, La Légende du roi Arthur (Paris: Perrin, 2018), 281–288. 9  Jesús Rodríguez Viejo, “Royal Manuscript Patronage in Late Ducal Normandy: A Context for the Female Patron Portrait of the Fécamp Psalter (c.1180),” Ceræ 3 (2016): 1–23.

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

123

effigy on her colourful tufa limestone tomb at Fontevraud;10 it is the earliest known sculpture of a woman with a book of hours, so widespread in the late Middle Ages and the modern era. On 9 April 1137, Good Friday, William X died at Santiago de Compostela where he had travelled on pilgrimage.11 On his deathbed, the Duke proposed that his daughter marry the “designated” successor to the French throne, young Louis, son of Louis VI.  Eleanor’s elder by some three years, young Louis had been crowned and anointed King on 25 October 1131 by Pope Innocent II at Reims12 and the acceptance of the marriage proposal allowed Louis VI to extend his influence to the south of the River Loire. William’s own authority in the area was contested by the aristocracy of Poitou, Gascony, and Limousin and his daughter’s marriage to Prince Louis promised that Eleanor’s authority as heiress would be backed by French troops. Intimidated by the display of power of the marital cortège, the desire to revolt by the lords of these lands was temporarily stifled.13 The marriage ceremony took place on Sunday 25 July 1137, the feast of Saint James, at the cathedral of Saint-André in Bordeaux.14 Over the course of the festivities, Eleanor was crowned. The wedding shortly followed the internment of William’s remains, which were laid to rest in the choir of the church of Saint James at Compostela. And, one week after the wedding, on 1 August, while only in his fifties, Louis VI died: his son became King Louis VII, and as his wife Eleanor became Queen of France. The following Sunday, the couple were in Poitiers, where the King was solemnly enthroned as Duke of Aquitaine. 10  Bénédicte Fillion-Braguet, “‘L’utilisation’ de la sculpture dans le domaine plantagenêt et la représentation des figures de pouvoir: mythe ou réalité?,” in Gouverner l’Empire Plantagenêt (1154–1224): autorité, symboles, idéologie, ed. Martin Aurell (Fontevraud: 303, 2021), 259–273. 11  Chronique de Saint-Maixent, ed. and trans. Jean Verdon (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979), 194. 12  Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. and trans. Henri Waquet (Paris: Société d’Édition Les Belles lettres, 1964), 280; The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 6:490, xiii, 32; La Chronique de Morigny (1095–1152), ed. Léon Mirot (Paris: Picard, 1909), 67. 13  Sébastien-Abel Laurent, “Un tour d’Aquitaine royal à l’été 1137: les voyages de Louis VII et de sa suite à l’occasion de son mariage avec Aliénor,” Revue historique du CentreOuest, 18 (2020): 211–252. 14  Frédéric Boutoulle, 1137: Aliénor d’Aquitaine épouse Louis le Jeune et devient reine de France (Bordeaux: Midi–pyrénéennes, 2021).

124 

M. AURELL

Early on as a new Queen and wife, Eleanor began to exercise her influence and intended to be involved in her husband’s affairs. One of the first instances included a dispute between her husband and his mother, Adélaïde de Maurienne. Adélaïde, who enjoyed some dominance over her son, lived with the newly wed couple at the royal palace in Paris and Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, the influential counsellor of the young King, mentions the conflict between the mother and her newly crowned son.15 Adélaïde eventually remarried and left the royal court. Eleanor’s influences also extended beyond the intimacies of the court and the increased presence of royal troops in Aquitaine in 1138 was a strong demonstration of her political agency. Suger recounts in particular the military campaign of the spring of 1138 against Poitiers, in which Eleanor took part, to suppress its self-proclaimed free town. In the aftermath, Louis VII took the château of Talmond, in Bas Poitou, whose lord had taken up arms against the King.16 The couple then ventured into Auvergne, which the dukes of Aquitaine only had a superficial hold over; there they received the homage of counts, viscounts, and lords. On their return from the military expedition, the King and Queen arranged the marriage of Alix-Petronilla, Eleanor’s younger sister and potential heiress of Aquitaine. They chose Raoul de Vermandois, a cousin of the King and his seneschal, or commander, of his army. This union had a two-fold political interest. On the one hand, it prevented a marriage between Petronilla and a great lord of Aquitaine who could have claimed the duchy in her name. On the other hand, if Eleanor died without producing an heir, Aquitaine would remain in the hands of a vassal loyal to the King. That Raoul had been married to Eleanor of Blois for some 20 years was an obstacle. The bishops of Laon, Noyon, and Senlis, however, pronounced the annulment of this union on the grounds of consanguinity between the spouses. Theobald IV, the powerful Count of Blois and Champagne, saw this repudiation as an attack against the honour of his family, being the uncle of the discarded wife. He obtained the excommunication of Louis VII by Pope Innocent II, using the Pope’s resentment towards Louis for his prolonged interference in episcopal elections. During 1142, war between the royal House of Capet and the House of Blois raged. Notably, Louis VII and his men set fire to the church of 15  Suger, History of Louis VII, ed. and trans. Françoise Gasparri (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996), 162–164. 16  Suger, History of Louis VII, 166–176.

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

125

Vitry-­en-­Perthois, in which a large number of the village’s inhabitants perished. A monk of St Germain des prés, contemporary of the events, confirmed that the massacre that took place at Vitry deeply affected Louis who later atoned for his part with a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.17 On the death of Innocent II in September 1143, and with the mediation of Bernard of Clairvaux, whose renown extended beyond the religious sphere (see Katherine Weikhert and Danna R. Messer’s chapter),18 the way to the restoration of peace was paved. Even during this upheaval, Eleanor was not one to forget that her primary duty as Queen was to become the mother to the heir, as one Life of the Cistercian saint recounts that during this time Eleanor asked him to pray that she would give the King a child; Marie, their eldest daughter, was born a few months later.19 Motherhood notwithstanding, after Louis VII vowed to go on crusade on Easter Day, 1146, Eleanor chose to make the journey herself. The events of the expedition left the Queen open to public and private ridicule on a number of fronts. On the first leg of the journey, blame for the defeat and decimation of Louis’ army in Anatolia in January 1148 by the Turks at Mount Cadmus, was pointed at Geoffrey de Rancon, a Poitevin lord close to the Queen.20 Later, in Antioch, Eleanor and Louis stayed with her uncle, Raymond of Antioch, who had ruled the city for ten years. Her courtiers sometimes accused Eleanor of incestuous nymphomania, slandering her as the alleged lover of her uncle Raymond of Antioch or Geoffrey the Fair, Henry II’s father. During their stay in Antioch, Louis and Raymond argued over strategies of conquest, with Eleanor siding with her uncle to take Aleppo or Hama. The result of this decision was a breakdown in her relationship with her husband. The failure of the short siege of Damascus, which Louis favoured, and the massacre of Raymond some months later proved her right.21 17  “Ex Historia Francorum,” ed. Martin Bouquet, in Léopold Deslisle, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 24 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1869–1904), 12:116. 18  Flori, Aliénor, 58–64; Yves Sassier, Louis VII (Paris: Fayard, 1998), 107–138. 19  Geoffroi d’Auxerre, “Vita prima,” in Patrologia Latina, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, 217 vols. (Paris: Garnier, 1844–1862), 185:iii, 18, 332. 20  Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem: The Journey of Louis VII to the East, ed. and trans. Virginia G. Berry (New York: W.W. Norton, 1948). 21  Martin Aurell, “Aux origines de la légende noire d’Aliénor d’Aquitaine,” in Royautés imaginaires (xiie–xvie siècles): actes du colloque Corpus regni, organisé en hommage à Colette Beaune, ed. Anne–Hélène Allirot, Gilles Lecuppre, and Ludvine Scordia (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 89–102.

126 

M. AURELL

Nevertheless, the marriage was irrevocably split. In October 1149, on their return journey from crusade, Louis VII and Eleanor were welcomed near Rome by Pope Eugene III who tried to reconcile them. He declared that their marriage “should in no circumstances be dissolved,” and “did his best to restore their love.”22 Initially, his intervention seemed successful as several months later the Queen gave birth to Alix, her second daughter. It was not the son Louis wanted and needed to secure succession and avoid a civil war such as that which was raging in England (see Heather J. Tanner’s chapter). As such, he made the decision to repudiate Eleanor. On 21 March 1152, he had the bishops of his realm meet in council at Beaugency and officially declare the annulment of the marriage on the grounds of consanguinity. Thirty years later, an English chronicler would relate that the Queen declared at the separation that she was convinced that she “had married a monk rather than a king.”23 Her marriage was not only over, she also lost her two daughters to Louis who would use them to reconcile with Theobald IV, his long-time enemy, through their marriage to Theobald’s sons: Marie would become the wife of Henry I of Champagne and Alix of Theobald V of Blois. Furthermore, in 1160, Louis VII himself would marry, as his third wife, Adela of Champagne. Adela was another of Theobald IV’s daughters, and who would become the mother of his only male heir, Philip Augustus. Eleanor, as mother, and the King’s former wife, was excluded from all these marital negotiations.

Motherhood, Agency, and Rebellion On 18 May 1152, scarcely two months after the end of her marriage from the King of France, Eleanor married Henry, Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou, who was ten years her junior, at Poitiers Cathedral. They had met, probably for the first time, the summer before in Paris. Henry had then accompanied his father Geoffrey V the Fair in talks to stop the fighting in Normandy and Poitou. On that occasion, he paid homage to the King as his father’s successor; Geoffrey died on the journey home. The marriage between Henry and Eleanor formed an immense domain 22  The Historia Pontificalis of John of Salisbury, ed. and trans. Marjory Chibnall (London: Nelson, 1965), 54. 23  William of Newburgh, “Historia rerum Anglicarum,” in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1884–1885), 1:31, 93.

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

127

including, on one side Normandy and Anjou, and on the other Aquitaine. This “Plantagenet Empire” would soon comprise a large part of Britain and Ireland. On 6 November 1153, by the Treaty of Wallingford, Henry put an end to the war of succession in England, securing the rights of his mother Empress Matilda over the island. On 19 December 1154, shortly after the death of King Stephen of Blois, he was crowned at Westminster.24 His wife became queen for a second time. As Queen of England, between the ages of 29 and 42 (1153–1166), Eleanor gave Henry up to six sons and three daughters.25 Although assisted by nurses, who breastfed and cared for the children, and tutors were employed, Eleanor paid close supervision over the education of her children, and often took them with her on her travels. The boys were introduced to the study of letters, as well as weapons, by their tutors, the most famous of who were the chancellor Thomas Becket and William Marshal, future regent of England, who was reputed to be “the greatest knight in the world.” John and Joanna, the couple’s two youngest children, were sent to board at Fontevraud, situated on the borders of Touraine, Anjou, and Poitou, where the nuns took charge of their education.26 Eleanor also remained focused on her daughters’ future prospects, and even though the prestigious marriages that were negotiated meant three of them were far away from her, she continued to maintain special relationships. Her eldest daughter, Matilda, married Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, in 1168. The couple were forced into exile between 1182 and 1185 by Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, and the household took refuge in Normandy and England. In 1170, Henry and Eleanor’s second youngest daughter, also named Eleanor, married Alfonso VIII of Castile. In 1200, Eleanor travelled to Castile to collect her granddaughter, Blanche, to bring to France following her betrothal to the future Louis VIII of France. More tragic was the destiny of the couple’s youngest daughter, Joanna. In 1177, Joanna married William II of Sicily. She was widowed in 1189, but married Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, in 1196. Despite being pregnant, she was forced to leave her husband and died in  W.L. Warren, Henry II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 38–53.  Andrew Lewis, “The Birth and Childhood of King John: Some Revisions,” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, ed. Bonnie Wheeler and John C. Parsons (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 159–176. 26  Turner, Eleanor, 146–148, 194–195; Matthew Strickland, Henry the Young King, 1155–1183 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 21–22, 34–40. 24 25

128 

M. AURELL

childbirth at Rouen, her mother by her side, in September 1199. Finally, André the Chaplain, a cleric in the household of Philip Augustus who was hostile to Eleanor, derided the courts of love that she was supposed to have held with her daughter from her first marriage, Marie, Countess of Champagne.27 Perhaps this testimony reflects an unbreakable bond, between mother and daughter, both lovers of literature. Despite the encumbrance of at least ten pregnancies, Eleanor continued to build her influence and fight for power. She participated in political life, shaping the decisions of Henry II, who was much younger than her. The Queen accompanied him on his endless travels through the vast Plantagenet Empire. She pressured him to fight against the lords of Aquitaine, who were often in revolt. In the summer of 1159, the siege that her husband undertook against Toulouse is explained, likewise, by her influence over him. Henry II, however, failed to take the city because Louis VII—who had attempted to do the same 18 years before, at the instigation of Eleanor, his wife at the time—had managed to get within the city. Henry II then decided not to attack his feudal lord, to whom he was bound by homage.28 Chancellor Thomas Becket, a close friend of the King, was also part of the 1159 expedition, where he distinguished himself with his acts of bravery. By 1162, when Becket became Archbishop of Canterbury, the relationship between King and primate began to disintegrate. The intellectuals of Becket’s entourage blamed, in part, Eleanor’s nefarious influence over her husband for the deterioration in his relationship with the Archbishop.29 It was notably at the request of the Queen that Henry the Young King, her eldest son, was crowned and anointed, in June 1170, by the Archbishop of York to the detriment of the rights of Becket, then in exile.30 Thomas returned to Canterbury immediately and was assassinated, on 29 December 1170, by four of Henry II’s knights and the reputation of the King, who had to undertake a public penance, was forever sullied.31 Such a loss of prestige encouraged the resistance of his enemies, numbering among 27  Pascale Bourgain, “Aliénor d’Aquitaine et Marie de Champagne mises en cause par André le Chapelain,” Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 29 (1986): 29–36. 28  Jane P.  Martindale, “‘An Unfinished Business’: Angevin Politics and the Siege of Toulouse, 1159,” Anglo–Norman Studies 23 (2000): 143–154. 29  The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162–1170, ed. and trans. Anne Duggan, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:li, 214–218. 30  Strickland, Henry, 81. 31  Anne Duggan, Thomas Becket (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005).

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

129

them the lords of the Plantagenet Empire who detested his centralising and authoritarian methods. A few short years would reveal that amongst Henry’s fiercest enemies were three of his four surviving sons by Eleanor. In 1171, after having established herself at Poitiers where she prepared her son Richard for the difficulties of governing Aquitaine,32 she had him enthroned as Duke in grandiose ceremonies at Saint-Hilaire in Poitiers and at Saint-Martial in Limoges.33 Two years later, she was at the heart of her sons’ revolt against Henry, namely Henry the Young King, Richard, and Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany, who protested as much against part of their inheritance being given to their younger brother John Lackland (who had been born in 1166 as the last of Eleanor and Henry’s children), as against the control over their rights and property exerted by their father. The rebels also relied on military aide from Louis VII, whose daughter Margaret, born from his second marriage to Constance of Castile, was married to Henry the Young King—Margaret, herself, already having been crowned Queen of England in 1172 (see Márta Pellérdi’s chapter). Churchmen close to Henry saw Eleanor as the main inspiration for the uprising, having wielded her power and authority to the ultimate extent. Gervase of Canterbury claimed that, “It was said that all had been perpetrated by her machinations and recommendations. She was, indeed, a very wise woman, born of a noble lineage, but unstable.”34 The abbot of Mont Saint Michel, Robert de Torigni, puts her at the top of the list of rebels, making a bad play on words as regards her name: “Thus were alienated Eleanor (Alienor… alienati) and her sons Richard, Count of Poitou, and Geoffrey, Count of Brittany, from King Henry.”35 Rotrou of Warwick, Archbishop of Rouen, employed the epistles to the Corinthians and Ephesians to demand that the Queen submit to her spouse: “Return to your husband and our lord”; “Convert.”36 Eleanor’s bad reputation is certainly explained by her ascendancy over her three sons, aged respectively, 32  Mathieu Cosson, Richard Cœur de Lion, comte de Poitou, duc d’Aquitaine (1157–1199) (La Roche-sur-Yon: CVRH, 2017), 38–40. 33   Martin Aurell, “Les cérémonies d’accession à la dignité ducale dans l’Empire Plantagenêt,” in Une histoire pour un royaume, XIIe–XVe siècle (Paris: Perrin, 2010), 393–408. 34  The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1879–80), 1:242–243. 35  The Chronography of Robert of Torigni, ed. and trans. Thomas N. Bisson, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2020), 1:298. 36  Epistulæ, Patrologia Latina, 207: cliv, 448–449.

130 

M. AURELL

in 1173, 18, 15, and 14 years. It was also believed that her femininity should have prevented her from meddling in politics, let alone challenging her husband’s authority over her.37 Contrary to this, however, Eleanor used stereotypical expectations of queenly femininity to play a firm and accepted role in politics: particularly that of mother, which she fully exhibited both before and after the 1173–74 revolt. Such examples of how her femininity, and play on her role as a mother, was used to exert influence and authority, remain on display, for example, in her later letters addressed to Pope Celestine III, during the era of Richard’s captivity in the early 1190s, where she portrays herself as a “suffering mother,” grieving, and in need of mercy.38 In spring 1173, many lords took up arms against those loyal to Henry II in Poitou, Eleanor’s favourite lands. The same happened in northern and central England, where the earls of Leicester, Chester, and Norfolk appealed to the King of Scots, while Normandy was invaded by Louis VII and the Count of Flanders, alongside Henry the Young King and Geoffrey of Brittany. Henry II reacted vigorously on all fronts, however, raising a large troop of mercenaries who repelled the invaders, while also imposing his authority on Poitou. That winter, his men captured Eleanor, who was trying to flee to Paris, disguised as a man; she was imprisoned in the castle at Chinon and in the spring of 1174 she was transferred to Salisbury when the King moved to England. A decisive victory against the King of Scotland at Alnwick that summer was later coupled with a thawing in the relationship between Henry and Louis VII. Louis and Philip of Flanders had besieged Rouen in the spring, joined by Henry and Eleanor’s son Richard. By September, however, the two kings had reconciled and Richard, who was part of the rebellion in Poitou, surrendered and paid homage to his father. The King of England forced his son quell the rebels in Aquitaine in his name.39 Captivity was not the only repercussion for Eleanor and her intimate involvement in her sons’ rebellion. Twenty-three years after the end of her marriage to Louis of France on the grounds of consanguinity, Eleanor found herself in the same situation with her second husband. In October 37  Martin Aurell, “Political Culture and Medieval Historiography: The Revolt against King Henry II, 1173–1174,” History 102 (2017): 752–771. 38  See, for ease of reference, Epistolae: Medieval Women’s Latin Letters, https://epistolae. ctl.columbia.edu/letter/141.html (accessed 13 September 2022). 39  Strickland, Henry, 151–205.

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

131

1175, Henry tried to obtain an annulment of his marriage to her, claiming, like Louis VII, they were related within the fifth degree. The papal legate, however, refused Henry’s request. Then, in June 1183, Eleanor lost her oldest son, Henry the Young King to fever, having just had taken up arms against his father in the Limousin. The Crown of England was offered to Richard, but only in exchange for Aquitaine, which was to be ceded to John. War broke out between the two brothers, Geoffrey of Brittany siding with John. The family reconciled, however, and were together at Windsor, at Christmas 1184, with Henry and Eleanor. Two years later, on 21 August 1186, Geoffrey died in Paris during a tournament: in March, his posthumous son Arthur of Brittany, a contender to the English throne, was born. At the same time, Richard grew closer to Philip Augustus, the new King of France. He fought alongside him against Henry II who died, abandoned by all, at Chinon, on 6 July 1189. Richard succeeded him and one of his first actions was to free his mother, captive since the 1173 revolt, then 65 years old.40

Influence and Agency in Widowhood Once crowned at Westminster, in October 1189, Richard started preparations for crusade, a journey he was to lead with Philip Augustus. Jerusalem had fallen two years before; its reconquest became the greatest concern of Western chivalry. In the summer of 1190, the King of England and his army travelled to Sicily, where they were delayed during winter before embarking for the Holy Land. Having been left out of the earlier marital negotiations of her children, Eleanor was occupied in arranging Richard’s marriage and with the help of her advisers, she chose Berengaria, daughter of King Sancho VI of Navarre, a region bordering unstable Gascony (see Gabriella Storey’s chapter). The King of France was displeased with the union, reproaching Richard for abandoning his sister Alix, to whom he had been betrothed for years. Further, as a new widower, Philip Augustus had hopes of marrying Joanna, Richard’s sister, who had recently lost her husband, the King of Sicily.41 The King of England refused, worried that such a union would give French kings too much influence in the Mediterranean. This double  John Gillingham, Richard I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 41–122.  Martin Aurell, “Philippe Auguste et les Plantagenêt,” in Autour de Philippe Auguste, ed. Martin Aurell and Yves Sassier (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2017), 27–69. 40 41

132 

M. AURELL

marital failure transformed the relationship between Philip Augustus and Richard from allies to rivals. The situation was perhaps further exacerbated by Richard in 1190 when he negotiated peace with Saladin, after securing Palestine, going so far as to propose his sister Joanna marry the brother of the Muslim leader.42 In spite of the instability it caused with the French Crown, an alliance with Navarre was valuable to the duchy of Aquitaine, however, which needed strong support to control the southernmost of its principalities. As queen mother and queen dowager, the bridal procession, which crossed the Alps, was led by Eleanor; Emperor Henry VI received them at Lodi in Lombardy. On 30 March 1191, they reached Messina.43 In April 1191, Eleanor returned to Normandy. In the summer of the same year the arrival of the armies of Richard and Philip Augustus in the Holy Land precipitated the fall of Acre. The King of France considered his mission ended and, ill, he returned to France. There John, who promised to cede Normandy in return for French support to win the crown of England, paid homage to the King of France. Informed of John’s betrayal, Richard set to return to his realm in October 1192. On his way, he was captured by Duke Leopold of Austria, with whom he had quarreled in Acre. He was then handed over to Emperor Henry VI who demanded a heavy ransom in exchange for his release. Philip Augustus and John conspired to ensure Richard’s prolonged captivity in the Rhineland. Asserting the full power and authority as queen, Eleanor fought body and soul for Richard’s release. She dictated a poignant letter to Pope Celestine III, demanding papal protection for her son who enjoyed the canonical status of the crusader or pilgrim: “Eleanor, by the wrath of God, queen of England, duchess of Normandy, countess of Anjou and unhappy mother,” she called herself. She claimed the suffering of a mother, while she evoked “the violence of my pain” or “the grief that increases into madness.”44 She also pled for mercy for what her family had become:

42  Martin Aurell, “Joan of England and al–ʿÂdil’s Harem: The Impossible Marriage Between Christians and Muslims (11th–12th Centuries),” Anglo–Norman Studies, 43 (2021): 1–14. 43  John Gillingham, “Richard I and Berengaria of Navarre,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 53 (1980): 157–173. 44  Egbert Türk, “Un royaume sans roi: Pierre de Blois et Aliénor d’Aquitaine,” in Convaincre et persuader: communication et propagande aux xiie et xiiie siècles, ed. Martin Aurell (Poitiers: CESCM, 2007), 325–348

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

133

I am pitiable, yet pitied by no-one; why have I, the Lady of two kingdoms, reached the disgrace of this abominable old age? I am the mother of two kings. … But doubt remains and I waver. If I go, I desert my son’s kingdom, which is being plundered from every direction with formidable hostility, and in my absence it will have no common counsel, no relief. But if I stay, I will not see what I most want to see, the face of my son, and there will be no-one to concentrate on procuring the release of my son, but what I am more afraid of is that the most fastidious of young men will be tortured.45

The epistolary genre certainly lends itself to rhetorical excesses, but the affliction that the Queen describes corresponds well to a firm political will. This is clear in her use of her position as a grieving mother, well within acceptable gendered bounds, as a means to an end to reprimand Pope Celestine for his ineffectiveness in obtaining Richard’s release from captivity: Why then have you, so negligent, so cruel, done nothing for so long about the release of my son or is it rather that you do not dare? Perhaps you will say that this power entrusted to you was over souls, not bodies: so be it, I will certainly be satisfied if you bind the souls of those who keep my son bound in prison. It is in your power to release my son, unless the fear of God yields to a human fear. So restore my son to me, man of God, if indeed you are a man of God and not a man of mere blood. If you are slow in releasing my son, then the Most High will require my son’s blood from your hand … Though late, you should give your soul for him, the man for whom you have refused to say or write one word. … my son is tortured in chains, but you do not go down to him, you do not send anyone, you are never even moved by the sorrow which moved Joseph. Christ sees this and is silent, but in the final judgement retribution will be severe for those who are negligent in doing God’s work. … You, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, look upon your Christ’s face, grant sovereignty to your Son, and save the son of your maidservant, do not bring on him the crimes of his father or the wickedness of his mother. … The supreme Pontiff sees all this, yet keeps the sword of Peter sheathed, and thus gives the sinner added boldness, his silence being presumed to indicate consent. For the man who can rebuke, who ought to rebuke, but does not do so seems to consent, and the man who pretends to be patient will not be without a hidden alliance. The time of discussion is upon us … I am no prophetess, nor the daughter of a prophet, but my grief 45  Letters of the Queens of England, 1100–1547, ed. Anne Crawford (Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1994), 39–40.

134 

M. AURELL

has made many suggestions about the troubles to come; yet it also steals the very words it suggests for my writing is interrupted by my sobbing, my sadness saps the strength of my soul and it chokes my vocal chords with anxiety.46

Eleanor traversed her lands to raise the support of the lords faithful to Richard against John. Above all, she collected the ransom money, equivalent to several years of revenue for the English Crown. Finally, she spent the winter of 1193–1194 travelling through Cologne and Mainz. On 4 February, she recovered her son in exchange for money, several hostages, and the King of England’s homage to the Emperor.47 Once back in England, Eleanor and Richard held council in Nottingham with their most loyal of men. At Winchester Cathedral, the King held a crown-wearing ceremony, similar to his coronation. Eleanor was by his side, coming from Lisieux where she had been present when the King met with John and pardoned him.48 It was after this, at the age of 70, that Eleanor decided to retire from government and public life and settle in at the abbey of Fontevraud, where she could attend the services of the community of nuns she had long supported. It was at Fontveraud that she had buried her husband Henry II, whose remains she watched over, and which was to become the family necropolis. Besides her husband, her youngest daughter Joanna was buried in September 1199 and, earlier that same year, so was her beloved Richard. After successfully leading a war against Philip and recovering all the lands lost during his captivity, Richard also fought the rebellious lords of Aquitaine and it was while besieging Châlus in early April 1199 that he was wounded by a crossbow. The injury turned into gangrene  and Eleanor raced to Richard’s besides being with him when he died on 6 April 1199.49 On his deathbed, the King decided that the crown should go to his brother John. Eleanor encouraged his decision, which meant the exclusion of her grandson Arthur of Brittany. While the new King departed immediately for England and Normandy to consolidate his power, Eleanor came out of retirement and marched on Anjou, which had chosen to  Crawford, Letters, 39–43.  J.  Gillingham, “The Kidnapped King: Richard I in Germany, 1192–1194,” German Historical Institute London Bulletin 30 (2008): 5–34. 48  Roger de Howdenm Chronica, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols. (London: Longman, 1868–1871), 3: 252; Newburgh, “Historia,” 2:424. See also: Flori, Aliénor, 243. 49  Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Joseph Stevenson (London: Longman, 1873), 94–96. 46 47

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

135

support Arthur, in accompaniment with the mercenary forces of Mercadier, a routier captain who was as loyal to her as he once was to Richard. Not only did Eleanor march, she used her authority as Duchess of Aquitaine to grant liberties to Poitiers, Niort, and La Rochelle, the prosperous towns of her principality.50 It was also at Poitou that she obtained the support of the powerful Viscount of Thouars.51 For his part, Philip Augustus supported the impressionable 12-year-old Arthur of Brittany, whose father Geoffrey had habitually chosen a Capetian alliance to the detriment of his Plantagenet parents. In order to stop Philip’s support of Arthur, Eleanor deployed all her diplomatic skills. She offered to marry his son to one of her close relatives. In winter 1199–1200, she travelled to Castile to visit the Queen, her daughter and namesake. She returned from the visit with her granddaughter Blanche, who wedded prince Louis following the Treaty of Goulet (in the Vexin) of 18 May 1200, establishing a truce between the Capetians and the Plantagenets.52 The peace did not last long, however. In the spring of 1202, Philip Augustus took the pretext of the kidnapping of Isabella Taillefer, the rich heiress of Angoulême, by King John to re-open hostilities (see Sally Spong’s chapter). Already having been betrothed to the powerful Hugh de Lusignan, the threat of this marriage was the formation of a vast and menacing principality at the heart of Aquitaine, encompassing Saintonge, Angoulême, and la Marche. John seized and married Isabella as his second wife, displacing his consort of ten years, Isabella of Gloucester (see Sally Spong’s chapters). Hugh complained to King Philip, whose courts condemned the King of England in absentia and confiscated all his Continental possessions.53 The King of France placed Arthur at the head of an army gathered in Touraine. To escape him, Eleanor left Fontevraud for Poitiers. On the way, she sought refuge in Mirebeau, which was besieged by Arthur’s troops. The village fell while Eleanor and her household held the castle 50  Georges Pon and Yves Chauvin, “Chartes de libertés et de communes de l’Angoumois, du Poitou et de la Saintonge (fin xiie–début xiiie siècle),” Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de l’Ouest 5, no. 82 (2002): 25–149. 51  Rotuli chartarum in turri Londinensi asservati, ed. Thomas D. Hardy (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1837), 102b. 52  Lindy Grant, Blanche of Castile, Queen of France (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016). 53  Nicholas Vincent, “Isabella of Angoulême: John’s Jezebel,” in King John: New Interpretations, ed. Stephen D. Church (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1999), 165–219.

136 

M. AURELL

and one of her messengers warned John, then in Maine. On 1 August 1202, advised by William des Roches, a formidable Angevin knight, the King of England raced at a gallop to his mother and defeated the attackers. He captured Arthur of Brittany as well as Hugh de Lusignan and other great Poitevin lords. The victory at Mirebeau is one of John’s rare successes, but there was no follow-up. The King made himself unpopular by the ruthless treatment of the prisoners. He ordered his nephew Arthur be murdered in secret. He also abandoned military operations on the Continent to return to England. In his absence, Philip Augustus invaded the Vexin. On 6 March 1204, he took Château-Gaillard, the true rock of the duchy, built by Richard at great expense. The news must have reached Eleanor and she died, in her eighties, not long after, on 31 March or 1 April. She was buried with Henry and Richard. They were later joined, in 1264, by Isabella of Angoulême, John’s second wife. In the weeks that followed Eleanor’s death, Normandy, Anjou, and Poitou surrendered to Philip Augustus.

The Legacy of Authority The long life of Eleanor, twice Queen, is marked by the remarkable exercise of power. As consort of Louis VII of France and then Henry II of England, her art of governing primarily manifested in subtle ways, generally through her influence on her husbands. Nevertheless, Eleanor did not want to give up the ducal power she had inherited from her ancestors and the involvement of the armies of the kings of France and England in Aquitaine and as far as Toulouse show the scope of her agency. She asserted her own authority in Poitou and Gascony, as well as in Limousin and as far as Auvergne. This predilection for Aquitaine was seen in the long visits she made there after 1165, when she was preparing her son Richard to succeed her at the head of the duchy. Tellingly, the rebellion that she fomented in 1173 was in response to her husband’s autocratic interference there, which was to the detriment of her own rights. Eleanor fought for the power she viewed as rightly hers, and she vociferously asserted her rights and privileges. Eleanor is unusual of the queens in this volume, in that she held authority in her own right, but like her fellow queens the status of widow seems to have greatly strengthened her authority. Half of the approximately 200 charters in which she was involved

7  ELEANOR OF AQUITAINE: THE ART OF GOVERNING 

137

were drawn up in the last 15 years of her 80-year existence.54 The figure is further evidence for the significant role played by the widowed queen in the Middle Ages. Her legal status was guaranteed thanks not only to her paternal or maternal inheritance, but also because of her dower, which she held without any constraints until her death. The very close bond that Eleanor had with her son Richard, whom she had educated to become Duke of Aquitaine one day, further increased her power. The King’s long absence on crusade and in captivity brought her to the forefront. Her influence was also decisive for John’s securing of the throne. It hardly seems surprising then that Eleanor’s death coincided with the collapse of the Plantagenet Empire that she had helped so much to build and maintain.55

54  Marie Hivergneaux, “Aliénor d’Aquitaine: le pouvoir d’une femme à la lumière de ses chartes (1152–1204),” in La Cour Plantagenêt (1154–1204), ed. Martin Aurell (Poitiers: CESCM, 2000), 63–88. 55  Stephen D.  Church, King John, England, Magna Carta and the Making of a Tyrant (London: Pan Macmillan, 2015), 103–111, 141–142; Frédérique Lachaud, Jean Sans Terre (Paris: Perrin, 2018) 107–113.

CHAPTER 8

Margaret of France: Conciliator Queen of England and Hungary Márta Pellérdi

When the 28-year-old Margaret of France, dowager Queen of England, left Paris at the end of August 1186 to marry the Hungarian King, it probably occurred to her that she would be seeing her native Île-de-France for the last time. Except for the last three relatively peaceful years of widowhood spent in Foissy in the delightful company of her beloved sister Marie of France, Countess of Champagne, likewise a widow, most of her life was spent in fulfilling her royal duty as Queen consort of the handsome and chivalrous Henry the Young King. Indeed, she could not remember the time before the death of her husband when she had been anything else but the wife of Young Henry—Queen of England from the age of 14. Her father-in-law, the ambitious Henry II, had taken custody of her when she was only six months old, and before she could compose full sentences in Old French at the age of two and a half, she found herself married to his

M. Pellérdi (*) Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_8

139

140 

M. PELLÉRDI

son, who was barely five at the time.1 Whatever she may have thought as she reined her horse and turned to take a last glance at the sunlit meadows of her brother Phillip II’s demesne is mere conjecture. Although reconstructing the life of the twelfth-century English Queen, Margaret of France, is a challenging task, the biographer must bear in mind the warning of the historian Charles Plummer: “we … must not allow ourselves to supply the defects of the evidence by the luxuriance of a riotous imagination.”2 Margaret lived in the shadow of her handsome but unfortunate husband and her famous in-laws; her father-in-law Henry II was the Angevin empire-builder, her mother-in-law the legendary Eleanor of Aquitaine (see Martin Aurell’s chapter), and her brothers-in-law the crusader King Richard I and the deceitful King John. She remains passive and silent, seemingly without a will of her own in the historical chronicles that rarely devote any attention to her, unless it concerns her marriage and dowry, the expenses of her husband’s household, and her dutiful travels across the Channel accompanying her husband, which are recorded. Nevertheless, the darkness that obscures the seemingly motionless and silent figure that is Margaret of France, she who stands in the background of historical events, is occasionally disturbed by fleeting references to her in the chronicles, charters, and the Pipe Rolls of the period. Recent and well-researched historical biographies on Henry the Young King and Marie de Champagne offer more information about her life, but her figure rarely emerges fully from obscurity.3

The French Royal Princess as Conciliator The role of a passive political conciliator was thrust upon young Margaret very early in her life by her father Louis VII, King of the Franks, who agreed to betroth his infant daughter to the heir of the King of England, Henry the Young. She was born in early 1158 as the first daughter of

1  Matthew Strickland, Henry the Young King, 1155–1183 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 27, 31. 2  Charles Plummer, The Life and Times of Alfred the Great; Being the Ford Lectures for 1901 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), 9–10. 3  See the following excellent biographies: Strickland, Henry The Young King; and Theodore Evergates, Marie of France: Countess of Champagne, 1145–1198 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), 2.

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

141

Constance of Castile, the second wife of Louis VII.4 The French King had previously divorced his first wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who then abruptly remarried Louis’s greatest rival Henry II, King of England. Thus Margaret grew up in the midst of tangled family relationships, which she might have regarded as typical at the time in European royal families. It was rather unusual, however, that her mother-in-law was also her father’s first wife. She also shared her half-sisters, Marie of Champagne and Alice (the fruits of King Louis’s first marriage), with her future husband Henry the Young King. One of the most famous kings in the history of France, Philip (Augustus) II, was her half-brother. Thus the confusing web of royal relationships placed her in the midst of major historical events where it seems she often remained a passive witness and reluctant participant. That marriage between rival royal families was a form of conciliation in medieval Europe at the time was true in Margaret and Henry’s case. Henry II, who was ambitiously contemplating territorial expansion in the late 1150s, had reason to hope that through the marriages of his sons he would increase his power. If his son Henry married Margaret, the daughter of the King of the Franks, and if King Louis died without a male heir, he or his son would have a claim to the French throne. The betrothal was negotiated by Thomas Becket, Henry’s chancellor, who was sent to Paris for the purpose of future unity or reconciliation (mittitur conciliare futuras) between England and France.5 He arrived in Paris in September 1158 with such pomp, according to the chronicler William Fitzstephen, that the people “rushed from their homes” to see the splendour of Becket’s train of richly packed wagons and entourage, asking: “‘If the Chancellor travels in such splendor,’ they said, ‘what must the King of England be?’”6 Becket’s purpose was to create a lasting impression upon Louis. It did not take long to convince him that the King of England possessed the dignity and wealth necessary to request the hand of the baby French princess for his own three-year-old son, the heir to the English throne. It was in the interest of both parties concerned to seek a reconciliation, both symbolically and 4  Robert de Monte, “The Chronicles of Robert de Monte,” in The Church Historians of England, Containing the History of William Newburgh: The Chronicles of Robert de Monte, trans. Joseph Stevenson, 5 vols. (London: Seeley’s, 1856), 4:2:745 (hereafter Chronicles). 5  William Fitzstephen, Materials for the History of Thomas Becket: Archbishop of Canterbury (Canonozed by Pope Alexander III, A.D. 1173), ed. J.C. Robertson et al., 7 vols. (London: Longman, 1875–1885), 3:29. 6  “An Annotated Translation of The Life of St. Thomas Becket by William Fitzstephen,” trans. Leo T. Gourde (MA thesis, Loyola University Chicago, 1943), 40–41.

142 

M. PELLÉRDI

literally, via the betrothal of their children. Such a royal union “both makes and preserves friendships,” Fitzstephen wisely observed.7 The biographer-historian Amy Kelly ironically refers to royal and high-­ born daughters as “marriage prize[s],” in the dynastic marriage arrangements of the period.8 The six-month-old child was such a future “prize” not only for the young bridegroom, but also for the father King Henry, as “[h]e too, foresaw his grandson—if the Angevin star did not fail him— wearing the double crown of France and England.”9 Margaret’s dowry was the special and contested territory of the Norman Vexin and three strategic castles, including Gisors.10 Close to six months old, Margaret was handed over to King Henry in Paris in September 1158 and entrusted to the care of Robert de Neufmarché (or Neubourg), “a subject of his own, by whom she was to be educated”11 until she reached a marriageable age. From our present-day point of view such arrangements may be regarded as cruel. But as Matthew Strickland observes, “The harsh reality of Margaret’s separation from her parents at such an early age, and her de facto position as hostage were an accepted part of aristocratic life.”12 Margaret, however, did not remain long under the guardianship of Robert de Neufmarché, who died in 1159.13 His death was followed a year later by the sudden death of Margaret’s mother, Constance of Castile, in childbirth. Henry’s ambitious hopes that Louis would be left without a male heir were shattered when Louis made great haste to remarry Adela of Champagne with the aspiration of siring an heir to the throne. Fuming at the new alliance between the Capets and the House of Blois-Champagne, and impatiently wishing to get hold of Margaret’s dowry in the contested territory of the Vexin for strategic purposes, Henry responded by chasing out the Templars from the castles of the Vexin in 1160 and marrying the two children, Henry aged five and Margaret, not yet three, in Newburgh, Normandy.14 Although marriages contracted at a very young age were not unusual in the period, this was certainly considered scandalous. The  William Fitzstephen, “An Annotated Translation of The Life of St. Thomas Becket,” 38.  Amy Kelly, Eleanor and the Four Kings (1950; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 76. 9  Kelly, Eleanor and the Four Kings, 106. 10  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 26. 11  Chronicles, 746. 12  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 27. 13  Chronicles, 752. 14  Kelly, Eleanor and the Four Kings, 111. 7 8

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

143

c­ontemporary chronicler Roger de Hovenden disapprovingly observed that when the marriage took place both the groom and the bride “were as yet but little children, crying in the cradle.”15 News of the marriage incited Louis’s wrath in turn and thus it is from this date, John Gillingham notes, that “the two kings were at odds on almost every issue of secular and ecclesiastical politics.”16 When Louis transferred Margaret to Henry’s custody, assuming that the marriage would take place much later, it seems that he demanded that under no condition should she be raised by Eleanor of Aquitaine.17 Nevertheless, after the marriage she was probably transferred to Eleanor’s household.18 Henry headed an itinerant court, but Eleanor, who was frequently expecting, could not always join the King in this period. Little is known about Margaret’s early years or education, assuming it was similar to that which aristocratic young women received at the time, but her husband Prince Henry was taken under Thomas Becket’s charge for a short period, for the purpose of receiving a princely education. According to Amy Kelly, Princess Margaret also stayed in Becket’s household until 1163 when his disagreement with King Henry rose to such heights that as a sign of “personal humiliation … [the King] recalled Prince Henry and the Princess of France from Becket’s house where for most of the time since their marriage these children had grown together as playmates in the dear custody and tutelage of Canterbury.”19 There is, however, no evidence that Margaret was also under the “tutelage” of the Archbishop. But in Eleanor’s household, she may have received the best education that was available at the time for royal female children until preparations were made for her coronation when she was 12. Prince Henry’s coronation, however, took place without Margaret on 14 June 1170 at Westminster.20 In Europe pre-emptive coronations were common mostly among the Capetian and German monarchs to secure the

15  Roger de Hovenden, The Annals of Roger de Hovenden, Comprising the History of England and of other Countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201, trans. Henry T. Riley, 2 vols. (London: H. G. Bohn, 1853), 1:258. 16  John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire (London: Arnold Books, 2001), 31. 17  Alison Weir, Eleanor of Aquitaine: By the Wrath of God, Queen of England (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999), 159. 18  Weir, Eleanor of Aquitaine, 159; Strickland, Henry the Young King, 27. 19  Kelly, Eleanor and the Four Kings, 117. 20  Roger de Hovenden, Annals, 1:326.

144 

M. PELLÉRDI

hereditary rights of their heirs in their lifetime.21 But it was unprecedented in England and proved to be a two-fold scandal at the time. This was mainly because it was not conducted by Thomas Becket, but by Roger, Archbishop of York, with “no mention whatever being made of the blessed Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, to whom by right of his see the coronation and consecration.”22 Due to the deep controversy between the exiled Becket and Henry II, Roger of York was appointed to perform the ceremony, and was assisted among others by Gilbert, Bishop of London, and Jocelyn, Bishop of Salisbury.23 For this reason, the bishops assisting at the ceremony were excommunicated by Pope Alexander III.24 Also notable was the young Queen’s absence: “to everyone’s amazement, Margaret was left behind, although ceremonial outfits had been prepared for her both at Caen and at London.”25 Various interpretations of her absence can be found. According to Thomas Asbridge, rather than regarding it as accidental, it can be seen as a deliberate step to pave the way “for future political machinations, perhaps even for the eventual annulment of the marriage.”26 The nineteenth-­ century author of Lives of the Queens of England, Agnes Strickland, assumes that Margaret stayed behind in protest of the Old King’s treatment of Thomas Becket: “the young Marguerite, who had contumaciously defied him, left the royal robes he had made for her coronation, unworn upon his hands, and scorned the Crown he had offered to place on her brow, if not consecrated by Becket.”27 It is highly improbable, however, that the Princess of France, at the age of 12 or 13, had the will or power to defy the King of England. Although there are signs in her later life of the respect in which she held the memory of the Archbishop, on this occasion she must have suffered the will of the elder King passively, waiting for the outcome. Thus instead of being able to fulfil a conciliatory role between 21  Andrew W.  Lewis, “Anticipatory Association of the Heir in Early Capetian France,” American Historical Review 83, no. 4 (1978): 906. 22  Annals, 1:326. 23  Annals, 1:326. 24  The Historical Works of Ralph de Diceto, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1876) 1:341. 25  Frank Barlow, Thomas Becket (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 206. 26  Thomas Asbridge, The Remarkable Life of William Marshal, the Power behind Five English Thrones (London: Simon & Schuster, 2015), 91. 27  Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England: From the Norman Conquest with Anecdotes of Their Courts, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1849), 1:190.

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

145

her father and Henry II as official royal consort of the junior King, her uncrowned status was a cause for contention. The only consolation she could have was the knowledge that she had the full support of her father. Louis VII was outraged at the news and took it as a personal affront: When it became known to Louis, king of the Franks, that his daughter Margaret had not been crowned together with her husband, the king of England, he assembled a large army, and hostilely invaded Normandy. On hearing of this, the king of England, the father, leaving the king his son behind in England, crossed over into Normandy, and made peace with king Louis, … promising that next year he would cause his son to be crowned again, and his wife with him.28

Margaret the Junior Queen of England and the Rebellion of 1173–1174 Over the course of the next two years Margaret was constantly on the move, most often with her husband. Robert Torigni, for instance, mentions that Margaret sailed over from England to Normandy in the year 1171, but, curiously, does not mention Henry the Young King.29 However, according to the Pipe Rolls of 1171–1172, in April of the next year they crossed together from Normandy “and were resident in England till the King’s return from Ireland.”30 Matthew Strickland observes that Margaret accompanied her husband on his travels, which is reflected in the purchases made for her household and the expensive “‘robes for riding’ bought for Margaret herself” among other items.31 On 27 August 1172, she was finally crowned and anointed Queen of England at Winchester Cathedral by Rotrou, the Archbishop of Rouen. For her husband, it was simply a “crown-wearing ceremony,” as he had been crowned King of England two years earlier.32 Margaret was only 14 and a half years old at the time of her coronation. The young couple knew each other well, having been acquainted since childhood, and the period after her coronation is when they might have started living together.33  Annals, 1:326.  Chronicles, 777. 30  R.W. Eyton, The Court, Household, and Itinerary of King Henry II (London, 1878), 162. 31  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 111. 32  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 116. 33  Asbridge, The Remarkable Life of William Marshal, 96. 28 29

146 

M. PELLÉRDI

Henry the Young King was generally well liked and it is probable that Margaret was also fond of her good-looking, friendly, and generous, “courteous, affable, gentle, and amiable” husband.34 But he was also highly impressionable and somewhat indecisive in nature. In November 1172 when the couple was again back in Paris, Margaret’s father suggested that the Young Henry should make demands “so that he might rule his own lands and maintain Margaret in the style appropriate for a king and queen.”35 All of his brothers were in possession of territories except the heir to the throne of England. Roger de Hovenden describes the Young King’s dissatisfaction in detail: For he was already greatly offended that his father was unwilling to assign to him some portion of his territories, where he, with his wife, might take up their residence. Indeed, he had requested his father to give him either Normandy, or Anjou, or England, which request he had made at the suggestion of the king of France, and of those of the earls and barons of England and Normandy who disliked his father: and from this time it was that the king, the son, had been seeking pretexts and an opportunity for withdrawing from his father.36

Open to the influence of his mother, Eleanor, who by this time had become estranged from her husband, Henry the Young King was encouraged to lend an ear to the complaints of landless knights and dissatisfied barons. Henry II’s refusal to provide his son with an independent income and to bestow territories upon him finally led to the young man following “evil counsels” and rebelling against both “his father and his country.”37 Henry’s other sons also joined the rebellion against their father, and news of their intentions reached him in early 1173. As such, he kept his eldest son under close surveillance. Although Young Henry managed to escape from the castle of Chinon, he had not the time to make arrangements for Margaret.38 Wherever Margaret may have been during this turbulent period, she appears the next year on 7 July 1174 along with her younger sister Alice and her mother-in-law Eleanor of Aquitaine as a hostage of the 34  Gerald of Wales, The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis, ed. Thomas Wright (London: George Bell and Sons, 1905), 158. 35  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 120. 36  Roger de Hovenden, Annals, 1:366–367. 37  Gerald of Wales, Historical Works, 158. 38  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 132–133.

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

147

King when he arrived in the port of Southampton. From there Margaret was taken to the castle of Devizes where she was held captive39 until the reconciliation between the son and father took place in September 1174.40 On whose side was Margaret in the struggle of a son and a King for independence and power? Did she attempt to conciliate son and father? In September of the following year when the revolt was put down and King Henry reconciled with his sons, she was in her seventeenth year. It is probable that Margaret was of the same mind as her husband, her father, and mother-in-law and regarded Young Henry’s powerless and landless position as humiliating. Also, as later events will show, it seems that she was not particularly fond of her father-in-law. The brothers were pardoned, but the fact that Eleanor was held in captivity until Henry II’s death in 1189 demonstrates the degree of her involvement in the revolt.41 Although the extant documents of the period are not completely reliable, it is telling that Guernes’s La Vie de St Thomas le Martyr, written around 1174, mentions the revolt and calls for a reconciliation, not only between Henry II and Eleanor, but also between the former and Margaret, mentioning her twice as “daughter-in-law”: As long as father and son continue to love each other, as long as both love their mother and the king’s daughter-in-law, as long as the children stay close as brothers should, as long as the king reigns over them, as emperor and as king, then anyone who meddles with the sauce will find it tastes very bitter. I pray to God and to the martyr whom I have long served, that he bring peace to the kingdom, sustain the affection between father, son, daughter-in-law and wife, and grant them happiness and long life without any change in sovereignty.42

As the passage reveals, it was the father Henry II who held real power. After the rebellion, Margaret as queen consort was just as powerless as her mother-in-law Eleanor of Aquitaine. Along with her husband the Young King and his princely brothers, she was relegated to the status of a minor. Nevertheless, Henry the Young King’s failed rebellion may have instilled in the young Queen a deeper awareness of her own responsibility as a peacemaker. Her failure to intervene successfully to prevent her husband  Eyton, The Court, Household, and Itinerary of King Henry II, 180.  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 203. 41  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 211. 42  Quoted in Strickland, Henry the Young King, 219. 39 40

148 

M. PELLÉRDI

from turning against his father may have weighed heavily upon her conscience in light of the later events which developed as a direct consequence of the rebellion.

