• Home
• Project Information
• Fine Rolls
• Style Book
• Commentary
  • Introduction to Reign
  • Introduction to Rolls
  • Originalia Rolls
  • Technical Introduction
  • Heads and Headings
• News
• Help
• Fine of the Month
• Book Publication
• Blog
• Conference
• Podcasts
• Related Papers

1. Severing the ties: Count Robert III de Dreux, the Honour of St. Valery and the end of the Anglo-Norman realm

One of the most seismic events in the history of England and of Anglo-French relations, King John’s defeat at Bouvines in 1214 heralded the collapse of a world in which aristocrats maintained cross-Channel lordships and tenurial and seigneurial relationships with both crowns. In this article (the second part of David Carpenter’s Fine of the Month about the struggles of the men of Brampton will follow) Dr. Adrian Jobson, medieval records specialist at The National Archives and member of the project management committee, explores the consequences for individuals. He highlights the struggle to maintain estates with the accompanying cycle of confiscation and recovery and, in most cases, the ultimate and permanent fracture of the cross-Channel nexus of landholding. It is in the Fine Rolls in which much of the evidence concerning the forfeiture of the crown’s former Normans subjects can be found, making them a uniquely useful source for tracing the collapse of this Anglo-Norman world.

⁋1On 24 June 1204, the Norman towns of Rouen, Verneuil and Arque surrendered to the forces of King Philip II of France. ¹ Marking the denouement of the Angevin empire founded by his father, in the five years since his accession King John had lost the bulk of his continental inheritance. Anglo-Norman society was thrown into turmoil while the Capetian conquest raised a host of complex issues, the ramifications of which would take years to be finally resolved. Of all these outstanding issues, the problem of cross-Channel landholding was probably the most difficult.

⁋2Ever since William the Conqueror vanquished Harold at Hastings in 1066, cross-Channel landholding had been an established feature of the Anglo-Norman realm. Although these ties had weakened during the course of the twelfth century, they nevertheless remained one of its core features. Of a total of ‘199 Norman tenants-in-chief in 1172, 107 (or their descendants) held land on both sides of the channel in 1204.’ ² Thus significant numbers of barons and lesser landowners held property in both England and Normandy on the eve Capetian conquest.

⁋3Now that the duchy was firmly in the grasp of the French crown, these families were forced into making a decision concerning their political allegiance. Caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea, they found themselves in an unenviable position. If they did homage to Philip for their Norman estates, then they would forfeit their English lands. Likewise, if they remained loyal to King John, their continental holdings would be seized. Some families opted to divide the property between branches on either side of the Channel. A lucky few such as William Marshal eventually reached an understanding with both monarchs, in essence serving ‘two masters’, holding their lands in England from John and those in Normandy from Philip. ³ But the majority, despite their determination to retain their patrimony intact, would ultimately end up having a portion of it confiscated.

⁋4Considerable evidence for the forfeiture of the English estates of those who decided to render homage to the French crown for their continental lands, some of it not recorded elsewhere in the public records, can be found in the fine rolls. This is itself an indication of the widening scope of business on the fine rolls where writs dealing with the seizure of land were increasingly enrolled, something particularly noticeable during the rebellions of both Richard Marshal in 1233–1234 and later of Simon de Montfort. When used in conjunction with material supplemented from other chancery sources such as the close and patent rolls, the information related to the seizure of lands of those who had taken the French allegiance enables the historian to reconstruct the various stages of the confiscation process, which was sometimes a tortuous one. This emerges very clearly in the case of the honour of St. Valery which is the subject of this Fine of the Month.

⁋5Comprising a modest 23½ knights’ fees, most of this small honour lay within the borders of Oxfordshire although it did extend slightly into the neighbouring county of Berkshire. Situated approximately four miles to the east of Oxford was the manor of Beckley, which functioned as the honour’s caput or administrative hub. Four other manors within the honour were held in demesne, namely Willaston, Blackthorn with Ambrosden, Asthall and Yarnton. ⁴ Created in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest by Roger d’Oilly, the royal constable and trusted follower of the Conqueror, the honour was subsequently granted to his comrade-in-arms, Roger d’Ivry ‘in fulfilment of a compact they had made to share the spoils of the expedition.’ ⁵ By 1155–56, it had passed into the hands of Reynold de St. Valery. Of Norman origin, the St. Valery family were in possession of the manors of Isleworth and Tetbury as well as several fiefs in the county of Ponthieu in Normandy. ⁶

