• 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. The Countess and the Constable: An exploration of the conflict that arose between Margaret de Burgh and Bertram de Criel

In this month’s Fine Susanna Annesley examines the role played in the turbulent politics of the early-1230s by Margaret, wife of the supremely powerful but subsequently disgraced Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent. By focusing on a neglected series of events surrounding her failure to gain entry to Dover Castle, she builds up a revealing picture of both the influence the sister of the King of Scots could wield in English national affairs and her own perception and exploitation of her status.

⁋1In 1221 Hubert de Burgh received one of the most significant accolades of his career when he took as his wife Princess Margaret of Scotland, the eldest sister of Alexander II. ¹ By this marriage Hubert, born the son of a Norfolk knight, ² found himself in the exalted position of being joined in wedlock to the daughter of William the Lion. Over the course of their twenty-two year marriage Margaret revealed a strength of character befitting her imposing royal status and her influence over Hubert undoubtedly impacted on his political career.

⁋2In this essay I intend to focus upon elements of this character, as well as the influence that she was able to wield, through an examination of a particularly striking event in her life, which offer a revealing insight into both. In 1230, Bertram de Criel, acting as constable of Hubert’s castle of Dover, refused Margaret entry to her husband’s fortress while Hubert and the king were on a military expedition in France. It is my belief that the swift and harsh punishment that he received as a result of his actions, demonstrates the power of her royal lineage at court. Furthermore Margaret’s reaction to Criel’s treatment of her in 1230 offers a striking illustration of the determination she exhibited throughout her life to prevent incursions upon both her landed resources and her royal dignity.

⁋3The two writs that supply details of the action taken against Criel, who was deprived of his lands, are recorded on the fine rolls, and both add an invaluable dimension to our understanding of these events. Both writs describe the manner in which Bertram held the manors that were confiscated, which has important implications concerning the legality of disseisin carried out against him. Furthermore, the fine rolls reveal that Bertram received his penalty within weeks of Henry and Hubert’s return from the continent, which suggests a great deal about the role played by Margaret in demanding retribution, the power of her status and the attitude of the king and Hubert to her complaints.

⁋4Before discussing the events outlined above it is first necessary to place Margaret in context by offering a brief outline of key events which shaped her marriage to Hubert, both prior to and proceeding all that unfurled in 1230. The first decade of Hubert and Margaret’s union saw the couple scaling ever increasing heights of royal favour, amassing a vast corpus of properties and landed wealth for the enjoyment of themselves and their heirs. While I do not intend to discuss Margaret’s landholdings in this essay, it is noteworthy that between 1227 and 1232 nearly all of the king’s generous grants of lordships and estates to Hubert were bestowed jointly upon the Justiciar and his wife, with the condition that the land in question would pass from them to their joint heirs. This form of co-tenancy reveals a surprisingly early example of jointure, which over the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, gradually superseded dower as the means by which to provide for wives and widows. Therefore, the unusual way in which Margaret was granted co-ownership of these lands implies that she was receiving special treatment from the king in recognition of her royal lineage. Yet theirs was also a union that saw them both contending with the complete destruction of these fortunes when, in 1232, Peter des Roches brought about Hubert’s downfall. It was following Hubert’s fall from grace that Margaret made perhaps the most significant decision of her life. Faced with imminent ruin and the loss of all their joint estates, Margaret, while in sanctuary in Bury St. Edmunds, oversaw a clandestine marriage between her and Hubert’s only surviving daughter, Meggotta, and de Burgh’s ward Richard de Clare – heir to the wealthy earldoms of Gloucester and Hertford. ³ It was a decision which, when discovered by Henry in 1236, cast a long shadow over the rest of her husband’s career, and dealt a lasting blow to de Burgh’s relationship with the king. ⁴ Following Hubert’s death in 1243 Margaret remained a formidable figure and a defiant and keen defender of her interests. The curia regis rolls, in particular, show that Margaret was as an active, independent litigant in the king’s court during her sixteen years of widowhood, appearing in no less than nine cases between 1243 and 1250. ⁵

⁋5Thus far, however, her undoubted significance, particularly in term of her relationship with Hubert, has been paid scant attention by historians. For example, while Ellis, in his biography of Hubert de Burgh, conceded that the justiciar ‘cherished, and was certainly influenced by his wife’ he offered little evidence to support this claim and devoted only a few brief sentences to Margaret’s character and endeavours within the marriage. ⁶ Similarly, Powicke, in an article about Meggotta’s marriage, ⁷ also claimed that ‘we can be certain … that Margaret was a very remarkable woman’, although he spent only a brief paragraph at the end of his account discussing Margaret’s central role in her daughter’s wedding and what might have led her to act as she did. In this essay I will, therefore, attempt to partially redress this oversight by focusing on Margaret’s role in the incident involving Bertram de Criel and Dover Castle in 1230, to which we shall now turn.