Queen Margaret’s Life with Henry the Young King After the defeat of the rebellion, Margaret settled back into the routine of a peripatetic royal household, travelling across the Channel whenever the Old King summoned the young royal couple. In 1176 the pardoned Young Henry received permission from his father to leave England “with his household” to visit King Louis in Paris.43 Margaret either stayed on in Paris at her father’s court or followed her husband on a visit to Count Philip of Flanders, where the Young King became passionately interested in tournaments.44 Beside Young Henry was the man who trained him in chivalrous exploits, William Marshal, the valiant knight and faithful member of his mesnie, whose name and exploits outshine those of all the other knights in the tournaments. Marshal’s loyalty to Henry the Young King later launched him into an unparalleled career in the faithful service of Henry II, Richard, and King John. By Christmas of 1176, celebrated by Young Henry and Margaret in Argentan, the Queen was with child for the first time. She was probably anxious and ready to fulfil her duty as a mother in the heightened atmosphere of expectation that surrounded her. But former troubles between her father and father-in-law arose concerning the French part of the Vexin territory and Bourges, Alice of France’s dowry. Alice was Margaret’s younger sister who had been betrothed to Richard, the Count of Poitou, for 20 years. There was gossip of Henry II having taken the younger princess as his mistress and that she had a child by him.45 Throughout the conflict that threatened the population of Normandy and France with another war, Margaret stayed in her father’s court. Is this the reason why Margaret decided to return to her father before the birth of her child? Was she scandalised by what had happened between her sister and the English King and did she complain to her father? Did she ever seek to protect her sister from the Old King? Furthermore, did Young Henry, together with  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 226.  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 228. 45  Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis, Henrici Secundi, Benedicti Abbatis, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1867), 1:160. 43 44

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

149

Margaret, seek conciliation between their fathers to prevent a major military conflict between them with their untimely presence in the French court? This is perhaps a crucial question, for the father King Henry was now demanding that the pregnant Margaret be sent back to Normandy.46 According to Matthew Strickland, it was important for the child to be born in Angevin territory: “If the child of Margaret and Young Henry was born in the Île-de-France, the Capetians would have control over the future heir of the heartlands of the Angevin empire.”47 The conflict was resolved when the child named William was born on 19 June 1177. It could be argued that solely by the act of giving birth to the grandson of the rival French and English kings, Margaret was symbolically and literally acting as a conciliator. But unfortunately, William died shortly after birth.48 Although Henry II and King Louis were temporarily reconciled through tragedy, Margaret probably had a difficult time in accepting the death of her child. In her lifetime Margaret never fulfilled one of the major functions of a consort queen, that of providing a male heir to the throne. This birth may have been responsible for her infertility, as she never had another child. It is a tragic fact that with the death of the one child she did have with Henry the Young King, the mounting political crisis was pacified. In the following years, Margaret receded into the shadows. While her husband was touring in northern France and participating in tournaments, Margaret was left behind, staying in Normandy, or England, or visiting in Paris and Champagne. However, the couple was together again at the magnificent coronation of Margaret’s half-brother Philip in November 1179. The fruit of Louis’s third marriage to Adela of Champagne, the long-awaited son who later earned the name of Philip Augustus, was born in 1165. Philip II can be regarded as “the most successful King in French history,” according to John Gillingham, for throughout his reign, he not only retrieved the territories from Henry II that his own father had lost, but he also succeeded in “bring[ing] the Angevin Empire to its knees,” continuing his father’s “policy of using the Angevins against themselves.”49 But in the year of Philip’s coronation in 1179 there was peace between the  Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis, 1:169.  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 236. 48  Roger de Hovenden, The Annals of Roger de Hovenden, 1:456; Latin original in Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis, 1:177. 49  John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire (London: Arnold 2001), 36. 46 47

150 

M. PELLÉRDI

English and the French King and over the next few years Philip was on particularly good terms with his Plantagenet brothers-in-law. Through the persons of Margaret and Marie de France, Countess of Champagne, an informal alliance was formed by Philip II and the Plantagenet brothers Henry and Geoffrey, which the French King would take advantage of later when Young Henry turned against his brother Richard and his father in a second rebellion. With the itinerant and knight-errant lifestyle of her husband, however, Margaret may have felt neglected. The loneliness she may have struggled to overcome explains the long visits she made to her half-sister Marie de France, Countess of Champagne, also half-sister to Philip and Young Henry. According to Theodore Evergates, Margaret may have visited the Countess in 1177, and she was with Marie in Troyes when the latter was expecting her fourth child in 1179.50 Margaret was probably very close to her sister, which the small lifetime annuity of £10 received from Marie’s husband Henry, the Count of Champagne, demonstrates. This was a sum which she would draw on whenever she stayed in Troyes or Foissy, visiting her sister.51 The next major event at which Margaret was present was the festive Christmas in Caen in 1182. But the splendour of the Young King’s Christmas court was lost on Margaret. According to The History of William Marshal, the Young King’s most loyal and valiant knight, who had by then gained a prominent status within his household, was accused by jealous rivals of having an affair with the Queen. The Young King seemed to half-­ believe and half-doubt the rumours as “he hesitated to take any definite action.”52 The Christmas court in Caen serves as a vivid detail for biographers who imagine the Young King to have been “gloomy, testy, inaccessible,” and who “shunned praises of the marshal’s exploits, avoided the circle of the gay young Queen.”53 Another biographer describes the 25-year-old Margaret as “haughty, beautiful, barely on speaking terms with her husband because of his unfounded jealousy of William Marshal, who, he believed, had dared to love his wife.”54 To clear his name, William 50  Theodore Evergates, Marie of France: Countess of Champagne, 1145–1198 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), 52. 51  Evergates, Marie of France, 52. 52  Sidney Painter, William Marshal, Knight-Errant, Baron, and Regent of England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 46. 53  Kelly, Eleanor and the Four Kings, 209. 54  Marion Meade, Eleanor of Aquitaine (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 286.

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

151

Marshal bravely offered to fight his malicious opponents on three consecutive days, and if he were beaten, the Young King was given the right to hang him. No one dared to fight the knight. Thereby the maréchal’s as well as Margaret’s honour was defended. However, as George Duby has pointed out, The History of William Marshal is the only historical source that mentions this incident, and: With regard to Margaret the text affords … no word whatever. It is as if she did not exist, as if the men—even her husband—were not at all concerned with her, engaged only by the fluctuations of love and hate among themselves at the heart of the closed masculine world.55

Duby draws the conclusion that afterwards her husband simply “sent her away, like an object he no longer enjoyed using, to her brother, King Philip of France, who was to use her again, remarrying her to King Béla of Hungary.”56 Sidney Painter, William Marshal’s first biographer, plays with the idea of there being truth to the rumours by highlighting Margaret’s affection for Marie of Champagne, who also happened to be a patroness of Chrétien de Troyes. Margaret must have been familiar with the Arthurian romances of the poet: “Did Margaret see a Launcelot in the handsome young captain of her husband’s mesnie?”57 Painter allows the possibility that the famous knight may have been “the ‘true knight’ of the young Queen, but hardly … her paramour.”58 Given that contemporary chroniclers did not hesitate to hint at the soiled reputation of female royals, as in the case of Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Margaret’s unfortunate sister Alice, it is probable that the young Queen was innocent of these charges. Also, as the chronicler Rigor points out, Margaret was endowed with intelligence and piousness.59 As a devout Christian who was also aware of her responsibility and the importance of her role as Queen, it is unlikely that she would have become involved in an extramarital affair. Marshal’s popularity, however, might have earned him personal enemies within the Young King’s household, who did not hesitate to slander both the 55  Georges Duby, William Marshal: The Flower of Chivalry, trans. Richard Howard (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 50. 56  Georges Duby, William Marshal, 50. 57  Painter, William Marshal, 47. 58  Painter, William Marshal, 47. 59  Rigor, Vie de Philippe Auguste in Collections des Mémoires Relatifs à l’Histoire de France, ed. F. Guizot (Paris: J.L.J. Brière, 1825), 11:59.

152 

M. PELLÉRDI

i­nnocent Queen and the distinguished marshal. But when open hostility broke out between the brothers Henry and Richard, the Young King recalled William Marshal, which also demonstrates that the knight enjoyed Henry’s full confidence and there was no truth to the rumours.60

Margaret as Dowager Queen of England By early 1183, Henry the Young King knew that another armed conflict between himself and Richard was inevitable. He felt assured that with the support of his brother Geoffrey and the rebellious barons of Aquitaine the war would soon be over. The father, King Henry II, however, who could not pacify his sons and wished to put an end to the family strife, offered to assist Richard, an ominous move that threatened to prolong the ordeal. Margaret might have been sent back to King Philip’s court in Paris at the time as her husband was preparing for another family war and may have wished to ensure his wife’s safety—unlike in 1173 when she became her father-in-law’s hostage.61 Was it in February 1183 that Margaret saw her husband for the last time? Did she ever attempt to reconcile the two brothers? She must have known Richard well, growing up together in the same court; the Countess of Champagne was a favourite sister to both of them. Also, she might have seen a strong deterrent to another internecine warfare in Young Henry’s failed rebellion ten years before. It is for these reasons that it may not be far-fetched to assume that Margaret had tried to act as conciliator between the brothers behind the scenes, painfully aware of her lack of power in removing the seeds of discontent sown by Henry II’s policy of denying any power and land to Henry the Young King. If there were such attempts on Margaret’s part, however, the chroniclers remain silent. Henry the Young King died in Martel on 11 June from dysentery after several days of great suffering and penitence. His agonies and his contrition are vividly described by Robert Torigni. In his testament, however, he did not forget to make provisions for Margaret before he died: he sent a letter to his father, requesting that he, the father, would make amends for the offences which he, the son, had committed against God and the holy church, and that he would deal mercifully with his mother, the  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 299.  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 286.

60 61

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

153

Queen of England, and his wife, the sister of Philip, the King of the French, and his knights and his retainers, to whom he had made many promises which he was unable to fulfil, being thus carried off by a sudden death.62

What were Margaret’s feelings when she learned about her husband’s unfortunate and untimely death? She must have grieved after 23 years of marriage, but she might also have seen the hand of God in the punishment her husband received for turning against his father and brother. Margaret was now dowager Queen of England at the age of 25, single, childless, powerless, and insignificant. She found herself in an ambivalent position in Paris, protected by her brother Philip, but also at his mercy in the complicated network of French political interests. Her former dowry, the Norman Vexin territory and Gisors, which at the time of her early marriage was a source of reconciliation, once again became an object of dispute between the French and English kings. After a diplomatic tussle between Henry II and Philip II, an agreement was reached which took effect on 10 March 1186, when the two kings and the Countess of Champagne accompanied Margaret to Gisors to settle the claim once and for all.63 Henry compensated Margaret for the territories that constituted her dowry and which still remained in his possession, by granting her an annuity of “1700 livres angevin” for the rest of her life.64 In the years between 1183 and 1185, the place where the dowager Queen of England could feel most at home was in the Foissy priory, in Champagne, in the company of her half-sister, Marie, and her step-mother, Adele. She was at Foissy for the Christmas of 1184 where she and the two other widows were entertained and consoled by a solemn performance of Eructavit (Psalm 44).65 Margaret was still with Marie in the first half of 1185, as illustrated by the charter issued by the Countess for the foundation of a chapel in St. Étienne of Troyes, and witnessed by Margaret.66 According to Theodore Evergates, in Foissy she probably found “a restorative environment” in the company of the other two royal widows.67 But Margaret could not remain long in the company of her comforting friends. The widower Béla III, King of Hungary, was in search of a wife  Chronicles, 808.  The Historical Works of Ralph de Diceto, 2:40. 64  Strickland, Henry the Young King, 318. 65  Evergates, Marie of France, 85. 66  Evergates, Marie of France, 89. 67  Evergates, Marie of France, 83. 62 63

154 

M. PELLÉRDI

from either England or France to symbolically demonstrate the Western rather than Byzantine orientation of his politics. Rigord’s Gesta Philippi Augusti mentions that the Hungarian King was eager to marry Margaret for he had heard of her piety and her wisdom.68 King Philip responded favourably to the marriage proposal that was mediated by French-speaking Hungarian envoys, and was particularly impressed when the document that listed the vast income and sprawling crown lands of Béla were brought to his attention. Philip realised that Béla had created a powerful kingdom in East Central Europe and his great wealth could compete with that of the French and English kings at the time.69 Before she left for Hungary in August 1186, Margaret issued a charter, witnessed also by her sister Marie, Countess of Champagne, and another friend, Hawise, Countess of Gloucester (see Sally Spong’s chapter). She offered the revenue from the income she would receive from King Béla (300 marks) to celebrate masses for the soul of her first husband Henry the Young King in the cathedral of Rouen, “Ever preserving the memory of her lord and husband, King Henry the younger, and anxious to maintain the same union of minds with him when dead as when alive,” and offering to make a further endowment “when she has greater facilities.”70 The phrase “same union of minds” suggests that she was close to Young Henry, understanding his motivations and ambitions, and loyal to him in the rebellion against his father in 1173–1174 and in the war between the brothers in 1183.

Power and Influence: Margaret the Queen of Hungary Margaret as Queen of Hungary emerges as a mature, pious, and dutiful wife in later historical chronicles. By becoming more active, her shadowy figure also becomes more clear-cut. In order to make the sister of the French King and the widow of the English King more at home, Béla III undertook a major reconstruction of the royal palace and the cathedral in Esztergom in gothic style by inviting foreign architects and masons.  Rigord, Vie de Philippe Auguste, 11:59.  A magyar történet kútfőinek kézikönyve, ed. Henrik Marczali (Budapest: Atheneum, 1901), 128–130. 70  Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, A.D. 918–1206, ed. J.H. Round (London, 1899), 10. 68 69

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

155

Margaret’s influence during the next ten years can be noted in the cult of St. Thomas Becket in Hungary; a provostry was founded on St. Thomas Hill in Esztergom. Elsewhere in the villages of the Queen’s royal estates churches were built in the saint’s honour.71 The Cistercian order and the order of Premontre also settled in Hungary in this period. Besides the notable French cultural influence of Margaret and her entourage, she also exerted a political one in 1189 when she took upon herself the role of conciliator in order to make peace between Béla and his younger brother Géza, whom the former had imprisoned as a rival to the throne. She was probably struck by the similarity in the situations of both of her husbands; both took up arms to fight their own younger brothers; one had died prematurely in consequence, while the other became an influential king. A reconciliation was a moral and political necessity. Margaret, who is barely mentioned by the Anglo-Norman chroniclers of the period, the queen consort who is best characterised by her submission and passivity, all at once showed determination and took action. She decided to intervene and settle the dispute between the brothers. It is possible that she approached her husband first with the wish to have Prince Géza pardoned and released. It is also possible that she was politely told not to interfere in Hungarian politics. But when Emperor Frederick Barbarossa crossed through Hungary with a vast army on his way to Jerusalem in 1189, Margaret saw her opportunity to request a favour. Barbarossa was greeted by the King in Esztergom where he stayed for four days. According to the chronicler, the Benedictine abbot Arnold of Lübeck, Margaret was responsible for preparing his lodgings: The queen, meanwhile, gave the lord emperor a magnificent tented house covered in scarlet cloth and with a carpet as long and as broad as the house itself. There was also a bed and pillow magnificently decorated and with precious coverings, and an ivory throne with a padded stool placed before it, so extensively ornamented and carefully worked that we lack the wit to describe it in the present work. And in case you should think that any delights were lacking, a little white hunting dog was running about on the carpet. After this the queen, the author of these gifts, went to the lord emperor to ask him for a favour, namely that on his request the king’s brother, who had been held prisoner by the king for fifteen years, might be freed from his captivity. The king, who had received the emperor with such devotion, did not wish 71  György Győr ffy, “Jób esztergomi érsek kapcsolata III. Béla királlyal és szerepe a magyar művelődéstörténetben,” Aetas 9, no. 1 (1994): 60–61.

156 

M. PELLÉRDI

to disappoint him in any way, and so he not only released his brother from imprisonment at the emperor’s request, but also provided him with two thousand Hungarians to go before him to prepare his way and guide him.72

The passage dedicated to the Queen in Arnold’s account reveals more about Margaret’s nature than the sum of all the mentions she receives in the Anglo-Norman chronicles. It shows that she could accomplish an important diplomatic task by pleasing the Emperor whose army was a potential threat to the population of the country. It demonstrates that she had creativity and possessed the taste to “magnificently” and “extensively” decorate and furnish the tent for the Emperor. But more importantly, the passage also reveals that she had the strong will and courage to ask a favour from a formidable guest (even behind the back of her husband) in a matter that was an important moral issue for her rather than a political one, from which she could reap no personal benefit. Taking action to achieve a reconciliation between the political enemies, Margaret put to use the diplomatic talents that she had acquired in the English court. As Queen of Hungary she was better able to exercise her authority and influence as Queen, even if indirectly, which were denied her as Queen of England in her previous marriage by Henry II’s reluctance to grant Young Henry, the junior King, any power during his father’s lifetime. In later life, she also might have kept in mind the examples set by Eleanor of Aquitaine, who seldom remained passive in her role as Queen of England. At Barbarossa’s request Béla released his brother, who then considered it best to enjoy his freedom elsewhere and left for Jerusalem, never to return. Margaret the Conciliator was responsible for the royal pardon Géza received, and Béla’s soul could finally be freed from a heavy burden of fraternal strife. Through her intervention the kingdom was also relieved of the unwanted threat of a possible future rebellion. Although no details about Margaret’s marriage to Béla have remained for posterity, there is reason to suppose that it was a harmonious relationship. Even though it was another childless marriage, Margaret’s infertility did not cause friction between the couple. Fortunately, Béla had many children from his first marriage. As Queen of Hungary, Margaret finally had her own household, as well as distinction and honour beside the King who had turned the Kingdom of Hungary into a major European power 72  The Chronicle of Arnold of Lübeck, trans. Graham A. Loud (London: Routledge, 2019), 148–149.

8  MARGARET OF FRANCE: CONCILIATOR QUEEN OF ENGLAND… 

157

during his 24-year reign.73 But after the unexpected death of Béla in 1196, Margaret once again found herself in the distinguished but rather superfluous position of a dowager queen. Possibly motivated by Henry the Young King’s unfulfilled wish on his deathbed to join the crusade to the Holy Land, as well as Béla’s intention to take the cross before his untimely death, in 1197 Margaret decided to fulfil the wish of both kings. She had no male relative near her to support her and no son to keep her in the Kingdom of Hungary. She wrote to her sister Marie of her loss and her intention to take the cross, who, in return, sent her “a personal message of consolation.”74 In order to raise money for the expedition, Margaret sold her Hungarian dower for a large sum, and joined the German Emperor’s crusaders to the Holy Land. When she arrived in Acre after the long and exhausting journey, she was already fatally ill. Her nephew, Count Henry of Champagne, the King of Jerusalem, greeted her with great honours (avec de grands honneurs) in Acre in September 1197.75 Margaret, feeling that her departure from this world was imminent, left her few belongings to her nephew and died eight days after her arrival at the age of 39.76 She was buried in the quire of the great Crusader Cathedral of Tyre.77 The earthly grave of Margaret the Conciliator, Queen of England and Hungary, has not withstood the vicissitudes of time, but her sorrowful figure can still be glimpsed on occasion, fleetingly, in the pages salvaged from the shadows of history.

73  Bálint Hóman, Gyula Szekfű, Magyar Történet, 5 vols. (Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1935), 1:416. 74  Evergates, Marie of France, 146. 75  Bernard le Trésorier, Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, in Collections des Mémoires Relatifs à l’Histoire de France, ed. M. Guizot (Paris: J.L.J. Brière, 1824), 219. 76  Bernard le Trésorier, Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, 219. 77  Denys Pringle, “The Crusader Cathedral of Tyre,” Levant 33, no. 1 (2001): 168.

CHAPTER 9

Berengaria of Navarre: Overshadowed Consort Gabrielle Storey

Berengaria of Navarre is arguably one of England’s most forgotten queens, despite her marriage to one of its most famous kings, Richard I. Notwithstanding her erasure from historical memory, likely owing in no small part to the fact she never visited England during her eight years as queen, Berengaria’s career both as queen consort and queen dowager is deserving of wider attention. As is often the case with medieval queens, little evidence survives to indicate their activities and range of political networks, and Berengaria’s reign proves no exception. This chapter will outline the brief information we have of Berengaria’s early life before discussing her as queen consort and providing a comparative analysis with her much richer and better-documented time as queen dowager, where she became known as Lady of Le Mans. Berengaria was dowager queen for far longer than she was queen consort, as her period as a widow lasted thirty-one years in contrast to her eight years as Queen of England. As is the case with the other Angevin consorts in this volume, Berengaria became substantially more powerful in her dowager period (see chapters

G. Storey (*) Southampton, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_9

159

160 

G. STOREY

by Liam Lewis, Márta Péllardi, Lois L. Huneycutt, Sally Spong, Abigail S.  Armstrong, Louise J.  Wilkinson, and Paul Dryburgh). The power Berengaria exercised as a dowager hints at the type of agency she could have exercised as consort, had she been given the opportunity to do so.

Early Life and Childhood in Navarre Berengaria was one of five children born to Sancho V, King of Navarre, and his wife Sancha. The ages of the five children are difficult to determine, and even the number is disputed by the chroniclers, although it is largely understood that the sons were Sancho and Fernando, and the three daughters were Berengaria, Blanca, and Constanza. The Spanish chronicles that record Sancho’s children, namely Garci Lopez de Roncesvalles’s Crónica and the Crónica de los reyes de Navarra by Carlos, Príncipe de Viana, do not provide a date of birth.1 Given the death of Sancha in 1179, and that Berengaria has been listed as the eldest of the three daughters, her birth date has been placed between 1165 and 1170. Recent suggestions by Ghislain Baury and Vincent Corriol, based on archaeolgical evidence, indicate that her date of birth may be closer to 1160.2 Little is known of her early life and education in Navarre, and although Berengaria would have been a potential heir to the throne, given Navarrese laws that allowed women to inherit, there is no evidence to support her being trained for such an outcome.3 It is more likely that she received a traditional education as an infanta, wherein she would have been prepared for a role as a royal wife, patron, intercessor, and administrator. Both Berengaria’s brother Sancho and her sister Blanca, later Blanche of Champagne, would go on to have prominent political careers, both of which received attention from medieval chroniclers. For Berengaria, however, the only evidence we have of her years prior to her marriage to Richard the Lionheart, other than her birth, is the grant of the tenancia,

1  Crónica de Garci Lopez de Roncesvalles: Estudio y Edicion Critica, ed. Carmen Orcastegui Gros (Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1977), 67; José Yanguas y Miranda and Antonio Ubieto Arteta, eds., Carlos, Príncipe de Viana. Crónica De Los Reyes de Navarra (Pamplona, 1843), 100. 2  Ghislain Baury and Vincent Corriol, Bérengère de Navarre (v.1160–1230): Histoire et mémoire d’une reine d’Angleterre (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2022), 28–30. 3  Elena Woodacre, The Queens Regnant of Navarre: Succession, Politics, and Partnership, 1274–1512 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 21.

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

161

or fief, of Monreal de Navarra to her from her father in 1185.4 The purpose behind this grant is unknown. However, if negotiations for her marriage to Richard were taking place at this time, this gift could have been either a means of enhancing Berengaria’s reputation or a mark of her coming of age.5 Whatever her upbringing may have been, by the time Berengaria became Queen of England, she was clearly aware of the duties and roles expected of her. Her awareness of the importance of her position as former Queen of England is evident in the documentation of her dowager period. During this era, she demonstrated an aptitude for intercessory skills, as well as being a patron, which was necessary for a woman of her royal status. She was actively involved in ecclesiastical affairs in Le Mans that highlight both skills. Illustrations like these from her time as queen dowager are of particular importance to our understanding of Berengaria’s time as a reigning, albeit overshadowed, consort.

Queen of England The circumstances behind Berengaria’s marriage to Richard, and its instigation, have been the subject of debate, although the most plausible argument, which is advanced by John Gillingham, is that Richard arranged the marriage to circumvent political clashes and secure an important alliance.6 The strategic position of Navarre on the Franco-Iberian border, abutting Gascony (part of Aquitaine at this time), was of significant value to protecting the southern Angevin borders against incursions from its French neighbours, particularly from the Counts of Toulouse. A formal alliance with Navarre proved to be beneficial owing to Sancho’s support for the seneschal of Gascony when rebellion broke out in 1192 in Aquitaine, and again in March 1194 when Sancho worked with Richard to suppress the Aquitanian rebels who had joined forces with Richard’s brother, John, and Philip Augustus, King of France.7 Although such a marital arrangement 4  Santos Augustín García Larragueta, ed., El Gran Priorado de Navarre de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén, siglos XII–XIII, 2 vols. (Pamplona: Institución Príncipe de Viana, 1957), 2:60. 5  Ann Trindade, Berengaria: In Search of Richard the Lionheart’s Queen (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999), 54. 6  John Gillingham, “Richard I and Berengaria of Navarre,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980): 158–160. 7  Gillingham, “Richard I and Berengaria,” 167–168.

162 

G. STOREY

should have placed Berengaria in the role of intermediary, a crucial position as indicated by the alliance, Richard does not appear to have worked to cement the alliance actually using Berengaria as a mediator, instead choosing to negotiate with Sancho separately and utilising his skills as a military leader when skirmishes arose. One obstacle that had to be overcome before Richard and Berengaria could marry, however, was the earlier betrothal of Richard to Alys, half-­ sister of Philip II. Betrothed as part of the Treaty of Montmirail of January 1169 between their respective fathers, Henry II and Louis VII, the potential union between Richard and Alys was confirmed on several occasions, at Nonancourt in September 1177, then in March 1186, and lastly in July 1189.8 Breaking the betrothal promised to cause serious disruption to the Plantagenet–Capetian alliance. Regardless, break it Richard did.9 Whether at his or Eleanor of Aquitaine’s instigation, Richard’s mother travelled to Navarre to escort Berengaria across Western Europe to arrive at Messina, Sicily, in March 1191, where Richard had established court while travelling to join the Third Crusade.10 Shortly thereafter Eleanor returned to England, and Berengaria and Richard travelled onwards to Cyprus. En route, Berengaria and her soon to be sister-in-law Joanna, formerly Queen of Sicily, were on a boat separate to that of the King and were shipwrecked. They faced the threat of Isaac Comemnus, Emperor of Cyprus, who attempted to seize them and take them hostage.11 This event demonstrated both the defiance and the agency of Berengaria and Joanna alike, as they evaded capture until Richard and his forces arrived. Once

8  William Stubbs, ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis: The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I. A.D. 1169–1192; Known Commonly under the Name of Benedict of Peterborough, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1867), 1:191, 306; 2:70, 74. 9  Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History Comprising The History of England From the Descent of the Saxons to A.D. 1235, Formerly Ascribed to Matthew Paris, trans. and ed. John Allen Giles, 2 vols. (London, 1892), 2:95. 10  The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First, trans. and ed. John T. Appleby (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1963), 25; The Annals of Roger de Hovenden Comprising the History of England and of Other Countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201, trans. and ed. Henry Thomas Riley, 2 vols. (London, 1853), 2:193, 196; Wendover, 2:95. 11  Gabrielle Storey, “Berengaria of Navarre and Joanna of Sicily as Crusading Queens: Manipulation, Reputation, and Agency,” in Forgotten Queens in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Political Agency, Myth-Making, and Patronage, ed. Valerie Schutte and Estelle Paranque (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 48–50.

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

163

Berengaria safely reached Limassol, she and Richard were married on 12 May 1191.12 Shortly after the wedding ceremony, Berengaria was crowned as Queen of England by the bishop of Evreux, who was assisted by the archbishops of Apamea and Auxienne, and the bishop of Bayonne, the bishops having travelled with Richard as part of his court.13 Berengaria’s coronation was the only connection she had to the people of England as its symbolic figurehead: in reality, Eleanor of Aquitaine, her mother-in-law, continued to hold the status and powers of queen, despite being queen dowager. The crowning of Berengaria in Cyprus rather than England allowed Richard to bestow her symbolic power as queen quickly, and secure the alliance between the English and the Navarrese, on whom he was dependent for security whilst on crusade. This symbolic power was not to be realised, as her coronation ceremony, far from her subjects, did little to acknowledge her position as a visible Queen of the English. Due to a lack of extant evidence, it is impossible to know the relationship between Eleanor and Berengaria, and if Berengaria exercised any real power as queen. What does survive indicates that Eleanor continued to administer her own dower lands, appeared at royal ceremonies, and acted as regent on Richard’s behalf during his time on crusade. The prominence of Eleanor in the government of England during Richard’s reign explains Berengaria’s absence from the Angevin chronicles and other records, with the exception of crusading accounts that document her wedding and immediate journey to the Holy Land. What it does not explain is why Eleanor remained a figurehead in the first place. The close relationship between Richard and Eleanor is often argued as the reason why Eleanor was chosen to rule on Richard’s behalf. She was trusted to do so and her fending off a rebellion involving Richard’s younger brother John in 1193–1194 was veritable proof of her trustworthiness. However, it is far more likely that Eleanor ruled because of her previous experience in governing the vast Angevin domains. At this time, Berengaria simply did not have the expertise or assets to rule, and was unlikely to be sent back to act as regent when Richard already had provisions in place in the guise of Eleanor. It is also likely that the need to bear an heir was a motivating factor for Berengaria and Richard to stay together initially.

 Roger de Hovenden, 2:204; Wendover, 2:103.  Roger de Hovenden, 2:204.

12 13

164 

G. STOREY

Upon their marriage at Limassol, Richard confirmed the dower that was to be granted to Berengaria, establishing her position as consort. As dower at this time was granted to wives for their use during their lifetime, not just their dowager period, Richard was faced with the issue that Eleanor was entitled to land as queen dowager, and that she did not appear to have been willing to return to Aquitaine and focus her energies there as Duchess during Richard’s reign.14 The granting of dower for use during the consort’s tenure is evidence that the King would expect the Queen to establish her agency by controlling and administrating her own lands. The situation of Berengaria’s dower was further complicated as the region of Gascony had been promised as the dowry of Leonor, Richard’s sister, upon her marriage to Alfonso VIII of Castile.15 Thus, Berengaria’s initial dower arrangement was provisional. Ivan Cloulas has outlined these arrangements, stating that Berengaria was to receive all that had belonged to Eleanor, which consisted of Domfront, Falaise, and Bonneville-sur-Tocques in Normandy, two towns and castles in Touraine, Château-du-Loir in Maine, the castle and land of Mervent, January, and Oléron in Poitou, as well as several manors and castles in England.16 There is no evidence that Berengaria administered her dower lands whilst Queen, and there is evidence to support Eleanor retaining income from them during Richard’s reign.17 In the face of her dower lands being utilised by her mother-in-law Eleanor and sister-in-law Leonor, Berengaria had no opportunity to administer her lands, establish networks and exert queenly agency, or collect revenues. Her lack of access to her lands as a consort would have impacted not only her power, but also the perception of her as an active consort as she was not involved in any political activities in England. As seen with the dower dispute below, Berengaria did not have access to these lands as dowager either. 14  In John’s reign, Eleanor appears to have been keen to retire and withdraw from political life. See: Jane Martindale, “Eleanor of Aquitaine: The Last Years,” in King John: New Interpretations, ed. Stephen D. Church (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999), 136–164; Ralph V. Turner, “Eleanor of Aquitaine in the Governments of Her Sons Richard and John,” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, ed. Bonnie Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 77–95. 15  Ivan Cloulas, “Le douaire de Bérengère de Navarre, veuve de Richard Cœur de Lion, et sa retraite au Mans,” in La Cour Plantagenêt (1154–1204): Actes du Colloque tenu à Thouars du 30 avril au 2 mai 1999, ed. Martin Aurell, (Poitiers: Université de Poitiers, 2000), 89. 16  Cloulas, “Le douaire,” 89–90. 17  Marie Hivergneaux, “Aliénor d’Aquitaine: le pouvoir d’une femme à la lumière de ses chartes (1152–1204),” in La Cour Plantagênet, 78.

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

165

The only evidence outside the chronicles for Berengaria’s activity during her time as Queen is a letter documenting that both she and Joanna witnessed a loan granted in Rome on their return from crusade in 1193. The record of a loan of 150 marks to one Adam, son of Adam of Taleworth, and John de Tolosa, canon of Hereford, not only lists Berengaria and Joanna as witnesses, but also implies that they persuaded the  Bishop of Porto to stand as surety for the loan.18 Berengaria is listed as “queen of the English, duchess of the Normans and Aquitanians, countess of the Angevins,” thus indicating her importance and her establishment as Queen of England both in her eyes and that of her contemporaries.19 The inclusion of her as first witness in this charter also highlights her position as the dominant woman of the realm. This, alongside the interconnections of the King’s companions, justiciars on behalf of the English royal treasury, and high-level ecclesiastics, demonstrates the significance of her role at this juncture. The wording of the charter is ambiguous regarding how the Bishop of Porto was convinced to stand as surety. However, it is recorded that Adam and John appointed the bishop as surety “at the prayer and witness of both queens.”20 Ensuring the involvement of the bishop in the procurement of the loan may be viewed as an example of Berengaria’s effective queenly diplomacy and intercession. There are no known connections between Berengaria and Richard and the canon of Hereford, although there was a longstanding relationship between the Plantagenets and the bishops of Hereford, including Richard FitzNeal, and his father, Nigel. This link between Hereford and the royal family may be why Berengaria witnessed the transaction. Berengaria represented the Crown here, acting in her official capacity as Queen. Although it is the only example we have, it is an important one as it demonstrates her awareness of her royal duties, and her ability to enact royal powers on an international level. Five of the other witnesses are listed as companions of the King of England, and the archbishop of Rouen and the co-justiciars of England are named to compel the sureties to pay the loan in the event Adam and John were unable to do so, or at the last resort to pay the money back 18  Archives Départmentales de Seine-Maritime, Cote 7H57 (1193); James Horace Round, ed., Calendar of Documents preserved in France Illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland, 2 vols. (London, 1899), 1:94 (no. 278). 19  “Berengaria dei gratia regina Anglorum, ducissa Normannorum et Aquitannorum, comitissa Andegavorum,” AD Seine-Maritime, Cote 7H57. 20  “ad preces nostras sub nostro testimonio fideiussorum,” AD Seine-Maritime, Cote 7H57.

166 

G. STOREY

from the royal treasury.21 These close ties to the English crown and royal finances, as well as Adam’s and John’s prominence in Richard’s court, indicate why Berengaria may have been involved: she otherwise had no known links to the sureties or Adam and John. This is her only known representation of her potentially standing in for the English Crown and is perhaps only due to the convenience of Berengaria’s six-month sojourn in Rome upon her journey to the Angevin domains.22 Considering Berengaria’s representation in this charter, in contrast to those of her during her dowager period, and in comparison to those of her predecessors and successors, allows us an insight into her perceived status as consort. Berengaria continued to use her title as Queen in her dowager period, although she used the phrase quondam, translated as former, rather than solely regina.23 What is more important here is her title as “the humble queen of England,” in letters to Peter, Bishop of Winchester, in 1220, and Henry III in 1225.24 This is in stark contrast to her mother-in-­ law Eleanor, although both Berengaria’s successors Isabella of Angoulême and Eleanor of Provence utilise “humble” as a descriptor in their letters to respective kings (see chapters by Sally Spong and Louise J. Wilkinson).25 Berengaria’s embodiment of the queenly values of humility and simplicity shows her willingness to fulfil her role as a model of queenship, and indeed her role as a chaste, obedient wife contributed to her lack of visibility and status in the eyes of her contemporaries. Berengaria’s whereabouts after her return from crusade are difficult to pinpoint. She returned to Western Europe on a different route to Richard, likely avoiding capture as she did not cross enemy territory. It is plausible that she remained in the Angevin heartlands, possibly at Chinon, Saumur,  Round, Calendar of Documents, 1:94 (no. 278).  Of Berengaria’s relationship with Joanna we know little. They spent a substantial amount of time together during their journeys to and from the Holy Land; however, there are no surviving letters between the pair to indicate whether a close relationship had been formed. Indeed, of Joanna’s life we know as little as Berengaria’s: she was married first to William, King of Sicily, and then to Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, before dying in childbirth in 1199. For more on Joanna, see: Colette Bowie, The Daughters of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014). 23  For further discussion of Berengaria’s titles, see: Gabrielle Storey, “Co-Operation, Co-Rulership and Competition: Queenship in the Angevin Domains, 1135–1230” (PhD thesis, University of Winchester, 2020), chap. 5. 24  “humilis quondam Angliae Regina.” Anne Crawford, ed., Letters of the Queens of England, 1100–1547 (Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1994), 46–47. 25  Crawford, Letters, 51, 59. 21 22

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

167

or Beaufort-en-Vallée according to Ann Trindade, though there is no evidence to conclusively prove her residence.26 It is not known if Berengaria and Richard met again after Richard’s return from crusade. Roger of Howden reports that in 1195, after Richard was remonstrated by a hermit for his sins, he and Berengaria were, indeed, reunited after their separation due to Richard’s travels and imprisonment.27 This episode seems to be an opportune moment for chroniclers Roger of Howden and Adam of Eynsham to criticise Richard for his excesses, although the finer details of the tale are difficult to ascertain. Given we know little of Berengaria’s location during the latter years of Richard’s reign, and have further records of his engagement in military affairs, particularly in Normandy, it seems unlikely that such a reconciliation would have taken place. Richard does not appear to have been overly pious and the religious remonstration that characterises the account casts further doubt on the authenticity of events. Berengaria was not present for Richard’s second coronation at Winchester Cathedral on 17 April 1194. Trindade has stated that Berengaria’s absence may have been due to the short amount of time between the arrangement of the coronation and the ceremony itself, which was too insufficient for her to reach the south coast of England in a timely manner.28 It is more likely that Richard chose to have Eleanor at his side to demonstrate her importance in the government of England and confirm her position as co-ruler. This is particularly significant given Richard’s departure for the Continent shortly after his return. Berengaria’s absence from his second coronation, and the lack of public coronation for herself in England negatively impacted on her ability to exercise power as a consort. Her position was further weakened in the face of Eleanor’s dominance by the fact that the marriage produced no heirs, as discussed below. Berengaria was left with little opportunity to carve her own networks and power bases. We know from the English Pipe Rolls that she received a sporadic annual income from the counties of Devon and Surrey from 1196 to 1204, although there is no indication that she collected the queen’s gold or any other revenues she may have been owed as

 Trindade, Berengaria, 118.  Roger de Hovenden, 2:356–357. 28  Trindade, Berengaria, 112–113. 26 27

168 

G. STOREY

Queen of England or Duchess of Normandy.29 This income may have enabled Berengaria’s household and livelihood, but there is no evidence of her administration of lands in these counties. The next occasion when Berengaria can be located is at Fontevraud after Richard’s funeral in April 1199. It is unknown how long Berengaria was at Fontevraud, as her attendance at Richard’s funeral is not recorded.30 However, we know she was there as she is recorded as a witness to a charter granted by Eleanor. In fact, this is the only instance, other than when Eleanor took Berengaria to Sicily, in which Eleanor and Berengaria are recorded as being in the same place. The charter grants the ponds of Langeais to the monastery of Saint Mary, Torpenay, and its monks, for perpetuity in the memory of Richard.31 It also confirms the grant of mills and ponds as granted by Richard. Berengaria’s appearance in the witness list is of significance since queens rarely witnessed one another’s charters. Arguably, and more importantly, Berengaria’s involvement in the establishment of the charter itself is likely indicative of the importance with which Berengaria viewed her position upon Richard’s death. She may well have met with Eleanor to try and establish her position and secure her rights as dowager queen. Yet, given the prolonged struggle that Berengaria endured to gain access to her dower over time, it appears she was not successful in highlighting her status as consort at this stage. In fact, Berengaria appears as the sixth witness on the list, below archbishops and the treasurer, indicating the lack of status with which Eleanor viewed her, and indeed perhaps the unimportance the scribes and contemporaries apportioned to her at this point. As Queen, Berengaria had been pushed into

29  Doris Mary Stenton, ed., The Chancellor’s Roll for the Eighth Year of the Reign of King Richard the First: Michaelmas 1196 (Burlington: TannerRitchie, 2016), 150; Doris Mary Stenton, ed., The Great Roll of the Pipe for the 9th Year of the Reign of King Richard the First (Burlington: TannerRitchie, 2016), 8; Doris Mary Stenton, ed., The Great Roll of the Pipe for the 10th Year of the Reign of King Richard the First (Burlington: TannerRitchie, 2016), 180; The Great Roll of the Pipe for the First Year of the Reign of King John: Michaelmas 1199 (Burlington: TannerRitchie, 2015), 57, 190; Doris Mary Stenton, ed., The Great Rolls of the Pipe for the 2nd to 4th Years of the Reign of King John, 3 vols. (Burlington: TannerRitchie, 2016), 2:227; 3:218; 4:247; The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Fifth Year of the Reign of King John: Michaelmas 1203 (Burlington: TannerRitchie, 2015), 73. 30  Frank McLynn, Lionheart and Lackland: King Richard, King John and the Wars of Conquest (London: Jonathan Cape, 2006), 275. 31  Archives Nationales, MS J460, Fondations, i, no. 4.

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

169

obscurity, forgotten and neglected by her husband, and viewed with relative unimportance by her mother-in-law. A significant factor in Berengaria’s lack of authority was that she and Richard did not produce an heir. Though the partnership may have been successful in political terms, due to Sancho’s defence of the Angevin borders against incursions whilst Richard was on crusade, relations between Berengaria and her husband do not appear to have been close. As no heirs were produced, Berengaria’s position as Queen could be viewed as ultimately unsuccessful as one of the primary roles of a queen was to continue the dynasty.32 Providing an heir was a fundamental part of being Queen consort, although in due fairness to Berengaria, Richard appears to have spent little time with her in order for an heir to be conceived. What we can assert for Berengaria’s time as consort is that she was neglected by both her husband and her natal family in this period, although as seen with the 1193 charter, there are indications she was able to exert some queenly power. This chapter will now turn to a wider examination of her time as dowager queen, wherein we can garner further insights into the types of agency Berengaria could have wielded as consort, had she been given the opportunity to do so.

Dowager Queen Between Richard’s death in April 1199 and Berengaria’s agreement with Philip Augustus in 1204 to acquire Le Mans, knowledge of her whereabouts is difficult to obtain. Both Eleanor and King John had little interaction with her, unless it was regarding the dispute over her dower, which will be discussed below. As a childless queen and without any lands of her own—inherited or dowered—many avenues to queenly power were restricted for Berengaria. Instead, she had to find her own way of establishing a separate sphere of influence without the assistance of her natal or marital families. Becoming more powerful in dowager periods was not an unusual trait for the Angevin queens; both Eleanor of Aquitaine and Isabella of Angoulême were far more successful in ruling their domains without a King by their side. Berengaria herself was no exception to this.

32  Speculation as to why Berengaria and Richard’s relationship failed to produce any heirs will not be discussed here. See: Storey, “Co-Operation, Co-Rulership and Competition,” chap. 3.

170 

G. STOREY

It is in her dowager period that her political acumen, diplomatic and intercessory skills are far more evident. Part of her success in receiving her long overdue payments resided in her own abilities to effectively negotiate with John, Henry III and Pope Honorius III. That she had to fight with such forces of power to secure what was rightfully hers arguably displays a strength of character that has often gone unobserved due to the obscurity in both her appearances and activities during her tenure as queen consort. Although King John made several promises over the years to allocate Berengaria her dower, it was only in Henry III’s reign that she received cash payments as remuneration. In a charter dated 2 August 1201, John promised to pay Berengaria 1000 silver marks a year and specified the dates she would receive the payments: this was the beginning of several letters to Berengaria where promises would be made by the English kings that they failed to uphold.33 Roger of Howden states that she was also given the city of Bayeux with its appurtenances and two castles in Anjou to hold for life at the same time the cash payment was agreed, which is further substantiated by an extant French charter.34 However, the loss of Normandy by the Angevins to the Capetians in June 1204 undoubtedly altered John’s attitude to her dower. John was faced with the complexity of providing dower for both Berengaria and his wife, Isabella of Angoulême, from substantially reduced resources. The death of Eleanor in April freed up Aquitaine, although the duchy was to face attacks from Alfonso VIII in 1205, in pursuit of his wife, Leonor’s, claim to Gascony. John therefore endured battles on all fronts and was not in a position to support Berengaria through provision of her dower. It is perhaps in light of these circumstances in 1204 that Berengaria exchanged her Norman dower lands with Philip Augustus for Le Mans between August and December.35 Although successive popes Innocent III and Honorius III may have acted as Berengaria’s spiritual protectors and intercessors in her dowager period, Berengaria needed security and a sphere of influence in a region she could name her own, otherwise she would be forever dependent on the generosity of John and Henry III, or have to return to Navarre and be provided for by her brother Sancho. In a charter dated between August and December 1204, Berengaria  Thomas Rymer, ed., Foedera (London, 1727), 1:124.  Roger de Hovenden, 2:530–531; Registres de Philippe-Auguste, 1:488–490. 35  Registers de Philippe-Auguste, 1:54–55 (three charters documenting the value of Berengaria’s lands); 1:493–494; 2:416, 419–420. 33 34

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

171

abandoned her rights to Falaise, Domfront, and Bonneville-sur-Tocques, with all their appurtenances, to Philip, in exchange for the city of Le Mans and its appurtenances.36 A second charter confirms Philip’s grant of the town of Le Mans to Berengaria in exchange for her homage and the towns of Falaise, Domfront, and Bonneville-sur-Tocques, which had previously been granted to her by Richard as part of her dower.37 A third charter of relevance here records that she abandoned her claim to Château-du-Loir to William de Roches, who, in exchange, abandoned his claim as seneschal of Le Mans, plausibly so that Berengaria could appoint her own seneschal and so that he himself could assume claim to Château-du-Loir.38 These charters indicate her ability to negotiate and intercede on her own behalf. Although these grants of exchange legitimised Berengaria’s rulership over Le Mans and ensured her status as a vassal of the King of France, this move into the Capetian sphere did not completely sever her claims to her English dower lands, as she continued to petition for their restitution or, as a compromise, an equivalent cash payment. Further letters from John to Berengaria in 1214 and 1216 indicate that, ten years on from the loss of Normandy, he was still unable to make dower payments to the former Queen. The difficult situation of the English King needing to make provisions for both Berengaria and Isabella after the loss of Angevin lands in France was further exacerbated by both a treasury that had been emptied due to Richard’s own military exploits twenty years earlier, and the barons’ war that John faced at the end of his reign.39 A letter from Berengaria to John indicates that a new arrangement was made in 1215 wherein she would be compensated for arrears, although this was never to come to fruition.40 Again, the loss of Normandy in 1204 strongly affected John’s ability to provide lands for Isabella and Berengaria, and the new dower charter for Isabella issued in 1204 shortly after Eleanor’s death itself required further alteration as lands were lost.41 Given the lack of access Isabella had to her own dower lands during her tenure  Registres de Philippe-Auguste, 1:493–494.  Registres de Philippe-Auguste, 2:416. 38  Registres de Philippe-Auguste, 2:420. 39  Foedera, 1:194, 141. 40  Foedera, 1:138. 41  Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londoniensi, 128; Nicholas Vincent, “Isabella of Angoulême: John’s Jezebel,” in King John: New Interpretations, 186–187. Isabella’s original dower charter issued in 1200 was superseded by the 1204 charter; however, upon John’s death, Isabella sought to claim both sets of lands. 36 37

172 

G. STOREY

as Queen, it is perhaps unsurprising that John remained reluctant to grant anything to Berengaria as he required as many resources as possible to keep nobles loyal to him at a time of rebellion. Nevertheless, Berengaria’s securely established status in Le Mans after 1204 as a vassal of the French Crown enhanced her position and allowed her to petition for her dower as a sole ruler, rather than as a woman dependent on the intercession of several others. After John’s death in 1216, Berengaria renewed her attempts to obtain her dower by petitioning Henry III for payment. Although the minority government of Henry III faced the continuing complexities of civil war in the early years of Henry’s reign, by 1218 he agreed to pay Berengaria the £1000 she was owed.42 In July 1220, the King also promised to settle the arrears owed to her, to the total of 4500, in addition to her annual payment of £1000. The charter issued outlines the times and locations wherein Berengaria was to receive her payments, and states that in the event of the death of any of the grantors, their successors were to uphold the payments.43 However, as a letter from 1225 documents, this was not the end of the matter, with Berengaria having to appeal to Henry for an outstanding payment.44 Berengaria requested by letters patent the “1000 marks sterling, which you owe us at this feast of All Saints, according to the composition of our dower solemnly drawn out between us and you.”45 Although the Close Rolls indicate annual payments were made to her from 1216 to 1226, it is clear that these were neither consistent nor paid in full, forcing her to remain persistent in her rightful dues as dowager. The resolution of Berengaria’s dower dispute in a cash payment is indicative of the dire financial straits the English Crown found itself under in the early thirteenth century, a situation that directly affected her. These negotiations demonstrate the political and diplomatic skills Berengaria possessed, which were absent from her tenure as consort due to a lack of opportunity.

42  Henry Churchill Maxwell Lyte, ed., Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III. A.D. 1216–25 (London: HMSO, 1901), 179. 43  Patent Roll of the Reign of Henry III, 179. 44  W.W. Shirley, ed., Royal and Other Historical Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry III (London: Longman, 1862), 273–274. 45  “mille marcas sterlingorum, quas nobis debetis in hoc festo Omnium Sanctorum, de compositione nostri dotalitio, inter vos et nos solemniter celebrate.” Shirley, Royal and Other Historical Letters, 273.