⁋6Over the next thirty years, the St. Valery family continued to expand its territorial base within the duchy. After concentrating their efforts on the county of Ponthieu, they cemented their postion when Thomas de St. Valery, Reynold’s grandson, married Edela the sister of its count. ⁷ Thomas himself entered into his landed inheritance in about 1191 following the death of his father on Richard I’s crusade. ⁸ But when war broke out in 1194, Thomas supported the French. All his English lands, including the honour of St. Valery, were therefore seized by the Crown in 1196-7. ⁹ Three times during the next twenty years Thomas switched sides, alternately regaining and forfeiting his English estates, before finally making his peace with King John in 1215. ¹⁰ On exactly what financial terms he recovered his lands is now unclear as they were recorded on the pipe roll for 15 John which is now missing. But the amount St. Valery agreed to pay must have been substantial as the pipe roll for the following year notes that he still owed £766 and 1 mark ‘for having [his] lands.’ ¹¹ Thomas remained in full seisin of the honour until his death 1219, at which point it descended to his daughter Aanora as his only surviving heir. ¹²

⁋7Aanora’s husband was Robert III, count of Dreux, who consequently held the honour of St. Valery de jure uxoris. ¹³ Louis VI’s great grandson, he was the eldest son of Count Robert II and his wife Yolanda de Coucy. ¹⁴ Dreux itself was a strategically important region that lay on the border between Normandy and the Isle de France, the county being held directly from the French crown. ¹⁵ Given that the counts of Dreux were a cadet branch of the Capetian dynasty, it was not surprising that they had a long and proud history in the service of the French crown. Robert II, for example, had seized the fortress of Nonancourt during Richard I’s incarceration in Austria and spent much of the 1190s fighting the Anglo-Normans. Likewise, he had fought alongside Philip II at the battle of Bouvines in 1214. ¹⁶ Count Robert III maintained this tradition and followed in his family’s footsteps. In 1212, he saw service with the future Louis VIII and was part of the besieged Capetian garrison of Nantes in Brittany. Unfortunately for Robert, he was captured by King John’s forces during a failed sortie by its defenders. ¹⁷ Two years later, he was exchanged for William Longespée, the earl of Salisbury, who had been captured at Bouvines. ¹⁸

⁋8After defeat of the rebel barons and their French allies at the battles of Lincoln and Sandwich in 1217, relations between Dreux and the new regency government, which had taken power upon John’s death in the previous October, quickly improved. On 31 October 1217, William Marshal, the regent, witnessed a grant to Robert of 100 marks payable in two half yearly instalments. Complementing this gift was a separate but equally valuable grant of the royal manor of Brill to 'sustain him in the king’s service.’ ¹⁹ Coming shortly after the peace made at Lambeth between the regency government and Louis, these gifts may have been intended to help cement the agreement. Similarly it may have been the regents’ intention to win the support of a powerful figure at the French court.

⁋9Over the next seven years, Dreux only made the occasional appearance in English sources. The fine roll for 5 Henry III, for example, noted that Robert owed scutage for the army mustered to besiege the count of Aumâle’s castle at Bytham at the rate of 10s. for each of his Oxfordshire knights’ fees. ²⁰ Another entry, this time on the fine roll for 8 Henry III, ordered the sheriff of Berkshire to give Dreux a respite on the £42 that he owed the king until the next account of the Exchequer. Dated 25 March 1224, this was the last entry made before Dreux’s relations with the regency council suddenly began to worsen. ²¹

⁋10This deterioration can probably be ascribed to Louis VIII’s conquest of Poitou during the summer of 1224. At Tours on 24 June, the French army began to muster for the forthcoming invasion. Within less than two months they had overcome all resistance: the port of La Rochelle, the key to the county, had surrendered to Louis on 13 August after being subjected to a token siege. ²² Whether Dreux himself was directly involved in the campaign, it is now unclear. But as a leading French magnate with lands in England, he would have made an obvious target for retribution by the regency council.

⁋11Only the fine rolls record the form that this retaliation was to take. On 29 October, little more than two months after the fall of La Rochelle, the sheriff of Berkshire was ordered to ‘take into the king’s hand without delay’ all the lands held by Robert de Dreux ‘in his bailliwick.’ This confiscation was not just restricted to the land itself but was extended to include all the appurtenant corn, stock, rents and chattels found upon it. Once the process of seizure had been completed, everything was to be transferred into the custody of Ralph Hareng. Equivalent confiscations were ordered in the counties of Hampshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Middlesex. ²³

⁋12Having deprived the count of the honour of St. Valery and his other English estates, the regency council was determined to extract from them the full feudal services and revenues to which it was now entitled. On 3 February 1225, therefore, the sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire was ordered to render to Hareng the ‘services that he took from the knights’ fees that are held of Count Robert de Dreux.’ ²⁴ Similar orders were also sent to the sheriffs of several other counties including Oxfordshire. Goods were also taken from the park at Beckley before being transported to London for the sum of 4s 6d. ²⁵

⁋13Robert de Dreux was, however, determined to recover the honour of St. Valery and, indeed, the remainder of his English lordship. Believing that an appeal in person would be the most effective approach, on 8 March 1225 he secured a letter patent of safe conduct. Valid until Pentecost, Robert was allowed to travel to England with his household and speak with the king. ²⁶ Dreux’s eloquence and boldness quickly paid dividends: on 9 April a letter close was issued which reversed the confiscation and ordered Hareng to give the count full seisin of all his lands. ²⁷