⁋6In April 1230, six months prior to Criel’s fateful decision to deny Margaret entry to Dover castle, an extraordinary entry appears in the patent rolls, which highlights Margaret’s prestige and the significant privileges that her standing afforded her. The writ is addressed to all the king’s constables throughout England and gives explicit instructions that the countess should be allowed access to any castle within England after the king’s imminent departure to Poitou. ⁸ The king also laid out a set of provisions that stipulated how Margaret was to be treated when she arrived as a visiting dignitary to these fortresses. It was stated that she should be allowed to enter any of his castles ‘without impediment’ and that thenceforth she should be permitted to stay for as long as she wished. Furthermore, the countess was to have free access to the wine cellar – with the constables ordered to give her any wine that they had in their custody should she request it. It would, therefore, appear that the king was concerned that Margaret should be treated in a manner that accorded with her royal status. Yet the specific nature of these demands might also imply that that the writ was drawn up on Margaret’s insistence, or at least that she had a degree of input in its contents. It is conceivable that Margaret persuaded Hubert to raise these matters with the king on her behalf, for although Henry had attained his majority in January 1227, he was still very much under the influence of de Burgh in 1230. Thus, it is possible that the measures laid in place for her treatment in 1230 not only reveal a great deal about the countess’ impressive status, but also offer an insight into Margaret’s perceptions of her own pre-eminence and the special treatment that she felt she deserved.

⁋7Yet perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the writ of April 1230 is in the stipulation that, having received the countess, the constables should honour her and ‘be counselling to the same in the king’s business which she will relate to you’. ⁹ Although the meaning of this phrase is ambiguous, and the nature of the king’s ‘business’ that Margaret was to impart to the constables is impossible to ascertain, the clause has fascinating implications. It seems to suggest that, in his absence, the king envisaged the countess travelling around the realm acting as his spokesperson, with the right to transmit his orders verbatim and receive the necessary aid and counsel from his constables in response. She appears, therefore, to be exhibiting a remarkable amount of power and responsibility while the king is abroad. If, as seems most likely, Hubert lay behind the decision to use Margaret as a vehicle to transmit important orders from overseas, it reveals the substantial level of confidence that he had in his wife’s abilities.

⁋8By October 1230, both the king and de Burgh had been away from England, undertaking what transpired to be an inconclusive and lacklustre military campaign in Poitou, for nearly six months. ¹⁰ During this ‘bloodless preamble through France’, ¹¹ Hubert had, as has been previously mentioned, employed Bertram de Criel, a loyal member of his own household and trusted royal official, to act as constable of his castle at Dover. ¹² Bertram had been instructed to admit nobody into the fortress during Hubert’s absence abroad. ¹³ Consequently the annals of Dover Priory state that when Margaret sought access to Dover castle after her husband’s departure, Bertram adhered to his orders, with an unwavering firmness, and refused her entry. ¹⁴ It was a decision that was to have dire consequences for Criel. As a result of his actions he was dismissed from his position at Dover Castle and deprived of his lands. On 6 November 1230, orders were given to the sheriff of Suffolk to seize the manor of Kettleborough, which Bertram held of the king in bail, until Henry ordered otherwise. ¹⁵ Likewise, on 24 November 24 the sheriff of Berkshire received orders to take into the king’s hand all that Criel held by bail of the crown in Moulsford, including ‘all the chattels found therein.’ ¹⁶ The statement in these writs that both manors were held by Bertram in bail, and thus in effect only at the king’s pleasure, was surely intended to add emphasis to the notion that the seizures were lawful and did not contravene the clause in Magna Carta which stated that ‘no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed…except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.’ ¹⁷ Despite being within the realms of the law, the harsh and unwarranted nature of this punishment was, however, quickly recognised and the stern measures taken by the crown were revoked as early as 3rd February 1231. ¹⁸

⁋9The haste with which the penalty against Bertram was both implemented and overturned shows that swift action must have been taken against him almost as soon as Hubert and the king retuned to England at the end of October 1230. It is likely that the decisive manner in which matters unfurled was the result of a direct appeal from the countess, who was clearly outraged at her treatment by an official whose standing was so below her own.