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

173

Berengaria’s situation regarding her dower lands and rights was unusual. She faced competition from both her mother-in-law, who did not die until 1204, and then her sister-in-law, Isabella of Angoulême. As a result, Richard, John and Henry III had to face the prospect of allocating multiple dower lands with limited resources from the dwindling Angevin territories. Eleanor’s longevity and strong relationship with her sons allowed her dominance over both Berengaria and Isabella when it came to influence and revenue. This, coupled with the desire of Richard and John to maintain control over their wives’ revenues and income, saw Berengaria firmly excluded from accessing queenly income, impacting the view of her power by contemporaries and modern viewers. Berengaria’s fight for her dower resources was her most significant tie to England in her dowager period although she visited the country in July 1220 for Thomas Becket’s translation.46 It is therefore plausible that her visit allowed her to negotiate her dower with Henry. Nevertheless, she settled herself in the former Angevin heartlands of Maine and became ruler of Le Mans, where she was clearly able to exercise authority. These negotiations demonstrate the political and diplomatic skills Berengaria possessed, which were absent from her tenure due to a lack of opportunity.

Lady of Le Mans In stark contrast to her tenure as Queen of England, Berengaria’s administration of Le Mans provides a wealth of evidence of her activities. The Enquête de Saint-Julien demonstrates her heavy involvement in ecclesiastical disputes and grants, as do several local cartularies. Berengaria’s tenacity in protecting her rights and incomes against local ecclesiastical authorities, as discussed below, evidences her strength of character and willingness to defend what was hers, similar to her involvement with her dower dispute. Although Berengaria was not exceptional in her ability to rule land in her own right, as seen with the other dowager queens and several duchesses and countesses in this volume, her willingness to do so rather than be sequestered to a convent is nevertheless an interesting development in the life of a forgotten queen. This last section will examine Berengaria’s relationship with two religious institutions as examples of her exercise of power: the chapter of St. Pierre de la Cour, and the Cistercian monastery 46  TNA, E368/3/2; David Carpenter, Henry III: The Rise to Power and Personal Rule, 1207–1258 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020), 179.

174 

G. STOREY

of the Abbaye de la Piété-Dieu de l’Épau, where Berengaria was to be buried shortly after her death in 1230. Although it is difficult to construct an understanding of Berengaria’s day-to-day life and household for her period as dowager queen, there is a particular wealth of information when it comes to analysing her religious patronage. A certain level of personal piety would have been expected of Berengaria as Queen, and as a visible female ruler during her dowager years this expectation would have continued. Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that she chose to impart her patronage on the royal chapter of St. Pierre de la Cour, which had benefited from local noble patronage since its construction in the ninth century. The chapter of St. Pierre de la Cour was often in dispute with the cathedral chapter of St. Julien, as Berengaria attempted to levy taxes and revenues on religious institutions within Le Mans; however the hostilities between the two chapters went beyond Berengaria’s patronage and lordship.47 St. Pierre had previously been placed under interdict by St. Julien in 1199, and this was only resolved by papal intervention. This conflict between the royal chapter and cathedral chapter was to continue into Berengaria’s tenure, and the cartulary of St. Pierre contains several references to these threats of excommunication as St. Julien overstepped many boundaries.48 The cartulary also records Berengaria’s intervention in other conflicts involving the chapter of St. Pierre, such as the dispute between St. Pierre and Gervaise de Cogners in 1216.49 Her protection and intervention on behalf of the chapter indicates both closeness and longevity between patron and institution. Evidence also survives concerning Berengaria’s patronage of other religious establishments in Le Mans, such as the Abbey of St. Vincent, to whom she granted its Abbot, Martin, 25 francs and the agricultural tenure of the land in return for his service. It is of note that this charter is one of the few documents that records Berengaria as “domina Cenomannis” alongside her title as Queen of England, rather than solely as former

 Trindade, Berengaria, 162–163.  Samuel Georges Maurice Menjot D’Elbenne and Louis Denis, eds. Archives Historiques du Maine, Tome IV. Cartulaire du Chapitre Royale de St. Pierre de la Cour (Le Mans: Siège de la Société, 1907). For further analysis on the relationship between Berengaria and St. Pierre, see: Storey, “Co-Operation, Co-Rulership and Competition,” chap. 4. 49  Cartulaire du St. Pierre-de-la Cour, no. 49. 47 48

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

175

Queen of England.50 Berengaria was not unusual as a female ruler, as there were other countesses and duchesses who independently ruled their own domains, as indeed her mother-in-law Eleanor of Aquitaine did between her marriages.51 However, she was not dependent on male relatives to manage her affairs and thus could focus on patronage and networks which were important to her, rather than having to be dependent on power politics. The Abbaye de l’Épau, situated on the outskirts of Le Mans, is of central importance to Berengaria as it was to become her burial site. The choice of l’Épau as her mausolea is again an indication of her strength of character, as she did not choose to be buried in a familial mausoleum such as Fontevraud, or in Navarre. To some extent, the disconnect with her natal family is evident in that she did not return to Navarre during her widowhood, although she did maintain contact with her sister Blanca, later Countess of Champagne.52 Sancho appears to have been concerned more with the political benefits of maintaining a harmonious alliance with the Plantagenets than with the personal concerns of his sister. It is unsurprising that Berengaria would choose a burial site that reflected her own status as an individual, independent of both her natal and marital associations, which had let her down so often in life. Berengaria’s desire to construct a monastery at l’Épau was complicated by the claims of the brothers of Cöeffort, who argued that Arthur, Duke of Brittany, and Berengaria’s nephew, had granted them the lands. There is no evidence to support the monks’ claim, and once the French King Louis IX had granted l’Épau to Berengaria in 1228, she quickly became heavily involved in the dealings of the abbey.53 Her relations with Louis do not necessarily demonstrate a change of allegiance, but her awareness that tying her fate to the Plantagenets would be of little benefit to her, particularly due to her poor treatment by successive English kings. The Capetians 50  André Chédville, ed., Liber Controversiarum Sancti Vincentii Cenomannensis ou Second Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Vincent du Mans (Paris: Institut de Recherches Historiques de Rennes, 1968), 97. 51   Marie Hivergneaux, “Queen Eleanor and Aquitaine, 1137–1189,” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, 63–65. 52  Félix Bourquelot, ed., “Fragments de comptes du XIIIe siècle,” in Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, Volume IV, ed. René de Lespinasse (Paris: Alb. L.  Herold, 1863), 51–79. Accessed 4 June 2020. https://www.persee.fr/doc/bec_0373-6237_1863_num_ 24_1_445869. 53  Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS Latin 17124, 29.

176 

G. STOREY

offered security and a sphere of influence, as seen by Berengaria’s agreement with Philip Augustus in 1204, which she would never have gained under the Angevins. Her strong relations with the Capetians may have been enhanced by her sister, Blanche’s, relationship to the French royals as Countess of Champagne. However, Berengaria largely acted as a sole female ruler and this does not appear to have made her the subject of either praise or criticism in the chronicles as she seldom makes an appearance in the chronicles overall. L’Épau was founded for the Cistercians, with whom Berengaria had close ties through her natal family and Richard.54 Her foundational charter in 1230, confirming her rights and jurisdiction over the abbey, completely erased any claims and grants that her nephew, Arthur of Brittany, may have given in connection with the abbey.55 Despite maintaining connections with l’Épau for the two years prior to her death and building up its property, the monks only moved to the abbey in May 1230, seven months before Berengaria’s death on 23 December. It was only afterwards in January 1231 that Pope Gregory IX confirmed the foundation of the abbey and it was subsequently consecrated.56 The foundation of the abbey may have been of significance to Berengaria, not only because she was founder and benefactor, but also as a demonstration of her ability to acquire lands that belonged to her and dispense with them as she saw fit, rather than unstable dower lands that could only be held for life. Berengaria’s effigy at the chapter house of l’Épau is a crowned figure holding a large closed book and has been discussed by Kathleen Nolan. On the cover of the book itself is a miniature crowned figure lying on a cushioned support.57 This effigy holds similarities to her mother-in-law Eleanor’s, buried at Fontevraud with her second husband Henry II, her son Richard I, and daughter-in-law Isabella of Angoulême. Nolan has noted that Berengaria could have chosen Fontevraud as a burial site like her sister-in-law, regardless of any tempestuous relations post Richard’s death. Yet, her decision to be buried at l’Épau is perhaps a wider demonstration of Berengaria’s wish to remain separate from the Angevins,  Trindade, Berengaria, 186.  Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS Latin 17124, 5–7. 56  Archives Départmentales de la Sarthe, Cartulaire de l’abbaye de l’Épau, no. 941. 57  Kathleen Nolan, “Symbolic Geography in the Tomb and Seal of Berengaria of Navarre, Queen of England,” in Moving Women, Moving Objects (400–1500), ed. Tracy Chapman Hamilton and Mariah Proctor-Tiffany (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 68. 54 55

9  BERENGARIA OF NAVARRE: OVERSHADOWED CONSORT 

177

although she paid testament to them with her imitative choice of design for the tomb.58 The final consideration to bring in here is that Berengaria chose to become Lady of Le Mans, rather than be married off by either her brother Sancho or by King John. She chose to remain single and a widow, and an active one at that, rather than retire to a convent as many other noble widows—including her great-niece-in-law, Eleanor of Provence (see Louise J. Wilkinson’s chapter)—would choose to do. Through re-marriage she may have had a chance to intercede and rule on behalf of her partner or children and access the traditional avenues to female power that she had been denied as queen consort. The extent to which her ability to act as an intercessor or gain a position of influence as Queen was compounded by Eleanor’s presence is irrefutable. However, there is little extant evidence to suggest whether Berengaria was even considered as a potential marital prospect by local rulers, or whether Sancho or John attempted to arrange something for her. Berengaria as a dowager queen demonstrated strength of character, political acumen, and acted as a female ruler seeking to protect her own interests.

The Power of a Consort and Dowager Queen Berengaria may be one of England’s most forgotten queens, but as this chapter has demonstrated she was capable of wielding power when granted the opportunity to do so, albeit not as Queen but as a femme sole. Her poor treatment by the Plantagenet kings, and her brother to an extent, meant that she turned to the Capetians to obtain land where she would be able to maintain her own household and exercise power. We cannot speculate much about the extent of her authority whilst she was Queen of England, however this comparison with her widowhood has allowed a re-evaluation of Berengaria’s abilities. Her choices in her dowager period: to remain single, to negotiate both for her dower and for Le Mans, and to rule over the latter for the rest of her life are indicative of her strong character which has been overlooked due to an established focus on her predecessor as Queen and her husband. Berengaria failed to draw the attention of the chroniclers, despite seemingly being a model wife who did not step outside of the boundaries ascribed as Queen, but as she did not produce any children she drew even less attention, especially in comparison to her  Nolan, “Symbolic Geography in the Tomb and Seal of Berengaria of Navarre,” 73.

58

178 

G. STOREY

predecessors and successors. She was not actively involved in any dramatic political events or rebellions, unlike her immediate predecessor, and carried out her pursuit to recover her dower lands and establish herself as a dowager Queen with dignity, requesting intercession and demonstrating diplomatic skills with a host of rulers when required. Berengaria was clearly able to act as a Queen, although circumstances dictated otherwise and prevented her from doing so during her tenure. She provides an interesting juxtaposition to other English consorts due to her visibility as a dowager. Although viewed as one of the least politically involved of queens, Berengaria is deserving of far more examination and analysis than she has previously received. In a volume of tenacious, astute and strong women, Berengaria of Navarre ought to have an equal place in the memory of England’s medieval queens consort.

CHAPTER 10

Isabella of Gloucester: Heiress, Lord, Forgotten Consort Sally Spong

Isabella of Gloucester, first wife of King John, is probably the least known English medieval consort. Although married to a King she was never crowned, and with no children born during their marriage, Isabella barely merits a mention by the medieval chroniclers.1 In modern scholarship she is cast as a minor character who briefly appears as a pawn in Henry II’s manipulation of her father William, Earl of Gloucester, and whose life afterward is largely controlled and dictated, first by Henry, and then

1  Roger of Howden, Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, A.D. 649–1201, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols. (London: Longman & Co., 1868–71), 3:6; 4:119; Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1872–3), 2:162; Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J.  Stevenson (London: Longman & Co., 1875), 103. These authors either refer to her as an unnamed daughter or confuse her with her mother.

S. Spong (*) University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_10

179

180 

S. SPONG

John.2 But born into one of the great Anglo-Norman dynasties, Isabella became heiress to the vast and wealthy honour of Gloucester, and was part of the powerful, political aristocracy of the twelfth century.3 Married to John at the end of August 1189, she spent ten years as Countess of Gloucester and Mortain before her husband succeeded to the throne of England.4 Uncrowned consorts in post-conquest England were  rare: between 1068 and 1540, the only other is Margaret of France, second wife of Edward I (see Paul Dryburg’s chapter). There were no impediments to Isabella’s coronation, and as the majority of queens were crowned either on their marriage or close in date to their husband’s accession, her situation was both unknown and precarious. After John’s coronation in May 1199, the Countess spent a year in uncertain limbo before the King had their marriage dissolved in the Spring of 1200. For most of this period John was absent from England, and there is no evidence for Isabella’s activities or whereabouts. But during this time Isabella was still a consort, and therefore deserving of her place in this book. Given the lack of source material, this chapter focuses on Isabella’s importance as heiress and lord while she acted as Countess of Gloucester and Mortain. It has been assumed that she had little authority and wielded no power within her own honour during that time. But recent work on the nature of lordship has changed perceptions, and research on women’s roles in administering their own lands has created a more nuanced approach to women as

2  The only significant essay concerning Isabella is: Nicholas Vincent, “A Queen in Rebel London, 1215–17,” in A Verray Parfit Praktisour: Essays Presented to Carole Rawcliffe, ed. Elizabeth Danbury and Linda Clark (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2017), 23–50. Brief biographies and comments: Earldom of Gloucester Charters: Charters and Scribes of the Earls and Countesses of Gloucester to A.D. 1217, ed. Robert B. Patterson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973); Robert B. Patterson, “Isabella, suo jure Countess of Gloucester (c.1160–1217),” ODNB (2004); https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/46705; Louise J. Wilkinson, “Isabella, first wife of King John (d.1217),” https://magnacarta800th.com/schools/biographies/ women-of-magna-carta/isabella-of-gloucester/. 3  The first Pipe Rolls entries for payment of Isabella’s expenses after the annulment prompted Doris Stenton to remark “that it would be interesting to know more about this lady’s relations with the King after his second marriage.” Pipe Roll 3 John, ed. Doris Stenton (London: J.W. Ruddock for the Pipe Roll Society, 1936), xix. 4  Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, “Gesta Ricardi,” ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols (London: Longman, 1867), 2:78. Annales Monastici, “Annales de Theokesberia,” ed. Henry R. Luard, 4 vols. (London: Longman, 1864), 1:54.

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

181

political players in their own right.5 The evidence from Isabella’s years in an extremely wealthy and powerful, cross-Channel dynastic marriage hints at how she might have acted as queen consort had she been afforded the opportunity, sheds light on the dynamics of an aristocratic couple, and informs our view of the role of noblewomen at the end of the twelfth century.

Family, Dynasty, and Inheritance Isabella was the youngest surviving daughter of William, Earl of Gloucester, and his wife Hawise de Beaumont, daughter of Robert, Earl of Leicester. Her date of birth is unknown, but it has been suggested that she could have been born as early as 1160.6 Both of her parents were descended from the highest Anglo-Norman nobility. Isabella’s father was the son of Mabel FitzHamon and Robert, an illegitimate son of Henry I. By the end of 1121, Robert had been made Earl of Gloucester, and by the time of his eldest son William’s accession to the title, the family holdings comprised an enormous Anglo-Norman honour.7 With service owed to the King of over 300 knights’ fees and substantial lands in England, Wales, and France, the revenues from the Gloucester holdings were vast.8 William and Hawise’s marriage saw the union of two wealthy, powerful baronial dynasties. The Beaumont family had arrived in England with William I, and by the middle of the twelfth century held swathes of land across Leicestershire, 5  The following represents a small sample of the more recent research on noblewomen in Western Europe: Jeffrey A. Bowman, “Countesses in Court: Elite Women, Creativity, and Power in Northern Iberia, 900–1200,” Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies 6 (2014): 54–70; “Troisième partie: femmes politiques et principautés territoriales,” in Femmes de pouvoir, femmes politiques Durant les derniers siècles du Moyen Âge et au cours de la première Renaissance, ed. E. Bousmar, J. Dumont, A. Marchandisse, and B. Schnerb (Bruxelles: de Boeck, 2012); Heather J.  Tanner, ed., Medieval Elite Women and the Exercise of Power, 1100–1400: Moving Beyond the Exceptionalist Debate (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019). 6  Vincent, “Queen,” 33. This date assumes the date of the marriage of her parents, and also that Isabella’s surviving three siblings comprised the majority of Hawise’s pregnancies. 7  For details of the lands comprising the honour of Gloucester, see: Robert B. Patterson, The Earl, the Kings, and the Chronicler: Robert, Earl of Gloucester and the Reigns of Henry I and Stephen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 57–69. 8  In England, the Pipe Roll for Henry II, 1183–1184, shows the first rendering of the accounts for the estate of the honour under crown control. The gross value of the honour for the year was £804 7s 1d. Income totalled £723 14s 2d in 1184–1185 and £684 11s 11d in 1185–1186. Paul Latimer, “Estate Management and Inflation: The Honor of Gloucester, 1183–1263,” Albion, 34 (2002): 191.

182 

S. SPONG

Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and other midland counties, with further holdings in southern England, Sussex, Kent, and the eastern counties.9 Like many nobles, however, both families found themselves in and out of favour with the ruling Angevins, with William’s and Hawise’s fathers at first supporting opposing sides in the civil war between Stephen and Matilda (see Heather J. Tanner’s chapter).10 The respective earls had been in conflict with each other, but were ultimately reconciled by a treaty in 1147/8. The marriage of Hawise and William united the families and sealed the peace.11 For many years William remained loyal to Henry II, but although the Earl supported the King during Henry the Young King’s uprising in 1173 (see Márta Pellérdi’s chapter), he and Henry were already in dispute over William’s most important and valuable holding, the port city of Bristol.12 On its own Bristol accounted for a significant part of the income of the earldom, and its geographical position as a strategic trading point in the Angevin heartlands of southwestern England made it a very appealing acquisition. In spite of the Earl’s support for his cause, in c. 1173/4, Henry took the opportunity to seize Bristol castle for himself.13 William’s position with the King became increasingly precarious in the ensuing years, and in 1176, he was pressured into making a contract with Henry.14 Isabella’s only surviving brother Robert had died in 1166, and she and her elder sisters Mabel (d. 1198) and Amice (d. 1225), became 9  Levi Fox, “The Honor and Earldom of Leicester: Origin and Descent, 1066–1399,” English Historical Review 54 (1939): 388. 10  David Crouch, The Beaumont Twins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 58–98. 11  This idea was mooted in: Patterson, Charters, 5. And elaborated further in: Crouch, Beaumont Twins, 85; David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, 1135–1154 (London: Longman, 2000), 237. 12  Both William and his father had used Bristol as their administrative capital. William’s fiscal office was located there, and he even used Bristol as his administrative point for matters relating to the honour of Glamorgan. Robert B. Patterson, “An Angevin Baronial Capital under Royal Siege,” Haskins Society Journal 3 (1991): 173. 13  Revenues gathered from Bristol amounted to 19–26% of the income for the entire honour. Sidney Painter, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1943), 166, 177. For figures relating to the wealth of Bristol, see: Latimer, “Estate Management,” 195, 199. For the background to the dispute, see: Patterson, Charters, 3–4. 14  Robert B.  Patterson, “William, second earl of Gloucester,” ODNB; https://doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/47236; Patterson, “Baronial Capital,” 178–179.

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

183

co-heiresses to the earldom.15 As with the majority of medieval marriages we can never be sure of the number of children born to the Gloucesters, and we cannot know whether Hawise and William had any further children over the course of the following decade, but by 1176 there was no living male heir to the earldom and the three sisters stood to inherit. In an attempt to regain favour with the King and ensure the survival of his dynasty, William agreed to terms proposed by Henry in September of that year. With Mabel and Amice already married to Amaury de Montfort and Richard de Clare respectively, his youngest child Isabella would be betrothed to John. As part of the settlement William would recognise John as his heir, and even in the event of the birth and survival of a male Gloucester child, John would become a co-heir and receive half the earldom.16 Henry’s relationship with William did not improve, however. Rather than being reconciled with the Earl, in 1182 the King had William imprisoned and took the honour of Gloucester into his custody. Earl William died in 1183, at which point Isabella was nominated as the sole heir and made Henry’s ward.17 Her two surviving sisters were entirely disinherited, with each to receive only £100 per annum as compensation.18 Henry, however, did not immediately marry John to Isabella. Instead, she was taken into the royal household, while Henry retained control of the honour of Gloucester and continued to accrue income from its lands and

15  The Chronicle of Robert of Torigni, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 4 vols. (London: HMSO, 1884–1890), 4:308. 16  Gesta Henrici II, 1:124–125. “Et si idem comes Gloucestriæ filium legitime susceptum de uxore sua habuerit, filius ille et prædictus Johannes filius regis dimidiabunt inter se comitatum Gloucestriæ.” Radulfi de Diceto, Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London: Longman and Co., 1876), 1:415. Amice was married to Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford, c.1172: Torigni, Chronicle, 247; Anonymi Continuatio appendicis Roberti de Monte ad Sigebertum, RHGF, Tome XVIII (Paris: 1822), 336. 17  Diceto, 1:415; Gesta Henrici II, 1:307; Patterson, “Bristol,” 179–180; Patterson, Charters, 5. See also: G.E. Cockayne, The Complete Peerage, 8 vols. (London, 1887–1898), 4:38–39. 18  Gesta Henrici II, 1:124–125. Patterson suggests that these payments were not made. Patterson, Charters, 5.

184 

S. SPONG

holdings.19 Even though Isabella could easily have been of marriageable age, it suited Henry to defer the union, and maintain her wardship.20

Countess of Gloucester and Mortain Henry II’s death at the beginning of July 1189 marked a swift change in Isabella’s situation. One of Richard I’s first acts on his investiture as Duke of Normandy was to uphold her betrothal arrangement, and in the first of several large awards John was given the Gloucester honour and Isabella in marriage, £4000 worth of land in England, and the county of Mortain in Normandy. By the end of August John and Isabella were married, and by the time of his coronation on 3 September, Richard had added a vast array of English lands to the list of John’s holdings.21 But the marriage did not meet with the approval of all. Isabella and John shared Henry I as a great-­ grandfather, meaning that the couple were related to each other in the third degree of consanguinity and were therefore prohibited from marrying by the Church.22 From the outset their blood relationship had been seen as a potential impediment to the union: the original agreement between Henry II and Earl William included a clause that specified that if the Pope prevented the nuptials due to the couple’s consanguinity, then Henry would arrange an alternative and suitable marriage for Isabella.23 Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, vigorously protested the validity of 19  For Gloucester revenues see the Pipe Rolls for Henry II, 1183–1187. Accounts of monies spent on items for Isabella are to be found in conjunction with those pertaining to Alice of France (to whom Richard was betrothed). The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Thirty-Third Year of the Reign of King Henry II, A.D. 1186–1187 (London: Pipe Roll Society, 1915), 40 (hereafter PR); PR 34 Henry II, 14, 21. Henry utilised Isabella’s income from the year 1184–1185 to repay the burgesses of Bristol the loans they had provided the King to pay for John’s 1185 expedition to Ireland. Patterson, “Bristol,” 180. 20  For the use and profitability of wardship and Henry’s use of major heiresses in royal marriage, see: J.E. Lally, “Secular Patronage at the Court of Henry II,” Borthwick Institute of Historical Research 49 (1976): 162–164, 166. 21  Gesta Henrici II; 2:72–75; William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 vols. (London: Rolls Series, 1884–89), 4:8. 22  H.G. Richardson, “The Marriage and Coronation of Isabelle of Angoulême,” English Historical Review 61, no. 241 (1946), 289–290. 23  Gesta Henrici II, 1:124–125. “Et si Romanus pontifex non permiserit matrimoniam inter eos contrabi, rex conuentionauit comiti quod filiam suam cum maximo honore maritaret.”

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

185

the union.24 He instructed John to appear before him, and when John failed to acknowledge the summons, Baldwin placed his lands under interdict. At an ecclesiastical council held later in the year, however, John managed to secure the intervention of visiting papal legate Giovani di Anagni, who removed the interdict and set aside Baldwin’s complaint.25 Societal emphasis on the importance of descent and legitimacy—which had deepened in the eleventh and twelfth centuries—only increased the weight put on the importance and protection of high-status noblewomen and their female children.26 Noblewomen carried their protected position into marriage, where their lineage and credentials offered their husbands family security in the legitimacy of their descent, as well as validity and eminence within society, reciprocally enabling the women themselves to derive prestige and authority from that status.27 Isabella brought the full weight of her heritage into her union with John. On her mother’s side of the family, Isabella had impeccable credentials. Her great-grandmother Isabel (Elizabeth) de Vermandois was a granddaughter of Henry I of France, and from Isabel’s mother Hawise, Isabella could trace her lineage directly to Charlemagne, a fact not lost on the writer Geoffrey of Monmouth, who had used the connection as a means to compliment Isabella’s ancestor Waleran, Earl of Worcester.28 At the time of their marriage, it was Isabella as legitimate heiress who allowed John the claim to one of the largest landholdings in England and Wales, as well as the family’s lordships in St. Scholasse-sur-Sarthe, Évrecy, Torigni-sur-Vire and Creully in northern France.29 Her status as a daughter of the Gloucester family, with the wealth, privilege and history that position brought, provided the Countess with an innate authority.

 Howden, Chronica, 3:6.  Gesta Ricardi, 97; Howden, Chronica, 3:23; Matthew Paris, Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Maiora, ed. H.R.  Luard, 7 vols. (London, 1872–1883), 2:356. 26   Anne. J.  Duggan, “Introduction,” in Nobles and Nobility, ed. Anne J.  Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000), 7. 27  David Crouch, The English Aristocracy, 1072–1272 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 219. 28  Crouch, Twins, 10–12. 29  Mabel FitzHamon had been made sole heiress to the honours of Gloucester, Glamorgan, and the lands of her father in France. Patterson, Earl, 57–58. 24 25

186 

S. SPONG

Lordship Evidenced The form and content of charters are of particular significance in understanding the role and importance of women in society. Given the ratio of document survival, the number of Isabella’s charters that are still extant means it is likely that she did create more.30 Almost thirty charters are known, and these demonstrate the Countess’s lifelong involvement with her patrimony. The majority of these documents are confirmation charters, and of these, nine can be dated to 1189–1199.31 That there are fewer surviving charters from the time of her marriage to John (1189–1200) does not mean however, that more did not exist, and that Isabella had neither influence on nor interest in her own lands during that period. As a type, confirmation charters have often been overlooked by scholarship. They have frequently been viewed simply as an obligatory confirmation of a husband’s or family member’s donation, but they are important documents in their own right. Their existence demonstrates that society valued the status of the person issuing the charter, and the information contained within the body of the text, as well as the witnesses to the document, can reveal a great deal about the circumstances in which the charter was produced. From the extant records, two very different confirmation charters offer insights into Isabella’s lordship, and the nature of her identity and status within her honour of Gloucester. During her widowhood Isabella’s mother Hawise, dowager Countess of Gloucester, made numerous grants from the Gloucester demesne lands to Durford Abbey.32 Durford was a relatively small daughter house of Welbeck Abbey, Nottinghamshire, and was situated two miles east of the town of Petersfield on the border of Hampshire and Sussex.33 Sometime before Hawise’s death in April 1197, Isabella confirmed one of her 30  For an estimate on the number and proliferation of charters, see: Michael Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, England 1066–1307, 3rd edn. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 1–2. 31  I have drawn my figures from the charters identified by Patterson and Vincent, agreeing with Vera London’s assessment that a charter Patterson ascribed to John was, in fact, a confirmation by Isabella. Vera C.M. London, ed., The Cartulary of Bradenstoke Priory (Fenn: Stoke, 1979), 191; Patterson, Charters, nos. 4, 9, 33, 60, 62, 76, 114, 137, 140, 141–150, 164, 234; Vincent, “John’s Jezebel,” 166n4 (Bristol Record Office MS. 36074(32) is now AC/3607/32); Vincent, “Queen,” 46–47. 32  Patterson, Charters, nos. 55–59. Dennis King, “The Cartulary of Durford Abbey, Sussex” (PhD thesis, University of Manitoba, 1979), xxvii–xxviii. 33  King, “Durford,” ix–x.

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

187

­ other’s gifts to Durford.34 Although not an unusual act in itself, there m are several points about this confirmation that are revealing about Isabella’s standing within her demesne lands. When John married Isabella, he became suo jure Earl of Gloucester. Legally, therefore, there was no need for Isabella to confirm her mother’s grant. If the grant followed usual custom, it should have been John who made the confirmation—likely with his wife’s assent—rather than Isabella. So why was this charter created? The answer lies with the monks of Durford. The Gloucester family was important to the abbey. Earl William and his wife had been among their first donors, and Hawise had maintained that original link through her further gifts.35 Evidence suggests that Isabella and Hawise’s profile in the locality was strong, and that their status as individuals was respected.36 Both women seem to have established a relationship with the monastery which ensured the monks valued them personally, not only as potential donors, and this is evident from another confirmation of Hawise’s grants to Durford. This time, however, two charters confirm her gift, one of John’s and one of Isabella’s. The language used in both documents is very different, down to the final clause in which John requests the monks to celebrate his father’s anniversary, and Isabella her father’s. Because the Durford cartulary was largely constructed much later, there is no means to compare scribal hands to see whether the documents were drawn up simultaneously. That the monastery sought Isabella’s independent confirmation more than once however, suggests her affirmation as the Gloucester heir was important to them. This notion is also supported by their later actions when, over 100 years later, the community put together their cartulary and chose to record Isabella’s charters in the new document.

34  The language in Isabella’s charter indicates that her mother was alive when she gave her confirmation. Much of the text of the abbey’s own cartulary is late thirteenth century. It is therefore possible that both charters were created and sealed at the same time. Patterson, Charters, no. 62; King, “Durford,” ii. 35  King, “Durford,” v. Marginalia in the cartulary indicated the importance of their gifts. 36  Further charter evidence points to this. See: Sally Spong, “Isabella of Gloucester and Isabella of Angoulême: Queenship and Female Lordship in England and France, 1189–1220” (PhD thesis, University of East Anglia, 2022).

188 

S. SPONG

Between 1189  and 1199, Isabella confirmed a grant by Jocelin de Pomeroy with the assent of her husband John, Count of Mortain.37 Jocelin’s grant was to the Augustinian foundation of Notre Dame du Val, in the diocese of Bayeux, and it remitted the canons’ service of half a knight’s fee for the manor of Teign in Devon. Sometime before 1125,  Jocelin’s grandfather Gosselin de Pomeroy, his wife Emma and their children had founded the community of du Val by providing the canons with the church of Saint-Omer and its dependents over sixty acres of land and woods, other rents, tithes and quittances in both Normandy and England.38 The family originated from La Pommeraye, near Falaise, Calvados, and as a result of Gosselin’s father’s support for William I in 1066, they had gained land in Devon and Somerset. The tithing of Teign was part of the manor of Christow, and was held from the Gloucester fee by the Pomeroy family.39 But at the same time as their affiliation with the Gloucester honour, the Pomeroys also maintained a separate relationship with John in his position as Count of Mortain: their honour of Beri— comprising thirty-two knights’ fees in Devon—made them John’s under-tenants. Jocelin’s original grant to the canons remitted their service as reparation for the “damage” done by John’s men in the manor of Teign. Whether that “damage” was physical or some other detrimental action of his tenants—for example, the non-payment of tithes—is open to speculation. Whatever the reason, the size of the award made by Jocelin indicates that their actions had required significant compensation. More importantly however, there is an addition to the address clause that demonstrates the way in which the canon’s service was rendered to the honour of Gloucester: 37  Exeter, Devon Record Office MS. 1392M/Unsorted deeds, Kingsteignton no.1. Vincent, “John’s Jezebel,” 166 n.4. “cum assensu domini mei Johannis comitis Moret’ concessi donationem quam fecit Goeslinus de Pomeria ecclesie sancte Marie de valle et canonicis ibidem deo in perpetuum servientibus scilicet de manerio de Teig’ quod est de feudo comitatus Gloec’.” 38  L’abbaye Lefournier, Essai historique sur l’abbaye de Notre Dame du Val (Caen: 1865), 337; E. Bowley, The House of de la Pomerai (London: University of Liverpool, 1944), 14–15. 39  Evidence to demonstrate the continuance of the Gloucester relationship with the Teign holding can be found in the later Post Mortem Inquests. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem: Volume 3, Edward I, ed. J.E.E.S. Sharp and A.E. Stamp (London: HMSO, 1912), 251 (no. 371). Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem: Volume 5, Edward II, ed. J.E.E.S. Sharp and A.E. Stamp (London: HMSO, 1908), 340 (no. 538).

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

189

it was Henry de Pomeroy, Jocelin’s brother, who performed the service on their behalf.40 The grant was given in pure and perpetual alms—that is, it was being freed from secular service. This crucial clause meant that Isabella and John were losing knights’ services, and made their assent to Jocelin’s charter essential. That Isabella was the validating force of the charter rather than John is a recognition of her status and her importance to the de Pomeroys. It demonstrates the legitimacy of her position, and the reciprocally beneficial relationship of lordship that existed between the two families. But the charter served another purpose. In allowing Jocelin’s grant, Isabella was also taking on a role traditionally associated with queens consort: that of political and personal intercession.

Intercessor In spite of wide agreement that by the twelfth century intercession had become part of the performative experience of queens and noblewomen, the secondary scholarship has focused on the former, rather than the latter.41 That the behaviours of queens should trickle down into aristocratic society is not surprising, given that the aristocracy modelled themselves on the monarchy, but the  way in which this was demonstrated by female nobility does not seem to have been much examined.42 The second of the above charters shows Isabella working on two levels: in her capacity as Countess she was permitting the grant of one of her tenants, but in her position as John’s wife she was performing the important role of 40  “et insuper dedi eisdem canonicis medietatem totius servicii unius militis quem domino meo et mihi faciebant de predicto manerio per manum Henrici de pomeria.” 41  Rebecca Slitt, “The Boundaries of Women’s Power: Gender and the Discourse of Political Friendship in Twelfth-Century England,” Gender and History 24 (2012): 3. For research on queens and intercession, see: Lisa Benz St. John, Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in Fourteenth-Century England (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 33–64; John Carmi Parsons, “The Queen’s Intercession in Thirteenth-Century England,” in The Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 137–177; Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 11–12; Kirsten Fenton, Gender, Nation and Conquest in the Works of William of Malmesbury (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008), 63. 42  Emma Cavell, “Aristocratic Widows and the Medieval Welsh Frontier: The Shropshire Evidence,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 17 (2007): 70–71. This a short examination of widows acting in an intercessory capacity on behalf of the tenants of their dower lands. Cavell suggests that the gendered role of women as intercessors—especially that of queens—likely impacted upon “female” lordship in England.

190 

S. SPONG

i­ntercession on behalf of her husband. Scholarship on medieval queenship has shown us how intercessory activity worked in a variety of ways. A queen interceded in order to ensure the actions of her husband could be altered, she had the power of persuasion, and her pleas made the appearance of a King’s change of mind appear merciful and gracious, but still fully in control of his power. Queens could also use their powers of intercession to ensure the direction of grants and awards—particularly to religious foundations.43 John and Isabella were the highest level of aristocracy. If, in their relationship, they were emulating patterns of royal intercession, their behaviour might be deemed a result of their formative experience. But if what is revealed in Isabella’s charter was part of the way in which the aristocracy adopted and adapted notions of queenly intercession, then not only are we shown a glimpse of how effective Isabella would have been as a queen consort, but we can also view her actions as part of the shifting identity of noblewomen in the twelfth century.

A Consort, But Not a Queen In 1183, Henry II had constructed an agreement that provisioned his youngest son—then seemingly far from following in his father’s footsteps—with substantial wealth and prospects, but by 1193 John was not content with his lot. Roger of Howden recorded that John had conspired against his brother Richard, negotiating with Philip Augustus of France to forge an alliance, part of which arrangement included John’s marriage to the King’s sister Alais.44 Whether Howden’s version of events is true is unknown, but it cannot be used to evidence either the state of John and Isabella’s marriage or John’s ultimate intended course of action. John’s conspiracy against Richard saw him confined to Normandy for much of the 1190s, with his sphere of influence reduced to the Gloucester

43  Earenfight, Queenship, 11–12; Nuria Silleras-Fernandez, Power, Piety, and Patronage in Late Medieval Queenship (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); Erin Jordan, Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). 44  Howden, Chronica, 204; Gesta Henrici II, 2:236.

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

191

earldom, the county of Mortain and his demesnes in Ireland.45 Dispelling the notion that the couple were effectively separated by this point, the documentary evidence shows that as Isabella accompanied him until at least 1197, whatever had happened in 1193 had not meant the end of John and Isabella’s relationship.46 On 6 April 1199, Richard I died and John succeeded to the Angevin lands and titles. He was crowned King of England on Ascension Day, 27 May 1199, but Isabella of Gloucester was not at his side.47 When or why John made the decision to annul his marriage is unknown. From as early as 1470, the couple’s lack of children was commented upon, failure of the marriage was blamed on Isabella’s childlessness, and modern historians have continued to follow suit.48 John fathered at least ten bastard children and had a large family with his second wife Isabella of Angoulême, thereby creating a seemingly irrefutable case against Isabella of Gloucester.49 This argument is, however, entirely fallacious.50 We cannot know whether Isabella ever became pregnant or suffered miscarriages, and the lack of a living child cannot be proposed as the sole reason for the breakdown of 45  Nicholas Vincent, “Jean, comte de Mortain: le future roi et ses domaines en Normandie 1183–1199,” in 1204, La Normandie entre Plantagenêts et Capétiens, ed. A-M. Héricher and V. Gazeau (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 43–52. Vincent notes that the witnesses to John’s charters, particularly between 1189 and 1199, with a few notable exceptions, comprised men from within these areas who remained loyal to John throughout. The charters themselves reflect patronage to people and institutions within his demesnes, and it is only after 1199 that this situation shifts to include Anjou, Maine, the Touraine and Poitou. 46  Vincent, “Queen,” 33. 47  Howden, Chronica, 4:90; Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum, ed. H.R. Luard, 2 vols. (London: HMSO, 1890), 1:121. 48  Begun in 1478/9 by the town clerk, Robert Ricart, Part II—in which this allegation appears—was based upon Matthew Paris’s Flores Historiarum. Peter Fleming, “Making History: Culture, Politics and the Maire of Bristowe is Kalendar,” in Reputation and Representation in Fifteenth-Century Europe, ed. Douglas Biggs, Sharon D. Michalove, and Albert Compton Reeves (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 289, 297. Modern historians who have argued this point: Richardson, “Marriage,” 291; Patterson, Charters, 6; Vincent, “John’s Jezebel,” 166; Vincent, “Rebel Queen,” 34. 49  Ralph Turner, “The Illegitimate Offspring of King John of England,” unpublished research paper. I am grateful to Ralph Turner for sending me his paper. 50  Nor does it take into account recent research such as that being undertaken on medieval men and fertility. Catherine Rider, “Men’s Responses to Infertility in Late Medieval England,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Infertility in History: Approaches, Contexts, and Perspectives, ed. Gayle Davis and Tracey Loughran (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 273–290.

192 

S. SPONG

their relationship and the dissolution of their union.51 We also cannot be sure of when this breakdown occurred. Both medieval chroniclers and modern historians who have written about the dissolution of Isabella and John’s marriage have disagreed about the details and the timeline.52 What we can be certain of is that John had been given agreement to have the marriage annulled on the grounds of consanguinity before May 1200.53 The same reason that Archbishop Baldwin had used to lay an interdict on John’s lands was now the route to dissolving the union as though it had never been. Critically, it seems that following Giovani di Anagni’s intervention John had never formally applied for papal dispensation. This made the provision for an annulment far simpler, and in August of 1200, John married Isabella of Angoulême.54

Isabella’s Final Years: 1200–1217 From the summer of 1200 onward Isabella was once again held in royal custody, as John, like his father, utilised the Countess’s lands and title. In a reversal of the 1176 agreement, in which Isabella had been named as sole heir, the King bestowed the earldom on her sister Mabel’s son Aimery de Montfort, Count of Evreux, while reserving the most profitable parts of the Gloucester honour for himself.55 John’s officials continued to administer substantial parts of the Gloucester estate, even as Aimery continued as Earl until his death in 1213.56 In 1201, the first payments for Isabella of Gloucester’s expenses appeared in the Pipe Rolls. From then, until 1214, her name can be found in the returns of various counties accounting for the monies spent on some of her expenses, and indicating separate 51  A lack of children did not seem an impediment to John’s brother Richard’s relationship with his wife Berengaria. Stephen Church, King John: England, Magna Carta and the Making of a Tyrant (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2015), 81–82. 52  Diceto, Opera Historica, 2:166–167; Coggleshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, 103; Howden, Chronica, 4:119; “Annales de Theokesberia,” 1:56; “Annales de Burton,” in Annales Monastici, 1:202; Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria, 2:162. Richardson, “Marriage,” and Painter, Studies in the History. 53  Vincent, “Queen,” 34 n. 57. 54  d’Avray, Dissolving Marriages, 53–55. 55  This action was part of John’s treaty with Philip Augustus of France. Aimery forfeited his lands in Normandy to the French King, and inherited the Gloucester title, and parts of the earldom. John Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus: Foundations of French Royal Power in the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 96. 56  Vincent, “Queen,” 36.

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

193

­ urchases for the Countess and her damsels.57 The Close Rolls also reveal p small details about Isabella’s life. Alongside the Pipe Rolls, these records show Isabella’s movement between royal residences, and identify those charged with looking after her and her household.58 The argument put forward that John maintained her as a mistress seems to stretch the available evidence, particularly in the light of Isabella’s attitude towards the King following the events of the Baronial rebellion of 1215.59 As far as it is possible to ascertain, Isabella seems to have resided at Winchester until 1207, after which she was transferred to Sherborne, Dorset, and then to Bristol.60 Aimery de Montfort died before December 1213, and Isabella’s circumstances altered very quickly. In an arrangement swiftly managed by John, by the end of January 1214 she was married to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex.61 For the privilege of becoming Earl of Gloucester by right of his wife, Geoffrey agreed to pay the King the huge sum of 20,000 marks.62 Like Isabella, he had been married before and also had no living children.63 At the time of the union Isabella was at least in 57  PR 3 John, 55, 101; PR 4 John, 280; PR 5 John, 139, 154–155; PR 6 John, 125, 131, 213; PR 7 John, 12, 113, 121; PR 8 John, 47, 149–150, 182; PR 9 John, 54, 139, 144, 215; PR 10 John, 97, 103; PR 11 John, 97; PR 13 John, 221; PR 14 John, 43, 113. 58  Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati, ed. Thomas Duffus Hardy, 2 vols. (London, 1833–1844), 1:64, 72b, 79b, 92, 112, 161b. 59  Nicholas Vincent suggests that Pipe Roll entries in 1205–1206 “imply that they [Isabella of Gloucester and Isabella of Angoulême] may have been lodged in the same place. There is no certain proof that this was case, but it is possible that an even worse indignity was inflicted on the queen.” Vincent, “John’s Jezebel,” 196–197. As Louise Wilkinson notes, “the strength of King John’s personal relationship with his young wife was, perhaps, undermined by his preferences for royal mistresses and by his continued financial maintenance of Isabella of Gloucester.” Louise J.  Wilkinson, “Maternal Abandonment and Surrogate Caregivers: Isabella of Angoulême and Her Children by King John,” in Virtuous or Villainess? The Image of the Royal Mother from the Early Medieval to the Early Modern Era, ed. Carey Fleiner and Elena Woodacre (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 105. 60  In March of 1213, Isabella was at Bristol where she made her will. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londinensi Asservati (London, 1835), 97b. 61  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:161b, 162b; Rot. Lit. Pat., 108b, 109b. William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. John Caley, Henry Ellis and Bulkeley Bandinel, 6 vols. (London, 1817–1830), 2:61. 62  What prompted Geoffrey to agree to these terms remains unclear. He was to pay in instalments and almost immediately was disseised of the estate for non-payment of the first 5000 marks. Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:163b. 63  J.H. Round, “King John and Robert Fitzwalter,” English Historical Review 19 (1904): 707–708.

194 

S. SPONG

her late forties, and although Geoffrey was perhaps ten years younger, it cannot be likely that his motive for accepting John’s terms was dynastic ambition. For the two years of their marriage, the pair were active together in their respective demesnes.64 In 1215, however, the couple rose up in rebellion against John, with Geoffrey becoming one of the twenty-five barons charged with ensuring the King honoured the terms of Magna Carta. The witness lists from Isabella’s charters during this period show that she was wholly integrated into the circle of the rebellious barons, and at the point Geoffrey was killed in a tournament on 23 February 1216, the couple were living in London amongst those still working against the King.65 But was Isabella simply following her husband’s lead in rebellion? The evidence suggests not. Following Geoffrey’s death Isabella appears to have remained in the city until at least the first half of 1217, well after the succession of Henry III. The witness list to a charter of that year in favour of Holy Trinity Priory, Aldgate (the likely burial place of her husband), shows her still in the company of both the rebel faction and the highest-­ ranking citizens of London.66 Isabella’s continued refusal to cede to the new King meant that her honour was still forfeit, and in August of 1217, Hubert de Burgh was granted seisin of the estates.67 Making his name under King John, Hubert became Justiciar of England in June 1215. He fought loyally for John and then Henry in the civil war, and was one of Henry’s closest advisors.68 For a month Hubert had seisin of the remaining Gloucester honour, but on 17 September 1217, Henry issued numerous letters patent acknowledging that he had accepted Isabella’s offer of fidelity and service, and that she should have seisin of her lands, wards, and escheats in Somerset, and her house and land in Hanley,

64  The charters issued by Isabella during and after her marriage to Geoffrey appear to suggest a more equal partnership in their lordship. Patterson, Charters, 4, 8, 9, 93, 140, 64, 139. 65  Vincent, “Queen,” 38–40. Francisque Michel, ed., Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre (Paris, 1836), 164–165; Paris, Chronica Maiora, 2:650; Coggleshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, 179; “Annales de Dunstaplia,” in Annales Monastici, 3:45. 66  Witnesses included: William de Mandeville (Geoffrey’s brother and Earl of Essex); Elias of Dereham, dapifer to Stephen Langton; Richard de Tosny (brother of Ralph VI de Tosny); and Andrew Buckerel, alderman and Sheriff of London. 67  Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, A.D. 1216–1225, ed. H.C. Maxwell Lyte, 2 vols. (London: HMSO, 1901), 1:86. 68  David Carpenter, “The Fall of Hubert de Burgh,” Journal of British Studies 19 (1980): 1–2.

10  ISABELLA OF GLOUCESTER: HEIRESS, LORD, FORGOTTEN CONSORT 

195

Worcestershire.69 In circumstances that are unclear, Hubert married Isabella following her reconciliation with the King. The marriage, however, lasted only a few weeks before Isabella’s death on 14 October 1217.70 According to the Dunstable Annals, Isabella was buried at Christ Church, Canterbury.71 There is nothing to support this report, but her death is remembered in an obituary list of the cathedral, where she is described as “sister and benefactor.”72 From the beginning of her marriage until the end of her life, Isabella’s seal proclaimed her “Countess of Gloucester and Mortain.” Isabella was a powerful noblewoman, and first and foremost a legitimate heir and lord: she styled herself in that manner and, in a deliberate move to reinforce her authority, she used her own seal in combination with a counterseal first used by her father Earl William.73 Her charters and warrants reveal a lord connected with her demesne lands and the people who lived on them. Even though Isabella was never crowned and anointed a Queen, she spent a year as consort in irregular and difficult circumstances. Had circumstances been different, Isabella had the education, experience and capacity to fulfil the role of Queen. As John’s wife, and as a consort, Isabella has been forgotten by most, but as the Countess of Gloucester she deserves to be recognised in her own right.