⁋14Cordial relations between Dreux and the regency council then resumed for a time. William Blome received expenses of 40s., the authorisation for which was contained in a letter close dated 4 May 1225, after he carried a message to Robert as well as to the counts of Brittany and St. Pol. It is not known what the message contained but perhaps it was to confirm that his lands had been returned to him. Throughout the early 1220s, Dreux had been paying off in instalments the debts of his late father-in-law. ²⁸ This practice continued after the recovery of his wife’s inheritance: the pipe roll for 10 Henry III records that he handed over £50 at the Exchequer although he was still left with an outstanding debt of £430 6s. ²⁹ In October 1225, letters patent were issued allowing the merchant Bernard le Carboner of Aubervill to come to England to trade ‘because he was the man of the count of Dreux.’ ³⁰ One special mark of favour dates from 26 December in the same year. Despite the ongoing ban on vessels sailing ‘into the power of the king of France’, two letters close were issued to the bailiffs of Southampton and Portsmouth respectively ordering them to allow ships laden with merchandise to go to ‘the land of the count of Dreux.’ ³¹

⁋15Within a year, however, relations had soured to the point where he once more suffered the confiscation of all his English lordship including the honour of St. Valery. Exactly what lay behind the reversal in policy is unclear but it may have been connected with Louis VIII’s decision to take the Cross and wage war against England’s ally, the heretic count of Toulouse. ³²

⁋16Once again, it is the fine rolls that provide the earliest reference for the forfeiture. On 5 September 1226, the sheriffs of Oxfordshire and Middlesex were ordered to take into the king’s hand all the lands that the count had held of the king. Temporary arrangements were likewise put into place for their custody, the lands being committed to the sheriff’s sergeants and four trustworthy men from each manor that were to keep them and remove nothing from them until the king ordered otherwise. ³³ This confiscation prompted the newly crowned king of France, Louis IX, to compensate Dreux for his losses in the form of lands in the Pay de Caux. ³⁴

⁋17More permanent arrangements for the custody of the honour of St. Valery were instituted in 1227. The fine rolls note that on 13 April, the sheriff of Oxfordshire was instructed to take the lands held by Dreux in the county into the king’s hands without delay. Along with all the stock and chattels, they were to be kept safely until they the king ordered otherwise. ³⁵ Complementing this order was a similar one issued in relation the count’s Middlesex estates. ³⁶

⁋18Henry III, having assumed full power in January 1227, recognised that the honour would provide him with a useful source of patronage. On 9 June, for example, letters patent of presentation were issued to Lucian de Cormeilles, who was a clerk of the king’s steward, Godfrey of Crowcombe, appointing him to the vacant church of Rousham in Oxfordshire, the right of presentation having fallen to the king because of the special reason that the land had formed part of Dreux’s fee. ³⁷ On 13 June, all the fees and lands of Count Robert were committed once again to Ralph Hareng. Accounting for their combined revenues, with the exception of the manor of Asthall, at the Exchequer, all the knights and free tenants of the fee were now answerable to him. ³⁸ Just four days later the king authorised the taking of an aid from these same individuals. The proceeds were then to be given to his younger brother Richard, the count of Poitou, for sustaining himself in the king’s service. ³⁹

⁋19Richard himself was the reason that the forfeiture became a permanent event. Next-in-line to the throne, there was an urgent need to provide him with a landed endowment commensurate with his status. In a letter close dated 21 August 1228, Henry committed into his brother’s custody all the lands that had been formerly held by the count of Dreux. These would then be used to ‘sustain himself in the king’s service.’ ⁴⁰ This grant of Robert’s lands, which included the honour of St. Valery, was one of a number made in Richard’s favour on the same day. In a separate letter close, he was endowed with the former dower lands of his mother, Isabel of Angoulême. ⁴¹ In 1230, Robert de Dreux was rumoured to have entered into an alliance with Henry but if any moves were made in that direction, nothing seems to have come of them. ⁴² Any residual hopes of being restored to his former lordship were dashed forever when the king confirmed its grant, this time in fee, to his brother in August 1231. ⁴³

⁋20Count Robert’s loss of the honour of St. Valery was just one element in the traumatic process that was the break up of the Anglo-Norman realm. It was an experience that was mirrored by that of countless other cross-Channel landholders, whether of baronial or of less exalted status, between 1204 and 1244. ⁴⁴ But, unlike Dreux, most would not have had the influence or wherewithal to have the confiscation reversed even if it would have been only for a limited time. Considerable evidence concerning the confiscation and forfeiture of the English lands that had been held by the crown’s former Normans subjects can therefore be found on the fine rolls. Combined with material drawn from other record sources, they enable the historian to reconstruct the various stages of the process that was followed. But more importantly, the fine rolls shed valuable light on the human stories that lay behind each of these seizures. This will be one of the fine roll project’s greatest contributions to thirteenth century scholarship.