 Rot. Lit. Pat., Henry III, 92.  Rot. Lit. Pat., Henry III, 105. 71  Calendar of the Charter Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Henry III A.D. 1226– 1257, ed. H.C. Maxwell Lyte (London: HMSO, 1895), 1:60. On 15 October, Henry wrote to the men of the honour of Gloucester to announce Isabella’s death. Patent Rolls Henry III, 1:105; “Annales Monasterii de Waverlei,” in Annales Monastici, 2:289; “Annales de Dunstaplia,” 3:45. 72  BL Cotton MS. Nero C. IX; printed in John Dart, The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, and the Once-adjoining Monastery (Canterbury, 1726), appendix XII, xxxii. 73  Patterson, Charters, 24–25. Ela Longespée, Countess of Warwick, employed similar tactics. Crouch, English Aristocracy, 222. 69 70

CHAPTER 11

Isabella of Angoulême: The Vanished Queen? Sally Spong

On the few occasions she was mentioned by the chroniclers of the thirteenth century, Isabella of Angoulême, the second wife of King John, was not described favourably. According to these texts, the Queen was possessed of a sharp tongue, a biting wit, was a sorcerer, and an adulterer. Unlike other medieval queens to whom such words have been applied, there has been little academic study to challenge their veracity and examine Isabella’s queenship away from the misogynistic tropes attached to her name.1  Particularly true from an Anglophone perspective. The two major essays to date are: Nicholas Vincent, “Isabella of Angoulême: John’s Jezebel,” in King John: New Interpretations, ed. Stephen D. Church (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1999), 165–219; and William Chester Jordan, “Isabelle d’Angoulême, By the Grace of God, Queen,” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 69 (1991): 821–885. New research: Emily Joan Ward, Royal Childhood and Child Kingship: Boy Kings in England, Scotland, France and Germany, c.1050–1262 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022); Gabrielle Storey, “Co-Operation, Co-Rulership and Competition: Queenship in the Angevin Domains, 1135–1230” (PhD thesis, University of Winchester, 2020). 1

S. Spong (*) University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_11

197

198 

S. SPONG

During the last thirty years, as queenship studies has nuanced and expanded ideas of what constitutes “power,” the ways that historians should assess, attribute, and describe power has been a constantly evolving discussion.2 Historians have argued that John prevented Isabella from exercising power as queen consort and that he stopped her from accessing the fiscal resources to which she was entitled. It has been suggested that John’s purpose was a deliberate act to stop her being able wield patronage, and develop her own faction at court.3 But to what extent is this explanation true? Like kingship, queenship was an active exercise, and whilst ideas of patronage, intercession, motherhood, and peace-making may be themes which ran through each queen’s life, Isabella nevertheless existed in a temporal and political moment entirely unlike that of her predecessor and successor. Her relationship with her husband defined her queenship, but it did not define her, and even within these confines Isabella was not powerless.4 In modern scholarship Isabella tends to appear in England as a bride and then vanish, only to re-emerge in her widowhood. Historians have either glossed over her existence, or followed the narrative established by the chroniclers that Isabella was a medieval femme fatale, or labelled her the mother who abandoned her young children after John’s death in order to return to France to pursue her own aims.5 In this chapter, I explore 2  Discussions recently reviewed in: Theresa Earenfight, “Where Do We Go from Here? Some Thoughts on Power and Gender in the Middle Ages,” Medieval Feminist Forum 51 (2015): 116–131; and Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz, “Introduction,” in Queenship, Gender and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060–1600, ed. Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), xvii–xliv. 3  Vincent, “Jezebel,” 183–185, 187; Louise J.  Wilkinson, Eleanor de Montfort: A Rebel Countess in Medieval England (London: Continuum Books, 2012), 3–4. 4  Theresa Earenfight, “Without the Persona of the Prince: Kings, Queens and the Idea of Monarchy in Late Medieval Europe,” Gender and History 19 (2007): 5. 5  Maurice Powicke, The Thirteenth Century, 1216–1307, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 1, 69; W.L. Warren, King John (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 69. For “abandonment”: G.J. Turner, “The Minority of Henry III. Part I,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 18 (1904): 269; Vincent, “John’s Jezebel,” 198; Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 142; Lindy Grant, Blanche of Castile (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 7. Countered by: Ward, Royal Childhood; Louise J. Wilkinson, “Maternal Abandonment and Surrogate Caregivers: Isabella of Angoulême and Her Children by King John,” in Virtuous or Villainess? The Image of the Royal Mother from the Early Medieval to the Early Modern Era, ed. Carey  Fleiner and Elena Woodacre (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 101–124.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

199

Isabella’s seeming absence from the medieval sources that led historians to assume she was excluded from John’s court, restricted in her activities and unable to exercise power during his reign. Beginning by commenting on the way Isabella was perceived by the medieval chroniclers, I shall examine the evidence that can be mined from other sources to draw a more nuanced portrayal of Isabella’s experience as queen consort.

The Vanished Queen? In his recent study of the chroniclers of the Angevin reigns, Michael Staunton neatly summed up the problem for modern historians hoping to glean information about women from the work of the medieval writers. He noted that, although Eleanor of Aquitaine appears more frequently than any other woman during the period of Angevin power, “the words devoted to her probably amount to less in total than those devoted to imaginary, supernatural women” (see Martin Aurell’s chapter).6 Details of the births, deeds, and lives of women were routinely omitted, and women were usually only mentioned in passing as someone’s wife, mother, sister, or daughter. But on the occasions a woman merited more than a few words, the usually male, usually clerical writers resorted to a series of tropes that reflected their own attitude to elite women: perceived sexual misconduct, inappropriate behaviour, and the potential to draw men away from their true purpose. Misogyny and prejudice was rife amongst the medieval historians, and like many other powerful women, Isabella of Angoulême fell victim to their judgemental attitudes. Chroniclers from both England and France wrote extensively about the reigns of King John and his cross-Channel counterparts Philip Augustus and his son Louis VIII, and by the 1240s, Roger of Wendover, and his successor at St. Alban’s Abbey, Matthew Paris, had already fixed John’s reputation in England as a womanising lecher whose temper and controlling behaviour had made him unfit to rule. In so doing, they constructed a portrait of Isabella to support their stance. Wendover stated that the King was so seduced by his wife that he neglected his defence of Normandy, while Paris accused Isabella of incest, sorcery, and adultery, writing of the

6  Michael Staunton, The Historians of Angevin England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 308–310.

200 

S. SPONG

Queen on her death as having been “more Jezebel than Isabel.”7 The notion that the ability to govern one’s wife and one’s country was synonymous, was well established in medieval kingship. If a Queen did not behave in the manner expected of her dignity, if she was believed to have disproportionate influence over her husband the King and seemed uncontrollable, how was a King able to govern his kingdom successfully?8 The English chroniclers, interested in shaping John’s reputation, imagined a Queen that matched his nature, reducing Isabella to an example of Christian vice and a cipher for her husband’s ill-judgement and behaviour. While the French sources are no less problematic, they do, however, allow Isabella a character of her own: intelligent, provocative, demanding, and proud.9 The most important of these is the Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre composed c.1220 by an author traditionally referred to as the Anonymous of Béthune. This text contains the most references to Isabella, and although these are still limited, far more can be gleaned from this work than any other.10 According to the Histoire, John dearly loved Isabella, “although she often used to say reproachful and bitter things to him.” The author then gives examples of the Queen’s whip-smart ripostes to her husband’s comments. “At some other news he [John] said, ‘Lady this is no business of yours, for by the faith I owe you, I know a corner where you will pay no attention to the King of France these ten years, nor to all his power.’ ‘Yes, indeed, lord,’ she said. ‘I’m sure you’re longing to be a King in check, mated in a corner!’ She often said things of this kind and later suffered for it.”11 The author sets this exchange in the context of John’s conflict of 1202–1204 with Philip Augustus, that ultimately resulted in John losing control of the duchy of Normandy. The words have been previously read as authentically interpreting the style and 7  Matthaei Pariensis, Monachi Sancti Albani Chronica Maiora, ed. H.R. Luard, 7 vols. (London, 1872–1883), 2:481–482, 489, 563; 4:253. 8  For a brief overview of this narrative in kingship and queenship, see: Earenfight, Queenship, 22–23. 9  Most French sources only mention Isabella’s activities after 1218, and are therefore beyond the remit of this chapter. 10  The Anonymous is thought to be male, and possibly a secular clerk in the household of the Flemish count, Robert of Béthune. History of the Dukes of Normandy and the Kings of England by the Anonymous of Béthune, ed. Paul Webster, trans. Janet Shirley (London: Routledge, 2021), 1, 5–6. 11  Janet Shirley notes that this expression from the game of chess meant reduced to extremity, pushed into a corner, and also that it was used with a sexual connotation. History of the Dukes, 115–116.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

201

nature of the couple’s conversations, but more important is the Histoire’s placement of Isabella at John’s side during the dramatic events of this period. To Anonymous, a source traditionally viewed as reliable, Isabella was involved with her husband’s court, active in political discussions, and willing to voice her own opinion; she was not mute, absent, or sidelined. Isabella’s presence in the chronicles may be limited, but these are only one type of  record. King John’s administration created a substantial amount of documents. The records kept by his Chancery, alongside details to be found in the Pipe Rolls—financial records for each English county presented twice yearly at the Exchequer—provide an incredible resource for historians and a more complete picture of Isabella’s queenship. Editions of many documents were printed for the first time in the nineteenth century, and reflect the prejudices of those who edited them. The Chancery Rolls are well transcribed, but in some volumes women appear more frequently in the entries than the indices record, while in others the indices omit them altogether.12 The various Rolls cover all seventeen years of John’s reign, but reading them in their entirety is not an option for most researchers. Most scholarship therefore, has relied upon the nineteenth-­ century editions and taken the accuracy of their indices at face value.13 The first volume of the edition of the Close Rolls for King John and his successor Henry III, spans the years 1204–1224. The index records thirty-four entries for Isabella of Angoulême, of which twelve entries relate to John’s reign. In fact, from the first entry mentioning the Queen in December 1204 to the final entry just before John’s death in October 1216, there are over seventy references to Isabella. These missed entries have served to entrench Isabella’s absence in the mind of modern historians.

Beginnings: Family, Inheritance, and Poitevin Politics Born c.1186, Isabella was the only surviving child of Ademar Taillefer, Count of Angoulême and his wife Alix de Courtenay. Ademar’s family had held the county since the mid-ninth century, but when he married Alix in

 Earenfight, “Thoughts,” 117.  For issues relating to the exclusion and erasure of women by, and in, Medieval Studies, see: Kathryn Maude, “Citation and Marginalisation: The Ethics of Feminism in Medieval Studies,” Journal of Gender Studies 23 (2014): 247–261. 12 13

202 

S. SPONG

c.1184–1186, he was not yet its lord.14 Prior to her union with Ademar, Alix was married first to Andrew, Lord of La Ferté-Gaucher, and then to Guillaume, Comte de Joigny. From this second marriage she had one surviving son, Peter, with whom Isabella would seemingly form a close relationship.15 Alix was the granddaughter of Louis VI of France, and his wife Adelaide of Maurienne. Isabella was thus herself directly related to the Capetian monarchs.16 Isabella’s father, Ademar, was one of the six surviving children of William VI, Count of Angoulême, and his second wife Marguerite of Turenne.17 On the death of their father in 1179, Ademar’s eldest brother Vulgrin inherited the title. By the end of the twelfth century, Poitou had largely embraced the practice of inheritance by primogeniture, but some families continued the custom known as droit de viage.18 This custom meant that the children of the lord inherited the title in turn, passing it successively from eldest to youngest son. Any children of the eldest son only stood to inherit once all his father’s younger siblings had died.19 Two years after he inherited his title, Vulgrin died. At the time of his death he had been in rebellion against Richard, Duke of Aquitaine, and the Duke saw the Count’s demise as an opportunity to impose his authority on the county. Under the practice of primogeniture, Vulgrin’s only surviving child Matilda stood to inherit Angoulême. Her uncles however, had other ideas, and so Richard moved against them to take her into his wardship.20 In doing so he was in a position to control her marriage, and could therefore determine who would 14  Jean Du Bouchet, Histoire Généalogique de la Maison Royale de Courtenay, Justifiée par plusieurs chartes (Paris: Jean du Pris, 1661), 16–17. 15  When Isabella was pregnant with Henry III, John wrote to Peter asking him to visit his sister, as she very much wished to see him. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londinensi Asservati (London: Record Commission, 1835), 71b. 16  Vincent, “Jezebel,” 175–178. 17  André Debord, ed., Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Saint-Amant-de-Boixe (Poitiers: OudinBeaulu, 1982), 270. 18  Robert Hajdu, “Family and Feudal Ties in Poitou, 1100–1300,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8 (1977): 117–139. 19  Cedric Jeanneau, “Liens adelphes et heritage, Une solution originale en Poitou aux XIe et XIIe siècles: Le droit de viage ou retour,” in Frères et soeurs: les liens adelphiques dans l’Occident antique et medieval: Actes de colloque de Limoges, 21 et 22 Septembre, 2006 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 95–105. 20  Ex Chronico Gaufredi Vosiensis, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Léopold Delisle (Paris, 1877), 448.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

203

become count by right of Matilda’s inheritance.21 In spite of Richard’s actions, her uncles were ultimately able to exclude Matilda from inheriting, and Vulgrin’s brother William went on to become count.22 William himself died childless, and by 1187 Ademar finally acceded to the title. With Ademar’s two younger male siblings having died before 1192, it now looked far more likely that his children would inherit. Matilda had been thwarted for the present, but she did not give up her claim.23

The Lusignans, Betrothal, and Marriage The complex inheritance of lands and holdings that comprised the Plantagenet realms added to this mix. They were a patchwork over which the family exercised varying degrees of control, and though Poitou was both rich in resources and physically central to Plantagenet control over the wider area, it was also notorious for its independently minded barons whose flexibility of loyalty and almost continual rebellion against their overlords made governance difficult. In addition to the Plantagenets, the Taillefers were also at odds with another powerful Poitevin family, the Lusignans.24 The “most troublesome of the Poitevin vassals,” the Lusignans were power-hungry, acquisitive, and pragmatic with their loyalty to the counts of Poitou.25 By early 1200, they had finally managed to secure something both they and the 21  It has been suggested that Richard considered marrying Matilda himself. François Vigier de la Pile, Histoire de l’Angoumois, ed. L’Abbé François de Corlieu and Gabriel de la Charlonye (Paris: C.  Borrani, 1846); John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart, 2nd ed. (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989), 85. 22  Prosper Boissonnade, “Les Comtes d’Angoulême. Les Ligues Féodales Contre Richard Cœur de Lion et Les Poésies de Bertran de Born (1176–1194),” Annales Du Midi 7, no. 27 (1895): 291–292; Ex Chronico Gaufredi Vosiensis, 448. 23  Matilda kept up her claim until 1233, when she reached an agreement with Isabella that she would renounce her claim to the title in return for an annuity. G. Thomas, Cartulaire des comtes de la Marche (Angoulême, 1934), 40–43 (nos. 18–19). 24  Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I A.D. 1169–1192, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1867), 1:45–47, 115, 120–121; Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, A.D. 649–1201, ed. William Stubbs, 4 vols. (London, 1868–1871), 3:194; The Chronicles of Robert of Torigny, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 4 vols. (London: HMSO, 1889), 4:235–236; Jacques Boussard, Le Gouvernement d’Henri II Plantegenét (Paris: Librairie D’Argences, 1956), 431–432. 25  Dunbabin, France, 343.

204 

S. SPONG

counts of Angoulême had long sought: the right of lordship over the county of La Marche.26 La Marche brought the Lusignans an extensive swathe of strategically important land on the border between the Plantagenet realms and that of the King of France. Whoever held the county would be in a powerful position to negotiate with each overlord for the best political deal for themselves, and to seek opportunities for fiscal and territorial gain. Not one to miss a political advantage, by early 1200 Ademar had agreed to a betrothal between Isabella, and the new lord, Hugh IX de Lusignan. A marriage to Hugh would provide Isabella with a husband who could support her claim by force if necessary, and would—hopefully—result in heirs. Through those potential heirs, Ademar could ensure his family maintained a claim over La Marche, and for the Lusignans, a union promised the acquisition of the lordship of Angoulême, a prize very well-worth having. The county of Angoulême lay directly in the line of communication between Normandy and the Plantagenet’s southern domains. The fortified city of Angoulême sitting high above the river Charente was also the gateway to the Atlantic port of La Rochelle, a city crucial to Plantagenet revenues. The county sat in the centre of Aquitaine, and was also the meeting point for several major roads, including the lucrative pilgrimage routes from northern France to Santiago de Compostela. A union between the Lusignans and the Taillefers would form a formidable political and physical alliance, with the combined territories of Lusignan, La Marche, and Angoulême making Hugh into a force that would constitute a considerable threat to King John’s authority as Count of Poitou, and his overall control of the duchy.27 John had to act, and secured Ademar’s agreement to break Isabella’s betrothal.28 An alliance with John and the potential for

26  After the Lusignans had put pressure on Eleanor of Aquitaine (possibly by holding the Queen against her will), John was forced to recognise Hugh’s claim, and on 28 January 1200, accepted his homage for La Marche. T.D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati (London: Record Commission, 1837), 58. 27  Robert Favreau, “Le comté d’Angoulême au début de XIIIe s,” in Isabelle d’Angoulême, Comtesse-reine et son temps (1186–1246): actes du colloque tenu à Lusignan du 8 au 10 novembre 1996, ed. Gabriel Bianciotto, Robert Favreau, and Piotr Skubuszewski (Poitiers: CESCM, 1999), 9–15. 28  A.J. Holden, ed., with S. Gregory and D. Crouch, History of William Marshal (London: Anglo-Norman Text Society, 2006), 100–101. According to this source, Ademar secretly abducted Isabella from Hugh de Lusignan.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

205

greater territorial expansion and influence was in prospect for the Count.29 But aside from being the marital pawn in her father and John’s strategies, how did this situation ultimately impact Isabella? If we reflect upon her actions and attitudes in later life, these early experiences seem to have sharpened her sense of her inheritance and dynastic importance, and influenced her political sensibilities.

A Public Queen: 1200–1207 On 12 August, 1200, Isabella married John in Angoulême cathedral, and became Countess of Anjou, and of Poitou, Lady of Ireland, and Duchess of Normandy.30 Following their marriage, she and John journeyed northward, finally arriving in England on 6 October. Two days later Isabella was anointed, and crowned queen at Westminster Abbey.31 Following her coronation, Isabella travelled with her household to the Plantagenet heartland of the west of England. Once there, she stayed at Malborough for the remainder of the year. Isabella became queen at approximately the age of 12 and historians have assumed that because of her youth she was excluded from John’s court. Evidence shows otherwise: the Chancery and Pipe Rolls enable parts of her itinerary to be constructed, and these demonstrate that Isabella was frequently with the King. In addition, the Rolls reveal details relating to Isabella’s expenditure, such as payment to the Queen’s master of hounds, and show gifts procured for her by the King. Early in 1201, the Queen joined John on a journey north; far from being left behind and away from the centre of the royal politics, Isabella was at its heart. With the King, she was received in York by the Archbishop, Geoffrey, and from there travelled with her husband to Scarborough. Isabella spent some time at John’s castle at Tickhill, and then journeyed to Canterbury. On Easter Day, she and John undertook a second coronation in the cathedral conducted by the archbishop, Hubert Walter.32 By May, 29  Steven Church, King John: England, Magna Carta and the Making of a Tyrant (London: Pan Macmillan, 2015), 83–86; Vincent, “Jezebel,” 169–174. 30  Howden, Chronica, 4:120. 31  Howden, Chronica, 4:139; Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1872–1873), 2:169; Julie Kanter, “Peripatetic and Sedentary Kingship: The Itineraries of the Thirteenth-Century English Kings” (PhD thesis, King’s College, University of London, 2011), Appendix John: 416–417. 32  Howden, Chronica, 4:160; Gervase of Canterbury, 2:93; Walteri de Coventria, 2:182.

206 

S. SPONG

the couple were in Portsmouth, where John’s barons were summoned to a council in response to the worsening political situation in France. Here, at Pentecost, John and Isabella held a public crown-wearing ceremony before crossing the Channel.33 From May 1201 to December 1203, the couple remained in France. Aged approximately 13 on their arrival, Isabella was plunged directly into the political maelstrom of John’s Continental dominions, with ongoing skirmishes, revolts, and changes of loyalty. The events of the period are well known, but precisely dated locations for the protagonists are more difficult to pinpoint. We do not know whether Isabella remained in proximity to John, but in February 1202, it is fairly certain the couple were in Angoulême, where John met with Sancho, King of Navarre.34 It seems likely that Isabella spent further time there, but amidst more turmoil in northern France it is possible she was with her husband for the Christmas festivities at Caen later that year.35 In mid-January 1203, the Queen was besieged by rebel forces at Chinon. Rescued, she was reunited with her husband at Le Mans where she witnessed the aftermath of the revolt John would later bitterly describe as an act of betrayal: the handing of Alençon to the French king, Philip Augustus by John’s supposed ally, Count Robert of Sées.36 Later in the year, Isabella was with John at the ducal capital Rouen, and from there they travelled to Caen, returning to England at the beginning of December.37 At the end of January 1204, the King and Queen travelled to the north of England. As they entered the city of York civic recognition would have been customary, and the Pipe Rolls record that the citizens owed Isabella a gift of 20 marks. Their return journey began at the start of March, after which Isabella spent some time in Hampshire. After Easter, the Queen was once again in Malborough, and the Pipe Rolls reveal she was with the

33  Radulfi de Diceto, Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1876), 2:172; Howden, Chronica, 4:164; Walteri de Coventria, 2:84. 34  Rot. Lit. Pat., 5–6. 35  Chronica Majora, 2:481–482. 36  William Marshal, 131–132; Daniel Power, “The End of Angevin Normandy: The Revolt at Alençon (1203),” Historical Research 74, no. 186 (2001): 444–464. 37  William Marshal, 141; Chronica Majora, 2:482; Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae sub regibus Angliae, ed. Thomas Stapleton, 2 vols. (London, 1840–1846): 2:569; T.D. Hardy, ed., Rotuli Normanniae in Turri Londinensi Asservati, 2 vols. (London, 1835), 1:115.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

207

King in Tewkesbury for Christmas.38 In 1205, the records show her in Southampton, Windsor, Winchester twice, Dorchester, Ludgershall, and Farnham.39 It is likely that she spent Christmas at Oxford with John, and in mid-January the King and Queen travelled again to the north of England, where, in February 1206, the pair can be found at York, Knaresborough, and Scarborough.40 Isabella spent time in the south of England, before returning to France with her husband in June. After arriving at La Rochelle her whereabouts are unknown, but it seems probable that she again went to Angoulême to stay with her mother.41 We can be certain she was there in November, as it was then that John, who was in La Rochelle, ordered all of Angoulême to swear fealty to Isabella, who was now of age to take on the mantle of her inheritance.42 The couple landed in England on 13 December, and, although Isabella visited Malborough on her return we can be certain that the King and Queen spent at least some of Christmas and the New Year together, as the future Henry III was conceived at this time. In Spring 1207, Isabella travelled to Malborough where she appears to have remained for some time. She visited Ludgershall, Gloucester, and Winchester, and it was at Winchester that she spent her confinement, giving birth to Henry on 1 October.43 Between her marriage and the birth of her first child, Isabella was far more visible in England and France than previously acknowledged. Young though she was, the Queen traversed north and western France for two years. She witnessed the continual skirmishes and constantly shifting allegiances of the local lords, and was made a captive; not the actions of a woman withdrawn from either the centre of court or the events surrounding the collapse of John’s hold on Normandy. In her coronation and crown-wearing ceremonies, at Christmas, at civic processions, as she made her oblations on Palm Sunday and Easter, and presented a gift to the 38  Rotuli de liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis Regnante Johanne, ed. T.D. Hardy (London, 1844), 79–80; The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Sixth Year of the Reign of King John Michelmas 1204, ed. Doris Stenton (London: Pipe Roll Society, 1940), 103, 131, 187, 188 (hereafter PR). 39  PR 7 John, 12, 120, 133; Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:28b, 40, 40b, 64, Rot. de Lib., 271, 272–274. 40  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:64; PR 8 John, 120. 41  Ademar had died in 1202. Alix de Courtenay appears to have acted as dowager-countess on behalf of John. 42  Rot. Lit. Pat., 67b. 43  Chronica Maiora, 2:520; Gervase of Canterbury, 2:106; Walteri de Coventria, 2:199.

208 

S. SPONG

shrine of Thomas Becket at Canterbury, Isabella was a public presence.44 The oaths of fealty she took in Angoulême not only were meant to assure her position as rightful Countess, but also demonstrated to those swearing fidelity that this was a woman who had now reached maturity; Isabella held the title and her person was the future of the dynasty.45

A Queen and Her Dynasty, 1207–1217 Isabella spent a great deal of time pregnant. After Henry, her other surviving children were Richard, born 6 January 1209; Joan, born 22 July 1210; Isabella, born c.June 1214; and Eleanor, c.May 1217.46 A pregnant Queen was one with the potential to ensure the security of the realm and survival of the dynasty, and while Isabella may have been obscured from public life for the period of her confinement and before her churching, her personal political power was immense. As Isabella’s first pregnancy progressed, John sent his wife a variety of gifts, cloth, clothing, and wine.47 Isabella and John were both in residence at Winchester for the Christmas celebrations immediately following Henry’s birth. Here, the large order for Isabella’s wardrobe of richly striped fur hoods, hoods of ermine, and multiple ells of finest scarlet suggests a highly visible, public celebration of her status as the mother of an heir.48 These events occurred in the public sphere of the royal court, the political heart of the realm, where all discourse was public.49 Both in the wholly public ceremonial events of the Christmas period and during her activities within the court, Isabella had spaces where her personal power was acknowledged. In 1214, however, Isabella’s status as queen, royal mother, and lord were required by John in Poitou. The risks associated with the Queen travelling through France were outweighed by the necessity of Isabella’s presence in Angoulême. Queens were expected to play a role in ensuring 44  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:34; Calendar of Liberate Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Henry III, 6 vols. (London: HMSO, 1916–1964), 2:212. 45  Howden, Chronica, 4:157; Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:34. 46  Richard: Gervase of Canterbury, 2:107; Joan: Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J.  Stevenson (London, 1875), 163. For discussion of Isabella’s and Eleanor’s births: Wilkinson, Eleanor de Montfort, 5–6. I estimate Isabella was conceived in November or December 1213. Rot. Lit. Claus., 51. For Eleanor, see below. 47  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:82b, 89, 91b, 104; PR 10 John, 171. 48  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:104. 49  Earenfight, “Persona,” 13.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

209

the successful negotiations of future dynastic matches. Royal marriages were not only prestigious, but diplomatic, and Isabella was being accompanied by her daughter Joan for this purpose. In Poitou, Isabella had been acting on behalf of John: the Charter Rolls show his instruction that the Queen’s seal was as his own.50 Now, she joined the diplomatic negotiations of an extensive peace treaty designed to shore up John’s support in the region, and capped by the betrothal of Joan to Hugh de Lusignan, eldest son Hugh IX, the man to whom Isabella herself had been betrothed.51 Politically, a pregnant Queen would have added an extra dimension to any diplomacy: a tangible reminder of the dynastic importance of successful negotiations, and it is highly likely that Isabella was pregnant with her second daughter at this time. This is supported by an order to the seneschal of Angoulême to reserve specific meats from the hunt for both John and Isabella. It has been suggested that this was a seigneurial perk, but it could represent instructions to provide appropriate delicacies for a pregnant woman, or for a post-churching celebration.52 Either way, Isabella’s presence at the negotiations as Countess, Queen, and mother was significant, the outcome of the diplomacy was successful, and once more, a daughter of the heir to Angoulême was betrothed to the Lusignan heir.53 The following year, Isabella and her family were plunged into the maelstrom of civil war. By Easter of 1215, John’s relationship with his magnates was at crisis point, and the King began preparations to ensure the safety of Isabella and their children. On 29 April, John sent their younger son Richard to Corfe Castle—the King’s highly fortified fortress in Dorset—and at the start of May, Isabella was moved from Berkhamsted Castle to Winchester.54 By 14 May, the Queen and her son Henry, were on their way to the recently re-fortified Malborough Castle.55 In the midst of the turmoil however, the King found time to order the constable of Malborough to ensure Isabella was provided with roach and small pike each Saturday and Sunday.56 Magna Carta was sealed on 15 June, and following this John wrote to Isabella instructing her to release the hostage  Rot. Chart., 196.  Foedera conventiones, litterae et acta publica inter reges angliae, ed. Thomas Rymer, 4 vols. (London, 1816–1869), 1:125; Rot. Chart., 197b. 52  Vincent, “Jezebel,” 183. 53  Rot. Lit. Chart., 199b. 54  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:199b. 55  Rot. Lit. Pat., 136. 56  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:213b. 50 51

210 

S. SPONG

she was holding on his behalf.57 In August, Isabella was moved with Henry to Corfe Castle: the King had once more angered the Barons, who, seeking to oust John completely, had invited Philip Augustus’s son Louis to stake his claim to the English throne.58 As John prepared for war, his wife and children remained in safety in the south west.59 Louis landed in England on 21 May 1216, and in early June, John was forced to flee westward. In July, John set out again to defend his throne, but August of 1216 would be the last time Isabella saw her husband.60 On 15 October 1216, realising he was dying, John wrote to Pope Honorius III. As rebellion raged around him, and Louis garnered more support, John wished to ensure the succession of his dynasty and asked Pope Honorius III to place his kingdom and heirs under papal protection.61 John died on 19 October, and on 20 January 1217, Honorius wrote to Isabella, expressing his condolences on the death of her husband. Honorius’s letter, however, is a reply to a—now lost—missive written to the Pope by the Queen. His response intimates that Isabella had constructed a letter of sorrow and pleading, to which the Pope replied that “the more we see you destitute of great comfort in your grief … the more we aspire to preserve his justice for you with very firm intent. Inclined therefore to your just prayers, we take you … under the protection of St. Peter.”62 Honorius’s letter also reveals that Isabella was aware of the nature of John’s previous appeal. Five to seven months pregnant with her daughter Eleanor, Isabella had no qualms about using John’s dying request to effect whatever she saw as necessary to protect herself, and wielded her authority to ensure her aim.63 Without a copy of Isabella’s letter, we can  Rot. Lit. Pat., 143.  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:225; Francisque Michel, ed., Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre (Paris, 1840), 152. Walteri de Coventria, 2:223. 59  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:248b, 275, 285. 60  Rot. Lit. Claus., 1:282b-3, 284, 285. 61  Stephen D. Church, “King John’s Testament and the Last Days of his Reign,” English Historical Review 125, no. 514 (2010): 519. 62  Cesar Horoy, ed., Bibliotheca Patrologia ab anno MCCXVI ad concili tridenti tempora: Honorius III Romani Pontificus Opera Omnia, 6 vols. (Paris, 1879–1882), Epistolae I, 6:163, 201. 63  Histoire des ducs, 180–181. A letter from Henry III to Isabella’s kinsman Robert de Courtenay in April 1217 decries his mother’s living situation at Exeter, ordering Robert to give the Queen the hall and large chamber at Exeter castle for her immediate use. In the context of Isabella about to enter confinement, this letter supports a birth in May 1217. Rot. Lit. Pat., 53. 57 58

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

211

only speculate to its contents. But this, and later correspondence, demonstrate that—like many other queens—Isabella kept an ongoing relationship with the papacy. Isabella’s marginalisation from Henry III’s minority government has been attributed to the King’s counsellors’ belief that she had been too long associated with John and possessed a “sharp tongue” and “passionate excess.”64 But her initial lack of involvement can be ascribed to her pregnancy: confinement prior to and after the birth dictating the removal of the Queen from the arena of active government. In addition, ensuring the Queen’s safety was of greater importance than a place beside her eldest son. A letter composed very shortly after 28 October 1216 to Geoffrey de Marisco, Justiciar of Ireland, to inform him of John’s death, reveals that Geoffrey must previously have offered Ireland as a safe haven for Isabella, and her second son, Richard.65 The offer was declined, but the experiences of Henry’s chief guardian William Marshal—who had been alive since the reign of Henry II and seen John’s route to succession via the death of his elder siblings—meant that he likely placed the protection of the Queen’s life, and the life of another potential heir over every other consideration. By June 1217, Louis of France began to consider negotiations for a peace treaty, and returning to court after her daughter Eleanor’s birth, Isabella joined the attempt to bring the two parties to agreement. Rather than distancing themselves from the Queen, the minority government utilised her authority as peace-maker. First, Isabella met with Louis’s representative Hervé de Donzy, Count of Nevers near Windsor, but while the meeting was amicable there was no agreement. However, following the decisive Battle of Sandwich in August, Louis finally conceded his loss and sued for terms. At the beginning of September Isabella returned to Windsor. She participated in the talks, guaranteed an extension of the truce, and was with Guala, and William Marshal when they met with Louis on an island in the Thames to cement the final agreement.66 Having assisted in securing peace in Henry’s English domains, Isabella left England sometime after mid-September to take full personal possession of her

 Jordan, “Isabelle,” 832.  Foedera, 1.1:145; H.S.  Sweetman, ed., Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland, 1171–1251 (London: Longman, 1875), 110–111 (no. 723). 66  Histoire des ducs, 200; 203–205; Marshal, 17704–17716. 64 65

212 

S. SPONG

ancestral lands.67 Far from abandoning her children however, her move was to help ensure that Henry’s dynastic inheritance in Poitou was safe.

Comtesse-Reine French historiography refers to Isabella as the Countess-queen, an epithet that not only states the titles which were hers by right, but also captures both her role and persona upon her return to Angoulême. According to the Histoire des ducs, she arrived in Angoulême, took homage from those of her lands, and “became very much lady of the Angoumois.” In the first years of her independent lordship, Isabella’s efforts to consolidate her rule were performed in Henry’s interests as well as her own. In an act designed to provide a physical representation of her inheritance, Isabella began negotiations to construct a new chapel and burial place for her father at the Abbey of La Couronne, which Ademar had previously intimated would become the family’s new necropolis—memorialisation was a powerful tool in marking dynastic credibility. In Angoulême Isabella attempted to regain lost holdings. She took hostages, waged war against recalcitrant vassals, and entered into dispute with the bishop of Saintes.68 Isabella acted in a vice-regal capacity on behalf of Henry, evidenced by an instruction by the King to his mother and the abbots of St. Maixent and St. Jean d’Angély to gain an oath of fealty from the bishop of Limoges.69 All the while Isabella’s cousin Matilda—who had married Hugh IX de Lusignan, to whom Isabella had been betrothed—continued to push her claim as rightful lord of Angoulême. In 1220, however, things changed: Isabella unexpectedly married Hugh X, Lord of Lusignan and La Marche, who at the time was betrothed to her daughter Joan.70 In a letter to Henry written in May of that year, Isabella explained her actions, stating that Hugh’s friends had, “counselled him to take a wife from whom he might quickly have heirs, and it was suggested that he take a wife in France. If he had done so, all your land in Poitou and Gascony and ours would have been lost. But we, seeing the great danger 67  Histoire des ducs, 206. “La roine passa en Poitau si vint à Engoliesme sa cite qui ses iretages estoit si prist les homages de la tierre et fu puis moult dame d’Engumois.” 68  Royal and Other Historical Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry III, ed. W. W. Shirley, 2 vols. (London, 1862–1866), 1:32–34; Horoy, Opera, 3:156; David Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III (London: Methuen, 1990), 153–156. 69  TNA, SC 1/4/9. 70  His father had died in Damietta in 1219.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

213

that might emerge from such a marriage—and your counsellors would give us no counsel in this took said H[ugh], count of La Marche, as our lord and God knows that we did this more for your advantage than for ours.”71 Was Isabella sincere in her sentiments, or was she attempting to make excuses for her actions? Rumours that Hugh was looking to marry elsewhere had reached England before the wedding took place, and Isabella had previously written to the minority government looking for support and guidance, suggesting that her words did not have the hollow ring that has frequently been assumed.72 After the marriage, however, Isabella’s interests began to diverge from that of her eldest son. Now focused on her own lands, the remaining years of Isabella’s life were spent in the turbulent politics of Aquitaine, and marked by periods when—like their parents before them—Isabella and Hugh switched loyalties between Henry and the Capetian monarchy, pragmatically shifting their allegiances as it suited them best.73 Charters, concords, treaties, and records of homage all show that Isabella was an active and powerful lord. In addition, she gave birth to a further nine surviving children with Hugh, several of whom moved to England and were offered support and patronage by their half-brother Henry.74 A letter written in 1241 to the French queen-mother Blanche of Castile—by an observer loyal to the Capetians—reveals Isabella’s concept of herself as comtesse-reine. Pleading on behalf of her husband before Louis IX and his wife Margaret of Provence, the author recounts the anger of domina regina Marchiae, that after waiting three days for an audience to formally ask for their forgiveness, the King and Queen did not rise to meet her when she entered their chamber, ask her to sit with them, or rise as she left.75 Isabella’s experience of authority as a queen is explicit in this

71  TNA SC 1/3/182. Printed editions: Pierre Chaplais, ed., Diplomatic Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office, Volume I, 1101–1272 (London: HMSO, 1964), 65; Royal Letters, 1:114. 72  Royal Letters, 1:22–23; Chaplais, Dip. Docs., 59. 73  For which: David Carpenter, Henry III: The Rise to Power and Personal Rule, 1207–1258 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020). 74  Nathalie Kerignard, “Les marriages des enfants d’Isabelle d’Angoulême et d’Hugues X de Lusignan,” in Isabelle d’Angoulême, Comtesse-reine et son temps, 47–55. 75  Léopold Delisle, “Mémoire sur une lettre inédite adressée a la reine Blanche par un habitant de La Rochelle,” Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, 5 vols. (1856), 2:513–555.

214 

S. SPONG

document.76 In spite of the fact that Isabella had not been part of a reigning monarchy for over twenty years, the expectation of the treatment she ought to have received shows the conveyance of queenly status through anointing. Once a queen, always a queen.

Death and Commemoration In 1243, Isabella and Hugh appear to have decided to live out the remainder of their marriage separately. Isabella chose to withdraw from society and see out the closing stages of her life at Fontevraud, the abbey favoured by many aristocratic women—including Eleanor of Aquitaine—whose tradition allowed those who had been used to holding and exercising power to continue to maintain direction of their life, even in monastic seclusion. Isabella died on 4 June 1246, and was buried as she had requested in the chapter house at Fontevraud.77 Given that she had created a memorial chapel at La Couronne for her family—her eldest son Hugh XI de Lusignan would be buried there—her decision not to have her body transferred to the abbey is, perhaps, unusual. In the 1230s, Henry III had made provision for the relocation of his father’s body to what eventually was covered by an impressive—and innovative—memorial tomb, but his choice of tomb form for Isabella was different.78 Visiting Fontevraud in 1254, Henry instructed that a gisant be made.79 He relocated Isabella’s remains, and selected a monument form prevalent during her time as queen that showed her robed and crowned, a design that matched those of his uncle and grandparents already located in the abbey. Often criticised as simplistic, Henry’s choice suggests he wanted to ensure his mother would always be remembered as a Queen of England, and member of the Plantagenet

76  Authority is, “simply stated, constituted power. It is any capacity to secure obedience in or conformity to a hierarchical chain of command, and derived from a title to do so.” Earenfight, “Persona,” 13. 77  in nostro capitulo sepulturam suam elegit. “In our chapter, chose burial.” For details of Isabella’s burial requests, and her final bequests to the monastery: Vincent, “John’s Jezebel,” 219, appendix 5. Matthew Paris reported that Isabella had been buried in the nun’s cemetery, and this appears to have caused some confusion in recent scholarship. Chronica maiora, 5:475. 78  Paul Webster, King John and Religion (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015), 178–180. 79  Chronica maiora, 5:475.

11  ISABELLA OF ANGOULÊME: THE VANISHED QUEEN? 

215

royal family.80 But while this commemoration of Isabella may have been appropriate to her queenly status, it ultimately robbed the Countess-­ Queen of her final act of authority: the choice of her own burial place. Queen of England, Countess of Angoulême, mother of fourteen surviving children, Isabella of Angoulême was a woman who spent most of her life in a position of power. Her reputation was ultimately shaped by the failings of her husband. She became an easy target for misogynistic tropes and topoi deployed by monastic chroniclers interested in explaining John’s failures as King. Yet a more careful analysis of the surviving historical record reveals a Queen who was anything but vanished who, from the age of just 12, performed an active and important role at the royal court and who, even after the death of her first husband, continued to wield power and hold influence. Up until her death, Isabella acted in a way which suggests she fully understood how to wield power and expected to be afforded the dignity and reverence which her position as queen consort was due.

80   Alain Erlande-Brandenburg, “Le gisant d’Isabelle d’Angoulême,” in Isabelle d’Angoulême, Comtesse-reine et son temps, 129–133; Kathleen Nolan, “The Queen’s Choice,” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, ed. Bonnie Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 392.

CHAPTER 12

Eleanor of Provence: Caring Consort and Controversial Queen Louise J. Wilkinson

Eleanor of Provence was probably just 12 years old when she arrived in England in 1236 to marry Henry III (r. 1216–1272). The couple’s marriage was celebrated in Canterbury Cathedral on 14 January and was followed by the new Queen’s coronation at Westminster Abbey less than a week later. The whole of London was decorated with flags and banners, the streets were cleaned and London’s leading citizens came out in their finest clothes and jewels to greet Henry and his wife.1 In time, this young

1  Matthæi Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Historia Anglorum, ed. Frederic Madden, 3 vols. (London, 1866–1869), 2:386; Matthæi Parisiensis, monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 7 vols. (London: Rolls Series, 1872–1883), 3:335–337.

L. J. Wilkinson (*) University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_12

217

218 

L. J. WILKINSON

bride matured into one of England’s most influential early Plantagenet queens consort. Lavished with attention by her husband, Eleanor became an active participant in the religious devotions and charitable activities that absorbed Henry. The English court also acquired a distinctly Provençal flavour as Eleanor successfully encouraged her English husband to promote her Savoyard relations to positions of wealth and power. Eleanor’s high standing in Henry’s affections as his trusted counsellor, helpmeet and adviser was buttressed by the birth of five children. She relished the additional responsibilities that motherhood brought her, investing time and care in her offspring’s physical and emotional welfare. Eleanor of Provence is the first English queen consort for whom royal household accounts survive and for whom there is documentary evidence to show that she was formally appointed as regent of England, when her husband was overseas in Gascony in 1253–1254. Later, when Henry’s disastrous policies undermined his English subjects’ faith in his government during the late 1250s and 1260s, Eleanor opposed the baronial rebels led by her brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort, and attempted to rally international support against the Montfortian regime. Eleanor’s role as a dynamic, foreign royal bride, who acted unashamedly in favour of her own and her family’s interests within England, made her a controversial figure for many of her contemporaries.

Background and Early Years as a Royal Bride Eleanor was born in around 1223 to Beatrice of Savoy, wife of Count Raymond-Berengar V of Provence. The couple had four “very beautiful daughters,” to borrow the words of the St. Albans chronicler Matthew Paris, and Eleanor became very well connected, thanks to her sisters’ advantageous marriages.2 In 1234, Margaret, the eldest, married Louis IX of France. Eleanor’s marriage to Henry III in 1236 was followed, in the next decade, by the unions of her younger sisters Sanchia and Beatrice to the younger brothers of Henry and Louis in 1243 and 1246, respectively. Sanchia’s husband, Richard of Cornwall, subsequently secured election as King of the Romans (or King of Germany) in 1257, while Beatrice’s husband, Charles of Anjou, conquered Sicily in 1266. All four daughters of Count Raymond Berengar V and Countess Beatrice of Provence were

2

 Chronica Majora, 3:335.

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

219

therefore unusual as a group of sisters, in that they each ruled as queens consort alongside their husbands.3 Eleanor had not been Henry III’s first choice as a bride. Henry’s union with her followed earlier courtships of other wellborn women, including Yolande of Brittany and Jeanne of Ponthieu, which had failed in the face of opposition from the French monarchy.4 During the early years of Eleanor’s marriage to Henry III, the King took a strong, personal interest in his young bride’s education, personally selecting the men and women into whose charge she was placed. Margaret Biset, for example, a former companion of Henry III’s sister, the Holy Roman Empress Isabella, entered Eleanor of Provence’s household.5 Henry III also took care to foster within Eleanor a personal devotion to the cults of English saints, including Edward the Confessor, the royal saint for whom Henry III constructed a splendid new shrine at Westminster. Queen Eleanor was addressed in Matthew Paris’s French work The History of Saint Edward the King, as the “Noble, well-born lady” for whom he had prepared his manuscript.6 Queen Eleanor was often present, alongside Henry III, at celebrations to mark the festivals of the religious calendar, and the royal couple regularly fed large numbers of paupers. Queen Eleanor attended the dedication ceremonies for Beaulieu Abbey, Hailes Abbey  and Salisbury Cathedral, and visited religious houses on pilgrimage. Her presence was noted at the enthronements of English bishops, including that of Walter

 Chronica Majora, 5:654.  David Carpenter, Henry III: The Rise to Power and Personal Rule, 1207–1258 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020), 43; D.L. D’Avray, Dissolving Royal Marriages: A Documentary History, 860–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 81; TNA SC 7/15/20. 5  Chronica Majora, 3:497. 6  Matthew Paris, The History of Saint Edward the King, trans. Thelma S.  Fenster and Jocelyn Wogan–Browne (Tempe: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2008), 54. For Henry and Eleanor’s devotion to St. Edward, see: Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1237–42 (London: HMSO, 1911), 63, 91–92; The Wardrobe Accounts of Henry III, ed. Benjamin Linley Wild (London: Pipe Roll Society, 2012), 9; David Carpenter, “Henry III and Saint Edward the Confessor: The Origins of the Cult,” English Historical Review 122, no. 498 (2007): 865–891; Margaret Howell, Eleanor of Provence: Queenship in Thirteenth–Century England (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 85–86. 3 4

220 

L. J. WILKINSON

de Cantilupe at Worcester.7 According to the Waverley Abbey annalist, both Henry III and Eleanor took the Cross in 1250, pledging to go on crusade to the Holy Land, even if this was a venture that other concerns ultimately prevented them from realising in person.8 Like her husband, Eleanor supported the communities of friars who became established in England during the thirteenth century. Both Eleanor and her sister Sanchia were correspondents, for example, of the Franciscan friar, Adam Marsh, who praised the Queen for her “generous heart.”9 Henry III’s reign in England was marked by elaborate building and refurbishment programmes at many royal residences, which incorporated decorative schemes that reflected the couple’s religious interests. As Queen, Eleanor was a beneficiary of these extensive building works and may well, in time, have influenced design decisions approved by her husband, especially in the case of her own chambers and chapels at the royal palaces of Clarendon, Guildford, Havering, Westminster, Winchester and Windsor. Margaret Howell, Eleanor’s biographer, has demonstrated that the Queen’s quarters were “built or improved” at numerous royal residences.10 Yet, the early years of Eleanor’s marriage to Henry were not without drama. In September 1238, the King was nearly assassinated when the royal couple was staying at Woodstock Palace. The plot was foiled by Margaret Biset, who discovered the intruder simply because she happened to have stayed up to recite her psalms.11 On the night of the attack, Henry was absent from his chambers because he was spending the night with his wife, offering us an insight into the royal couple’s private life.

7  TNA E 101/349/16; E 101/349/22 (rolls of the Queen’s household expenses); Sally Dixon-Smith, “The Image and Reality of Alms–Giving in the Great Halls of Henry III,” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 152 (1999): 86–87, 89, 95n104; D. A. Carpenter, “The Household Rolls of King Henry III of England,” Historical Research 80, no. 207 (2007): 26, 39–41; Chronica Majora, 4:562; 5:262; “Annales monasterii de Waverleia,” in Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 5 vols. (London, 1864–1869), 2:337, 343; “Annales de Theokesberia,” in Annales Monastici, 1:166. For a visit to Dunstable in 1247, see: “Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia,” in Annales Monastici, 3:173; “Annales prioratus de Wigornia,” in Annales Monastici, 4:428. 8  “Annales monasterii de Waverleia,” 342. 9  The Letters of Adam Marsh, ed. C. H. Lawrence, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006, 2010), 2:369–375 (nos. 150–154). 10  Howell, Eleanor, 23. 11  Chronica Majora, 3:497; Carpenter, Henry III, 205.

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

221

Eleanor did not conceive an heir to the English throne soon after her marriage, prompting concerns that she was barren, and in 1237 she undertook a pilgrimage to Canterbury with her sister-in-law, Joan, Queen of Scots, another royal wife who lacked an heir, ostensibly to pray for children.12 In reality, Eleanor’s physical immaturity presumably hindered the conception of a child. Later in life, Eleanor added her voice to that of her daughter-in-law, Eleanor of Castile (see Abigail S. Armstrong’s chapter), in appealing to Edward I for the postponement of the marriage of her granddaughter, another Eleanor, on the grounds of her youth, when the young bride-to-be was 13.13 The birth of a son, the future Edward I, to Eleanor of Provence during the night of 17–18 June 1239 dispelled fears about the Queen’s fertility.14 Other offspring followed, so that by her early twenties, Eleanor had given birth to three further children who survived infancy—Margaret in 1240, Beatrice in 1242 and Edmund in 1245. Another daughter, Katherine, who lived just a few years, was born in 1253.15 Henry, Eleanor, and their children formed a loving family. Letters exchanged between the royal couple were littered with terms of affection and endearment. In a letter addressed by the Queen to Henry in 1244–1245, she described herself as “the most humble and devoted Eleanor,” and informed her husband that “by the grace of God we and our children are safe and well, which we lovingly hope you are also with all our heart and soul.”16 Eleanor was highly attentive to her children’s wellbeing throughout their lives. When they were poorly, she visited them or sent her personal doctors to care for them. The Waverley Abbey annalist recalled how, when Edward fell ill during a family visit to Beaulieu, Eleanor would not allow her son to be moved and stayed with him for three weeks 12  Chronica Majora, 3:518; “The Chronicle of Melrose,” in Medieval Chronicles of Scotland, trans. Joseph Stephenson (Felinfach: Llanerch, 1988), 63–64; Jessica Nelson, “Scottish Queenship in the Thirteenth Century,” in Thirteenth Century England XI, ed. Björn Weiler, Janet Burton, Phillipp Schofield, and Karen Stöber (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007), 69. 13  Rôles Gascons, Tome Deuxième, 1273–90, ed. Charles Bémont (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1900), 164 (no. 597). 14  Chronica Majora, 3:539. 15  Chronica Majora, 4:48 (for Margaret’s birth), 224 (for Beatrice’s birth), 406 (for Edmund’s birth); 5:415 (for Katherine’s birth). 16  Royal and Other Historical Letters illustrative of the Reign of Henry III, ed. Walter Waddington Shirley, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1862–1866), 2:42–43 (no. 446); Letters of the Queens of England, 1100–1547, ed. Anne Crawford (Stroud: Sutton, 1994), 59–60.

222 

L. J. WILKINSON

until he was out of danger.17 Later, when Eleanor’s daughter, Margaret, became Queen of Scots, her mother travelled north with her daughter and the royal court, so that she might attend her marriage at York in 1251.18 Both Eleanor and Henry III maintained close contact with Margaret and their new son-in-law Alexander III. Eleanor despatched Reginald of Bath, a physician, to report on Margaret’s health; it was Reginald who conveyed news to Margaret’s parents of the young Queen’s isolation and neglect at the hands of her Scottish guardians, prompting the English King and Queen to take remedial action.19 Later, when Margaret was pregnant, she stayed in England in early 1261 after a family visit, so that she might be near her mother for the birth.20 When Beatrice accompanied her husband John de Dreux, the heir to the duchy of Brittany, on crusade in the early 1270s, she placed some of her own children in her mother Eleanor’s care.21 At the purification ceremony after Edward’s birth in 1239, Eleanor of Provence was exposed to the tensions that existed between Henry III and his kin, when the King’s youngest sister, Eleanor, and her second husband, Simon de Montfort, were publicly barred from attending the service. Simon de Montfort had arrived in England in 1229 as a claimant to the earldom of Leicester and rose to become one of Henry III’s leading councillors, paving the way for his marriage in January 1238 to Eleanor. At the time of Eleanor of Provence’s churching, Henry publicly accused Simon of seducing the King’s sister prior to their marriage, which had taken place, secretly, albeit with the King’s initial blessing, in Henry’s chapel at Westminster.22

Factionalism: Savoyards, Lusignans, and the English Aristocracy As Eleanor grew into adulthood, she gradually emerged at the head of a distinctive Savoyard faction at the English royal court. Thomas of Savoy was just one of four uncles who had followed their niece Eleanor of Provence to England in the years after her marriage. The others were  “Annales monasterii de Waverleia,” 337.  Chronica Majora, 5:266. 19  Chronica Majora, 5:501–502, 504–507. 20  Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 3 vols. (London, 1890), 2:459–460, 463; Nelson, “Scottish Queenship,” 75–76. 21  Letters of Medieval Women, ed. Anne Crawford (Stroud: Sutton, 2002), 35. 22  Chronica Majora, 3:566–567. 17 18

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

223

Boniface of Savoy, who became Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter of Savoy, who secured the lordships of Richmond and Pevensey, and William, the Bishop-elect of Valence, who left England in 1238. As Eleanor became established in England, she played an instrumental role in the promotion of her kin, endorsing, for instance, Boniface’s election to the highest ecclesiastical office in England.23 Eleanor’s mother, Beatrice of Savoy, was another visitor to the English court, who charmed Henry III, and who sought and secured financial assistance from this son-in-law.24 As many as 170 Savoyard clerks, knights and others followed Eleanor to England, 39 of whom, including the Queen’s uncles, received grants of English land. Eleanor of Provence maintained connections with those Savoyards whose interests she helped to promote, some of whom became personal friends. A good case in point is Geoffrey de Joinville, who married the widowed heiress of the Irish lordship of Meath, and who kept in touch with Eleanor throughout her marriage and widowhood.25 The Queen and her uncles’ promotion of the Savoyards became a cause for concern among the native English nobility, who resented their ability to secure highly advantageous marriages for their followers and kin to noble heirs. Matthew Paris recalled how, in 1247, the marriages of “two Provençal girls … to two young nobles … namely Edmund earl of Lincoln and Richard de Burgh … caused considerable murmur and indignation to reverberate round the kingdom.”26 The two “girls” were Alice de Saluzzo, the daughter of Queen Eleanor’s first cousin, and another Alice, whose parentage is not known.27 The marriages of English heiresses to “aliens” were also seen as mésalliances, since their foreign-born husbands were regarded as their wives’ social inferiors. In 1258, a document known as the “Petition of the Barons” demanded that women in the King’s gift “shall not be married in such a way as to disparage them—that is, to men who are not true-born Englishmen.”28 23  Chronica Majora, 4:425; Huw Ridgeway, “King Henry III and the ‘Aliens,’ 1236–1272,” in Thirteenth Century England II, ed. P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1988), 84. 24  Chronica Majora, 4:261, 263, 283–284; 5:2–3. 25  Ridgeway, “King Henry III and the ‘Aliens,’ 1236–1272,” 81, 84; Howell, Eleanor, 52–53, 224, 297–298. 26  Chronica Majora, 4:628. 27  Howell, Eleanor, 53. 28  Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion, 1258–67, ed. I.J. Sanders (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 80–81 (no. 6).

224 

L. J. WILKINSON

Yet, overall, the Savoyards proved reasonably adept at integration, thanks to the personal links they forged at the English court. Even so, Eleanor of Provence’s promotion of the Savoyards brought the Queen and her kin into competition for patronage with a rival court faction, the Lusignans. The Lusignans were Henry III’s half-siblings, who came to England to make their fortunes in 1247. Aymer, Alice, Guy and Geoffrey de Lusignan, and William de Valence, were five of the children born to Henry III’s mother, Isabella of Angoulême (see Sally Spong’s chapter), during her second marriage to Hugh X de Lusignan, Count of La Marche. Like the Savoyards, the Lusignans were received very warmly by the English King and enriched by him.29 Surviving royal accounts for the early 1250s reveal that Eleanor of Provence also maintained contact with some of the leading English aristocrats and those who served them. Isabella, damsel of Lady Matilda de Cantilupe, Amice, damsel of Lady Margaret de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln (Alice de Saluzzo’s mother-in-law), and Agnes, damsel of the wife of Roger de Mortimer, were among those who were given clasps, presumably on the Queen’s orders.30 During her marriage, Eleanor of Provence became an active intercessor at the English court. She petitioned, and interceded with, her husband on the behalf of others whose actions had angered the King or who needed his help or favour. When Walter Marshal, the heir to the earldom of Pembroke, was excluded from his inheritance, Queen Eleanor was among those who successfully appealed to King Henry on Walter’s behalf; Walter had incurred the King’s anger by attending a tournament, which the King had prohibited and at which his older brother Gilbert had been killed.31 Some of those men and women whom Eleanor helped were members of the Queen’s own household, and service to the Queen could bring material benefits. Nicholas of Farnham, Eleanor’s confessor, for example, was elected to the see of Durham, and his consecration as a bishop was attended, fittingly, by his former royal mistress. Sibyl, wife of Hugh Giffard, a member of Eleanor of Provence’s household, was rewarded with an annuity of £10 for her “good service” at the Lord Edward’s birth.32

 Chronica Majora, 4:627; Howell, Eleanor, 57.  TNA, E 101/349/12, mm. 1–2. 31  Chronica Majora, 4:157–158. 32  Chronica Majora, 4:86–87, 134; Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1232–47 (London: HMSO, 1906), 247. 29 30

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

225

Eleanor supported her husband in his foreign policy initiatives, accompanying him to Gascony in 1242–1243, where she gave birth to their daughter Beatrice.33 She stood alongside Henry III, when he resisted William of Raleigh’s election to the bishopric of Winchester.34 Henry, for his part, placed increasingly large resources in his loyal wife’s hands. The Queen’s 1236 dower settlement had assigned her the boroughs and cities of Bath, Cambridge, Gloucester, Huntingdon and Worcester, together with a host of other English properties.35 On 5 April 1242, however, the King made a new grant to his wife, which allowed her “reasonable dower” in all his lands and properties “acquired or hereafter to be acquired” after his death.36 In addition to increasing her dower allocation, Henry bestowed upon his wife profitable wardships and marriages that came into his hands.37 Yet, the manner in which Eleanor’s English estates were managed on her behalf by officials, such as William of Tarrant, who enjoyed a reputation for ruthlessness, eroded her popularity among her English subjects.38 There were, undoubtedly, occasions during their marriage when Eleanor pushed the boundaries of Henry III’s patience. She could also become annoyed with Henry. Matthew Paris recorded how Henry annulled the Queen’s presentation of William of London, her chaplain, to Flamstead, much to his wife’s consternation.39 The couple became embroiled in a more serious dispute in 1252, between the Queen’s uncle Boniface and Henry III’s half-brother Aymer de Lusignan, bishop-elect of Winchester, over whose right it was to elect the next prior of St. Thomas’s, Southwark; the disagreement turned violent and culminated in the Lusignans’ men sacking Boniface’s manor at Maidstone. Eleanor’s support for her kin backfired, when Henry III “turned on the queen” in November, seized her properties and sent her away from court for a brief spell. Luckily matters were soon patched up between the couple; Henry returned Eleanor’s lands on 27 November and the couple subsequently devoted their collective efforts to reconciling Boniface and William.40 33  Chronica Majora, 4:224, 229, 231, 244; “Annales monasterii de Wintonia,” in Annales Monastici, 2:89. 34  Chronica Majora, 4:346–52. 35  Calendar of the Charter Rolls, 1226–57 (London, 1908), 218. 36  Calendar of the Charter Rolls, 1226–57, 268. 37  Chronica Majora, 5:612, 621. 38  Chronica Majora, 5:716. 39  Chronica Majora, 5:298–299; Howell, Eleanor, 64–66. 40  Chronica Majora, 5:349–353, 359–360; Howell, Eleanor, 67–69.

226 

L. J. WILKINSON

Politics: Regency, International Diplomacy, and the Threat of Baronial Reform In the months after their reconciliation, Henry and Eleanor remained on suitably intimate terms for the Queen to be formally appointed as joint regent of England during Henry III’s absence in Gascony in 1253–1254. Eleanor was chosen, with Richard of Cornwall appointed alongside her, as a guardian of her husband’s kingdom, even though she was pregnant and gave birth to her daughter Katharine while her husband was away.41 It was a measure of Henry’s confidence in Eleanor that he named her in his will, drawn up in early July 1253, as the keeper of the Lord Edward, the other royal children, the English realm and all the King’s “other lands” in Gascony, Ireland and Wales, if he should die during Edward’s minority.42 These arrangements were accompanied by another new dower settlement for the Queen, whereby Henry expanded the size of his wife’s estates in England, awarded her Irish lands too, and formally granted Eleanor permission to make a will of items from the King’s goods up to the value of 3000 marks, in addition to “her proper goods.”43 The latter was an important concession, since wives in England were only permitted to make a testament with their husband’s permission, and the goods that they were permitted to bequeath were often personal objects. Henry III’s trust in his wife as regent was well placed. The King left England on 6 August 1253 and from that moment until Eleanor travelled to re-join him overseas in late May 1254, the Queen oversaw royal affairs with Richard of Cornwall, authorising numerous writs and other documents issued on behalf of the government.44 The regents summoned a parliament to meet at Westminster in January 1254 which discussed, among other matters, the need for military and financial aid to assist Henry in Gascony; the outcome was reported back to the King by Eleanor 41  Chronica Majora, 5:383; Fædera, conventiones, litteræ et cujuscunque generis acta publica, Volume I, Part I, ed. Thomas Rymer (Burlington, OT: Tanner Ritchie Publishing, 2006), 291–292. On Katherine’s birth, see: Chronica Majora, 5:415; Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1253–4 (London: HMSO, 1929), 10, 105. 42  Fædera, 291, 496 (for Henry’s will, which erroneously appears under 1272). 43  Howell, Eleanor, 113; Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1247–58 (London: HMSO, 1908), 213. 44  See, for example: Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1251–3 (London: HMSO, 1927), 408–424, 500–512; Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1253–4, 1–73, 75, 103–136; Calendar of the Liberate Rolls, 1267–72, with Appendices, 1220–67 (London: HMSO, 1964), 260–262 (nos 2297B, 2297E–J, 2297L–O).

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

227

and Richard in letters dated 14 February 1254, which outlined the willingness of the archbishops, bishops, earls and barons to provide assistance, the more conditional support of the lesser clergy and laity, and the arrangements for a further parliament on 26 April.45 Henry III, for his part, successfully concluded peace with Alfonso X of Castile, which included arrangements for the Lord Edward’s marriage to the Castilian king’s sister Eleanor.46 In preparation for the marriage, Henry III issued a charter at Bazas on 14 February, which bestowed upon the Lord Edward a large appanage, comprising most of the royal lands in Ireland, the county of Chester, lands conquered from the Welsh between the Dee and the Conwy, several Welsh castles in the King’s hands, the honour of the Peak, Bristol, Grantham, and Stamford, the Channel Islands, the Count of Eu’s former English properties, and the manor of Freemantle. Earlier grants to Edward of Gascony, a critical component in the Anglo-Castilian negotiations, and the Isle of Oléron were also renewed.47 In Henry’s absence, it fell to the regents, and especially the Queen, to see that the Lord Edward’s men were awarded seisin of these properties.48 The future prospects of Henry and Eleanor’s second son, Edmund, were also at the forefront of the royal couple’s minds in the 1250s. Pope Innocent IV approached a series of potential candidates for the Sicilian throne, with the intention of supplanting Frederick II’s successor there, King Conrad. The Pope’s offer of the Crown of Sicily for either Henry III or Edmund fell on fertile ground, so that Henry accepted the Sicilian throne for Edmund in 1254. The Burton annalist recorded the King and Queen’s joy at Edmund’s situation in 1255.49 Yet, the promise of the Sicilian throne came with a serious catch—it needed to be taken by force from Conrad and his successor and son’s usurper, Manfred. Furthermore, Innocent IV’s successor, Pope Alexander IV, demanded in April 1255 that

45  Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1253–4, 107, 111–112; Royal and Other Historical Letters, 2:101–102 (no. CCCCXCIX). 46  Fœdera, 1.1:295, 297, 300, 304, 306. 47  Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1247–58 (London: HMSO, 1908), 270; Fœdera, 1.1:297. 48  Howell, Eleanor, 125. 49  “Annales de Burton,” in Annales Monastici, 1:349. For Henry’s initial acceptance, see: Björn Weiler, “Henry III and the Sicilian Business: A Reinterpretation,” Historical Research 74, no. 184 (2001): 129.

228 

L. J. WILKINSON

the English make a payment of £90,000 before any campaign took place.50 Savoyards connected to Eleanor of Provence were prominent among the proctors who represented English interests in their negotiations with the papacy.51 Many English earls and barons regarded the scheme as a folly; the English magnates refused the King’s request for financial aid to support the Sicilian scheme in parliament.52 Before any conquest of Sicily was attempted, however, peace needed to be achieved between England and France. On her way back to England from Gascony, Eleanor of Provence accompanied Henry to a conference with her sister the French Queen and her brother-in-law Louis IX of France. This family meeting helped to pave the way for warmer relations between the English and French crowns that eventually culminated in the Treaty of Paris of 1259.53 If relations between the English and French ruling houses were rosier than they had been for decades in the 1250s, thanks in large part to the Provençal queens, there were worrying developments for Eleanor closer to home. In the years after Edward’s marriage, the English Queen found her eldest son gradually beginning to move away from the orbit of the Savoyards and carve out more independence from his parents’ influence. Plagued with problems in the Welsh Marches, Edward began to forge a wider circle of contacts that took him beyond the officials whom his parents had appointed to serve him. Beset with money troubles in the face of steep military costs, Edward turned for financial assistance to his Lusignan kin.54 This came at a time when tensions between the Lusignans and other members of Henry III’s court were spilling over into violence; men who had been wronged by the Lusignans and whose servants and property had been attacked by their men found themselves unable to secure justice from the King.55 Henry III’s poor foreign policy choices, the factional struggles at his court, personal grievances held by individual magnates and the 50  David Carpenter, “Henry III and the Sicilian Affair,” Fine of the Month (February 2012), https://finerollshenry3.org.uk/redist/pdf/fm–02–2012.pdf. 51  Howell, Eleanor, 131, 134. 52  Howell, Eleanor, 143. 53  Chronica Majora, 5:476–7; David Carpenter, “The Meetings of Henry III and Louis IX,” in Thirteenth Century England X, ed. Michael Prestwich, Richard Britnell, and Robin Frame (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2005), 3, 5–6; “Chronicon vulgo dictum chronicum Thomæ Wykes,” in Annales Monastici, 4:123. 54  Howell, Eleanor, 148. 55  Carpenter, Henry III, 688.

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

229

unpopularity of certain aspects of English royal government more widely, all helped to give birth to a baronial movement to reform the realm in 1258. On 12 April, seven magnates—Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester; Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester; Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, and Hugh Bigod his brother; Peter of Savoy (the Queen’s uncle); John fitzGeoffrey; and Peter de Montfort—allied together and swore an oath to reform the realm. On 30 April, the men marched to the King at Westminster, where they demanded that the Poitevins (namely the Lusignans) be expelled from the realm, and that Henry III agree to reform.56 The King acceded to the magnates’ demand that his realm be reformed by twenty-four men—twelve royalists (chosen by the King) and twelve baronial supporters (selected by reformers). Somewhat ominously, from the Queen’s perspective, her uncles Peter and Boniface of Savoy were omitted from the royalists, and it seems that Eleanor initially shared the reformers’ desire to see the Lusignans ousted from royal government.57 Even so, the Queen adamantly opposed the reformers’ attempts to restrict Henry’s power. Under the terms of the Provisions of Oxford, a new “king’s council” of fifteen was appointed to control and “redress” the operation of royal government.58 Although later papal bulls indicate that Eleanor of Provence took the oath to observe the Provisions like her husband and the Lord Edward, large elements of the reform programme were personally unpalatable to her, including the restrictions placed on the King’s role in government. The 1259 Provisions of Westminster’s measures touching queen’s gold, a valuable source of income for Eleanor, also flew strongly in the face of her personal interests.59 Fortunately for Henry and Eleanor, their personal presence was required in France for Henry’s performance of homage to Louis IX for Gascony under the Treaty of Paris in the winter of 1259; the death of Louis IX’s son in January 1260 necessitated the postponement of their daughter Beatrice’s marriage to John de Dreux until 22 January.60 Their enjoyment of Louis IX and Margaret of Provence’s hospitality allowed Henry and Eleanor to delay their return to England until April, allowing them to benefit from a weakening of the reformers’ standing at home.  Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, 153–154.  Documents of the Baronial Movement, 72–77, 110–111; Howell, Eleanor, 154. 58  Documents of the Baronial Movement, 110–111. 59  Documents of the Baronial Movement, 152–153 (no. 14); Howell, Eleanor, 158–159. 60  Carpenter, “The Meetings of Henry III,” 3, 7–8; Howell, Eleanor, 166. 56 57

230 

L. J. WILKINSON

Through judicious gift-giving, Eleanor also forged connections with Flemish and French knights upon whom she might potentially call for aid in the future.61 The King and Queen’s absence from England also impacted upon their relationship with the Lord Edward. Edward allied, temporarily, with the Earl of Gloucester in March 1259, and voiced his support for the reform movement and for Simon de Montfort in the autumn of 1259. Henry and Eleanor’s return to England culminated in their reconciliation with Edward, thanks to the intervention of Boniface of Savoy and Richard of Cornwall. Although the relationship between Henry, Eleanor and Edward continued to waiver for a time, Edward supported his parents when it mattered the most.62 Eleanor, for her part, emerged as one of the reformers’ strongest foes, helping her husband to recover authority temporarily in 1261. According to the Waverley Abbey annalist, it was Eleanor who persuaded Henry III to take back his earlier acceptance of the Provisions of Oxford.63 Eleanor accompanied her husband on a family visit to France in July 1262 so that the English royal couple could enjoy the “conversation and presence” of Louis IX and Eleanor’s sister Margaret, and Eleanor supported Henry in helping Edward to improve his financial situation.64 It was a measure of Eleanor’s high standing in her husband’s favour that she was awarded yet another, significant increase to her dower settlement, so that she was assigned an additional £3000 from Henry’s Gascon, Irish and other lands, bringing the value of her dower up to £4000.65

“The Sower of … Discord”: Eleanor and the Second Barons’ War Henry III and Eleanor returned to England shortly before Christmas 1262. In the months that followed, the tensions with the reformers boiled over. The Queen, increasingly, found herself a target for the royalists’  Howell, Eleanor, 168–170.  Michael Prestwich, Edward I (London: Methuen, 1988), 27–29, 31–41; Michael Prestwich, “Edward I (1239–1307),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/8517. 63  “Annales de Waverleia,” 355. 64  Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1261–1264 (London: HMSO, 1936), 120, 130; Carpenter, “The Meetings of Henry III and Louis IX,” 24–25; Howell, Eleanor, 189. 65  Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1266–72 (London: HMSO, 1913), 736–737; Howell, Eleanor, 190. 61 62

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

231

opponents, since she was, in the words of the Melrose chronicler somewhat unfairly “believed to be the root, the originator, and the sower of all the discord which existed between Henry, King of England, and the barons of his realm.”66 As relations deteriorated between the royalists and the baronial reformers, Eleanor’s lands and supporters were attacked. When travelling along the Thames from the Tower of London in July 1263, the Queen and her retinue were assaulted by a mob at London bridge, who pelted them with stones and derided her “shamefully with base and foul words” until the mayor came to her assistance.67 Later that year, after her husband had submitted to the barons, Eleanor departed for France. Once there, she tried to secure military aid for Henry and encouraged Louis IX to look favourably on her husband’s cause, with the support of her sister Margaret. When Henry and his opponents placed their dispute in the hands of the French King for his formal arbitration, Eleanor worked tirelessly from abroad in support for the royalists, earning the opprobrium of English writers.68 Swayed by Henry’s arguments about the attack that the Provisions represented to his position as King, Louis pronounced his judgement, known as the Mise of Amiens, in favour of Henry on 23 January 1264.69 After the outbreak of civil war in England and Henry III’s defeat at the battle of Lewes on 14 May 1264, Eleanor judged it prudent to remain overseas. With her husband and eldest son captives at the hands of the rebels, together with Richard of Cornwall, it became more important than ever for Eleanor to lobby the French and papal courts against the new regime of Simon de Montfort in England. Eleanor sought aid from Louis IX and her uncle, Peter of Savoy.70 She oversaw Gascon affairs and devoted her energies to amassing funds, gathering mercenaries and a fleet in the hope of launching an invasion of England. The threat of a ship-borne attack that year was sufficiently serious for the Montfortians to make special arrangements to defend the English coast.71 In the event, the exhaustion of funds and the wider diplomatic and political situation impeded

 “Chronicle of Melrose,” 98.  “Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia,” 223; “Chronicon Thomæ Wykes,” 136. 68  “Chronicon Thomæ Wykes,” 136; “Annales de Theokesberia,” 1:177. 69  Documents of the Baronial Movement, 280–291. 70  “Annales prioratus de Dunstaplia,” 233. 71  “Chronicon Thomæ Wykes,” 154–155; “Annales prioratus de Wigornia,” 452–453; Flores Historiarum, 2:499–500; Howell, Eleanor, 212–217. 66 67

232 

L. J. WILKINSON

Eleanor’s efforts.72 In November 1264, Eleanor was behind an attempt to rescue Edward and Richard of Cornwall’s son Henry of Almain from Wallingford Castle, an attempt that led to the prisoners being moved to a more secure fortress.73 It was, ultimately, “from a port under Queen Eleanor’s control,” that men were provided to assist William de Valence in making a royalist landing in England, which eventually culminated in a dramatic resurgence in royalist fortunes in the summer of 1265; Edward’s escape from Montfortian custody at Hereford in late May helped to pave the way for his dramatic victory at the Battle of Evesham on 4 August and Henry III’s liberation from Montfortian custody.74 Eleanor finally returned to England in late October 1265 and was reunited with Henry after their long and painful separation at Canterbury.75 As the conflict moved towards a final conclusion, Eleanor helped to subdue the remaining rebels in the south. It was into the Queen’s keeping at Windsor Castle that both Robert de Ferrers, the rebel Earl of Derby, and the Hampshire rebel Adam Gurdon were entrusted. The Queen played a role in punishing members of the Cinque Ports, several of whom were hanged at Dover.76 With peace restored, the final years of Henry III’s reign witnessed the departure of both royal sons, Edward and Edmund, on crusade to the Holy Land. Although Richard of Cornwall safeguarded Edward’s affairs in his absence, it was Queen Eleanor who oversaw Edmund’s.77 On Henry III’s death on 16 November 1272, Edward succeeded to the English throne. It was a measure of just how successfully order had been re-established since the ending of the Second Barons’ War that Edward’s succession was a smooth one and the new King delayed his return until 1274. Edward I and Eleanor of Castile’s coronations at Westminster Abbey finally took place on 19 August 1274, in the presence of the King’s mother, the King of Scots, the Duke of Brittany, and Edward’s sisters.78  Howell, Eleanor, 217–221.  The Metrical Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester, ed. William Aldis Wright, 2 vols. (London, 1887), 2:751–752; Flores Historiarum, 2:502–503. 74  Howell, Eleanor, 226–229. 75  “Chronicon Thomæ Wykes,” 179; “Annales prioratus de Wigornia,” 455. 76  “Chronicon Thomæ Wykes,” 189; Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1264–8 (London: HMSO, 1937), 284; “Annales prioratus de Wigornia,” 456. 77  Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1266–72, 668. 78  Willelmi Rishanger, Chronica et Annales, ed. Henry Thomas Riley (London, 1865), 83–84. 72 73

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

233

As queen dowager, Eleanor of Provence made provisions for Henry III’s soul, re-founding the hospital of St. Katharine by the Tower on 5 July 1273 for his commemoration.79 In her grief, she possibly kept her dead husband’s heart with her, since Henry’s heart only reached its final resting place at Fontevraud in 1292.80 Throughout the 1270s, Eleanor remained a central figure within the royal family, although these years were marked by further bereavements, including the deaths of her daughters Margaret, Queen of Scots, and Beatrice of Brittany.81 Eleanor readily extended the affection that she had felt towards her own children to her grandchildren. The chronicler Thomas Wykes recorded Eleanor and Henry’s sorrow at the untimely passing of Edward’s eldest son, John, in 1271.82 Eleanor shared in Edward I and his wife’s grief at the premature deaths of many of their other offspring too. Her grandson Henry’s death compelled Eleanor to establish a Dominican priory at Guildford in 1275.83 When another grandson, Alfonso, died in 1284, the chronicler William Rishanger reported Eleanor’s role in arrangements for his heart to be buried in the church of the Black Friars, London.84 In widowhood, Eleanor was an important landholder with extensive properties. On 10 January 1275, she secured her son Edward’s permission to make a will of all her movable goods and possessions.85 One of her most unpleasant acts as queen dowager, for us now, was securing Edward’s approval, just two days later, for her decision to expel the Jews from towns belonging to her dower.86 In her widowhood, Eleanor also pursued her claims to her family’s Provençal inheritance more assertively than before, working collaboratively alongside the French Queen Margaret against Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily, the widower of their youngest sister 79  William Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. John Caley, Henry Ellis, and Bulkeley Bandinel, 6 vols. (London, 1817–1830), 6.2:694, 696. 80  Charles T. Wood, “Fontevraud, Dynasticism and Eleanor of Aquitaine,” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, ed. Bonnie Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 422n52. 81  “Chronicon Thomæ Wykes,” 262. 82  “Chronicon Thomæ Wykes,” 246. 83  John Carmi Parsons, “Piety, Power and the Reputations of Two Thirteenth–Century English Queens,” in Queens, Regents and Potentates, ed. Theresa M.  Vann (Sawston: Academia Press, 1993), 116. 84  Willelmi Rishanger, Chronica, 108. 85  Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1272–81 (London: HMSO, 1901), 76; Howell, Eleanor, 292–294. 86  Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1272–81, 76.

234 

L. J. WILKINSON

Beatrice, who retained their shares of the family lands. For instance, Eleanor wrote to Edward in 1279, asking him to help prevent a match, which she felt to be detrimental to her Provençal interests, between Charles’s son and the King of Germany’s daughter.87

The Twilight Years: Family, Spirituality, and Legacy Eleanor’s influence waned on the national and international stage in the final decades of her life. Edward I was not always mindful of his mother’s wishes, conscious, perhaps, of the controversial figure she had cut during his father’s reign.88 In the 1280s, Eleanor made plans for her retirement at the Fontevraudine priory of Amesbury, a double house with strong connections to the English ruling dynasty, since its re-foundation by Henry II.89 As a former queen consort, Eleanor enjoyed a long-standing association with English nunneries. In the summer of 1236, the young Queen Eleanor had petitioned the abbess of Wilton to allow Mabel de Braybof two liveries in her house. Intriguingly, the letter recording this also referred to a privilege that was apparently enjoyed by each English queen consort—the right “to make a nun in every religious house of the realm after her first coronation.”90 Prior to taking the veil at Amesbury, Eleanor made arrangements for the entrance of her kinswomen, and Beatrice of Brittany’s young daughter, another Eleanor, entered Amesbury. In 1284, Eleanor obtained the King’s permission to grant the Berkshire manor of Chaddleworth to the priory for this young woman’s sustenance.91 As Nicholas Trivet, a Dominican friar, recalled in 1285, Edward I’s daughter Mary also joined Amesbury “at the instance of the King’s mother.”92 Mary

87  Lettres de Rois, Reines et Autres Personnages des Cours de France et D’Angleterre, ed. M.  Champollion–Figeac (Paris, 1839), 1:264 (no. 209), https://epistolae.ctl.columbia. edu/letter/656.html; 1:245 (no. 191), https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/654. html; Howell, Eleanor, 295. 88  Prestwich, Edward I, 122–123; Howell, Eleanor, 296–298. 89  “Houses of Benedictine Nuns: Abbey, later Priory, of Amesbury,” in A History of the County of Wiltshire: Volume 3, ed. R.  B. Pugh and Elizabeth Crittall (London: Victoria County History, 1956), 242–259. 90  Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1232–47, 155. 91  Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 2:334, 338 (no. IX); Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1281–92 (London: HMSO, 1893), 128. 92  Fr. Nicholai Triveti, De Ordine Frat. Prædicatorum, Annales, ed. Thomas Hog (London: Sumptibus Societatis, 1845), 310; Willelmi Rishanger, Chronica, 108.

12  ELEANOR OF PROVENCE 

235

had resided with her royal grandmother in the early 1280s, and Eleanor formed a strong attachment to her. Margaret, abbess of Fontevraud, whose predecessor had petitioned Edward I for Mary to enter her own abbey, wrote a letter to the King in which she acknowledged that Mary’s entry to Amesbury was “for the solace of the queen-mother.”93 Thirteen other young noblewomen joined Amesbury at the same time as Mary. Eleanor herself became a nun there in 1286.94 Eleanor’s withdrawal to Amesbury did not, in practice, mean her withdrawal from all the demands of secular life; she obtained the Pope’s permission to retain lands.95 She often wrote to Edward I and his ministers, sending her son wishes for his “health,” bestowing her “blessing” upon him, and describing herself as a “humble nun of the order of Fontevraud, of the convent of Amesbury.”96 On one occasion, she sought the aid of John de Kirkby, the royal treasurer, for a man named Robert de Bonevile, whose horse had been seized. On another, she wrote to Edward I, asking that the nuns of Aconbury be pardoned for debts that they owed to the Crown. She offered her eldest son guidance on family matters, advising him that she felt it unwise for him to take his surviving son, Edward of Caernarfon, to the north.97 It was at Amesbury that Eleanor of Provence died on 24 June 1291; the Queen’s body was embalmed and then buried there, somewhat fittingly, on 15 August, the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven, with much pomp and ceremony, after the King returned from Scotland. Eleanor’s heart, “enshrined in gold,” was later interred at the Grey Friars in London, the final resting place of her beloved daughter Beatrice.98 Admittedly, Eleanor’s decision

93  Mary Anne Everett Green, Lives of the Princesses of England from the Norman Conquest, Volume II (London, 1857), 408–409. 94  “Annales prioratus de Wigornia,” 491; “Annales Londonienses,” in Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, Volume I, ed. William Stubbs (London, 1882), 99; Fr. Nicholai Triveti, Annales, 312. 95  Flores Historiarum, 3:65. 96  TNA SC 1/16/156; SC 1/16/151; Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, Volume I, ed. Mary Anne Everett Wood (London, 1846), 58–60 (letters XX–XXI). 97  TNA SC 1/10/132; SC 1/16/206; SC 1/16/170. 98  Fr. Nicholai Triveti, Annales, 322–323; “Annales monasterii de Waverleia,” 409–410; The Chronicle of Lanercost, trans. Henry Maxwell (Glasgow: James Maclehose, 1913), 82–83. For Beatrice’s burial there, see: C.  L. Kingsford, “Register of the Grey Friars of London: Index of those buried in the Church and Cloister (A–K),” in C. L. Kingsford, The Grey Friars of London (Aberdeen, 1915), 134–139.

236 

L. J. WILKINSON

not to be buried at Westminster Abbey, alongside Henry III, is curious. Perhaps her preference for Amesbury reflected, instead, her devotion to her granddaughters and the spiritual contentment that Eleanor’s final years there had brought her. Sadly, Eleanor’s funerary monuments, like those of so many other men and women, did not survive the dissolution of England’s religious houses under Henry VIII. In life, Eleanor had often been a provocative presence both at her husband’s court and within his kingdom. The strong, mutually respectful relationship that this Queen forged with Henry III, the material resources that she amassed, and the support which she received from her Savoyard kin, allowed her to establish and sustain a special place at the heart of English royal government. Even so, as a woman, as a foreigner by birth, and as the head of an alien faction, Eleanor’s influence over Henry III was often perceived by contemporaries as a malign and damaging force in English affairs. For those men and women who threatened, opposed or acted against Eleanor and her family’s shared interests, she was a determined, ruthless and formidable opponent. Yet, for her children, her wider kin, and those men and women who were recipients of her favour, Eleanor of Provence was benevolent, caring and dignified advocate. A “generous and religious virago” was how Matthew Paris’s continuator described her.99 The more negative perceptions of Eleanor of Provence’s involvement in politics during Henry III’s reign might help to explain why her immediate successors as English queens consort, Eleanor of Castile and Margaret of France (see Paul Dryburgh’s chapter), adopted less prominent roles in shaping English royal policy. This, ultimately, was Eleanor of Provence’s legacy for the next generation.

 Flores Historiarum, 3:65.

99

CHAPTER 13

Eleanor of Castile: A Consort of Contradictions Abigail S. Armstrong

The reputation of Eleanor of Castile, Edward I’s first wife, is rather inconsistent and contradictory. Both contemporaries and historians over the centuries have seized upon various aspects of her character and life, portraying her as either virtuous or villainous. Chroniclers painted her as covetous, “a Spaniard by birth who acquired many desirable manors,” leading Lisa Hilton to declare Eleanor “a ‘grasping harpy’, vengeful and vindictive.”1 On the other hand, the records of government and Edward’s commemoration of his wife following her death depict Eleanor as a loyal

 Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 5 vols. (London, 1864–1869), 3:362 (hereafter AM); Lisa Hilton, Queens Consort: England’s Medieval Queens (London: Phoenix, 2009), 232. 1

A. S. Armstrong (*) University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_13

237

238 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

wife and consort, with Agnes Strickland calling Eleanor “the faithful,” a “virtuous woman and excellent queen.”2 It is from these conflicting sources of Eleanor’s life that John Carmi Parsons first sought to bring more nuance to our understanding of Eleanor as Queen.3 This chapter seeks to build upon this work, examining aspects of Eleanor’s queenship in which she can be or has been perceived to have fulfilled and erred in her duties as Queen. It examines aspects of Eleanor’s childbearing, diplomacy, and intercession, as well as re-evaluating her much-maligned landholding. Upon her arrival in England following her marriage, Eleanor found herself in an unusual situation for most queens consort being married to the English heir to the throne, rather than the King; a Queen-in-waiting, not yet the Queen. This was an uncommon situation in England. Since 1066, only two previous heirs had been married during their fathers’ lifetime, and neither became king (see Heather J. Tanner’s chapter and Márta Péllardi’s chapter).4 As such, Eleanor was in the unique position of spending as long as the wife of the heir as she was queen, before her death in 1290. This chapter sheds light on this period of her life and the influence of her mother-in-law Eleanor of Provence (see Louise L.  Wilkinson’s chapter) in shaping her queenship. It argues that Eleanor’s actions and behaviour as queen and queen-in-waiting were both consistent and contradictory. Eleanor was instructed in the diplomatic and intercessory functions of English queenship, although as queen consort Edward afforded her no role in politics. Furthermore, elements of the landholding practices for which she was derided as queen can be traced back to the years before her husband’s accession. It was only as queen that Eleanor came under a different level of scrutiny.

2  Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, 12 vols. (London, 1840–48), 1:287, 308. 3  See: John Carmi Parsons, “Eleanor of Castile (1241–1290): Legend and Reality Through Seven Centuries,” in Eleanor of Castile, 1290–1990: Essays to Commemorate the 700th Anniversary of Her Death, 28 November 1290, ed. David Parsons (Stamford: Watkins, 1991), 23–54; John Carmi Parsons, Eleanor of Castile: Queen and Society in Thirteenth-Century England (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), chapter 4. 4  Eustace, son of King Stephen, married Constance of France: John T.  Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1969), 79. Henry the Young King, son of Henry II, although crowned during his father’s lifetime, had little real authority, and married Margaret of France: Matthew Strickland, Henry the Young King (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 30–31.

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

239

Birth and Marriage Eleanor of Castile was the daughter of Ferdinand III, King of Castile and León, by his second wife, Jeanne de Dammartin, the heiress to the county of Ponthieu. Her exact date of birth is unrecorded, although she and her two brothers were alive by the completion of the Castilian chronicle, De rebus Hispaniae libri IX, in 1243.5 John Carmi Parsons posits that Eleanor was 49 years old on her death in November 1290 because of the unusual number of forty-nine paupers carrying candles on the anniversary of her death, suggesting her birth occurred towards the end of 1241.6 In 1254, at the age of 13, Eleanor was married to Edward, heir to Henry III (r. 1216–1272) and future Edward I (r. 1272–1307). The marriage was the product of dwindling Anglo-Castilian relations and threats to the last remaining English Continental territory: Gascony. The death of Ferdinand III in May 1252 brought Eleanor’s half-brother, Alfonso X, to the throne. While relations between England and Castile had been amicable under Ferdinand, Alfonso revived Castilian claims to the English territory of Gascony.7 In order to defend the last of the English Continental possessions, Henry III sought to secure peace and end Alfonso’s pretentions to the duchy through a marital alliance. Negotiations for a marriage took place between 1253–1254, although many of the English chroniclers were unclear if Edward was to marry the Castilian King’s daughter or sister, with many claiming Eleanor was Alfonso’s daughter.8 Alfonso offered no dowry for the match, and does not appear to have been pressed by the English to provide one, while demanding that Edward be provided with substantial lands with which he could dower his bride.9 As a result, Henry granted his son an apanage including Gascony, Ireland, and of lands in England worth £10,000 a year, and Eleanor was assigned dower lands worth £1000 annually, to be increased by 500 marks when she became 5  John Carmi Parsons, “The Year of Eleanor of Castile’s Birth and Her Children by Edward I,” Mediaeval Studies 46 (1984): 246. 6  Parsons, “Eleanor of Castile’s Birth,” 248. 7  For Alfonso’s claim to Gascony, see: J. P. Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise en Gascogne sous Henry III et Edouard I, de 1254 à 1307 (Genève: Librairie Droz, 1972), xxix– xxxvi; Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 12. 8  See, for example, the Dunstable Annals, which states that a marriage was proposed between Edward and either a daughter or a sister of the King of Spain: AM, 3:188. 9  Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 8 vols. (London: HMSO, 1893–1913), 1247–58, 219, 230, 323 (hereafter CPR).

240 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

Queen.10 After the terms of the marriage and wider negotiations concerning stability in the region (including Alfonso’s renunciation of claims to Gascony) had been agreed, Edward travelled to Castile. He was knighted by the Castilian King before he and Eleanor were wed on 1 November 1254 at Las Huelgas, near Burgos.11 After their marriage, the young bride and groom made their way back to England, where Eleanor would spend the next eighteen years in the shadow of her mother-in-law, Eleanor of Provence. The reign of Henry III was long and relatively peaceful, although the latter years were destabilised by the period of baronial reform and rebellion (1258–1267). When Henry’s long reign came to an end upon his death on 16 November 1272 at the age of 65, Edward and Eleanor were not in England.12 In 1270 they had departed for the Holy Land alongside the French King Louis IX on his ill-fated second crusade. The death of his father did not hasten Edward and Eleanor’s return to England and as a result, they were not crowned King and Queen until their return in 1274.13

A Dutiful Queen: Childbearing, Diplomacy, and Politics In many facets of Eleanor’s queenship she was the consummate consort. She was a loyal wife at her husband’s side who provided the King with a host of children and rarely interfered in political matters. These were the virtues embodied by the Virgin Mary and extolled by the Church as model queenly behaviours (see Danna R. Messer and Katherine Weikert’s chapter), yet rarely did they bring Eleanor praise from her contemporaries.14 One aspect of Eleanor of Castile’s life that was omnipresent, both before and after becoming Queen, and for which she cannot be accused of dereliction of duty, was her childbearing. Historians believe Eleanor gave birth to between fourteen to seventeen children. Michael Prestwich gives

 CPR 1247–58, 270, 351.  Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise, 7. 12  Close Rolls for the Reign of Henry III, 14 vols. (London: HMSO, 1902–38), 1268–72, 588 (hereafter CR). 13  For the crusade, see: Bernard Hamilton, “Eleanor of Castile and the Crusading Movement,” Mediterranean Historical Review 10 (1995), 92–103. 14  Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 66. 10 11

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

241

Table 13.1  The children of Eleanor of Castile and Edward Ia Child

Born

Died

Unnamed daughter Katherine Joan John Henry Eleanor Unnamed daughter Joan Alphonso Margaret Berengaria Unnamed daughter Mary Unnamed son Elizabeth Edward

1255 1261–1263 (possibly late 1263)b Jan. 1265 Windsor, July 1266 May 1268 June 1269 Acre, 1271 Acre, 1272 Bayonne, Nov. 1273 Windsor, Mar. 1275 Kempton, May 1276 Westminster, Jan. 1278 Woodstock, Mar. 1279 1280/1 Rhuddlan, Aug. 1282 Caernarvon, Apr. 1284

1255 Sept. 1264 Sept. 1265 Aug. 1271 Oct. 1274 Aug. 1298 1271 Apr. 1307 Aug. 1284 1333 1277/8 Jan. 1278 May 1332 1280/1 May 1316 Sept. 1327

Based on Parsons, “Eleanor of Castile’s Birth,” 257–265 The liberate rolls record an entry dated February 1264 for the payment of Thomas, son of the mayor of London, for providing cloth of murrey for Eleanor’s purification, suggesting Eleanor had recently been purified following childbirth: Calendar of the Liberate Rolls, 6 vols. (London: HMSO, 1916–64), 1260–7, 160 (hereafter CLR) a

b

a figure of fourteen, born between 1261–1263 and 1284.15 He discounts a further two children identified by Parsons, despite admitting that they probably did exist: a daughter, either stillborn or who died shortly after birth in 1255, and a son born in 1280 or 1281 who died in infancy.16 Half of these pregnancies and births took place before Eleanor was Queen (Table 13.1). Much of Eleanor’s early childbearing before she became Queen was followed by loss. Only two daughters, Eleanor and Joan of Acre, born before Edward’s accession, survived infancy. As Queen, Eleanor’s almost perpetual pregnancies continued with greater success. Giving birth a further seven times, of whom five survived infancy; each child was born at a different manor or castle as Edward and Eleanor toured the kingdom and beyond. Before Edward’s accession, Windsor seems to have been the  Michael Prestwich, Edward I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 126.  Parsons, “Eleanor of Castile’s Birth,” 257–265; Prestwich, Edward I, 125n59.

15 16

242 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

preferred setting for giving birth (other than the three children born in Acre and Gascony during Edward and Eleanor’s absence on crusade). Windsor was the location of the nursery of Henry and Eleanor of Provence’s children, with their daughter Margaret also returning to Windsor to give birth to her first child in 1261.17 Following the suppression of the barons, Eleanor was again at Windsor alongside her mother-inlaw, when she gave birth to John in 1266.18 The reason for such uncertainty with Eleanor’s childbearing and the number of pregnancies relates to the lack of records. Like the pregnancies and childbearing of many of her predecessors and successors as queens consort, medieval chroniclers were sporadic in their recording of the births of royal children. The birth of the male heir was generally the most frequently recorded, yet others were less consistent—even when they were recorded, different chroniclers could give a range of dates of births. The birth of Eleanor’s first son, John, was recorded as 13 July 1266  in the Annales Londonienses, whereas the Worcester Annals recorded the birth three days earlier on 10 July.19 Perhaps because bearing the King’s children was such an integral part of English queenship, Eleanor’s efforts in this regard were not more openly lauded by her contemporaries. This may also be due to the fact that only one son and five daughters reached adulthood. Upon Eleanor’s death in 1290, Edward’s son and heir, Edward of Caernarvon, was only 6 years old. Edward does not have seemed perturbed by this situation, however. He did not take a second wife until 1299 with his marriage to Margaret of France (see Paul Dryburg’s chapter), and may even have considered his eldest daughter, Eleanor, as second in line to the English throne.20

17  Jessica Nelson, “Scottish Queenship in the Thirteenth Century,” in Thirteenth Century England XI, ed. Bjorn Weiler, Janet Burton, Philipp Schofield, and Karen Stober (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005), 75. 18  Margaret Howell, Eleanor of Provence: Queenship in Thirteenth-Century England (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 235. 19  Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. William Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1882–1883), 1:71; AM 4:457. For the difficulties in dating Eleanor’s childbearing, see: Parsons, “Eleanor of Castile’s Birth,” 249–265. 20  Louise J.  Wilkinson suggests that Edward delayed Eleanor’s departure from England following her marriage to the Count of Bar in case anything happened to her younger brother: Louise J. Wilkinson “Royal Daughters and Diplomacy at the Court of Edward I,” in Edward I: New Interpretations, ed. Andy King and Andrew M.  Spencer (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2020), 91.

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

243

At Edward and Eleanor’s coronation on 19 August 1274, the chroniclers recorded Eleanor faithfully standing at the King’s right hand side.21 As Queen, there were few occasions when Eleanor was not alongside her husband. The locations of her childbearing (Table  13.1) show how she accompanied Edward as he itinerated around the kingdom and Gascony, and even on her death, Eleanor was accompanying the King heading north on route to Scotland. Despite this proximity, Eleanor of Castile is not known for being a diplomat or intercessor as Queen. Edward allowed her no great role or influence in political affairs, limiting her input to familial connections.22 John Pecham, Archbishop of Canterbury, even attributed the harshness of the King’s rule to Eleanor, in her failure to temper the King’s actions or to act as a model of virtue.23 Nevertheless, it must be noted that this criticism was coupled with an appeal that Eleanor intercede with the King on the Bishop of Winchester’s behalf, indicating that she was expected to fulfil an intercessory role as Queen.24 When Eleanor intervened, it was often in familial or more personal affairs. In 1282, both Eleanor and her mother-in-law persuaded Edward to delay the departure of their eldest daughter, Eleanor, to Aragon for her marriage to the Aragonese heir, because of her youth—despite being 12 years old and legally old enough to marry.25 Parsons suggests that the Queen and queen dowager’s shared experience of early marriage compelled them to protect Edward’s daughters from a similar fate, ensuring that none of his daughters were married until the age of 14.26 Eleanor of Castile was also involved in the arrangement of marriages. Her predecessor as Queen, Eleanor of Provence, was a great practitioner of creating alliances through marriage, but many of the matches she and Henry III arranged caused great outcry for encouraging the influx of multiple foreign male relatives seeking to secure titles and lands in England or  AM, 4:260.  Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 45–47; Prestwich, Edward I, 132. 23  Registrum epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham, archiepiscope Cantuarensis, ed. Charles Trice Martin, 3 vols. (London: Longman, 1882–5), 2:555 (no. 429). 24  Registrum epistolarum, 2:555 (no. 429). 25  Rôles Gascons, Tome Deuxième, 1273–1290, ed. Charles Bémont (Paris, 1900), 164 (no. 597). 26  John Carmi  Parsons, “Mothers, Daughters, Family and Power: some Plantagenet Evidence, 1150–1500,” in Medieval Queenship, ed. John Carmi Parsons (Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1994), 67, 68. 21 22

244 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

the disparagement of English heiresses.27 Eleanor of Castile seems to have understood the disapproval resulting from the marriages arranged by her parents-in-law, and limited the marriages of her relatives in England to predominantly female cousins.28 In total Eleanor was involved in the marriage of twenty of her kin and courtiers.29 Instead of causing enmity, these matches helped to strengthen her presence at court and assured faithful service to herself and Edward. Eleanor began these matrimonial projects even before she became Queen, and even then, her reasons for doing so were not to encourage the arrival of her relatives in England, but rather to ensure loyalty and support to Edward. This is apparent in the first marriage she arranged in 1260 between Geoffrey de Lusignan and her cousin, Jeanne.30 Eleanor’s arrival in England was followed by political instability and unrest. Between 1258 and 1267, the balance of power and control of government shifted between Henry III and the barons, led by Simon de Montfort. In the early years of this upheaval, even Edward found himself at times in conflict with his parents as he tried to free himself from their continued oversight, gain control of his income, and try to rule his own lands.31 Throughout this time, Eleanor was resolute in supporting her husband. In 1258, Edward aligned himself with his Lusignan uncles, even after they were expelled by the reform movement at the Oxford Parliament, before joining the reformers by autumn 1259, swearing to support Simon de Montfort and his allies.32 Nevertheless, Edward continued to favour his Poitevin relatives, and the marriage arranged by Eleanor encapsulates her support for her husband’s endeavours. While Eleanor appears to have intuited the accepted bounds of intervention in political affairs from the fallout from the actions of her mother-­ in-­law, Eleanor of Provence also directly educated Eleanor in these two key aspects of queenship: diplomacy and intercession. The Queen encouraged Eleanor’s participation in diplomatic gift-giving. On 1 January 1259, the royal court was at Mortlake, where Eleanor of Castile received two

 Parsons, “Legend and Reality,” 28.  Scott L.  Waugh, The Lordship of England: Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics, 1217–1327 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 214–215. 29  Parsons, “Mothers, Daughters, Marriage and Power,” 72. 30  Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 22. 31  Prestwich, Edward I, 24. 32  Prestwich, Edward I, 31–33; Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 22–23. 27 28

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

245

sapphire rings, to give to two Gascon knights.33 The knights who received Eleanor’s rings belonged to Gaston, Viscount de Béarn, who himself obtained a ring from the Queen at the same feast.34 Gaston was a ­troublesome Gascon Lord, and the gift of these rings may have been an attempt by Eleanor of Provence to secure the loyalty or good behaviour of two of his knights on Edward’s behalf, using Eleanor of Castile as the intermediary to do so. As the duchy of Gascony was part of the apanage granted to Edward on his marriage, from which he was to support himself and his bride, the Queen introduced Eleanor into the political sphere alongside Edward in Gascony and incorporated her into royal patronage practices. This gift to Gaston de Béarn appears to have had the desired effect. Eleanor of Castile later acted as an intermediary for the Viscount in local affairs.35 Eleanor of Provence’s encouragement of her daughter-in-law brought Eleanor into the realm of politics and largesse. As Queen-in-waiting, Eleanor was also given the opportunity to act as an intercessor following the fallout from the baronial rebellion. In March 1266, the King’s rancour and indignation towards William de Halsted, caused by his participation in the uprising, was remitted at Eleanor’s insistence.36 In addition, she secured pardons for men accused of causing the deaths of others, and respites from military service and debts.37 In association with her mother Jeanne, Eleanor also acquired protections for the burgesses and merchants of Abbeville in Ponthieu.38 The differences between Eleanor of Castile’s actions and behaviour with regard to diplomatic or intercessory acts before and after becoming Queen are rather contradictory. As wife to the heir, Eleanor was educated and encouraged in aspects of diplomatic gift-giving and intercession at court. Yet Edward allowed his wife little opportunity to utilise this training. Eleanor does not appear to have protested this demotion of roles or influence in her office as Queen. She was, perhaps, content in her supportive role to the King, and keen to avoid the criticisms her mother-in-law  The National Archives, Kew, E 101/349/26, m. 4 (hereafter TNA).  TNA E 101/349/26, m. 1. 35  TNA SC 1/11/3. 36  CPR 1258–66, 567–568. 37  CPR 1266–72, 262, 305, 346, 391; CR 1264–8, 330, 335. 38  Calendar of the Charter Rolls, 6 vols. (London: HMSO, 1906), 1257–1300, 133 (hereafter CChR). 33 34

246 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

herself had faced as Queen. Eleanor may also have been a little preoccupied with her almost constant childbearing and her personal landholding and financial resources.

Crossing the Line: Landholding and Finance In the thirteenth century, queenly income came from two sources: a woman’s role as Queen, and the issues from her lands (but not her dower lands, which could only be held in widowhood).39 Landholding was a key aspect of queenly power; it allowed her to support herself, her household, and her patronage practices. As Queen, if Eleanor were to survive her husband, she would have to maintain herself and her royal entourage by her own means. These sums would come from her dower lands and any other resources she had obtained. The need to secure further lands outside her dower assignment may have been a factor in Eleanor’s acquisitiveness. Although her dower lands were worth £4500, her annual expenditure towards the end of her life was over £8000.40 She would almost need to double her landed wealth in order to finance fully her role as queen dowager. Eleanor appears to have come close to achieving this. Income from her lands between Easter 1288 and Christmas 1289 amounted to £4821 9s ¾d, a little over £2750 a year.41 Eleanor’s landholding and territorial accumulation drew ire from her contemporaries and has since shaped her reputation.42 The Archbishop of Canterbury warned against her acquisitiveness. Pecham appealed to Eleanor not to profit from Jewish usury, which was a “mortal sin” and was “causing increasing uproar” and “a loss of her reputation.”43 As a result, Prestwich has described Eleanor as “hungry for land,” happy to profit from the “high-handed and extortionate behaviour” of her officials.44 Like many of her actions and behaviours as Queen, elements of Eleanor’s landed and financial acquisitions can be traced back to the time before she reached office; it was only as Queen and after that Eleanor was derided for her territorial acquisitions. Moreover, an examination of Eleanor’s accumulation, consolidation, and administration of her financial resources  Parsons, “Legend and Reality,” 30.  Parsons, “Legend and Reality,” 30. 41  TNA, E 372/143 rot. 36. 42  For a catalogue of Eleanor’s landholding, see: Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, appendix I. 43  Registrum epistolarum, 2:619–620 (no. 484), 3:937–938 (no. 674). 44  Prestwich, Edward I, 104, 124. 39 40

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

247

demonstrates an astuteness and business-like approach to her landholding that deserves greater recognition. Parsons describes Eleanor as being far less discreet in her landed acquisitions as Queen, compared to her activities as Queen-in-waiting.45 While her actions may not have been discreet, she did display a considered, business-­like approach and determination. In the early 1280s, Eleanor intended to purchase lands in Ireland from Roger de Clifford—he died, however, before transactions were completed. Unperturbed by this setback, and indicative of Eleanor’s desire to increase her holdings, the Queen sent her clerk to investigate the matter and to continue the purchase.46 A key aspect of Eleanor’s landholding during her queenship was her attempt to consolidate her lands within certain counties. Landholding in medieval England, especially at the upper levels of society, could be extensive, if disparate, with manors dispersed across the kingdom. Much of the nobility’s landholding was concentrated on the counties of their title, the centres of their power, but could extend far beyond these borders.47 Eleanor used accumulation and exchange in order to consolidate her holdings. In 1286, she traded lands with the Earl of Hereford and Essex, exchanging the Essex manors of Fobbing, Shenfield, and Quendon that she had acquired between 1279 and 1281 for the Earl’s moiety of the barony of Haverfordwest, including the castle, in Pembrokeshire.48 Eleanor’s aptitude for acquiring and consolidating her financial resources came to the fore upon becoming Queen. Yet her proficiency is equally evident in her landholding during her time as Queen-in-waiting. Once granted manors, Eleanor also acquired supplementary lands and rights, making her holdings more profitable and valuable. For example, in return for the stewardship of the New Forest, as well as the manor and bailiwick of Lyndhurst, she quitclaimed her rights to the manors of Pitney and Wearne.49 Having received the issues and profits from the New Forest around 1266 from Edward, Eleanor’s rights to the New Forest were extended to holding the forest for life and profiting from all the fines,  Parsons, “Legend and Reality,” 29.  TNA, SC 1/10/50. 47  Andrew M.  Spencer, Nobility and Kingship in the Reign of Edward I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 29. 48  Calendar of the Close Rolls, 5 vols. (London: HMSO, 1900–8), 1279–88, 80 (hereafter CCR); TNA, DL 27/185. 49  CPR 1266–72, 484. 45 46

248 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

amercements, and issues from the eyre for pleas of the forest in Southampton, and finally the stewardship.50 Similarly, the grant of the hundred and manor of Somerton in April 1265 was followed by the rights to fines made in the Somerton hundred in October 1271.51 Moreover, Eleanor’s early landholding demonstrates that consolidation was a key goal from the start. Somerton was granted to Eleanor because she already had other lands nearby where her bailiffs could conveniently attend.52 This grant is interesting because it suggests that the King was aware that Eleanor had other lands in the vicinity, or that Eleanor herself requested that specific manor, which helped her consolidate her administration. Eleanor was determined in her pursuit of financial resources, as well as the defence of her rights. On her accession as Queen, Eleanor’s dower settlement was updated, as had been promised in her marriage agreement. Not only was her dower increased to £4500, Edward also promised that should he have to grant away any of the lands stipulated as part of her dower, he would provide a reasonable exchange.53 This determination for greater security over her landholding and its associated rights appears to have stemmed from her time as Queen-in-­ waiting and the actions of her mother-in-law. The baronial rebellion brought risk and reward for Eleanor’s landholding. During the conflict, lands assigned as part of Eleanor’s dower were threatened, such as the manor of Ashford in the Peak, which was captured by Robert de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, and had to be recovered.54 The Dictum of Kenilworth (1266) also wreaked havoc on her landholding. Even though Eleanor was also one of the many beneficiaries of the disinheritance of the rebels, these gains were short lived when manors were returned to rebels as part of the reconciliation process between the King and his barons. Although Eleanor lost lands as part of the Dictum, she worked to ensure that she would not lose out financially. For example, she received the manor of Bakewell, which had belonged to the rebel, Ralph Gernun. Once reconciled, Ralph was allowed to regain the manor on the payment of a substantial fine. In a rather astute move, which prevented the loss of income on her part and relieved the burden of the fine imposed on Ralph, Eleanor and Ralph  CPR 1258–66, 638; CPR 1266–72, 367.  CPR 1258–66, 420; CR 1268–72, 435. 52  CPR 1258–66, 420. 53  CChR 1257–1300, 192–193. 54  CPR 1247–58, 351; CR 1264–8, 28. 50 51

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

249

came to an agreement whereby she could still profit from the manor, but Ralph and his heirs would not be disinherited. Ralph agreed to let Eleanor hold the manor with all appurtenances for forty years. In return, Eleanor remitted and quit Ralph of the fine he was required to pay for the recovery of the manor, and he and his heirs would receive the manor back after the forty years expired.55 Other rebels’ lands granted to Eleanor were only restored upon the agreement that the restoration fines would be paid to Eleanor herself.56 The determination with which Eleanor accumulated and exchanged lands can be compared to the actions of her mother-in-law. On the death of her uncle, Peter of Savoy, in 1268, Eleanor of Provence received the earldom of Richmond.57 These were the first lands the Queen held in her own right. The earldom had been earmarked for John of Brittany as part of the dowry of his bride, Beatrice (Henry and Eleanor’s daughter), but Eleanor of Provence was reluctant to surrender her newfound wealth.58 In order to relieve her of the earldom so it could be bestowed upon his son-­ in-­law, Henry was required to provide his wife with substitute rents and payments to the sum of 2000 marks annually.59 Having worked so hard to build up her financial resources before she was even Queen, Eleanor of Castile shared her mother-in-law’s endeavour and determination to protect what was hers. Not only did Eleanor seek to defend her own rights, as Queen she also attempted to use her legal knowledge of landed administration to assist her friends. She instructed Richard Knout, sheriff of Northumberland, to survey the manor of Sprouston, in Scotland.60 The manor had been allocated to Isabella, widow of John de Vescy, and since “the law and custom of that country is such that she should have the moiety under the name of dower,” Eleanor sought to ensure her friend “has her full share therein, so  CR 1264–8, 518–519.  CR 1264–8, 514; CR 1268–72, 559. 57  Foedera, conventions, litterae et cujuscunque generis acta publica, ed. Thomas Rymer, 3 vols. (London, 1816–30), 1:1, 475. 58  For the marriage, see: A.S.  Armstrong, “Sisters in Cahoots: Female Agency in the Marriage of Beatrice of England and John of Brittany,” Journal of Medieval History 44, no. 4 (2018): 439–456. 59  CPR 1266–72, 310–311, 362, 433. For discussion of Beatrice’s dowry, see: Armstrong, “Sisters in Cahoots.” 60  TNA,  SC 1/30/50. Printed and translated in Documents Illustrative of the History of Scotland, ed. Joseph Stevenson, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1870), 1:115–116 (no. 79). 55 56

250 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

that she be no loser in anything from want of advice or help of friends.”61 Although Eleanor was well versed in the rights of widows, it is unclear whether she was aware that the Northumberland Sheriff’s jurisdiction did not extend into Scotland, and he was promptly arrested by his Roxburgh counterpart.62 Despite this misstep, Eleanor’s understanding of administration probably stemmed from her close contact with her officials. They kept her informed of the situation on her lands and made her aware of opportunities for further acquisitions. For example, her bailiff in Norfolk, Walter Hacon, wrote to Eleanor to inform her of an escheat on the death of William Peyvre.63 Eleanor appears to have been notified of all activities concerning her landholding and was therefore unlikely to have been oblivious to the heavy-handed exploits of her officials. It was only upon her deathbed that Eleanor asked for an inquiry into the abuses of her administration,64 perhaps inspired by the similar actions of her mother-in-­ law. Eleanor of Provence was equally persistent in disregarding the malpractice of her administrators, yet in 1290, shortly before her death, she requested a commission of oyer and terminer to investigate abuses committed by her officials throughout her lands.65 This act does not appear to have tarnished Henry’s Queen in the eyes of the chroniclers as much as Eleanor of Castile.66 Eleanor of Provence was perhaps exempt from such criticism as she was the queen dowager and had not continued to acquire resources. She was instead castigated for exerting too much influence in politics as Queen. In comparison, Eleanor of Castile’s queenship was not defined by any great political role or controversy, but rather her landholding, and it was in this regard the chroniclers made comment. It is unlikely that Eleanor’s officials informed her of their own personal profiteering,

61  For Eleanor’s friendship with the de Vescys, see: Keith Stringer, “Nobility and Identity in Medieval Britain: The de Vescy Family c.1120–1314,” in Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change, ed. Brendan Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 204, 208. 62  G. W. S. Barrow believes Eleanor acted more impertinently than naively: G. W. S. Barrow, “A Kingdom in Crisis: Scotland and the Maid of Norway,” The Scottish Historical Review 69 (1990): 131–132. 63  TNA, SC 1/11/42. 64  Parson, Eleanor of Castile, 113–115. 65  Howell, Eleanor of Provence, 116, 303. 66  Howell, Eleanor of Provence, 116.

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

251

but other trespasses against those who had crossed her had been done at Eleanor’s instigation.67 As no records of Eleanor’s administration of her manors survive, it is unclear exactly how she approached the running of her estates. Nevertheless, the long-term accumulation and exploitation of her manors and rights resulted in accusations of greed. The Archbishop of Canterbury relayed the complaints of her tenants in West Clive that her officials were demanding payment above the customary farm of the town.68 Eleanor was not alone in the pursuit of landed wealth and strong administrative control. The thirteenth century saw trends of increased property purchasing and manorial exploitation. The Earl of Surrey was also criticised by Archbishop Pecham for his behaviour towards his tenants. Yet the prior of Canterbury was praised for the centralisation of the monastery’s administration as part of the archbishop’s reforms.69 Although Eleanor was not alone in receiving criticism for her landholding, neither was she lauded for it. Perhaps her gender and position as Queen resulted in the criticism of her actions. While her contemporaries accused Eleanor of greed as Queen, in the years before Edward’s accession, she was concerned with preventing accusations of acquisitiveness. In a letter to her attendant, John de London, Eleanor asked him to investigate the possibility of securing manors.70 Eleanor wrote that she had been granted the manor of Barwick, but as it was held by another, she wanted to procure a replacement. Revealing her knowledge of the landed market in England at that time, Eleanor suggested two other manors as a suitable exchange: either the manor of Haselbury, previously held by William Marshal, or Tarrant, previously held by William de Keynes. In a further indication of Eleanor’s awareness of the market, she informed John that “Haselbury is worth less” than her original grant of Barwick. She asked him to use that information to help persuade the King’s counsellors to give her the manor. Importantly, she stressed John act wisely, in an appropriate manner, so that the King’s officials “do not consider us covetous.” Her desire not to be labelled as grasping does not appear to have been a concern as Queen, although this letter  Parsons, “Legend and Reality,” 36–37.  Registrum epistolarum, 2:619–620 (no. 484). 69  The Court and Household of Eleanor of Castile in 1290, ed. John Carmi Parsons (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1977), 21–22. 70  Royal and Other Historical Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry III, ed. Walter Waddington Shirley, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1866), 2:298–299 (no. 647). 67 68

252 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

suggests that Eleanor’s business acumen was common knowledge. Eleanor’s pursuit of revenues may already have been attracting comment, which possibly prompted her readiness to accept a manor of lesser value in exchange, but she did not want to be left empty handed. The combination of her ambiguous position—as wife of the heir—and the relatively small scale of her acquisitions, appears to have allowed Eleanor to avoid outright condemnation that could not be escaped in the office of queen. The endeavour was a success, nonetheless; Eleanor received the manor of Haselbury in September 1265.71 Another element of Eleanor’s accumulation of resources that drew ire as Queen was her assumption of Jewish debts. As well as criticising Eleanor’s treatment of her tenants, Archbishop Pecham also condemned her practice of acquiring debts owed to Jews by Christians, and then using these debts to obtain the lands pledged to secure the loan.72 In principle, legislation had banned usury and the purchase of debts owed to Jews by Christians, meaning Eleanor could only acquire these debts by the King’s grant or licence.73 Nevertheless, she often ensured the Christian debtor was compensated in some way, although she still profited. For example, Eleanor was granted the Jewish debts of William Leyburn in 1275.74 She pardoned these, both at the Exchequer and the Jewry, and paid him 500 marks in return for his castle at Leeds, Kent.75 Eleanor may have used debts to exert pressure on individuals to make deals and procure more favourable terms for herself, but there always appears to be an element of compensation. As with most of Eleanor of Castile’s financial practices, the origins of her use of Jewish debts can also be traced back to the time before she was Queen. For example, in April 1268, Eleanor was granted the debts of William, son of William de Hertwell, owed to Jacob, son of master Moses, Jew of Oxford.76 Occasionally, elements of Eleanor’s actions before she was Queen demonstrate the influence of her mother-in-law. Nevertheless, Eleanor of Provence’s influence cannot be found in Eleanor’s

 CPR 1258–66, 458.  Registrum epistolarum, 2:619–620 (no. 484). 73  H.G. Richardson, The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London: Meuthen, 1960), 102, 106–107, 229; Parsons, “Legend and Reality,” 31. 74  CCR 1272–9, 221. 75  CCR 1272–9, 499; CCR 1279–88, 80; CPR 1272–81, 335. 76  CR 1264–8, 449. 71 72

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

253

usage of Jewish debts. Eleanor of Provence did not seek to profit from Jewish activities and suppressed the Jewries in her dower lands in 1275.77 Eleanor’s usage of debts to the Jewry, like much of her territorial acquisitions, was astute, helping her to expand and consolidate her resources. Her methods of acquiring financial resources as Queen were consistent, continuing practices she had started before Edward’s accession. While Eleanor of Provence was a strong influence, the younger Eleanor was much more shrewd, multiplying and consolidating manors and rights. However, Eleanor of Castile’s savviness and determination, especially her dealings with Jewish debts, were considered improper, overstepping the bounds of English queenship, and resulted in the accusations of avarice that have long since shaped her reputation. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that only Archbishop Pecham’s letters advocating Eleanor change her behaviour date from before her death. The chroniclers are largely silent on much of Eleanor’s life. The Dunstable Annalist commented on Eleanor’s greed when recording her death, whereas Walter of Guisborough’s quip that “The Queen would like our manors to hold” dates from the fourteenth century.78

Death As Edward’s queen, Eleanor was a constant presence at her husband’s side, even until her death. She was accompanying the King en route to Scotland when she died following a short illness on 28 November 1290, at Harby, near Lincoln.79 With his wife’s death, Edward’s reciprocation of Eleanor’s devotion and loyalty is apparent. Eleanor’s passing abruptly ended the progress north, with Edward returning to Westminster for the burial. The King undertook a massive programme of funerary monuments and commemoration, with effigies at the three different sites of her burial and twelve crosses, one at each of the locations her body lay overnight on the journey back to London.80 Eleanor’s viscera were buried at Lincoln Cathedral while her heart and body processed slowly back to London. Her  Richardson, The English Jewry, 231.  AM, 3:362; The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Harry Rothwell (London: Royal Historical Society, 1957), 216. 79  Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry Richards Luard, 3 vols. (London: Longman, 1890), 3:71. 80  See: Manners and Household Expenses of England in the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Centuries Illustrated by Original Records, ed. Thomas Hudson Turner (London: Shakespeare Press, 1841), 93–146. 77 78

254 

A. S. ARMSTRONG

body was laid to rest on 17 December 1290 at Westminster Abbey, followed by the burial of her heart two days later at Blackfriars, alongside the heart of her son, Alphonso.81 Edward grieved Eleanor’s loss deeply. A letter to the Abbot of Cluny seeking prayers on Eleanor’s behalf described her as “our most serene consort,” “who while living we loved dearly, and in death we do not cease to love.”82 His continued attachment to Eleanor is poignantly evident in the annual Easter hijinks. Eleanor’s ladies would hold Edward captive in his bedchamber until he paid them each a ransom of £2, freeing him to resume marital relations after Lent. The first Easter following Eleanor’s death, Edward was not held hostage, but he still paid Eleanor’s former ladies the customary ransom.83

A Complex and Nuanced Queen In the nineteenth century, Agnes Strickland bemoaned that writers over the centuries had sullied the reputation of the “spotless Eleanora,” ignorantly confusing and conflating the actions of Eleanor of Castile with those of her mother-in-law.84 Nevertheless, Eleanor of Provence was a great influence on her daughter-in-law. The period of Eleanor of Castile’s life as Queen-in-waiting was informative for her later actions as Queen. Eleanor of Provence introduced the younger Eleanor to the key diplomatic practices of English queenship, although, as King, Edward only allowed his wife a limited political role. Eleanor also learnt indirectly from the events of Henry’s reign and the actions of his Queen, avoiding practices for which her mother-in-law was condemned and seeking to better provide herself with more secure financial resources. Eleanor began many of the practices she would continue as Edward’s queen from when she was wife of the heir to the throne. She was an almost constant presence at Edward’s side, supporting him both before and during his kingship and providing him with a host of children. She also began to build up her resources to enable her to fulfil this role, amassing extensive lands. In her accumulation and administration of her resources, Eleanor proved to be astute and knowledgeable; she could also be opportunistic and ruthless, “playing the  Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 60–61, 206–215.  Foedera, 1:1, 743. 83  Parsons, “Legend and Reality,” 40, 44. 84  Strickland, Lives of the Queens, 1:308. 81 82

13  ELEANOR OF CASTILE: A CONSORT OF CONTRADICTIONS 

255

property market, pouncing on estates whenever their owners looked vulnerable.”85 In many aspects of her career, Eleanor of Castile was the consummate queen consort: a loyal wife and mother, always at the King’s side, pious, and a generous patron, but not too influential or involved in politics.86 Yet, the chroniclers perceived her accumulation of resources and the determination with which she pursued manors as transgressing what they considered the bounds of her position.87 Eleanor encompasses all facets of these interpretations. She fulfilled the majority of the criteria expected of her in her role as Queen, while overstepping in some of her behaviours. The examination of the nuances of her character and actions reveals the complexity of Eleanor’s queenship and her reputation, a consort of contradictions.

85  Marc Morris, A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain (London: Hutchinson, 2008), 225. 86  Parsons, Eleanor of Castile, 61. 87  Parsons, Court and Household, 7.

CHAPTER 14

Margaret of France: Enigmatic Consort Paul Dryburgh

Of all the post-Conquest queens consort of England—or at least of those who reached adulthood—Margaret of France is among the most enigmatic. Famed for her beauty, kindly temperament, and for placating her elderly husband, the indomitable Edward I, she has, to quote Michael Prestwich, Edward’s leading modern biographer, “left only a slight imprint on history.”1 This is somewhat unfair on the greatly under-rated Victorian historian Agnes Strickland, who mined barely listed public records and chronicles for a richly detailed short biography.2 Nevertheless, Margaret still lives in the shadow of Edward’s first wife, Eleanor of Castile (see Abigail S. Armstrong’s chapter), a much-admired model of queenly virtue

 Michael Prestwich, Edward I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 129.  Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1849), 2:109–121. See more recently: John Carmi Parsons, “Margaret [Margaret of France] (1279?–1318), queen of England, second consort of Edward I,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/18046. 1 2

P. Dryburgh (*) The National Archives, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_14

257

258 

P. DRYBURGH

of whose companionship Edward was prematurely robbed.3 Only relatively recently has Margaret been the subject of excellent comparative studies of her queenship and, more specifically, intercession.4 But she still awaits fuller biographical treatment. My aim in this chapter is to present a broad-brush portrait, converging well-worn and fresher pathways to understand the woman who can uniquely in England claim to have been queen consort, widowed queen dowager, stepmother of a second king, and mother, albeit briefly, to the heir to the throne. Margaret arrived in England in 1299, a young woman plucked from the bosom of the French royal family to further the dynastic ambitions of the Capetians and the cause of Anglo-French peace. At her death in 1318, not yet 40, she had experienced all that being a consort entailed in terms of mediation between the King and his subjects in public and in private, that latter sphere of influence where intimacy also served dynastic ambition through childbearing.5 Subsequently, as queen dowager from Edward’s death in July 1307, she had also gravitated from the inner circle of her stepson, Edward II’s court, where she perhaps acted as a role model to her successor and niece, Isabella of France, to being isolated from King and court. Throughout, Margaret had acted as a vital, if largely passive, agent of the dynasty, the Crown, and royal authority. It is by examining the arc of her career in England that we can address the key themes of her queenship: her personal relationship with Edward I; the construction of a profile as intercessor and mother of the nation; the development of an affinity of individuals upon whose talents she relied to run her personal affairs, household, and estates and who benefited from her patronage across the reigns of father and son; and her problematic position as dowager and stepmother during a reign seething with political and personal tensions.

3  John Carmi Parsons, Eleanor of  Castile: Queen and Society in Thirteenth-Century England (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997). 4  Lisa Benz St. John, Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in FourteenthCentury England (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); John Carmi Parsons, “The Intercessionary Patronage of Queen Margaret and Isabella of France,” in Thirteenth Century England VI, ed. Michael Prestwich, Richard Britnell and Robin Frame (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1995), 145–156. 5  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 17.

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

259

Mother of the Nation Born in around 1279 to Philip III of France and his second wife, Marie of Brabant, Margaret first came before English eyes during the negotiations to settle the increasingly violent feud between the two kingdoms over Gascony.6 Her elder half-brother, the new French King Philip IV, proposed a marriage treaty in 1294. The renewed outbreak of war in that year after Edward refused to attend the French parlement and Philip’s subsequent confiscation of Gascony meant it was not until 1298 that stalemate brought the parties before the more earnest arbitration of Pope Boniface VIII. The result was the dual marriage treaty confirmed by ambassadors at Montreuil-sur-Mer on 19 June 1299. Margaret would marry Edward I while the toddler Isabella was betrothed to Edward’s sole surviving male heir, the teenage Edward of Caernarfon. Papal arbitration ensured that the marriages would both proceed or Edward would forfeit Gascony.7 For Philip this provided a dynastic double-lock: should the younger couple fail to marry, then his half-sister might yet embed Capetian blood into the Plantagenet line. The full consequences for Margaret, Isabella, and Edward of Caernarfon would play out a decade later, but for Margaret and King Edward there were more immediate benefits. For Edward, his new wife could never compensate for the loss in 1290 of Eleanor of Castile, mother of his children. Nonetheless, generations of historians have noted the affectionate relationship between the 60-year-­ old King and his 20-year-old bride.8 He weaved Margaret into the networks of royal authority and endowed her appropriately, displaying throughout a personal tenderness and care. From his monastery in St. Albans, where Margaret was received into the fraternity and distributed alms following her wedding in Canterbury on 10 September 1299, the chronicler William Rishanger wrote with some authority that Edward was smitten by “a fervour of love.”9 This rapidly translated into dynastic  Prestwich, Edward I, 376–400.  Chronica monasterii S. Albani Willelmi Rishanger, ed. H.T. Riley, 2 vols. (London: Rolls Series 28, 1865), 2:388–390; Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et Cuiuscunque Generis Acta Publica, ed. Thomas Rymer, 4 vols. (London: Record Commission, 1816–30), 1:904. 8  The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, In French Verse, From the Earliest Period to the Death of King Edward I, ed. T.  Wright, 2 vols. (London, 1866–1868), 2:318–321; Prestwich, Edward I, 129–131; J.R.S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 81. 9  Rishanger, 194, 394–397, 401–402. For the wedding, see: The Chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds 1212–1301 (Chronica Buriensis 1212–1301), ed. Antonia  Gransden (London: Nelson, 1964), 152–153. 6 7

260 

P. DRYBURGH

success: on 1 June 1300, Margaret gave birth to her first son, Thomas, at Brotherton in Yorkshire.10 Rishanger claimed that the Queen christened her son for the English martyr after having prayed to Thomas Becket during a protracted labour. She would instantly repay this favour by offering 7 shillings at his shrine in Canterbury for herself and her son.11 The child literally (and symbolically) was then weaned off its French bosom, reportedly only thriving on the milk of his English wet-nurse, while his mother had symbolically tied herself to the most powerful of English saintly cults. For the worrisome father, the last decade of whose reign and therefore his relationship with his new wife and children was defined by his obsession to conquer Scotland, the birth of the second son not only preserved the dynasty but also demonstrated his potency as father of a war state.12 The chronicler Peter Langtoft describes Edward’s rush to Margaret’s bedside “like a falcon to the wind.”13 The Queen herself received reward throughout 1301 for her expenses and those of her son in the form of valuable farms in Somerset and Wiltshire and the Kentish manor of Leeds,14 though the establishment of a household for Thomas in 1301 effectively separated mother from child during his infancy.15 The grant of Leeds coincided with Margaret’s pregnancy and then safe delivery of the second son with saintly royal nominal connections, Edmund of Woodstock, born on 1 August 1301. A daughter, Eleanor of Winchester, named for Edward’s mother, followed on 6 May 1306.16 Such fecundity indicates levels of intimacy between the couple despite long periods of separation in 10  Alison Marshall, “Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk and Marshal of England: A Study in Early Fourteenth-century Aristocracy” (PhD thesis, University of Bristol, 2006), 29–31. 11  Rishanger, 438–439; Liber Quotidianus Contrarotulatoris Garderobiae, Anno Regni Regis Edwardi Primi Vicesimo Octavo, A. D. MCCXCLV et MCCC, ed. J. Topham (London, 1787), 38 (2 June). 12  Fiona Watson, Under the Hammer: Edward I and Scotland, 1286–1307 (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1998), 98–222. 13  Langtoft, 324–325. 14  Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1272–1509, 47 vols. (London: HMSO, 1896–1963), 1302–07, 19, 58; Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1232–1509, 53 vols. (London: HMSO, 1891–1971), 1292–1301, 604. 15  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 109; Alison Marshall, “The Childhood and Household of Edward II’s Half-Brothers, Thomas of Brotherton and Edmund of Woodstock,” in The Reign of Edward II, ed. Gwilym Dodd and Anthony Musson (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2006), 190–204. 16  Carmi Parsons, “Margaret of France.”

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

261

the 1300s. Government and Crown records are laconic and not always conducive to giving insights into personal relationships, but there is evidence revealing the special attention Edward paid his young bride that possibly exceeded the standard husbandly duty of care. Letters exchanged between the King, Queen, and her physician Master John de Fontaines in May 1305 revealed that Margaret had contracted measles.17 She had previously planned a rendezvous with Edward at her Surrey manor of Banstead and had written to him to find out his movements and request permission to be bled. Informed of her illness, Edward, who had already suspected Margaret of having “a great deal of bad blood,” warned John to prevent her travelling until she had recovered, or “by God’s thigh you will regret it.”18 While Pierre Chaplais believed this was “probably nothing more than a soldier’s way of showing his concern for his wife’s welfare,” Edward assiduously cared for his wife.19 In the penultimate week of his life, Edward ordered the London civic authorities to outlaw the burning of kilns in the City and in places near the Tower, “whereby the air might be infected or corrupted, as she is going there to stay for some time, and the King wishes to avoid danger.”20 Whether this was a legacy from his loss of Eleanor or an underlying health condition can only be speculation. Edward’s concern for the Queen’s health, comfort, and entertainment is a constant refrain. Royal buildings and apartments were remodelled, and extensive repairs commissioned at locations where the couple halted their itinerary on those relatively rare occasions they travelled together. Following their last-minute escape from a fire caused by a blocked chimney at Wolvesey castle in Winchester in 1302, for example, Edward ensured that by their next visit, in 1306, Margaret could relax in a purpose-built chamber with a splendidly painted and upholstered chair and look out through newly glazed windows upon a landscaped garden.21 Similarly, while on campaign in the North in 1305–1307, Edward commissioned work at Carlisle and Lanercost priory to furnish the Queen’s chamber and

17  Pierre Chaplais, “Some Private Letters of Edward I,” English Historical Review 77, no. 302 (January 1962): 79–85. 18  TNA, SC 1/12/203 (1 May), 204 (7 May): “par la quisse De vous le comperez.” References to original records are to TNA unless otherwise stated. 19  Chaplais, “Private Letters,” 82. 20  CCR 1302–07, 539 (28 June 1307). 21  E 101/369/11, fol. 46v; Prestwich, Edward I, 164.

262 

P. DRYBURGH

protect her from the inclement weather.22 On campaign, Margaret appeared to exercise some public, if not official agency, too. A chancery memorandum notes that lodgings were provided for the chancellor and his staff for the Carlisle Parliament at Hilary 1307 “by her grace and courtesy and in no other way.”23 Despite the twin potential dangers of capture by renegade Scots and the winter climate, this was not Margaret’s first foray into Scotland. In winter 1303–1304, as Edward pressed his conquest, Margaret joined her husband. She was present at the siege of Stirling Castle in the spring when Edward bombarded the garrison with “Greek fire,” a mix of sulphur and saltpetre hurled in earthenware pots; Margaret and other ladies of the court watched from an oriel window constructed for the purpose.24 Edward involved Margaret in several of the set-piece moments of his Scottish campaigns. She attended the so-called Feast of the Swans in May 1306, an event of enormous chivalric and military importance, where Edward knighted around 300 men and bound them by oath to a blood feud to avenge the murder of John Comyn in Dumfries in February 1306 committed by Robert Bruce, the newly crowned King of Scots.25 The Queen’s presence emphasised the all-embracing nature of Edward’s military ambitions. Margaret was also able—whether through her own persuasive power or as mediated acts of mercy—to mitigate the King’s anger at serious breaches of military discipline or treason in Scotland. It was at her request that Edward pardoned sixteen young men, friends of his son Edward and his increasingly notorious companion Piers Gaveston, who had, the King asserted, deserted his campaign in October 1306 to attend a tournament overseas.26 Similarly, on 20 March 1307, Edward pardoned “at the request of Margaret, queen of England” Geoffrey de Coigners for making and  E 101/501/23, mm. 3–4.  CCR 1302–07, 529. 24  British Library Add. MS 8835, fol. 15v; Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, ed. J. Bain, 4 vols. (Edinburgh, 1881–8), 4:466; Prestwich, Edward I, 501. 25  French Chronicle of London, ed. G. Aungier (London: Camden Series 28, 1844), 31; The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. H.  Rothwell (London: Royal Historical Society, 1957), 367–368; Matthew Strickland, “Treason, Feud and the Growth of State Violence: Edward I and the ‘War of the Earl of Carrick,’ 1306–7,” in War, Government and Aristocracy in the British Isles, c.1150–1500, ed. Chris Given-Wilson, Ann Kettle, and Len Scales (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2008), 104–108. 26  CCR 1302–7, 481–482 (28 January 1307). For comment: Hilda Johnstone, Edward of Carnarvon, 1284–1307 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1946), 116. 22 23

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

263

“for concealing a certain coronet of gold with which Robert de Brus lately caused himself to be crowned in Scotland.”27 Bruce’s coronation was a great affront to Edwardian authority, and Edward’s treatment of Scottish rebels in the previous eighteen months had become ever more grisly, so this was no mean feat for Margaret.28 To Agnes Strickland, her ability to wring mercy from her husband showed that “Marguerite of France is the first instance of a queen consort of England, who ventured to stand between a mighty Plantagenet in his wrath and his intended victim.” Coigners would have suffered William Wallace’s fate “if he had not found a friend in queen Marguerite.”29 Hyperbole though this is, it reflects a key aspect of medieval queenship, that of intercession, mediated upon request and on behalf of others. By compliance with gendered normative behaviour as mother (literally and figuratively) of the nation and intimate of the King, the Queen fulfilled her expected role as a complement in government and channel for royal patronage and mercy.

Intercession It is the intercessory activities of Queen Margaret that have attracted the most detailed historical analysis. Lisa Benz, for example, has tabulated fifty-four acts of intercession between 1299 and 1308, a period during which Margaret was the only queenly conduit to the King. She notes that most occurred while the couple were apart, with Edward on campaign for forty-three of the ninety-five months of their marriage, and were most frequently to the chancellor. She also argues that spikes in activity are seen following the birth of her two sons and in 1305 when the royal couple spent time together.30 John Carmi Parsons has demonstrated the clear contrast between Margaret’s success in interceding with Edward and the sparse evidence for her predecessor.31 They have amply demonstrated that in order to gain and exercise power and some levels of personal agency, queens had to manipulate the “behind-the-scenes” nature of the expected public, ritual displays of regal authority—coronation, childbearing, pious acts, and intercession.32 Margaret only rarely exercised what we might see  CPR 1301–07, 505.  Strickland, “Treason.” 29  Strickland, Lives of the Queens, 2:117. 30  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 36–37, 103–104. 31  Parsons, “Intercessionary Patronage,” 150. 32  Parsons, “Intercessionary Patronage,” 145. 27 28

264 

P. DRYBURGH

as public royal and legal authority. In 1301, for example, the absent King commissioned her to assess whether two potential ambassadors had sufficient credentials to treat for an Anglo-Scots truce.33 Queenly intercession fused in the right person the idea of the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven, mediator between the celestial and the temporal, with the practical, political, and often personal negotiation between Crown, King, and people, though glimpses of the personal, private sphere of intercession are fleeting (see Danna R. Messer and Katherine Weikert’s chapter).34 To what extent was Margaret that right person? Margaret certainly upheld a recent trend in intercession towards pardons for serious crime, notably homicide, of which a handful of examples is recorded in the chancery rolls between 1299 and 1307.35 But she also interceded successfully for men indicted for counterfeiting royal seals and, by falsifying the King’s image, of lèse-majesté, notably Thomas Burnel of Windsor for forging the seal of the King’s father, Henry III, and deceitfully occupying the office of keeper of works at Windsor by virtue of letters patent under that seal.36 Such acts placed Margaret at the heart of royal mercy. These and other acts made in conjunction with her stepchildren reinforced familial bonds at the head of the nation and widened the pathways to royal benevolence. In May 1302, for example, Margaret and Elizabeth, widowed Countess of Holland, Edward’s youngest daughter, interceded for the pardon of an individual indicted for homicide and for receiving another indicted for that death.37 Stepmother and stepdaughters appear to have struck up a fruitful working relationship suggestive of friendship between women of a very similar age. Benz observed that this was in stark contrast to the lack of visible intercessionary activity of Margaret with her niece and successor as Queen, Isabella. Both queens appear to have maintained a studied distance in such matters and cultivated their own intercessory profile.38 As the principal source of feminine authority in the nation, female petitioners may have more naturally looked to the Queen to intercede for them, though the instances are not numerous.39 Perhaps most famously, on 16 September 1305, Margaret acquired a pardon for Matilda, widow  Carmi Parsons, “Margaret of France.”  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 21, 35. 35  CPR 1292–1301, 491, 509, 616; 1301–07, 37, 38, 60, 135, 170, 321, 341, 378. 36  CPR 1301–07, 339 (26 April 1305). See also 378 (17 June 1306). 37  CPR 1301–07, 37, 38; CCR 1302–07, 16. 38  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 50. 39  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 49. 33 34

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

265

of Hugh Mortimer of Richard’s Castle. Later evidence shows that Margaret had bound Matilda in a recognisance for £100, perhaps a settlement favourable to the Queen to rescue a woman who had been accused of poisoning her husband.40 In an equally famous case, intercession and childbirth intersected to reinforce the public nature of the Queen’s role even in the most intimate setting. Sometime after 1306 Alice, widow of George du Chastel, asked Margaret to write to the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer to allow the tallies and acquittances of William du Chastel, former sheriff of Leicestershire, and of her late husband. She had, she claimed, long sued for them and was in great hardship. She asked Margaret to remember her promise when she was delivered of her daughter at Woodstock.41 The outcome is not known as the petition is endorsed that Alice should sue before the Queen. Nonetheless, that Margaret had offered assistance to a female supplicant around the time of childbirth emphasised and “exalted” the nurturing femininity of queenship and strongly associated it with intercession.42 There is little doubt, then, that both of her own initiative, particularly with female supplicants, and as part of mediated processes of intercession facilitated by the King and his officials, Margaret brought the balm of royal mercy to bear for individuals and communities throughout her husband’s final decade and enabled the English Justinian to display magnanimity and grace.

Estates Margaret’s land settlement from Edward not only aimed to meet the expectations of her brother, the French King, and the community of the realm of England, but was also another prong in Edward’s strategy to embed her within the circles of royal power and ensure she had the resources to live of her own and extend her personal networks. From her marriage, for which Edward awarded her castles, manors, lands, and properties augmented from 15,000 livres tournois to 18,000 livres, Margaret gradually accumulated dower lands valued between £4000 and £5000 per annum.43 Her settlement came primarily from those lands that Eleanor  CPR 1301–07, 378; E 159/81, rot. 63.  SC 8/39/1904. 42  Parsons, “Intercessionary Patronage,” 148. 43  Foedera, 1:912–13; Gerald Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975), 149–150. 40 41

266 

P. DRYBURGH

of Castile had purchased during her reign in addition to Eleanor’s dower assignment. Margaret became the first English Queen to control her dower lands before her husband’s death, though she held her lands for life, which proved a real problem for Edward II in sufficiently dowering his Queen from 1308.44 But Edward I reserved the right to alter Margaret’s settlement. On 20 February 1303, he made a life grant of the castle and town  of Berkhamsted (Hertfordshire), the manor and park of [Princes] Risborough (Buckinghamshire), the manors of Dalham and Bradfield (Suffolk), the castle and manor of Mere (Wiltshire), and the hundreds of Redlane, Whiteway, and Brownshall (Dorset), as compensation for his reclaim of the castle and manor of Montgomery and manors in Hampshire, Worcestershire, and Dorset.45 This was augmented with the Northamptonshire manors of Kingsthorpe, Brigstock, and Fawsley and Long Bennington in Lincolnshire worth 2000 livres tournois in late May 1305.46 As well as these grants, Edward made further financial provisions: on 23 August 1302, in response to Margaret’s indebtedness, the King granted her £4000 emanating from custodies and marriages of wards and widows in his hands.47 In developing, with her husband’s encouragement, economic resources, and a profile as mother of the nation, Margaret built networks of mutual support and obligation centred upon her independent household.48 Intercession offered opportunities for patronage, and estates needed reliable officials. This brought talented individuals into her circle and nurtured a queenly affinity that provided administrative and social support. But, as we will see, the influence of a queen on the wane reduced those opportunities and the numbers of those gravitating towards her. In the discussion of Margaret’s queenly affinity, we should consider her ladies and damsels who provided intimate services and support, and the male officers of her household, her attorneys, and estate officials, who ensured the steady, timely accumulation of income and defence of her rights.

 Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 83; CPR 1301–07, 118–119, 240, 243, 363–370, 372.  CPR 1301–07, 118–119. She was confirmed in her rights, and the properties were committed to her on 21 June 1304: CPR 1301–07, 240–241. 46  CCR 1302–07, 276. 47  CPR 1301–07, 60, 257. 48  Hilda Johnstone, “The Queen’s Exchequer under the Three Edwards,” in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. J.G. Edwards (Manchester, 1933), 143–153; Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 72–79. 44 45

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

267

Affinity Margaret’s female networks are regrettably one of the least well-­ documented elements of her career. An entry in the Wardrobe Book for 25 September 1299 records the payment of £10 to Joan de Fontaines and the Lady Vaux, ladies of the Queen’s chamber, and smaller sums to Ida de Saux’, Agnes de la Croix, Matilda de Vaux, Sanchia de la Croix, and Isabella de Chaucy, her damsels, for their minor expenses. Little is known of these women, though perhaps Joan was related to Margaret’s physician, Master John de Fontaines.49 Many of these women likely journeyed with her from the French court, though how many stayed with her, and for how long, is difficult to discern. They provided Margaret with companionship and familiarity in her transition to becoming Queen in a foreign country with its different social mores and added glamour to her entourage, but, of course, an army of washerwomen, seamstresses, and other female and male domestic servants also provided for her wherever she travelled. What the young Queen really needed, though, was a coterie of experienced and trustworthy officers and counsellors. This was something her husband had ensured from her marriage but would be particularly necessary after Edward’s death on 7 July 1307 precipitated her widowhood. Her husband surrounded her with competent, well-connected men, which ensured Margaret’s household became a training and proving ground for administrative careers in royal service. So, who were these men, what were their backgrounds, and what can we glean about their network around the Queen and the benefits they accrued? There are several records that allow us to reconstruct the affinity. Perhaps the most important is a set of protections issued on 1 December 1307 to eighteen men “going overseas with Queen Margaret.”50 This entourage of knights, clerks, and chaplains accompanied the now widowed Queen to Boulogne to witness the marriage of her stepson, now King Edward II, to her niece, Isabella.51 Principal among them were two men, John Abel and John de Godley. Abel, a knight with lands in Kent, Essex, and Surrey, was then her steward. He received separate permission  SC 1/12/203.  CPR 1307–13, 25. 51  “Annales Paulini,” in Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (London, 1882–1883), 1:258; Flores Historiarum, ed. H.R. Luard, 3 vols. (London: Rolls series 95), 3:141; E 101/373/7, m. 3. 49 50

268 

P. DRYBURGH

on that day to cross the Channel to make provision against the Queen’s arrival.52 He had been associated with Margaret’s affairs for several years. In April 1303, he was one of the justices of oyer and terminer who heard trespasses of her park of Camel in Somerset, for which she was granted the fines and amercements made before them.53 Two years later, he was again on a judicial panel investigating breaches of the Queen’s parks.54 Before the Queen’s marriage, Abel had been an associate of the treasurer, Walter Langton,55 and thereafter had seen active service in  local government, being sheriff of Sussex in 1299, 1302, and 1303.56 He also acted on several nationally important judicial commissions, including an investigation into the illegal export and import of currency in 1300 and as a judge of the Scottish “traitor” Simon Fraser in 1306.57 Godley, conversely, in 1307 was Queen Margaret’s most senior clerical advisor. Dean of St. Andrew’s in Wells Cathedral, he had been her treasurer since at least 1304.58 As “king’s clerk” in September, he advised the sheriff of Yorkshire on delivering pike, bream, and eels for the Queen’s household at Tynemouth.59 This suggests John was keeper of her wardrobe at this time too, a role he certainly held in 1301.60 Prior to being engaged by the Queen, he had acted as a royal tax assessor in Cheshire and Wales in 1293 and as a joint keeper of the vacant bishopric Ely since 1298.61 These were men of great administrative experience. They also worked closely together in their mistress’s interests, jointly witnessing the delivery of jewels and plate into the Queen’s treasury from the King’s chamber in 1303.62 Alongside them in this task were two other men also given protection to travel overseas with the Queen in December 1307. The widely beneficed Thomas de Querle was the Queen’s cofferer.63 Matthias de  CCR 1307–13, 12; SC 1/35/70 (5 December).  CCR 1307–13, 30; CPR 1307–13, 138, 188. 54  CPR 1307–13, 355 (16 April 1305; repeated 12 March 1307: 544). 55  CPR 1292–1301, 182, 210 (protections issued to travel with Langton on 12 January and 16 November 1296). 56  CCR 1296–1302, 235, 381; 1302–07, 8, 132, 133. 57  CPR 1292–1301, 525; The Political Songs of England, ed. T. Wright (London: Camden Society, 1839), 212–223. 58  CCR 1302–07, 214 (24 June 1304). 59  CCR 1302–07, 55. 60  CPR 1292–1301, 603. 61  CPR 1292–1301, 109, 435, 441; CCR 1296–1302, 170, 175; CFR 1272–1307, 397. 62  E 101/363/8. 63  CCR 1302–07, 268; CPR 1292–1301, 374, 560; 1301–07, 49, 53. 52 53

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

269

Montmartin had acted as one of the Queen’s ambassadors, receiving letters of protection for going overseas on her business on 15 October 1305. In so doing, he nominated John Abel as one of his attorneys, pointing to a tightly spun web of connections between these men in the Queen’s service.64 This impression is accentuated if we consider the confirmation of Montmartin’s transfer of the custody of two parts of the land late of Matthew de Lovaigne, granted to him at the Queen’s instance in August 1302, to Sir Humphrey de Walden on 10 February 1303.65 This seems to have related to an adjustment of the custodies passing through the Queen’s hands before her dower was reassigned, but Humphrey was another of the Queen’s company in December 1307. An Essex knight, whose caput was at Stanford Rivers, Humphrey was a trusted, capable royal servant. He had been keeper of the lands late of Queen Eleanor.66 Like John Abel, with whom he was associated as a witness to a deed dated May 1308,67 he fulfilled judicial commissions in the 1300s and, like John de Godley, was entrusted respectively with the temporalities of the vacant bishopric of Worcester from January 1302 and the archbishopric of Canterbury from June 1306.68 Also among Edward II’s wedding entourage in 1307 were Master Robert, the Queen’s pantler, Robert Chyval, who is named as the Queen’s butler in a household account of 1299, and a handful of chaplains.69 Notable amongst them are John de Courtenay and Nicholas de Hertcumbe. Payments made by the keeper of the King’s wardrobe to Courtenay as clerk of the Queen’s wardrobe are made in June 1307.70 John appears to have been one of Margaret’s most trusted clerks, continuing to act in her financial affairs into the new reign.71 Nicholas is named as John de Godley’s attorney for their mutual mission and again on 16 March 1308.72 He had previously benefited from Queen Margaret’s largesse when during the  CPR 1301–07, 388.  CPR 1301–07, 56, 58, 114, 323. 66  CPR 1292–1301, 406, 421. 67  CPR 1301–07, 555. 68  CCR 1296–1302, 523; 1302–07, 8, 416; CFR 1272–1307, 449, 538; CPR 1301–07, 506. 69  E 101/355/17. Also named are John de Columbariis and Hugh de Beaurepair, respectively the Queen’s chandler and keeper of her horses, and Robert de Halghton, clerk of her marshalsea. 70  E 101/667/6. 71  E 101/373/15, f. 3; E 101/373/19 (27 September 1308). 72  CPR 1301–07, 26. 64 65

270 

P. DRYBURGH

siege of Stirling in 1304 he purchased a valuable custody and marriage for £50 and was within this social network.73 Men gravitated towards the Queen, then, both pushed by previous royal service and pulled by the prospect of reward. Close association and perhaps physical proximity to the Queen improved chances of advancement. A couple of examples should suffice to demonstrate this. On 10 January 1303, John de Godley received the custody of the hospital of St. Nicholas, York, at the Queen’s instance.74 On 24 June 1304, with Margaret at Stirling, John Abel received licence to receive Osbert Giffard’s grant of the manor of Deddington (Oxfordshire) with remainder to his right heirs. Four days later, the Queen granted John the custody of the estates late of William de Tyllebury, with marriage of the heir, granted as part of the financial settlement made to her by the King.75 Such favour also encouraged sharper practices. An undated petition of the first quarter of the fourteenth century from Thomas de Studham claims that he had been forced to quitclaim his Essex manor of Plumberrow to Abel, the Queen’s steward, by dint of his imprisonment at Berkhamsted—not coincidentally one of the Queen’s dower properties—Hertford and, later, Newgate. Abel, he complained, had also raided his house and taken away muniments relating to Plumberrow, and had beaten him after his release from prison and abducted his seal to allow Abel to make charters at will.76 The petition was essentially brushed aside with instructions for him to sue a writ of trespass. Was Abel being protected in his thuggery by his position? Certificates of statute merchant from 1305 also show that Studham was in debt to Abel in £300.77 Further evidence perhaps demonstrates Abel’s manipulation of the credit system. On 8 July 1308, the exchequer barons received order to investigate Abel and Ralph Bygod on a plea that they had agreed to try and deceitfully quash a bond of statute merchant for 1000 marks that Bygod owed to the bishop of Chester.78 While this must be part of the investigations into the disgraced former treasurer Walter Langton, it may also begin to reveal the

 CPR 1301–07, 236.  CPR 1301–07, 102. 75  CPR 1301–07, 235; C 143/47/9. 76  SC 8/72/3598. The licence for Studham to make the grant is dated 12 April 1306: CPR 1301–07, 425. The inquisition ad quod damnum is C 143/57/29. 77  C 241/46/182. 78  E 159/81, rot. 35. 73 74

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

271

actions the new King Edward II was willing to take against ministers of his stepmother, who, as we will shortly see, was moving out of favour.79 Abel did not stay estranged from Edward II for long, if so. At his death in 1322, he is noted as having held Plumberrow, and in the intervening years, he had served on numerous judicial commissions, as baron of the Exchequer from 8 March 1312 and as southern escheator.80 But unlike, for example, John de Godley, who acted on commissions of oyer and terminer into breaches of her closes in 1314, the evidence of a lasting connection with the Queen ebbs away as the new reign progressed.81 Nonetheless, at her death in 1318, both John de Courtenay, her long-­ serving clerk, and Gilbert de Wigton, the royal clerk to whom she granted the wardenship of the hospital of St. Julian, Southampton, in September 1316, were appointed as her executors alongside her son, Thomas of Brotherton.82

Queen Dowager This apparent fraying of the circle around Margaret is one of the most troubling elements of her career in England. For most historians who have written on her dowager years, it reflects a widowhood in which the Queen stepped back from the limelight, pushed by her stepson’s different priorities and perhaps her declining health that precipitated a premature death. Recent interpretations of the reign of Edward II have highlighted the paucity of evidence for Margaret’s courtly presence after Edward I’s death in July 1307 as she moved from queen consort to queen dowager and as a new queen became a focus for intercession.83 What evidence can be recovered shows Margaret still pursuing her own interests and, to an extent, those of the family into which she married, most obviously for her two sons. 79  Records of the Trial of Walter Langeton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 1307–1312, ed. A. Beardwood (London: Royal Historical Society, 1969). 80  Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and Other Analogous Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office, Edward II, 2 vols. (London: HMSO, 1908–10), 1:235 (no. 398); CPR 1307–13, 243, 316, 437, 520, 528, 530, 532, 567, 574, 594, 597; CPR 1313–17, passim. 81  CPR 1313–17, 136–137, 137–138. 82  Calendar of Memoranda Rolls (Exchequer) Preserved in the Public Record Office, Michaelmas 1326–Michaelmas 1327, ed. R.E. Latham (London: HMSO, 1968), 211 (no. 1509); CPR 1317–21, 135 (inspeximus of 25 April 1318). 83  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 2, 119, 121.

272 

P. DRYBURGH

Aged around 28 when Edward died, Margaret apparently belonged to a tight-knit royal family of the generation of the new King. She had collaborated with Edward’s surviving sisters Elizabeth and Mary and had established a cordial relationship with her stepson, only five years her junior. Edward’s eight surviving letters to Margaret as Prince of Wales, while not overly personal, imply a close bond.84 Some request intercession to obtain patronage for his clerks and associates.85 Another records a Christmas gift in 1304 of foals from the Queen to her stepson.86 Edward’s trust in Margaret to work wonders on his father’s foul temper is best demonstrated by her intercession on his behalf in 1305. Concerned by his son’s behaviour and feud with the treasurer Walter Langton, Edward I had banished him from court and removed several of his close friends from the princely household.87 During August and September, those supporters were allowed back at Margaret’s request, and the prince asked her again to intercede for the specific return of Piers Gaveston and Gilbert de Clare, his closest friends.88 Edward’s language is revealing: he addresses Margaret as his “very dear lady and mother” and stresses how much comfort and relief from the anguish he had felt at his friends’ estrangement and his father’s scorn she could give him. He concludes by asking her to “take this business to heart, and pursue it in the most gracious manner that you may, so dearly as you love us.” His faith was again rewarded in 1307 when Margaret intervened to ensure almost two dozen of his close companions who had deserted the campaigning army in Scotland were rehabilitated. For Margaret, this attachment to the heir to the throne was surely based as much on calculation as affection, however genuine the latter might be. As Parsons has shrewdly noted, with an ailing husband and two royal sons of her own to protect—the elder of whom would be heir to the new King until he bore a son—Margaret knew she needed her stepson’s goodwill and favour in the new reign.89

84  Jeff Hamilton, “The Character of Edward II: The Letters of Edward of Caernarfon Reconsidered,” in Reign of Edward II, 5–21; Letters of Edward, Prince of Wales, 1304–1305, ed. Hilda Johnstone (Cambridge: Roxburghe Club, 1931), 44–45, 73–74, 88–90, 96, 111, 127. 85  Hamilton, “Character,” 16. 86  Hamilton, “Character,” 7; Letters, 160. 87  Johnstone, Edward of Carnarvon, 96–101; Phillips, Edward II, 106–107. 88  Letters, 70 (no. 286). 89  Parsons, “Intercessionary Patronage,” 150–151.

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

273

Edward repeatedly addressed Margaret as his mother, even after his father’s death.90 Early in his reign their bond remained strong, Edward perhaps relying on Margaret to induct her niece, his new bride, into her duties. Margaret was at court from September 1307 and travelled to Boulogne for Edward and Isabella’s wedding on 25 January 1308.91 But the bond appears to have quickly fractured. An analysis of the patterns of queenly intercession during the remainder of Margaret’s life suggests she no longer received or promoted petitions.92 She possibly stood aside to allow Isabella to take her expected role as the principal conduit to the sovereign. A more sinister interpretation is that stepmother and stepson became estranged as Edward advanced Piers Gaveston and targeted Margaret to endow his Gascon favourite.93 Fifty years ago, John Maddicott published two anonymous newsletters that circulated in England in May 1308.94 The most detailed, dated 14 May, reported an approach of French ambassadors to Edward, bluntly informing him that unless he allowed Gaveston to abjure the realm, Philip IV, Isabella’s father, would pursue anyone who supported Gaveston as his mortal enemies. Gaveston’s supposed performance at the wedding, insulting the French and receiving the wedding gifts, attracted chroniclers’ ire.95 The newsletter reports Philip’s gifts to leading English earls and 40,000 livres tournois forwarded by Philip and Queen Margaret upon hearing that Edward had not been persuaded.96 Gossip suggested that there would be no civil war as Edward would eventually concede Gaveston and allow his arrest. Ultimately, Edward took a different route and dispatched Gaveston to Ireland as his lieutenant.97 Philip’s motivation for interfering on behalf of his daughter, if true, was clear. For Margaret, too, an appeal

 CPR 1307–13, 58.  Paulini, 258; Flores, 3:141; E 101/373/7, m. 3. 92  Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 41–43. 93  Jeff Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307–1312: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of Edward II (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988); Pierre Chaplais, Piers Gaveston, Edward II’s Adoptive Brother (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). 94  J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, Earl of Lancaster, 1307–1322: A Study in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford, 1970), 83–84, 335–356. 95  Paulini, 258, 262. 96  For Margaret’s role, see: Lisa Benz St. John, “In the Best Interest of the Queen: Isabella of France, Edward II and the Image of a Functional Relationship,” in Fourteenth Century England VIII, ed. J.S. Hamilton (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2014), 21–42. 97  Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, 55–56, 147. 90 91

274 

P. DRYBURGH

to her brother and participation in such a conspiracy is explained by recent events in England. Margaret had left England in early March 1308 as protections to her steward and treasurer to join her overseas attest.98 This coincided with the transfer of some of her estates to Gaveston: from 12 to 18 March Edward appointed keepers for Margaret’s castles of Berkhamsted, Devizes, and Marlborough; on 16 March he committed Berkhamsted to Gaveston.99 There is little explanation for what seems punitive action. The infringement upon her dower without provision for her niece must have shocked the Queen and impelled a reaction, though the truth of the newsletter is impossible to gauge. Once Gaveston was exiled, Edward, under pressure from his Council, ordered the restitution of Devizes and Marlborough in December 1308.100 Over the longer term, Margaret was anxious to secure her dower rights. A petition tentatively dated to 1310 requests Edward order the Exchequer to allow tallages to be taken on the inhabitants of those municipalities granted to her in dower and to pay her the arrears owed from those castles and parks from which she had been ousted.101 Another contemporary petition gets to the heart of Margaret’s dilemma. Reflecting Edward’s language of motherhood, she asks “her very dear lord and son” to have regard to his father’s wishes and make proper ordinance for the estate of her sons, his younger half-brothers, “because they do not now have another father or brother from whom they might have recovery … for this is the one thing in the world we most desire.”102 This desperate tone reveals the distance between Margaret and Edward and her fear for her sons, her eldest, Thomas of Brotherton, still not appropriately endowed as heir presumptive. An endorsement ordered Exchequer officials to search for lands valued at 2000 marks for Edmund of Woodstock, but Thomas should “suffer to have what he has until the King be able to more easily provide more.” Edward’s disparagement of the dowager Queen would not be tolerated. On 19 March 1310, Edward inspected the confirmation of her dower that he had made before taking governance.103 This was the week during which he finally agreed to the election of twenty-one senior  CCR 1307–13, 24; CPR 1307–13, 55 (16 March).  CPR 1307–13, 9, 13, 51, 52, 58; CFR 1307–19, 18. 100  CPR 1307–13, 96. 101  SC 8/126/6270; C 49/4/6. 102  SC 8/60/2973. 103  CPR 1307–13, 216–218. 98 99

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

275

clergymen and barons to reform the state of the kingdom and his household, and his inspection was made on the information of three leading earls and so-called Lords Ordainer.104 This restored dower properties at Mere, Berkhamsted, and Risborough, all granted to Gaveston in 1309. The revival of Margaret’s interests may also be signalled by commissions throughout 1310 and 1311 into a breach of her millponds at Nether Lyme (Dorset).105 It is also suggested by grants made to the King’s half-­ brothers in these years.106 Even despite this, and even after the murder of Piers Gaveston in June 1312, it appears that the bond between stepmother and stepson had been weakened.107 Margaret nonetheless continued to interact with her marital kin. During the summer of 1313 she visited the infant Edward of Windsor, the new heir to the throne, at Bisham in Berkshire. Mark Ormrod has speculated that Margaret may have assisted Queen Isabella in ensuring Edward was raised with the “cosmopolitan sophistication” of a European prince and introducing him to his Capetian forebears.108 Messengers carried letters to and from court for the remainder of Margaret’s life and reveal her itinerating between her manors, notably Berkhamsted, Havering (Essex), and Wye (Kent).109 Payments in the royal wardrobe also reveal her offerings to major Kentish shrines in June 1315, testament to her pious commitment to English royal saints cults.110 Earlier that year, Margaret had also sealed an indenture at Westminster alongside her stepdaughter, Elizabeth, Countess of Hereford, and her husband, for the marriage settlement of Margaret, their daughter, to Hugh, son and heir of Hugh de Courtenay.111 This suggests continuing input into the marital strategy of the royal family and care for her step-grandchildren and their issue. Margaret was also, by her exalted position, still able to garner some favour. A series of grants in 1314 authorised the re-roofing of some of her properties, the performance of fealty and services to her by numerous heads of religious houses, the payment of an annuity from the abbot of Hailes, and commissions into

 CPR 1307–13, 215; Foedera, 2:i, 105; Phillips, Edward II, 161–167.  CPR 1307–13, 255, 263, 368, 420. 106  CPR 1307–13, 272, 332. 107  Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. W. R. Childs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 44–47. 108  W.M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 10, 12. 109  E 101/375/9, fol. 33r; 375/19, m. 2; 376/20, m. 4. 110  E 101/375/19, m. 2. 111  DL 27/13. 104 105

276 

P. DRYBURGH

breaches of her parks in East Anglia, Kent, Surrey, and Sussex.112 In 1316, she successfully requested a commission to investigate trespasses of vert and venison in those forests assigned to her by Edward I.113 Beyond such glimpses of court contacts, however, the last few years of Margaret’s life are shrouded in mystery. Occasional insights show the Queen retaining an active defence of her rights. On 29 April 1314, for example, she wrote from Risborough to the chancellor, asking for assistance in recovering an annual farm of £50, she having previously entrusted her affairs to him in person at St. Albans.114 In 1315, she petitioned the Council to complain of a charter granted to the citizens of Hereford, which Edward I had assigned to her. This allowed them to withdraw from royal justice, thereby removing from Margaret any judicial issues and obstructing her bailiffs.115 Conversely, a petition filed after her death in 1318 complained of the ousting of a royal tenant from lands in Temple Cowley and Church Cowley (Oxfordshire) by the Queen who claimed she held it in dower of the manor of Headington.116 Margaret, it seems, was not averse to aggressively asserting her perceived rights.

The Enigmatic Queen On 14 February 1318, Margaret of France, dowager Queen of England, died. She was buried in the London Greyfriars, the church and quire of which she had endowed.117 Whether hers was a sudden demise is impossible to tell. Only two months earlier, she had surrendered, at Edward II’s request, the custody of Berkhamsted, Leeds, Odiham, and Gloucester. This was perhaps as Edward was drawing up Isabella’s final dower settlement, which was completed by 6 April 1318.118 But it may also have been mutual recognition of Margaret’s failing health. She remains in death as enigmatic as in life. Margaret of France as Queen of England exercised considerable agency within the constraints of her gender and the legal, political, and cultural frameworks of her time. Supported by her husband and a sophisticated  CPR 1313–17, 100, 116, 121–2, 227–8.  CPR 1313–17, 498. 114  SC 1/35/131. 115  SC 8/2/69. 116  SC 8/39/1919. 117  E 101/377/7, fol. 6; Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 115. 118  CPR 1317–21, 46, 115–116; CCR 1313–18, 527, 538. 112 113

14  MARGARET OF FRANCE: ENIGMATIC CONSORT 

277

household, she developed patronage networks at the top of society and became a pillar of royal government. Her fulfilment of dynastic expectations entrenched her position at the heart of the royal family. The nonage of her male children (and the early death at 4 of her daughter, Eleanor, in 1310) deprived her of opportunities to extend her influence through her sons, and she was largely impotent before a challenge to her position during her stepson’s reign.119 With one exception, we are denied insight into her reaction to this apparent estrangement. The laconic nature of medieval records tends not to allow personalities to shine. The best we can say about Margaret is that she is remembered as a kind, conciliatory spirit, a spendthrift, fashion-conscious Queen with a passion for traditional aristocratic pursuits such as greyhound breeding and chess, and, above all, a woman with a strong sense of responsibility for her children and the family into which she had married.120

 Benz, Three Medieval Queens, 97.  E 101/501/24; Liber Quotidianus, 350–351.

119 120

CHAPTER 15

Epilogue: Shifting Sands and Changing Lands Danna R. Messer and Katherine Weikert

Summing up characteristics of English queenship from Mathilda of Flanders to Margaret of France is not a task for the faint of heart. The main commonality is that, by nature of both office and status, the person of the Queen in Norman and early Plantagenet England was, unarguably, the leading woman of the realm and a central figure in the institution of English monarchy. In all its many guises, the Queen encompassed several roles and attempts to define English queenship across the era is nigh on impossible. Each consort’s reign was unique, in the events and relationships that dominated their lives, and how their own versions of queenship were recognised, practised, supported, and even controlled. Nevertheless, we can attempt to collectively express the experiences of the twelve women who were England’s queens across two-and-a-half

D. R. Messer (*) York, UK K. Weikert University of Winchester, Winchester, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6_15

279

280 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

centuries with what can be referred to as the four “Ps”: piety, patronage, peace-making, and, ultimately, the practice of power. With all four attributes there remains an enduring sense of long-term continuity from even before the Conquest-era and long past. The traditional expectations of the Queen in her acts of piety and patronage remained deeply embedded in recognised definitions of English queenship and the office of Queen. Matilda of Scotland, for example, was remembered as Mathilda bona regina, exceptional in her holiness and piety (see Lois L.  Huneycutt’s chapter). Secular patronage and particularly literary commissions provided royal women a traditionally accepted means of exhibiting not only piety, but, importantly, their own authority and wealth, from early medieval to early modern England. As active patrons of culture, both religious and social, royal women used such occasions to exhibit power, not just through displays of wealth, but also through influence. Commissioning books— spiritual, secular, or romantic—set the stage for literate and cultured courts: from Emma of Normandy (see Matthew Firth’s chapter) to Eleanor of Castile (see Abigail Armstrong’s chapter), queens commissioned literature or were the dedicatees of a variety of works. English queens acted as “peacemakers,” or more appropriately, diplomats, like Matilda of Boulogne (see Heather J. Tanner’s chapter) during the Anarchy, and many of the queens, like Margaret of France (see Paul Dryburgh’s chapter), were responsible for arranging marriages within the family. Above all, these aspects of English queenship impacted the queen’s access to, and actions of, authority and power. English queenship in this period demonstrated an enduring sense of long-term continuity. But there also seems to have been a gradual, yet very marked, change in how aspects of a queen’s authority could be implemented. The shift that applied to the queen as peacemaker, diplomat, and negotiator—and, thereby, the activities that constituted power in the public eye—seems to have had considerable impact on political authorities and perceptions of the queen.1 In fact, the overt exercise of queenly political authority appears to have been tempered by the end of the twelfth century 1  In fact, the word “peace-weaver” (freoðowebbe) only appears three times in the lexicon of Old English, and twice in reference to women. Larry M. Sklute defines the “freoðowebbe” in Elene as masculine: Larry M. Sklute, “‘Freoðewebbe’ in Old English Poetry,” Neuphilogische Mitteilungen 71, no. 4 (1970): 536. Gillian Overing points out that most specific examples of women called “freoðowebbe” are actually women who failed at peace-weaving, somewhat tempering the idea of this womanly or queenly ideal: Gillian Overing, Language, Sign and Gender in Beowulf (Carbondale: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 74.

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

281

and the beginning of the thirteenth. The earlier role of the queen as a political player who brokered peace treaties and exercised formal intercession on a more public stage for the first 140 years or so after the Conquest seemed to undergo a transformation so that by the reign of Margaret of France, Edward I’s second wife, it was less visible and more often familial and localised in approach. Why or how did this happen? Conceivably, the shifts in the practice of power for English queens consort might be considered alongside two strands of influence. First is the cultural and religious phenomenon that was the rise of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This coincided with the emergence and rise in popularity of courtly love, and between both, the general position of women in medieval society was profoundly swayed by the idealised and romantic image of them as portrayed through both romances and religion. The reverence of Mary as the Queen of Heaven, and “the perfect woman,” impacted on how women, and earthly queens in particular, were regarded and expected to officially act in society.2 The second strand of influence is political, specifically the loss of the English monarchy’s hold over its dominion on the European Continent. The catastrophic loss of much of this land under King John in 1205 resulted in not just decades but centuries of “lost causes” of English kings attempting to assert their claims to Continental lands; it also led to much internal strife within the realm of England itself, and continuous and cataclysmic conflicts with its immediate neighbours, namely Wales and Scotland. For queens consort, the transference of royal power and concentration away from Europe had a direct impact on their own political authority and duties, both because the lands available to be settled on them for their dower were reduced, and because their natal holdings could come under the control of their husband’s enemy (such as the case of Eleanor of Aquitaine, as Martin Aurell’s chapter shows). The face of English monarchy changed and their roles with it. The issues surrounding the shifts in English queenship are far too large for a single chapter in a volume like this, but here we explore the parallel strands associated with both the rise of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary

2  See: Jo Ann McNamara, “Imitatio Helenae: Sainthood as an Attribute of Queenship,” in Saints: Studies in Hagiography, ed. Sandro Sticca (Binghamton: MRTS, 1996), 51–80; and Iona McCleery, “Isabel of Aragon (d. 1336): Model Queen or Model Saint?,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 57, no. 4 (2006): 668–692.

282 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

and the loss of Angevin lands to show the shifting historiographical understandings of queenship, and to suggest some avenues for future research.

Shifting Sands The cult of the Blessed Virgin in this era impacted and changed England as a “state” and society in a number of ways. Although Mary was venerated from as early as 431 with the Council of Ephesus declaring her the “Mother of God” (Theotokos), in England, the pre-thirteenth-century Mary was primarily a devotional one.3 Although the model of Mary as “fellow monarch”4 had not yet come to the fore in the period covered in this volume, Mary as a Queen had been a part of iconographical, liturgical, and devotional practice since the post-Roman world.5 These post-Roman iconographical Marys partly took their lead from the Imperial tradition of post-death apotheosis. Marina Warner has called Mary, and the Italian crowned Marian imagery from after the sixth century, “the mother of the God-Emperor.”6 In post-Roman Italian city-states, the Church co-opted this iconography for the obvious reasons of retaining secular, as well as sacred, control, using the infrastructure as well as the iconography to keep the messages familiar. This, of course, was a period when papal influence over the Byzantine emperor and the Lombard kings was waning, and control over their cities crucial: it was critical to advance the “veneration of the mother of the emperor in heaven, by whose right the Church ruled.”7 The Church took a page from Imperial Rome’s playbook to overlay its authority over 3  See: Mary Clayton, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Rachel Fulton, From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002); and Kati Ihnat, Mother of Mercy, Bane of the Jews: Devotion to the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Norman England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016). 4  Hardy Long Frank, “Virginal Politics,” Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies 3, no. 1 (1978): 46. 5  See: M.  Cecilia Gaposchkin, “The King of France and the Queen of Heaven: The Iconography of the Porte Rouge of Notre-Dame of Paris,” Gesta 39, no. 1 (2000): 58–72; and Amy G.  Remensnyder, “Marian Monarchy in Thirteenth-Century Castile,” in The Experience of Power in Medieval Europe, 950–1350, ed. Robert F. Berkhofer, Alan Cooper, and Adam J. Kosto (London: Routledge, 2005), 253–270. 6  Marina Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 108. 7  Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, 109.

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

283

Western Christendom in the post-Imperial period. As the Church took over administrative functions in post-Roman Italy, perhaps this image of Marian power was one available to German imperial queens, particularly those utilising their roles as consorts and mothers such as Theophanu and Adelheid.8 In England, liturgical and devotional practice to Mary was well established by the time of the Conquest, though it was primarily a monastic pursuit. Extensive texts on Mary’s early life were produced in eleventhand twelfth-century England, some building on vernacular texts from as early as the ninth.9 Marian devotion was particularly popular in pre-­ Conquest monasteries. After the Norman Conquest, Mary was “being shaped as a universal saint of singular importance in Anglo-Norman monastic culture.”10 Intersections between Marian celebration and early English secular rule, however, are few and far between. There is the tenth-­ century Regularis Concordia, which in its foreword outlines that Aethelthryth, wife of King Edgar, would be the guardian of the nuns of England, and further dictates that the heads of the monasteries have access to the king and queen, who would safeguard the institutions.11 Charters issued by kings may have provided another opportunity to display a Marian allegiance, although there is also slim evidence for this. A quick sweep of the very few early English charters with known dates gives little indication that Marian feast days were occasions for major court gatherings. In the tenth century, Edgar, the great reformer, possibly signed two charters dated to 28 December, the Feast of the Innocents (S 798, S 731, the latter possibly spurious).12 Aethelred II, spanning the turn of the millennia, signed charters on Easter (S 893), the feast day of St. James (S 890), and the day before the celebration of the immaculate conception (S 909, witnessed by his wife Aelfgifu). Cnut issued charters during Easter and 8  Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, 115–116. See: Amelie Fößel, “Gender and Rulership in the Medieval German Empire,” History Compass 7, no. 1 (2009): 55–65, for a concise and convincing overview of Ottonian mothers and consorts. 9  Kati Ihnat, “Early Evidence for the Cult of Anne in Twelfth-Century England,” Traditio 69 (2013): 5. 10  Ihnat, “Early Evidence for the Cult of Anne,” 9 (our italics). 11  Æthelwold of Winchester, Regularis Concordia, ed. and trans. Dom Thomas Symons (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953), 1–2, 6–7. Æthelthryth is named in the earlier passage as wife, not queen; the portion not specific to Edgar and Aethelthryth in the later section simply calls them rex and regina. 12  George Garnett, Conquered England: Kingship, Succession, and Tenure, 1066–1166 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 71n206.

284 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

Pentecost (S 956 and S 981 respectively; the latter seen as dubious), and St. Aethelthryth’s Day (S 958). Edward the Confessor issued thrice on the Feast of the Holy Innocents (S 1039, S 1041, S 1043), and once on the Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle (S 1030).13 A writ was issued also in his name c.8 September 1062, the feast of the Nativity of Mary.14 Although this represents a bare fraction of the charters issued between 957 and 1066, a lack of Marian feast days intersecting with the royal courts may demonstrate that Mariology had not yet become a regular or major factor in English secular rulership. Indeed, these dates mostly track to the major feast days of Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas, perhaps providing a template for the later pattern of royal crown-wearings of the Norman kings. We do see intercession as a queenly act for the earlier consorts, but these queens were not looking to Mary as their model. Instead, early medieval English queens tended to be compared to Judith and Esther, judges and queens, and even—in Judith’s case—victors over dominant tyrants.15 Esther, in the Book of Esther, was the second wife of Ahasuerus, King of the Persians, who concealed her identity as a Jewish woman to become queen. On hearing the King’s counsellor’s plot to execute all of the Jews in the kingdom, she persuaded the King to circumvent the genocide (Esther 2:5–20, 3:1–8:3).16 Lois Huneycutt notes that Esther, in fact, is frequently seen throughout the period as a role model for queens: 13  That there was some connection between Mary and Edward is evident in the unusual dual dedication of a Cistercian house at Balmerino in Fife, Scotland, by Ermengarde de Beaumont, queen dowager of Scotland (wife of William I), during the reign of her son, Alexander II. The house was completed by 1229, and Ermengarde was buried there following her death in 1234. See: Matthew H. Hammond, “Queen Ermengarde and the Abbey of St. Edward, Balmerino,” Citeaux: Comentarii cistercienses 59, nos. 1–2 (2008): 1–15. 14  T.A.M. Bishop and P. Chaplais, Facimilies of English Royal Writs to A. D. 1100 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), no. 28 (n.p.). 15  A tenth-century Old English poem, Judith, partially survives as part of the Nowell Codex. While the beginning is missing, the poem “ends with the poet’s celebration of divine power as something enacted through Judith,” which “favours the not uncommon critical view that Judith is an allegory for Æthelflæd, the Lady of the Mercians who fought a war to ‘free’ the Danelaw in 909–18.” Richard North, Joe Allard, and Patricia Gillies, eds., Longman Anthology of Old English, Old Icelandic, and Anglo-Norman Literatures (London: Routledge, 2014), 401–402. We thank Dr Aidan Norrie for this reference. See also more generally: Alyce A. Jordan, “Material Girls: Judith, Esther, Narrative Modes and Models of Queenship in the Windows of the Ste-Chapelle in Paris,” Word and Image 15, no. 4 (1999): 337–350. 16  As well as this intercession, she also persuaded the King to allow the Jews to kill those who would harm them, and this was carried out: Esther 8:5–9:17; the origins of Purim, Esther 9:20–32.

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

285

Hrabanus Maurus dedicated his writings on Esther and Judith to the Empress Judith of Bavaria, urging the earthly queen to seek these two biblical women as role models. This came in so handy, Hrabanus re-dedicated the works to Ermengarde, Judith of Bavaria’s successor. Pope John VIII wrote to Empress Richilde asking her to intercede on behalf of the Church, as Esther did. Hincmar of Rhimes’s coronation ordo for Judith of Flanders, wife of the King of Wessex, incorporated a list of biblical queens for her inspiration, including Esther.17 Aelfric’s writings on Esther in particular, composed probably between 1002 and 1005, are seen as a “textual [exemplar] that could be mobilized to instantiate stricter ideals of faith and domestic social order.”18 This work particularly is seen as a possible creation of an exemplar, rather than a model for a specific king’s wife.19 Aelfric’s Esther, while an intercessor between her people and her husband, the King, becomes a spiritual intercessor, with her political acumen taking a far back seat. Aelfric “consistently enhances and celebrates her efficacy in spiritual matters, but tends to overlook or downplay her participation in secular, political affairs.”20 Esther here is “an arbiter of lay piety and agent of conversion” rather than a political player; she is a “spiritual protector of the nation.”21 But the stress of intercession as a part of a consort’s idealised roles comes to the fore in the late twelfth century, following the more intensely devotional practice to Mary seen in the earlier and central medieval period. Although perhaps not as straightforward as Jo Ann McNamara and Suzanne Wemple’s insistence that political structures were shutting down avenues for female authority by the turn of the twelfth century,22 there was clearly an adjustment in the ways that English queens were able to exercise authority. One potential reason for this is the dramatic uptake of the ideals 17  Lois Huneycutt, “Intercession and the Queen: The Esther Topos,” in Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 129. 18  Stacy S.  Klein, “Beauty and the Banquet: Queenship and Social Reform in Aelfric’s ‘Esther’,” Journal of English and German Philology 103, no. 1 (2004): 80–81. 19  Klein, “Beauty,” 82. 20  Klein, “Beauty,” 85. 21  Klein, “Beauty,” 88, 92. 22  Jo Ann McNamara and Suzanne Wemple, “The Power of Women through the Family in Medieval Europe, 500–1100,” Feminist Studies 1, nos. 3–4 (1973): 126–141. For an opposing view, see: Heather J. Tanner, Laura L. Gathagan, and Lois L. Huneycutt, “Introduction,” in Medieval Elite Women and the Exercise of Power, 1100–1400: Beyond the Exceptionalist Debate (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 1–18.

286 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which shift from a primarily devotional to a model for secular leadership after this time. The earlier lack of a political alignment with the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary perhaps impacted the roles that consorts could more easily play in the tenth through the early thirteenth centuries. In fact, none of the consorts in this volume are known to have had particular Marian devotional practices, though a representation of Mary as Queen of Heaven found at Reading Abbey may, in part, have been associated with the patronage of Adeliza of Louvain (see Liam Lewis’s chapter), and Eleanor of Provence was buried by her husband on the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven (see Louise J. Wilkinson’s chapter). Only one Queen, Matilda of Scotland, wife of Henry I, is thought to have particularly modelled aspects of her queenship after a biblical queen, but that of Esther rather than Mary.23 Many of the consorts exercised particularly independent authorities, drawing either from their role as queens consort or from their own natal families such as Mathilda of Flanders (see Laura L. Gathagan’s chapter) and Eleanor of Aquitaine (see Martin Aurell’s chapter). Many of these queens also played intercessionary roles, no doubt; Matilda of Boulogne is frequently seen in this light (perhaps also under the influence of Victorian historiography and ideals). But the rise of the cult of Mary at the end of the twelfth into the thirteenth century meant that Mary, Queen of Heaven, supplanted occasional ideas of Esther as a spiritually intercessionary Queen. Mary became the model of queenship.24 Through the course of the period covered in this volume, Western Europe was also undergoing a spiritual shift that centred in Cistercianism and Benedictine reform. Although the Cistercian Order was founded at the end of the eleventh century, Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) is considered “the first true author of the Order,” without whom Cistercianism would not have grown as rapidly and as influentially as it did.25 In 1115, Bernard became Abbot of Clairvaux, a daughter-house of Cîteaux in France, and his abbacy featured “prolific writings, his extensive travels and political activities, and the rapid growth of monasteries associated with his  Huneycutt, “Intercession,” 127.  John Cami Parsons, “The Queen’s Intercession in Thirteenth-Century England,” in Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 147–177. 25  Wim Verball, “Cistercians in Dialogue: Bringing the World into the Monastery,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Cistercian Order, ed. Mette Birkedal Bruun (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 239. 23 24

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

287

abbey at Clairvaux.”26 Bernard’s vast experience, in a political sense, ranged from correspondence with secular leaders to extensive preaching in favour of the Second Crusade. Indeed, as seen with several queens in this volume and elsewhere, crusading became a singular mark of piety that a man could undertake; it also might be seen as a part of wifely duty and piety too. Eleanor of Aquitaine, as Queen of France, famously accompanied her husband on crusade (although not without historical pushback against her actions). Berengaria of Navarre was with Richard I on the Third Crusade (see Gabrielle Storey’s chapter); Eleanor of Castile also accompanied Edward I, and even though the popular story of her sucking the poison out of one of the wounds her husband sustained is no doubt untrue, it indicates the role that she played as companion to a warrior. Undertaking crusading activities was seen as not only a blessed activity as preached by Bernard, but also one that was considered crucial for the protection of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Margaret of France, widowed wife of Henry the Young King, herself died in Acre on pilgrimage in 1196 (see Márta Pellérdi’s chapter). The Holy Land also had seen female rule: Melisende of Jerusalem, daughter and heir of King Baldwin II and Queen Morphia of Melitene, ruled as queen regent. Bernard famously wrote to her with advice on how to rule (discussed below). The crusades and access to the Holy Land were crucial parts of not just Western medieval Christianity, but to elite female piety and, to some degree, agency. Bernard’s preaching on the crusades deeply influenced how medieval Europe saw the Middle East, for better and for worse. Far from being a cloistered religious man, Bernard also had wide and extensive experience and influence in matters perhaps best thought of as “secularly sacred,” such as the expression and expansion of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Bernard’s expressions of devotion to Mary seem to have influenced how royal women turned to models of Mary for earthly queenship.27 Bernard certainly had no problem with seeking to advise female authority. At the centre of twelfth-century religious politics, Bernard was in correspondence with leaders throughout Europe, ­including 26  Martha G. Newman, “Foundation and Twelfth Century,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Cistercian Order, ed. Mette Birkedal Bruun (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 30. 27  See: Katherine Weikert, “The Queen, the Countess and the Conflict: Winchester 1141,” in Early Medieval Winchester: Communities, Authority and Power in an Urban Space, c.800– c.1200, ed. Ryan Lavelle, Simon Roffey, and Katherine Weikert (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2021), 162–164.

288 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

women, queens consort and regnant, such as Melisende of Jerusalem, Matilda of Boulogne, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Empress Richinza of Nordheim and Brunswick, and Sancha of Castile. Noblewomen in high authority were also in his realm for advice and guidance, including Matilda of Touraine, Duchess of Burgundy; Matilda of Carinthia, Duchess of Champagne and Blois; Ida of Carinthia, Countess of Nevers; Ermengard of Anjou, Countess of Brittany; and Adelaide of Leuven, Duchess of Lorraine—to say nothing of Bernard’s correspondence with influential abbesses such as Hildegard von Bingen.28 He regularly sought to advise and influence noblewomen in their opinions about political marriages, as demonstrated in a letter to Matilda of Touraine, Duchess of Burgundy, or to interfere in disagreements between an abbot, a town, and a regent in a letter to Ida of Carinthia, Countess of Nevers.29 He sought to advise Eleanor of Aquitaine, when Queen of France, to welcome back a man of her household whom she had banished.30 He openly looked to Richinza, Holy Roman Empress, for intercession with her husband, Lothar, over a pardon for the city of Milan.31 Bernard also advised Melisende of Jerusalem, in her new-found widowhood and regency, to act as a king would, having in the previous year sent to her recommendations for Premonstratensian brothers as “pacific warriors, gentle to men, violent to demons.”32 At this moment in the early 1140s, he seemed to have no problem welcoming a woman as queen regent, especially when it concerned the rule and defence of the Holy Land. 28  See, for ease of reference, Epistolae: Medieval Women’s Latin Letters, https://epistolae. ctl.columbia.edu. 29  Letter from Bernard of Clairvaux to Matilda of Touraine, before 1132, Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. J. LeClercq and H. Rochais (Rome: Eds. Cisterciennes, 1979), ep.121, accessed at https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/25200.html, 26 February 2022; Letter from Bernard of Clairvaux to Ida of Carinthia, 1148, Sancti Bernardi Opera, ep.375, accessed at https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/25191.html, 26 February 2022. 30  Letter from Bernard of Clairvaux to Eleanor of Aquitaine, 1144x1147, Sancti Bernardi Opera, ep.511, accessed at https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/1294.html, 26 February 2022. 31  Letter from Bernard of Clairvaux to Richinza of Nordheim and Brunswick, 1135, Sancti Bernardi Opera, ep.137, accessed at https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/1319.html, 26 February 2022. 32  Letter from Bernard of Clairvaux to Melisende of Jerusalem, 1142, Sancti Bernardi Opera, v. 8, ep.355, accessed at https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/239.html, 26 February 2022; Letter from Bernard of Clairvaux to Melisende of Jerusalem, 1143x1144, Sancti Bernardi Opera, v. 8, ep.354, accessed at https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/246.html, 26 February 2022.

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

289

As a Mariologist, Bernard of Clairvaux had no equal before him. It is to him, in large part, that the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary flourished in the High Middle Ages. Only a century after his death, his role as the spiritual guide to Mary was exemplified by Dante’s Paradiso, where Bernard (by then, canonised) takes the place of Beatrice to guide Dante around Heaven, first seeing the vision of the Queen of Heaven, Mary: “I, her faithful Bernard, am,” he speaks to Dante in directing the poet’s eyes towards the Virgin.33 Bernard wrote, quite simply, “If you fear the Father, there is Christ the Mediator. If you fear Him, who though Man, is also God, there is His Mother, pure humanity. She will listen to thee. The Son will listen to her, the Father to Him.”34 Thus comes the model for queens on earth to intercede with their husbands as kings. The workings of Mary’s miracles in the twelfth century by writers such as Bernard and William of Malmesbury made Mary the “chief lobbyist, court favourite and Queen of Heaven.”35 Already a monastic and devotional tradition in pre-Conquest England, post-Conquest English theologians carried on with Marian practices but in wider spheres. Norman ecclesiasts “infused with new life” the existing English Marian traditions, with Anselm, Eadmer of Canterbury, Honorius Augustodunensis, and William of Malmesbury all providing voice and further presence to a newly revived cult.36 To these earlier writers, Mary was a “weeping mother and second Eve [to replace the one who created original sin], bride of Christ and symbol of the Church, Queen of Heaven and role model for monks and nuns.”37 As Miri Rubin pointed out, the period between c.1000 and 1200 saw the growth of Marian devotion—primarily monastic and devotional, but finding expression in new ways such as in parish churches and Marian shrines in revived cities and towns across Western Europe.38 Many new or re-established monasteries in the period 33  Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, trans. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Paradiso Canto XXXI, line 102. 34  Quoted in J.A.  MacCulloch, Medieval Faith and Fable (Boston: Marshall Jones, 1932), 107. 35  Frank, “Virginal Politics,” 47. See also: William of Malmesbury, The Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary, ed. and trans. R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2015). 36  Ihnat, “Early Evidence for the Cult of Anne,” 8–9. 37  Ihnat, “Early Evidence for the Cult of Anne,” 9 (italics our own). 38  Miri Rubin, Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 121–124.

290 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

were also dedicated to the Virgin Mary.39 The moral teachings of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary in itself acted as “advisory guides” similar to “mirrors of princes” concerning how queens were supposed to exhibit themselves in earthly fashion, as mere mortals who, nonetheless, held the responsibility of being role models to all women in how they should behave and conduct themselves—in both virtue and perfection, within the home, the family unit, and beyond. Here, too, then, the influences of Mary can be connected to acceptable and recognised realms of queenly activity in wider Christendom, including those of our English consorts. The cult of the Virgin Mary helped to further define a set of responsibilities that fit within traditional moulds of queenship, specifically the role of the queen as intercessor (peacemaker) and mother.40 Intercession and diplomacy were traditional and fundamental expectations of the medieval queen. Royal marriages, after all, were political transactions, where the Queen was the nucleus of the connection between her natal and martial families; her place was technically centre-stage in the political arena. As the natural link between families, communities, and countries, theoretically the role of the queen was crucial to the formulation of bonds between a king, his followers, his warband, and even his alleged enemies. Thus, much of an individual Queen’s activities and position as counsellor and diplomat was dependent upon her intimate proximity to the king and his court, thus ensuring the value of any queen as a potential ally and advocate for the oppressed.41 Such a position often worked to increase the power of the queen in political and social situations as subjects and courtiers sought her out as a merciful intercessor. The cult of the Virgin Mary applied even greater pressure on royal women to uniquely model their activities and behaviour to mirror images 39  Concurrently, though, the symbolism of Mary was also used negatively: William of Malmesbury’s treatise on the miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the 1120s, one of the earliest in the English tradition, both gave the model of Marian behaviour as we now come to expect, but also highlighted differences between Jews and Christians in considering Jews to be heretics in contrast to the righteousness of Christianity, if not outright antisemitic. R.M. Thompson, William of Malmesbury, rev. ed. (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003), 169–170. Mary was, as Miri Rubin points out, a foil of purity against heretics and Jews. Rubin, Mother of God, 125. 40  See: Kristen L.  Geaman and Theresa Earenfight, “Neither Heir Nor Spare: Childless Queens and the Practice of Monarchy in Pre-modern Europe,” in The Routledge History of Monarchy, ed. Elena Woodacre, Lucinda H.S. Dean, Chris Jones, Russell E. Martin, and Zita Eva Rohr (London: Routledge, 2019), 518–533. 41  Huneycutt, “Intercession and the High-Medieval Queen,” 126.

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

291

and ideals associated with the growing cultural and religious perception of woman as the Queen of Heaven, Mother of God. Growing perceptions of the Queen as the earthly counterpart of the Virgin, particularly as mother, likely had an underlining effect on the visible public power and authority of English consorts over time. This, combined with the turbulent era at the turn of the thirteenth century, and perhaps even Eleanor of Aquitaine’s own demonstrations of largely independent economic and political power as matriarch, conceivably directed a subtle change of course in how English queenship was practised. Mary’s idealised role as a mother played a key role for later medieval queenship. In fact, “The most consistent theme in the theology of the Virgin’s intercession … is her motherhood.”42 Indeed, the expectation of any woman who was to become queen was dominated by the necessity for childbearing, and the status of the woman as queen arguably increased with her role as the mother of a potential heir. Queenly agency overall was predominantly defined by the lifecycle of mother. A woman’s status and potential access to regnal power was greatly enhanced by her position as the mother of a king in addition to—or rather than as—the wife of one. Such significance provided many a queen the potential to create her own political identity and authority by exerting influence through the advancement of her son’s claims to succession. Although the office and status of the queen was also unique to the woman’s experience, it is indispensable to us in the modern age to recognise that the sheer magnitude of the king’s power within the familial context “set a premium” on royal relationships, namely those between the ruler, his wife, and their children. In every way, the idealised union between queen and king, and the entire family structure, was expected to be harmonious as its constancy and stability helped promote good government.43 Indeed, the King’s mother, especially in tenth- and eleventh-century England, frequently seems to have had more political acumen than the king’s wife—as Matthew Firth’s chapter shows. Eadgifu, wife of Edward the Elder, mother of two kings and grandmother to two more, exacted the greatest power at court as mater regis, a position that was threatened by  Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, 292.  J.F.  O’Callaghan, “The Many Roles of the Medieval Queen: Some Examples from Castile,” in Queenship and Political Power in Medieval and Early Modern Spain, ed. Theresa Earenfight (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 21–22. 42 43

292 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

grandson Eadwig’s politically advantageous wife, Aelfgifu.44 Aelfthryth, mother of Aethelred II, dominated the first decade of her young son’s reign. Emma of Normandy was famously portrayed in the Encomium Emmae Reginae crowned and seated with the book itself presented to her while sons Harthacnut and Edward look on in the background, possibly even added to the illustration later.45 In contrast to later queens, though, it is remarkable that we do not have any examples of early consorts whose recorded primary concern was that of being a mother, or, indeed, securing her husband’s lineage through the birth of a male heir. Part of the issues of the early eleventh century may of course be read via Emma having too many sons. Edith of Wessex’s childless marriage to Edward the Confessor perhaps caused the largest political rupture to medieval England with the succession dispute that followed the coronation of Harold II, but contention of the childless marriage was not mentioned prior to the mid-1050s (and Edward’s eventual canonisation spared both he and Edith posthumous challenges to their reputation thanks to a supposedly chaste marriage). Mathilda of Flanders already had born sons by William’s ascension to the throne, and William II’s lack of marriage—and children—was not much commented upon. It is later when problems of succession and son-bearing begin to be more specifically manifested. Matilda of Scotland’s son by Henry I, and his legitimate heir, died in the White Ship disaster in 1120, leading to the proclamation that her daughter Matilda was to succeed the throne. Henry’s second wife, Adeliza of Louvain, with whom he had no children though both proved impressively fertile in other relationships,46 even swore to recognise her stepdaughter as successor. Henry’s marriage to Adeliza, in so much as they appeared to have a close relationship, was no doubt spurred on for his need to create a male heir. Then came of the consortship of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who used queenly motherhood in every imaginable way both as mother of the 44  Katherine Weikert, “Eadwig has a Threesome: Sex and the Breaking of Authority in the Tenth Century,” in Forgotten Kings: Edmund, Eadred and Eadwig in the Tenth Century, ed. Mary Blanchard and Christopher Riedel (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2023); Mary Elizabeth Blanchard, “Beyond Corfe: Aelfthryth’s Roles as Queen, Villain and Former Sister-in-law,” Haskins Society Journal 30 (2020): 1–20. 45  BL Add MS 33241, fol. 1v. 46  She went on to have at least seven children by her second husband, William d’Aubigy, Earl of Arundel; Henry I was known for his many illegitimate children, including Robert of Gloucester and Sybilla, Queen of Scotland.

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

293

heir(s) and then as mother of the king(s). Having only produced two daughters to Louis VII of France before the marriage’s annulment, she and her second husband Henry II found themselves in a similar position to Emma of Normandy—perhaps too many sons. Her role in her sons’ rebellions in the 1170s is unclear, though she supported them and their claims for further autonomy against her husband. She wielded political power as her son Richard I’s regent when he was on crusade47—and arranged his marriage to Berengaria of Navarre. Her political power did not wane under John, where she was an important lord for him during his troubles throughout France; her death in 1204 was a blow to John’s reign as well as his ability to exact rule in southern France. Eleanor’s influence also was at the expense of her three daughters-in-law by Richard and John: she retained the queen’s gold, and both sons’ ears as political advisor. These points may have helped to restrain Berengaria of Navarre (see Gabrielle Storey’s chapter), Isabella of Gloucester (see Sally Spong’s chapter), and Isabella of Angoulême’s (see Sally Spong’s chapter) dual role as wife and queen. Eleanor of Aquitaine may be the apex in this period of the queen mother as a powerful political position. Isabella of Angoulême rushed to have her son by King John crowned King Henry III at Gloucester days after husband’s death, using a gold circlet, or corolla, of her own, for his crown, though her influence can more broadly be seen after her move back to Angoulême as heiress. Eleanor of Provence, wife of Henry III, seemed to have little issue with creating heirs, with Edward born only three years after her marriage and Edmund a few years after that. Eleanor of Castile possibly had as many as seventeen children, but as her mother-­ in-­law, Eleanor of Provence, helped raise her son Edward’s children as queen dowager. The sense of loyalty and responsibility that Margaret of France bestowed on Edward I’s children, both her own and her predecessor’s, may have perhaps helped further her reputation as “mother of the nation,” but the sheer youth of her own sons stymied her ability to develop the kind of influence she needed to sustain her royal position once Edward II was in power.

47  Mathilda of Flanders and Matilda of Boulogne acted as regent for their husbands; Matilda of England acted unofficially on behalf of her son Duke and then King Henry II in Normandy until her death.

294 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

Changing Lands By the time that what we consider the Anglo-Norman and Angevin dynasties shifted more firmly into the Plantagenet families and rule, England, as a polity and as a population, had undergone significant and perhaps even unprecedented changes. Some of this may also explain both the activities of the Norman and Angevin consorts compared to some of their Plantagenet and later successors. In the vast period between around 800 to the mid-thirteenth century, the rule of English polity which had first become dominant in the south of the British isle, then became a small, northernly part of a Continental realm focused on the political centres of Rouen and Angers. At its height, the House of Plantagenet, established by Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, held power across northern Britain and Ireland and stretching across large swathes much of modern-day France. The vast domain is commonly referred to as the Angevin Empire, despite it being composed of a number of individual territories, ruled by local traditions and law: it was, in the easiest terminology available, a composite state.48 As such, its continuing success was reliant on the strength of each individual Angevin King, and—in theory—the roles of queens to maintain familial and diplomatic links on the international stage. The loss of the majority of England’s lands in France under King John through the period of the Anglo-French Wars of 1202–1214 culminated in the collapse of the direct authority Angevin rulers had on the Continent—and thus the loss of some of its transnational platforms. This catastrophic failure precipitated a more inward focus for successive English kings. John’s death in 1216 and succession by a minor son with a fractious regency council did little to soothe these issues. In the middle of the thirteenth century, the rule of de Montfort and his two parliaments removing power from the King further not only destabilised the English monarchy but attempted to realign governance as a whole.49 These significant internal struggles between barons and kings affected what kings might need from their queens, and how queens could intersect with politics on national and international levels. 48  Arguably a commonwealth rather than an empire. See: Martin Aurell, L’empire des Plantagenets (Paris: Perrin, 2003), 11; John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire (London: Edward Arnold, 1984), 5. 49  See: Sophie Thérèse Ambler, The Song of Simon de Montfort: England’s First Revolutionary (London: Picador, 2019).

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

295

Far from being a part of a large, disparate, well-resourced, and well-­ connected realm, by the thirteenth century England found itself on the far side of the Channel, decentred from what had once been its own territory stretching from the Pyrenees to Scotland; an island disconnected and devalued in a political sense. In essence, England became a small portion of a large Continent rather than having more significant landholdings within it, despite the very long insistence by its kings that they were also the kings of France. Did this contraction of landed power on the Continent lead to a contraction in other areas of rule, including the public roles of the Queen? It is an important question to ask especially when considering the diachronic marriage patterns of royal children from the Norman lines, Angevin lines, and later Plantagenets. Children of the Norman and Angevin rulers largely married into aristocratic and royal houses across Europe: modern-day France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.50 In terms of children who became kings, only two, Henry I and much later, John, married women native to the British Isles. In fact, it is with John’s offspring, both legitimate and illegitimate, we start to see an increase in English, Welsh, and Scottish marriages amongst royal children.51 Only one of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence’s children married outside Britain, and the same is found for one of Edward I’s children by Eleanor of Castile.52 By the time of the later Plantagenets, though not entirely exclusive, the marriages of royal children were considerably centralised in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. There were notable exceptions leading into the late medieval and early modern periods, but some of the immediate consequences of the mid-thirteenth century and all its political disruptions— that is, multiple civil wars—resulted in attempts to marry more royal children within the English realm, likely to ease diplomacy and political relationships inside the island, as much as outwith.

50  Stephen and Matilda of Boulogne’s son, William, married Isabella de Warenne, Countess of Surrey. 51  His daughter Joan married Alexander II, King of Scotland, and his daughter Eleanor married (1) William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, and (2) Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester. Richard of Cornwall’s first wife was Isabel Marshal. His illegitimate (and later legitimised) daughter Joan married Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of Gwynedd, and his illegitimate son, Richard FitzRoy, married Rohese of Dover. 52  Edmund Crouchback (whose first wife was Aveline de Forz, Countess of Aumale) and Margaret, Duchess of Brabant, respectively.

296 

D. R. MESSER AND K. WEIKERT

As there was a large expectation and acceptance across medieval Europe that a woman as queen would play a role in the marital prospects and subsequent negotiations concerning the marriage of her children, the shrinking of the international stage where a consort publicly acted out matters of intercontinental diplomacy to a more insular setting naturally would have effected the weight of her political endeavours and achievements, never mind her activities. As the political territories of the English king diminished, so did the platforms from which a queen could perform some of her most important political actions: marriage diplomacy.

Passing the Torch Throughout the medieval era and beyond, there are many characteristics of the office of the English queen consort and many forms of queenly agency that can be identified. The changes in the queen’s direct involvement in governmental administration from Mathilda of Flanders to the last Margaret of France, of course, were dependent on the attitudes of their husbands as kings and the needs of their intimate families, as much as on the needs of the realm and external influences. This is clear in the events that had an impact internationally, from the establishment of Norman rule itself in 1066 and the emergence of the Angevin Empire where consorts played a direct role in economically and militarily supporting their husbands, and sons, in conflict, to more localised affairs such as the Second Barons’ War in 1265 and the Welsh and Scottish wars of independence, where consorts were more focused on their own landed administration and aspects of patronage. From the time of pre-Conquest consorts, ceremonial practices themselves did not necessarily define queenship or what made a woman a Queen in England. During our era some consorts were crowned in tandem with their husbands, some on their own, and one not at all. But by the late tenth century, all were recognised as queens. Their crowning acknowledged their unique role: they were the wife of the king, the (hopeful) mother to a future king and other royal children, a major landholder and landlord, and the premier conduit for intercession, peace, and diplomacy. This role spanned the personal and the political, and it is easy to see how the idea(l) of a queen was associated with Mary, the Queen of Heaven, who interceded on behalf of lowly Christians everywhere. This is why queens consort who were married after their husband’s coronation were crowned in their own ceremonies—a practice that continued until the

15  EPILOGUE: SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING LANDS 

297

early modern period, when Anne Boleyn became the last queen to have her own, separate coronation. As all four volumes of English Consorts show, the intimacies of familial dynamics played a role in the elevation of queenly position and status in very different ways. So did the interplay between political influences and cultural events. Combined, we can still see how whilst there were continually shifting definitions in how English queenship was practised, there was also preservation of many mainstays in how royal female power and authority were identified. After 1307, a very different era of English queenship emerged and how the office and roles of the queen were enacted, an era largely defined by periods of prolonged and existential conflict and warfare. The history of the later medieval consorts is distinguished by dynastic disputes and quasi-­ queens, the Hundred Years’ War, and the Wars of the Roses. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the paths of those who followed the Norman and early Plantagenets were indeed paved by the various elements of authority and agency that their earlier medieval predecessors exercised, specifically as models themselves of what medieval English queenship could and should be, and, inevitably, was.

Index1

A Abbesses, 27n37, 34, 35n63, 50, 58, 60–63, 62n56, 65, 117, 235, 288 Abbingdon Abbey, 56, 80 Aconbury Priory, 235 Acre, 53, 76, 132, 157, 188, 242, 287 Adela of Blois, 50, 52, 63, 94 Adela of Champagne, 126, 142, 149 Adelaide, daughter of King William I, 50, 63 Adelaide of Leuven, Duchess of Lorraine, 288 Adelaide of Maurienne, Queen of France, 202 Adela of France, Countess of Flanders, 47, 48 Adelheid, Holy Roman Empress, 283 Adeliza of Louvain, queen consort of King Henry I, 5, 8, 83–98, 99n1, 100, 106n32, 108n41, 286

artistic patronage, 83, 87–89, 91–93, 98 children, 85, 92, 94, 97, 98, 101, 120, 143 cultural influence, 83, 87–88, 91–93, 98 dowager, 96, 97 marriages, 4, 5, 10, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, 84–87, 92, 94, 101, 292 nunnery, 86 relationship with Henry, 85 widowhood, 86, 93–98 Adultery, 11, 64, 197, 199 Ælfgifu (?), first wife of King Æthelred II “the Unready,” 21, 283 Ælfgifu, first wife of Cnut, King of England, Norway, and Denmark, 23, 42–43, 64, 283 Ælfgifu of Northampton, 42, 43, 64 Ælfgifu, wife of King Eadwig, 38, 292

 Note: Page numbers followed by “n” refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Norrie et al. (eds.), Norman to Early Plantagenet Consorts, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21068-6

299

300 

INDEX

Ælfgifu, wife of King Edmund I, 38 Ælfric of Eynsham, 285 Ælfthryth, third (?) wife of King Edgar the Peaceful, 36, 68, 283 Æthelbald, King of Wessex, 285 Æthelberht, King of Kent, 22 Æthelburh, wife of King Edwinof Northumbria, 24–26 Æthelræd, Abbot of Dunkeld, 68 Æthelred II “the Unready,” King of England, 283, 292 Æthelstan, King of England, 18–20, 37, 38 Æthelweard, chronicler, 8, 38, 41, 49, 84, 108 Æthelwold, Bishop of Winchester, 27, 28, 36, 37, 79 Æthelwulf, King of Wessex, 2, 18, 31–33 Afflighem Abbey, 98 Agatha, daughter of King William I, 50 Agnes, damsel of Maud de Mortimer, 68n2, 224 Ahasuerus, King of the Persians, 284 Aigret, William, 120, 122, 123 Alençon, 206 Aleppo, 125 Alexander IV, Pope, 227 Alfonso, son of King Edward I, 233, 239, 240 Alfonso VIII, King of Castile, 127, 164, 170 Alfonso X, King of Castile, León, and Galicia, 227, 239 Alfred Ætheling, son of King Æthelred II “the Unready,” 36, 84 Alfred the Great, King of the Anglo-Saxons, 18, 33, 68, 73, 82 Alice (Alais) of France (Capet), 141, 146, 148, 151, 184n19, 223, 224, 265

Alighieri, Dante, 289 Alnwick, 130 Alps, 132 Amesbury Priory, 234–236 Anagni, Givoani di, papal legate, 185, 192 Anarchy, The, 6, 7, 93, 280 Anatolia, 125 André the Chaplain, 128 Andrew, Lord of La Ferté-­ Gaucher, 202 Angevin empire, 149, 294, 296 Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, 41 Angoulême, 135, 202, 204–209, 212, 293 Anjou, 84, 127, 136, 146, 170, 191n45, 205 Anonymous of Béthune, 114n70, 115n73, 200 Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, 72, 74, 77–80, 289 Antioch, 125 Aquitaine, 7, 120, 124, 127, 128, 130–132, 134–136, 152, 161, 162, 164, 170, 204, 213 Argentan, 103, 148 Arnold of Lübeck, 155 Arthurian legends, 122 Arthur of Brittany, 131, 134–136, 176 Arundel castle, 95, 106n32 Asbridge, Thomas, 144 Ashford in the Peak, 248 Asser, 18, 19, 32 Augustine, Archbishop of Canterbury, 24, 80 Augustinians, 80, 188 Auvergne, 124, 136 B Bakewell, 248 Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem, 287

 INDEX 

Baldwin V of Flanders, 47 Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, 47, 49, 49n5, 51, 85, 101, 184, 185, 192 Barking Abbey, 64, 122 Barwick, 251 Bas Poitou, 124 Bathhouse, 80 Battle of Evesham (1265), 232 Battle of Lewes (1264), 231 Battle of Sandwich (1217), 211 Battle of Stirling (1297), 262, 270 Battle of Tinchebrai (Tinchbray) (1106), 79 Bavaria, 127, 285 Bayeux, 51 Bayonne, 163 Béarn, Gaston de (Gaston VII), Viscount, 245 Beatrice of Brittany, daughter of King Henry III, 233, 234 Beatrice of Provence, Queen of France, 218 Beatrice of Savoy, 218, 223 Beaugency, 126 Beaulieu Abbey, 219, 221 Beaumont, Hawise de, 105, 107, 181, 284n13 Becket, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 127, 128, 141, 143, 144, 155, 173, 208, 260 Bede, 22, 24–27 Béla III, King of Hungary, 9, 153, 154 Benedictine reform, 33, 36, 37, 286 Benedictines, 50, 155 Benz, Lisa, 198n2, 263, 264 Berengaria of Navarre, queen consort of King Richard I, vii, 8, 9, 159–178, 287, 293 charters, 168, 171 childessness, 8

301

dowager period, 159, 161, 164, 166, 169, 170, 173, 177 dower dispute, 164, 172, 173 and Eleanor of Aquitaine, 7, 9, 162, 163, 169 influence, 169, 170, 173, 176, 177 intercession, 165, 172, 178 Lady of Le Mans, 159, 173–177 patronage, 174, 175 presence in England, 159, 164, 167 sources, 170, 172, 173 Beri, 188 Berkhamsted Castle, 209 Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, 122, 286 Bertha, wife of King Æthelberht of Kent, 22, 24–26, 32, 33, 45 Bestiaries, 83, 87–90, 92 Bigod, Hugh, 110, 229 Bigod, Roger, Earl of Norfolk, 229 Biset, Margaret, 219 Black Friars, London, 233 Blanche of Castile, Queen of France, 213 Bledri ap Cydifor, poet, 122 Blessed Virgin Mary, 59, 281, 286, 287, 289, 290, 290n39 cult, 281, 282, 286, 287, 289, 290 Bohun, Humphrey de, Earl of Hereford and Essex, 247 Bonevile, Robert de, 235 Boniface of Savoy, Archbishop of Canterbury, 223, 229, 230 Boniface V, Pope, 24 Bourges, 148 Braybof, Mabel de, 234 Bristol castle, 108, 182 city, 182 Brittany, 222 Burgh, Hubert de, 194 Burgh, Richard de, 223 Burton, 227 Bury St. Edmonds Abbey, 54, 58

302 

INDEX

C Caen, 50, 51, 61, 62, 65, 80, 144, 150, 206 Caernarvon, 242 Calvados, 188 Canterbury, 37, 72, 77, 80, 105, 109n45, 115–117, 128, 129, 143, 144, 184, 195, 205, 208, 217, 221, 223, 232, 243, 246, 251, 259, 260, 269, 289 Cantilupe, Matilda de, 224 Cantilupe, Walter de, Bishop of Worcester, 220 Capetian monarchy, 213 Capets, 4, 124, 142 Carolingian dynasty, 2 Castile, 8, 9, 13, 14, 127, 129, 135, 142, 164, 213, 221, 227, 232, 236–255, 257, 259, 266, 280, 287, 288, 293, 295 Cecelia, Abbess of Holy Trinity, Caen, 50 Celestine III, Pope, 121, 130, 132 Cercamon, minstrel, 122 Chaddleworth, 234 Châlus, 134 Champagne, 124, 126, 128, 139, 141, 142, 149–154, 157, 160, 175, 176, 288 Chancery Rolls, 201, 264 Channel Islands, 227 Charente river, 204 Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans, 10, 185 Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily, 218, 233 Charles the Bald, King of West Francia, 31 Chartres Cathedral, 80 Château-Gaillard, 136 Châtellerault, 244 Châtellerault, Aénor de, 120, 121

Chester, 108, 114, 130, 227, 270 Chichester, 80, 95 Chinon, 130, 131, 146, 166, 206 Chivalry, 131 Christ Church, Canterbury, 195 Christina, sister of Queen Margaret of Scotland, 70 Christow, 188 Cinque Ports, 232 Cistercianism, 286 Cîteaux Abbey, 286 Civil war, 6, 13, 82, 96, 105, 118, 126, 172, 182, 194, 209, 231, 273, 295 See also Anarchy, The Clairvaux Abbey, 286, 287 Clare, Gilbert de, 7th Earl of Hertford, 272 Clare, Richard de, Earl of Gloucester, 183, 229 Clarendon Palace, 220 Clifford, Roger de, 247 Close Rolls, 172, 193, 201 Cluny Abbey, 80, 254 abbot of, 254 Cnut, King of England, Norway, and Denmark, 21, 40, 42, 43, 58, 59, 64, 64n66, 283 Cologne, 134 Comemnus, Isaac, Byzantine Emperor, 162 Commonwealth, the, 1 Concubinage church opposition, 28 definition of, 2 in practice, 2 Conrad III, Holy Roman Emperor, 227 Consanguinity, 29, 49, 120, 124, 126, 130, 184, 192 Constance of Arles, Queen of France, 47

 INDEX 

Constance of Castile, Queen of France, 8, 129, 142 Constance, Countess of Brittany, 288 Continental lands, 281 Conwy, 227 Corfe castle, 209 Council of Ephesus, 282 Council of Rome, 77 Courtenay, Alix de, Countess of Angoulême, 201 Creully, 185 Crusades, 9, 121, 125, 126, 131, 137, 157, 162, 163, 165–167, 169, 220, 222, 232, 240, 242, 287, 293 Cynethryth, wife of King Offa of Mercia, 30, 31, 34, 39n73 D Damascus, 125 d’Aubigny, William, 93–96, 106 David I, King of Scotland, 75, 80, 102, 105, 107 Dee, river, 227 Devon, 94, 167, 188, 188n37 Dictum of Kenilworth (1266), 248 d’oc language, 122 d’oil language, 122 Domesday Book, 50, 53, 54, 56 Donzy, Hervé de, Count of Nevers, 211 Dorchester, 207 Dorset, 193, 209, 266, 275 Dower, 9, 12, 29, 34, 94, 137, 157, 163, 164, 168–173, 171n41, 176–178, 189n42, 225, 226, 230, 233, 239, 246, 248, 249, 253, 265, 266, 269, 270, 274–276, 281 Dreux, John de, 222, 229 du Val, 188

303

Duby, Georges, 151 Dunfermline, 80 Dunstable Annals, 195, 253 Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 27, 36 Durford Abbey, 186, 187 Durham, 71, 224 E Eadgifu, third wife of King Edmund I, 21, 22, 28, 33–40, 43, 291 Eadgyth, wife of Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, 19 Eadmer of Canterbury, 289 Eadmer, secretary, 74 Eadwig, King of England, 38, 292 Ealraed, Bishop of York, 53 Eanflæd, wife of King Oswiu of Northumbria, 27, 44 Ecgwynn, first wife of King Edward the Elder of Wessex, 19, 20, 20n13, 37 Edgar, King of Scotland, 2, 29, 33–38, 58, 68, 283, 283n11 Edgar the Peaceful, King of England, 21, 28 Edinburgh, 69 castle, 69 Edith, see Margaret of Scotland Edith of Wessex, queen consort of King Edward the Confessor, 22, 40–45, 58, 292 Edmund I, King of England, 227 Edmund II “Ironside,” King of England, 23 Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, 221 Edmund, son of King Malcolm III of Scotland, 68 Education, 11, 68–74, 79, 87, 93, 121, 127, 143, 160, 195, 219

304 

INDEX

Edward I, King of England, 13, 180, 221, 232–235, 239, 241, 257–259, 266, 272, 276, 287 crusade, 232, 242 as father, 221 as King-in-waiting, 238 marriages, 13, 239 Second Baronial Rebellion, 13 war with Scotland, 232 war with Wales, 226 Edward II, King of England, 15, 258, 266, 267, 269, 271, 276, 293 Edward, son of King Malcolm III of Scotland, 68, 73 Edward the Confessor, King of England, 22, 32, 55, 64, 68, 76, 81, 219, 284, 292 Edward the Elder, King of Wessex, 19, 21, 36, 291 Edward the Martyr, King of England, 36, 39 Edwin, King of Northumbria, 25 Eighth Crusade (1270), 240 Eleanor of Aquitaine, queen consort of King Henry II, vii, 7, 9, 12, 88, 119–137, 140, 141, 143, 146, 147, 151, 156, 162, 163, 169, 175, 199, 204n26, 214, 281, 286–288, 291–294 and crusade, 9 dowager, 8, 121, 132, 168, 233, 250 as Duchess of Aquitaine, 120, 122, 135 governance, 7, 8, 12 influence, 11, 12, 120–126, 128, 130–137, 146 marriages, 7–8, 120–121, 123–124, 126, 127, 129–131, 136, 141, 143, 146, 175, 287, 294 motherhood, 7, 8, 120, 126–131, 218, 292

power, 7, 8, 14, 129, 132, 134, 294 as Queen of France, 7 regency, 226–230 revolt, 7, 120, 123, 128, 147 Eleanor of Blois, 124 Eleanor of Castile, queen consort of King Edward I, 228, 230, 244 commemoration of, 237 coronation, 232 crusade, 232 death, 237 diplomacy of, 13, 238, 244 financial resources, 14, 246–249, 253, 254 gift-giving, 230, 244, 245 grief, 233 intercession, 13, 14, 238, 244, 245 Jewish moneylending, 246, 252, 253 landholding, 238, 246–248, 250, 251, 295 marriage, 12, 13, 120, 121, 123, 126, 127, 220, 221, 238, 239, 243–245, 295 Parents, 222 pregnancies, 128, 241, 242 Eleanor of Provence, queen consort of Henry III childbearing, 238, 240–246 death, 225, 233, 238, 249, 250 financial resources, 249, 253 governance, 12 landholding, 238, 250 marriage, 177, 217–220, 222, 224, 240, 243, 293 parents, 213 pregnancies, 241, 242 Savoyards, 218, 222–225, 228 Second Baronial Rebellion, 13 Eleanor, daughter of Beatrice of Brittany, 233, 234

 INDEX 

Eleanor, Duchess of Normandy, 132, 168 Emma of Normandy, second wife of King Æthelred II “the Unready,” 21 Encomium Emmae Reginae, 42, 292 English monarchy, ix, 6, 7, 9, 16, 82, 279, 281, 294 Epitaph of St. Adelaide, 63 Ermengard of Anjou, Countess of Brittany, 288 Ermengard, Queen of the Franks, 284n13, 285 Esther, Queen of the Persians, 59, 74, 284–286 Eu, Count of, 94, 227 Eugene III, Pope, 126 Evergates, Theodore, 150, 153 Évrecy, 185 F Falaise, 164, 171, 188 Falkirk, 69 Farnham, 207, 224 Feast days, 283, 284 Felicia, damsel of Margaret de Lacy, 224 Ferdinand III, King of Castile, León and Galicia, 13, 239 Ferrers, Robert de, Earl of Derby, 232, 248 First Baronial rebellion (1214–1217), 193 First Crusade, 73 FitzGeoffrey, John, 229 FitzHamon, Mabel, 181–183, 185n29, 192 Fitzstephen, William, 141, 142 FitzWilliam, Amice, 182, 183, 183n16 FitzWilliam, Mabel, 182, 183, 185n29 Fobbing, 247

305

Foissy, 139, 150, 153 Fontevraud abbey, 134, 214 France, 11, 12, 101, 127, 132, 141, 142, 146, 148, 149, 154, 171, 181, 185, 185n29, 198, 199, 204, 206–208, 212, 228–231, 286, 293–295 Franciscans, 60n48, 220 Frederick II (Barbarossa) of Hohenstaufen, Holy Roman Emperor, 227 Freeman, E. A., 72n11, 73 Freemantle, 227 Friars, 220, 234 G Gaimar, Geoffrey, 91, 92 Gascony, 123, 131, 136, 161, 164, 170, 212, 218, 225–229, 239, 240, 242, 243, 245, 259 Geoffrey of Monmouth, 185 Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, 205 Geoffrey V of Anjou, 103n14, 103n16, 104n18, 125, 126 Germany, 79, 100, 295 Gernun, Ralph, 248 Gervase of Canterbury, 76n30, 129 Gesta Philippi Augusti, 154 Giffard, Hugh (Sibyl, wife of), 224 Gilbert, Bishop of London, 144 Gilbert the Sheriff, 81 Gillingham, John, 143, 149, 161 Gisors, 142, 153 Gloucester, honour of, see Isabella of Gloucester Godfrey, Bishop of Bath, 97 Godfrey, Count of Louvain, 85, 94 Godwin, Earl of Wessex, 32, 41, 43 Grantham, 227 Gregory the Great, Pope, 22

306 

INDEX

Grey Friars, London, 235 Guala, papal legate, 211 Guernes, 147 Guildford palace, 220 Guildford priory, 233 Guillaume, Comte de Joigny, 202 Gunnhildr, daughter of King Harold Godwinson, 71, 72 Gurdon, Adam, 232 Gynécées de Cléopâtre, 122 H Hacon, Walter, 250 Hadrian I, Pope, 30 Hailes Abbey, 275 Halsted, William de, 245 Hama, 125 Hampshire, 53, 70, 186, 206, 232, 266 Hanley, Katherine, 112n63, 113n67, 194 Harald Harefoot, King of England, 42, 43 Harby, 253 Harold Godwinson, King of England, 71 Harthacnut, King of England, 40, 42, 43, 292 Haselbury, 251, 252 Haverfordwest, 247 Havering palace, 220 Hawise, Countess of Gloucester, 154, 181–183, 181n6, 185–187 Henri III, Count of Namur, 85 Henry I, King of England, 4–6, 10, 53, 66–68, 73, 76, 80, 84, 85, 88, 91, 92, 95, 98, 100, 101, 104, 107, 112, 181, 184, 286, 292, 292n46, 295 death, 6, 82, 104, 147 governance, 100

marriage, 82, 84, 85, 101, 126 succesorships, 5, 6, 81–82, 84–85, 95–97, 102–106 White Ship, 84, 91, 292 Henry I, King of France, 48, 48n4, 185 Henry II, King of England, 7, 8, 82, 88, 120, 125, 128, 130, 131, 134, 136, 139–141, 144–149, 152, 153, 156, 162, 176, 179, 182, 184, 190, 234, 238n4, 293, 293n47, 294 Angevin Empire, 149 anointment of Henry the Young King, 128 ascendancy, 129 children, 148 and Eleanor of Aquitaine’s captivity, 147 marriage, 8, 120, 156, 293 rebellion against (1173–1174), 130, 146, 152 and Thomas Becket, 144 Henry III, Emperor of Germany, 49 Henry III, King of England, 10–12, 95, 166, 170, 172, 173, 194, 201, 202n15, 207, 210n63, 211, 214, 217–220, 222–233, 236, 239, 240, 243, 244, 264, 293, 295 children, 12, 224, 295 coronation, 217 death, 232, 293 and French relations, 231 marriage, 217–219, 225, 227, 239, 243, 295 patronage, 219, 220 policies, 218, 225, 228, 236 regency, 226–230 Second Baronial Rebellion, 13 siblings, 224

 INDEX 

Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, 78, 85, 102 Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, 132 Henry of Almain, son of Richard of Cornwall, 232 Henry of Champagne, King of Jerusalem, 157 Henry of Huntingdon, 92, 111n57, 113 Henry, son of King Edward I, 239 Henry the Lion, Earl of Saxony and Bavaria, 127 Henry the Young King, son of King Henry II, viii, 128–131, 139–141, 145–152, 154, 157, 182, 238n4, 287 children, 149 coronation, 149 death, 287 marriage, 129, 131, 238n4 rebellion of 1173–1174, 145–148, 150, 152, 154 war with siblings (1183), 131, 152, 154, 190 Herbert Losinga, Bishop of Norwich, 81 Hereford, 165, 232, 276 Hermann of Tournai, 71 Hertwell, William de, 252 Hildebert of Lavardin, 92 Hildegarde von Bingen, abbess, 121, 288 Hincmar of Rhimes, 285 Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d’Angleterre, 200 History of Saint Edward the King, The, 219 History of William Marshal, The, 150, 151 Holy Land, 7, 131, 132, 157, 163, 166n22, 220, 232, 240, 287, 288 Holy Trinity Abbey, Caen, 50, 61, 65, 80

307

Holy Trinity Aldgate, London, 81, 105, 117, 194 Honorius III, Pope, 170, 210 Honorius Augustodunensis, 289 Household king’s, 156 queen’s, 224, 269 House of Blois, 124 House of Blois-Champagne, 142 House of Capet, 4, 124 Hovenden, Roger de, 143, 146 Howell, Margaret, 220 Hrabanus Maurus, 285 Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, 19 Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, 205 I Ida of Carinthia, Countess of Nevers, 288 Île-de-France, 139, 149 Innocent II, Pope, 123–125 Innocent III, Pope, 170 Innocent IV, Pope, 227 Interdict, 174, 185 Investiture Controversy (1026–1122), 77 Ireland, 127, 145, 184n19, 191, 211, 226, 227, 239, 247, 273, 294 Isabella, daughter of King John, 11, 183 Isabella, Holy Roman Empress, 219 Isabella of Angoulême, queen consort of King John, 8, 11, 12, 136, 166, 169, 170, 173, 176, 191, 192, 193n59, 197–215, 224, 293 children, 209 commemoration of, 214–215 as Comtesse-Reine, 212–214 controversies, 11, 199–201, 203–205, 207, 211–215 as Countess of Angoulême, 215

308 

INDEX

Isabella of Angoulême, queen consort of King John (cont.) dowager period, 169 dynasty, 208–212 and Lusignans, 203–205, 209 marriage to King John, 197 and misogyny, 199 and Poitevin politics, 201–203 as public queen, 205–208 reputation, 215 son’s coronation, 205, 207 sources, 199, 200n9, 201 as “vanished queen,” 197–215 Isabella of France, queen consort of Edward II, 258 Isabella of Gloucester, 180, 181n7, 183, 186, 188, 195n71 Isabella of Gloucester, queen consort of King John, 8, 10, 135, 179–195, 293 annulment of marriage, 191 charter visibility, 10–11, 186–189, 194, 195 childlessness, 191 consanguinity, 184 as Countess of Gloucester and Mortain, 180, 184–185, 195 honour of Gloucester, 180, 186 inheritance, 181–184 lineage, 185 lordship governance, 10–11, 180–181, 183–189, 192–193 marriages, 179, 180, 184, 190, 192, 194n64, 195 rebellion against King John, 194 uncrowned, 180 Italian city-states, 282 Italy, 295 J Jacob, Moses, Jew of Oxford, 252 Jeanne of Ponthieu, 219

Jews, 233, 252, 284, 284n16, 290n39 Joan (Dammartin), Queen of Castile and León, 239 Joan, daughter of Isabella of Angoulême, 208, 209, 212 Joanna, Queen of Sicily, 127, 131, 132, 134, 162, 165, 166n22 Joan of Acre, 241 Joan, Queen of Scotland, 221 Jocelin of Louvain, 97 Jocelyn, Bishop of Salisbury, 144 John VIII, Pope, 285 John, King of England, 7, 8, 10, 11, 135–137, 140, 148, 169–173, 177, 179, 180, 183, 184, 184n19, 186–195, 191n45, 192n51, 193n59, 198–201, 202n15, 204–211, 215, 233, 242, 281, 293–295 children, 127, 191, 210 and First Baronial Rebellion, 193 and French invasion of England, 210 interdict, 192 loss of Normandy, 170, 171 Magna Carta, 209 marriages, 10, 179, 180, 190, 192 rebellion of 1173–1174, 7, 120, 130–131, 136, 145–148, 154, 182 succession, 8, 121, 210, 211 war with siblings (1183), 7, 131, 146–148, 182 John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond, 249 John of Worcester, 85, 96, 113, 114 John, son of King Edward I, 267 Joinville, Geoffrey de, 223 Judith of Bavaria, Holy Roman Empress, 285 Judith, second wife of King Æthelwulf, 18, 32, 33

 INDEX 

K Katherine, daughter of King Henry III, 221 Kelly, Amy, 142, 143 Kempton, 241 Kent, 104, 107, 110, 117, 182, 252, 267, 275, 276 Kingship, 15, 17, 30–32, 37, 38, 42, 198, 200, 200n8, 254 Kirkby, John de, 235 Knaresborough, 207 Knights fees, 97, 181, 188 Knout, Richard, Sheriff of Northumberland, 249 L La Couronne Abbey, 212, 214 Lacy, Margaret de, Countess of Lincoln, 224 La Marche, 135, 204, 204n26, 212, 224 Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, 49, 77 Laon, 124 La Pommeraye, 188 La Rochelle, 135, 204, 207, 213n75 La Vie de St. Thomas le Martyr, 147 Leanor of Castile, queen consort of King Edward I financial resources, 14, 246–249, 253, 254 Leeds Castle, 252 Leicester, 13, 105, 115n73, 130, 181, 222, 229, 295n51 Leicestershire, 181, 265 Le Mans, 9, 92, 159, 161, 169–177, 206 Leo IX, Pope, 49 Leopold V, Duke of Austria, 132 Leyburn, William, 252 Life of King Edward, 44 Limousin, 122, 123, 131, 136

309

Lincoln, 6, 106, 108, 223, 224, 253 cathedral, 253 Liutgard, daughter of King Otto I, 62 Lives of the Queens of England, 144 Lodi, 132 Loire, 120, 123 Lombardy, 132 London bridge, 80, 231 hospital of St. Katharine by, 233 unrest in, 244 London, John de, 251 Lothar, Holy Roman Emperor, 288 Lothar of Italy, 63 Louis IV, King of France, 8 Louis VII, King of France, 108, 123–126, 128–131, 136, 140, 141, 145, 293 Louis VIII, King of France, 127, 199 Ludgershall, 207 Lusignan, Aymer de, 225 Lusignan, Geoffrey de, 224, 244 Lusignan, Guy de, 224 Lusignan, Hugh IX de, Count of La Marche, 204, 212 Lusignan, Hugh X de, Count of La Marche, 12, 212, 224 Lusignan family, 12 Lyndhurst, 247 M Maidstone, 225 Malborough, 205–207, 209 castle, 209 Malcolm III, King of Scotland, 68 Malling, 78 Mandeville, Geoffrey de, Earl of Sussex, 10, 100n3, 110, 113, 114, 193 Manfred of Hohenstaufen, King of Sicily, 227 Marcabru, minstrel, 122

310 

INDEX

Margaret, queen consort of King Alexander III of Scotland, 222 Margaret of Anjou, queen consort of Henry VI, vii Margaret of France, queen consort of Edward I, viii, 14, 15, 180, 242, 257–277, 281, 293 affinity, 15, 258, 266–271 dowager, 15, 258, 271–276, 293 dower dispute, 265–271, 274–276 dynasty, 14, 15, 258–260, 277 an enigmatic figure, 257–277 estates, 258, 265–266 intercession, 14, 258, 263–266, 271–273, 281 as mother of the nation, 14, 15, 258–263, 266, 293 relationship with step-­ children, 15, 264 visibility, 14–15, 259, 261–266, 270 warfare, 262–263 Margaret of France, queen consort of Henry the Young King, 8, 9, 129, 139–157, 233, 235, 236, 242, 287 accusations of adultery, 150–152 charter of 1186, 154 as conciliator, 139–157 crusade, 157 dowager, 9, 139, 152–154, 157 husband’s rebellion, 147, 152, 154 influence, 9, 154–157 as junior Queen of England, 8, 145–148 marriage to Béla III, King of Hungary, 9 patronage, 9 power, 9, 147, 154–157 as Queen of Hungary, 154–157 widowhood, 8, 139 Margaret of Provence, Queen of France, 213, 218, 221, 222, 229–231

Margaret of Scotland, 22, 32, 40, 41, 43–45, 64, 65, 68–73, 81, 292 Margaret of Scotland, queen consort of Henry I, 233 burial, 81–82 death, 81–82 early life, 68–73 education, 68–73 legacy, 81–82 marriage, 68–73 peaceweaver, 73–81 patron, 73–81 politician, 73–81 visibility, 4–5, 73–81 Margaret of Wessex, Queen of Scotland, 4, 68–71, 73, 75 Marguerite of Turenne, Countess of Angoulême, 202 Marian devotion, 283, 289 Marie, Countess of Champagne, 120, 125, 126, 128, 141, 151, 153, 154, 157 Marie of Brabant, Queen of France, 259 Marisco, Geoffrey de, Justiciar of Ireland, 211 Marriage benefits of, 49, 224 Christian and pagan, 22, 24, 26 church advocacy of, 28 dynastic, 142, 181 and queenly authority, 19 serial monogamy, 34 Marsh, Adam, 220 Marshal, Walter, Earl of Pembroke, 224 Marshal, William, Earl of Pembroke, 127, 148, 150–152, 211, 251 Mary, Countess of Boulogne, 101, 234, 235 Mary, daughter of King Edward I, 272 Mary, Queen of Heaven, see Blessed Virgin Mary

 INDEX 

Massif Central, 120 Mathilda of Flanders, queen consort of King William I, 3, 4, 6, 14, 47–66, 69, 73, 80, 99, 279, 286, 292, 293n47, 296 family, 48–51 governance, 5–7, 51–53, 99, 116 innovator, 47–66 intercession, 57–65, 116 judicial authority, 63 marriage, 48–51 queenship, 47, 48, 51–53, 66 regency, 7, 51–53 as regent, 7, 293n47 Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg, 62 Matilda, Countess of Huntington, 75 Matilda, daughter King William I, 51, 76 Matilda, Holy Roman Empress, viii, 6, 7, 90, 95, 100–105, 103n14, 104n18, 106n32, 108–116, 108n41, 109n45, 112n63, 115n73, 118, 127 Matilda of Boulogne, queen consort of King Stephen agreement with Empress Matilda, 13 army, 110, 113, 114 curiales, 103–106 generalship, 7 governance, 6, 12, 99 heiress of Boulogne, 100–103 indispensable partner, 99–118 regina, 103–106 Stephen’s captivity, 6, 7, 66, 100–108, 104n18, 115–117 wise queen, 106–108 Matilda of Carinthia, Duchess of Champagne and Blois, 288 Matilda of Scotland, queen consort of Henry I charity, 5, 82

311

diplomacy, 73–81 education, 68–73 governance, 5, 6, 86, 99 ideal of queenship, 68 as ideal Queen, 100 legacy, 5, 81–82 Life of St. Margaret, 75, 100 lineage, 4, 75 marriage proposals, 73 “peaceweaver,” 73–81 piety, 4, 68, 80, 280 as politician, 73–81 vows, 70, 74 Matilda of Touraine, Duchess of Burgundy, 288 Matthew of Westminster, see Paris, Matthew Maurienne, Adélaïde de, 124, 202 McNamara, Jo Ann, 285 Mediterranean, 131 Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem, 287, 288 Mercadier, 135 Merton Priory, 79, 81 Messina, 132, 162 Middle East, 287 Midlands, 115, 182 Milan, 288 Mirebeau, 135, 136 Monarchy, ix, 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 16, 32, 33, 82, 189, 214, 219, 279, 281, 294 Monogamy, 2, 28, 37 Montfort, Aimery de, Count of Evreux, 192, 193 Montfort, Amaury de, 183 Montfort, Eleanor de, Countess of Leicester, xx, 208, 211, 222, 295n51 Montfort, Peter de, 229 Montfort, Simon de, Earl of Leicester, 13, 218, 222, 229–231, 244, 294, 295n51

312 

INDEX

Mont Saint Michel, 129 Mora, naval vessel, 52, 66 Morphia of Melitene, Queen of Jerusalem, 287 Mortain, 10, 103, 104, 180, 184–185, 195 Mortimer, Matilda de, 264–265 Mount Cadmus, 125 Moses, Jew of Oxford, 252 Muriel, poet, 70 N Neufmarché, Robert de, 142 Newburgh (Normandy), 142 New Forest, 247 Nicholas of Farnham, Bishop of Durham, 224 Niort, 135 Norfolk, 130, 229, 250, 260n10 Norman Conquest, vii, 4, 33, 51, 52, 64, 68, 283 Northamptonshire, 182, 266 Notre Dame du Val, 188 Nottingham, 134 Nottinghamshire, 186 Noyon, 124 O Offa, King of Mercia, 30, 31 Ogive of Luxembourg, Empress of Germany, 48 Oléron, Isle of, 227 Orderic Vitalis, 50, 107, 113 Oswiu, King of Northumbria, 27 Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, 19, 63 Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor, 62 Otto the Great, see Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor Oxon Castle, see Wallingford Castle

P Painter, Sidney, 151 Paris, 122, 124, 130, 131, 141, 142, 148, 149, 152, 153 Paris, Matthew, 199, 214n77, 218, 219, 223, 225, 236 Parliament, 226–228, 294 Parsons, John Carmi, 238, 239, 241, 243, 247, 263, 272 Paschel, Pope, 77, 78 Peak, honour, 227 Pecham, John, Archbishop of Canterbury, 243, 246, 251–253 Peter of Savoy, Lord of Richmond and Pevensey, 223, 229, 231, 249 Petersfield, 186 Peter, son of Isabella of Angoulême, 202 Peyvre, William de, 250 Philip I, King of France, 51 Philip II (Augustus), King of France, 149, 150, 153, 162 Philip III, King of France, 14, 259 Philip of Flanders, 130, 148 Pilgrimage, 48n4, 123, 125, 204, 219, 221, 287 Pipe Rolls, 140, 145, 167, 180n3, 181n8, 192, 193, 193n59, 201, 205, 206 Pitney, 247 Plantagenet Empire, 7, 120, 121, 127–129, 137 Plantagenet, Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany, 129–131, 150 Plummer, Charles, 140 Poitiers, 121–124, 129, 135 Poitou, 11, 120, 123, 126, 127, 130, 135, 136, 164, 191n45, 202, 203, 205, 208, 212 Pomeroy, Emma de, 188 Pomeroy, Gosselin de, 188 Pomeroy, Henry de, 189

 INDEX 

Pomeroy, Jocelin de, 188 Ponthieu, 245 Pont-Sainte-Maxence, de, 147 Portsmouth, 206 Premonstratensians, 288 Provisions of Oxford (1258), 13, 229, 230 Provisions of Westminster (1259), 229 Prudentius of Troyes, 18 Pyrenees, 120, 295 Q Queen as consort, 1–16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31, 34, 36–38, 41, 44, 45, 78, 84–86, 89, 98, 100, 112n63, 139, 147, 155, 159, 169, 170, 177, 178, 181, 190, 198, 199, 215, 218, 234, 238, 255, 258, 263, 271, 296 as dowager, 3, 8–11, 15, 21, 38, 44, 96, 97, 121, 132, 159, 161, 163, 164, 233, 243, 246, 250, 258, 271–276, 284n13, 293 as mother, 7, 8, 11, 14, 21, 22, 27n38, 28, 37, 40, 42, 92, 132, 213, 235, 293 as regent, 3, 5, 21, 22, 40, 84, 112n63, 287, 288 Queenhithe, 80 Queen’s gold, 13, 59n46, 167, 229, 293 Queenship anointing, 18, 34, 41, 214 authority, 1–3, 19, 21, 30, 45, 177, 258, 280 coronation, 11, 18, 19, 33, 34, 40, 41, 43, 52, 143, 145, 163 definition of, 3, 280, 297 and governance, 3–15, 51–53 influence, 5, 34, 66, 78, 88, 245, 250, 266 lifecycles, 3, 22, 33–45

313

patronage, 198, 224, 263, 280 peace-making, 198, 280 piety, 12, 68, 280 power, 2, 198, 280, 291, 297 roles, 3, 4, 7, 8, 21, 25, 27, 34, 40, 51, 69n4, 78, 98, 137, 151, 156, 161, 166, 169, 190, 195, 208, 232, 243, 255, 265, 279, 281, 286, 290, 294, 295, 297 shifts in, 281 terminology, 3 Quendon, 247 R Rædwald, King of East Anglia, 24, 24n24, 26 Rancon, Geoffrey de, 125 Raymond of Antioch, 125 Raymond-Berengar V of Provence, 218 Reading Abbey, 86, 95, 98, 109, 286 Regency, 58, 64, 104, 226–230, 288, 294 Reginald of Bath, 222 Regularis Concordia, 34, 64, 283, 283n11 Reims, 123 Restoration, the, 1, 125, 249 Rhineland, 132 Rhuddlan, 13 Richard I, King of England, 7, 9, 132, 137, 140, 159, 176, 183n15, 184, 191, 202, 203n24, 287, 293 death, 191 as Duke of Aquitaine, 137, 202 marriage, 159, 293 rebellion of 1173–1174, 145–148 relationship with Eleanor of Aquitaine, 9, 140, 162 Third Crusade, 162, 287 war with siblings (1183), 7, 131, 146–148, 182

314 

INDEX

Richard, Earl of Cornwall, King of the Romans (Germany), 218 Richard, son of King John, 148 Richard, son of King William I, 50 Richilde of Provence, Empress of the Franks, 285 Richinza of Nordheim and Brunswick, Holy Roman Empress, 288 Richmond, 223, 249 Rigord, chronicler, 154 Rishanger, William, 233, 259, 260 Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, 53, 69 Robert, Earl of Gloucester, 181 Robert of Sées, Count of Alençon, 206 Robert of Torigni, 129, 145, 152, 94, 95, 103n14, 113 Robert the Pious, King of France, 47 Roches, William des, 136 Roger, Archbishop of York, 128, 144 Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, 79, 102, 105 Roger of Howden, 167, 170, 179n1, 190 Roger of Wendover, 162n9, 199 Roger of York, 144 Romsey Abbey, 70 Rotrou, Archbishop of Rouen, 129, 145, 165 Rouen, 49, 93, 114n70, 128, 130, 154, 165, 206, 294 Rubin, Miri, 289, 290n39 Rufus, Alan, Count of Richmond, 71 S St. Æthelwold, 27, 28, 33, 36, 37, 79 St. Albans, 110, 218, 259, 276 St. Albans Abbey, 110, 259, 276 St. Aldhelm, 75 Saint-André Cathedral, Bordeaux, 123

Sainte-Maure, Benoît de, 122 St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, 80 St. Edith of Wilton, 68 St. Étienne, Troyes, 153 St. Giles Hospital, London, 80 Saint-Hilaire, Poitiers, 129 St. Jean d’Angély Abbey, 212 St. Maixent Abbey, 212 Saint-Martial, Limoges, 129 Saint-Omer, du Val, 188 St. Scholasse-sur-Sarthe, 185 St. Stephens Abbey, Caen, 50, 62 Saintonge, 135, 135n50 Saladin, Sultan of Egypt and Syria, 132 Salisbury, 69, 72, 72n14, 74, 130, 219 cathedral, 219 Saluzzo, Alice de, 223, 224 Sancha of Castile, Queen of Aragon, 9, 288 Sanchia of Provence, Queen of the Romans (Germany), 218, 220 Sancho VI, King of Navarre, 9, 131 Santiago de Compostela, 123, 204 Savoyards, 12, 218, 222–225, 228, 236 Scarborough, 205, 207 Scotland, 14, 67–82, 243, 250, 253, 260, 262, 263, 272, 281, 284n13, 295 wars of independence, 296 Second Baronial Rebellion (1258–1267), 13 Second Crusade, 287 Senlis, 124 Serlo of Bayeaux, 70 Serlo of Wilton, 93 Shenfield, 247 Sicily, 122, 127, 131, 162, 162n11, 218, 227, 228 Somerset, 188, 194, 260, 268 Somerton, 248 Southampton, 147, 207, 248, 271

 INDEX 

Southwark Priory, 225 Spain, 295 Sprouston, 249 Stamford, 227 Staunton, Michael, 199 Stephen, King of England, 6–7, 66, 82, 93, 96, 100–103, 106–112, 115 Battle of Lincoln (1141), 6 claim to throne, 104–106 civil war, 6, 82, 96, 105, 182 release from captivity, 108–115 succession, 104, 106 Strickland, Agnes, 67, 68n2, 94, 144, 238, 254, 257, 263 Strickland, Matthew, 142, 149, 262n25 Suger, Abbot of Saint-Denis, 124 Sussex, 95, 106n32, 182, 186, 268, 276 Synod of Whitby (664), 27 T Taillefer, Ademar, Count of Angoulême, 201 Taillefer, Isabella, 135 Talmond, 124 Tarrant, 251 Teign, 188, 188n39 Tewkesbury, 207 Thaon, Philippe de, 87–89, 89n22, 92, 122 Theobald IV, Count of Blois and Champagne, 124, 126 Theobald V, Count of Blois, 126 Theophanu, Holy Roman Empress, 283 Third Crusade, 162, 287 Thomas of Savoy, 222 Thorkell the Tall, 58, 59 Thouars, 135

315

Tickhill, 205 Torigni-sur-Vire, 185 Tostig Godwinson, Earl of Northumbria, 64 Toulouse, 128, 136 Touraine, 127, 135, 164, 191n45 Tournaments, 131, 148, 149, 194, 224, 262 Tower of London, 110, 231 Treaty of Goulet (1200), 135 Treaty of Paris (1259), 12, 228, 229 Treaty of Wallingford (1153), 127 Trivet, Nicholas, 234 Troyes, 150 Troyes, Chrétien de, 151 Turgot of Durham, 75 V Valence, William de, 224, 232 Val-ès-Dunes, 48 Ventadour, Bernard de, 122 Vermandois, Alix-Pétronille de, 117 Vermandois, Isabel de, 185 Vermandois, Raoul de, 124 Vescy, Isabella de, 249 Vexin, 135, 136, 142, 148 Vitry-en-Perthois, 125 Voyage of Saint Brendan, 89 Vulgrin, Count of Angoulême, 202 W Wace, 122 Waleran, Earl of Worcester, 185 Wales, 122, 181, 185, 226, 268, 281, 295 wars of independence, 296 Wallingford Castle, 232 Waltham chronicler, 93 Warenne chronicler, 67, 81 Warenne, John de, Earl of Surrey, 73

316 

INDEX

Warenne, William de, Earl of Surrey, 73 Warwickshire, 53–55, 182 Waverley Abbey, 220, 221, 230 Wearne, 247 Welbeck Abbey, 186 Wemple, Suzanne, 285 Westminster, 8, 12, 86, 110, 113, 127, 131, 143, 219, 220, 222, 226, 229, 232, 236, 253, 275 White Ship Disaster (1120), 84, 91, 292 William Ætheling, 5, 76, 79, 82, 84 William I (the Conqueror), King of England, 3, 4, 48–54, 57, 60, 65, 66, 69, 76, 77, 181, 188, 292 William VI, Count of Angoulême, 202 William IX, Duke of Aquitaine, 122 William X, Duke of Aquitaine, 120, 122, 123 William, Earl of Gloucester, 179, 181 William of London, 225 William of Malmesbury, 18–20, 39, 73, 75, 76, 80, 81, 96, 104n18, 105, 110, 111, 113, 289, 290n39

William of Savoy, bishop-elect of Valence, 223 William of Tarrant, 225 William II, King of England, 53, 71, 72n11, 73, 76, 77, 292 Wilton Abbey, 34, 44, 70, 71 Winchester, 35, 36, 42, 44, 75, 79, 105, 109, 113, 114, 114n70, 134, 145, 167, 193, 207, 208, 220, 225, 261 Windsor, 56, 57, 60, 84, 110, 131, 207, 211, 220, 241, 242, 264 Woodstock, 220, 265 Worcester, 79, 96, 110n47, 220, 225, 269 Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester, 53–55 Wulfthryth, second (?) wife of King Edgar the Peaceful, 2, 2n63, 23, 34, 35, 44 Wye (Kent), 275 Y Yolande of Brittany, 219 York, 54, 57n34, 116, 205–207, 222, 270