⁋10Furthermore, the speed with which the case against Bertram escalated implies that Hubert must have intervened on his wife’s behalf and championed her cause with the king. It is impossible to know whether Hubert would have genuinely shared in Margaret’s indignation or whether he simply felt it necessary to bow to the demands of his highborn wife. Whatever Hubert’s motivation, his apparent willingness to abandon a trusted and loyal servant served to further undermine his credibility and fuel concerns among his detractors that his increasing self-interest was impairing his judgement and his ability to act as justiciar of the realm.

⁋11Yet while Hubert may have been guilty of abusing his position and influence with the king in this matter, Henry III must ultimately bear responsibility for the treatment of Criel in 1230. As mentioned above, Bertram was reconciled with the king in February 1231, at which point he was re-granted entry to his lands. Even now, however, he was specifically forbidden access to the king’s court in order to plead his case against Hubert and Margaret. ¹⁹ It was not until February 1232, when Henry ordered the sheriff of Berkshire to return the manor of Moulsford to Bertram, that the king admitted that his seizure of Criel’s land had been an act of arbitrary disseisin carried out ‘pro voluntate regis.’ ²⁰ It was, therefore, the king alone who had who had the authority to take Criel’s land from him, and he alone who was accountable for the actions of the crown. Interestingly the letter close, in which Henry was finally forced to acknowledge his wrongdoing, was authorised by the justiciar himself. While this may simply reveal that steps towards a reconciliation had taken place between Hubert and Criel in the preceding months, it is tempting to suggest that Hubert’s central role in the entry reveals another (albeit highly speculative) interpretation surrounding Criel’s ordeal. Hubert’s authorisation of the writ might, in fact, demonstrate that he was playing the role of a mediator, attempting to resolve a dispute in which Henry and Criel were the key participants. With this in mind, it is not inconceivable that Margaret had appealed to the king directly after her humiliation at Dover and that he had felt genuinely aggrieved at her plight. However, if this was the case, Henry’s outrage might have been more due to Criel’s flagrant disregard of the royal orders that he issued concerning Margaret in April 1230, rather than being born of any desire to placate Margaret or protect her honour. ²¹

⁋12If, as suggested above, Hubert had initiated a reconciliation between himself and his former constable by the beginning of 1232, his efforts appear to have come to nothing. In Criel Hubert had succeeded in adding one more to his growing list of enemies and, by the time of his fall in July 1232, it would seem that Bertram was already firmly associated with Peter des Roches and his faction at court. As early as 12 June 1232 Criel had been made sheriff of Kent, ²² which ‘must be regarded as a blow to the Justiciar’ ²³ and, in September of the same year, the events of 1230 were fully avenged when he was granted custody of Dover castle under the bishop’s new regime. ²⁴

⁋13Having discussed the events at Dover in some detail, I shall conclude by concentrating on what might have caused Margaret’s indignation and led her to feel so distressed by her Criel’s treatment of her. The most obvious explanation, which has been alluded to throughout this essay, lies in the importance that Margaret attached to her royal status and the corresponding respect and advantages that she felt it should afford her. That the vehemence she displayed against Bertram was somewhat disproportionate to his crime might indicate that Margaret was plagued with insecurities that her social position was being undermined. It may well be that these anxieties were born out of her marriage to de Burgh, for while Hubert was an immensely important political figure and leading member of the minority government, he had risen from gentry stock and was not even ennobled with the earldom of Kent until six years after their marriage. ²⁵ For a young princess, formerly destined to marry the king of England, she must, at some level, have viewed their union as a disparagement to her royal status. Perhaps, therefore, she hoped that Bertram’s punishment would serve as a bold and deliberate reminder that she was first and foremost the daughter and sister of a king, inspite of her marriage to such a novus homo.

⁋14Further evidence to support the claim that Margaret’s pride in her royal heritage eclipsed her allegiance to the earldom of Kent can be drawn from the manner in which she addressed herself in the charters that she issued as a widow. Although only three examples survive, it is nonetheless significant that in two of these charters, seemingly both issued at the same time, and in which she confirmed gifts made by Hubert to Phillip Basset, Margaret referred to herself as ‘Margaret, sister of the king of Scotland, countess of Kent.’ The seals attached to these two charters also survive and both depict a standing female figure – although they are defaced and in extremely poor condition. Luckily, however, a abbreviated transcript of one of her charters to Phillip Basset, along with a detailed drawing of her seal, was copied by the celebrated herald and antiquary Augustine Vincent, c. 1613, and survives in the vast collection of his works housed in the London College of Arms. As was common for noblewomen in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the imagery on the seal depicts a full female figure standing on a corbel, wearing an elaborate head-dress, with a small bird perched on her left hand. While the dress worn by the figure portrayed on the seal was decorated with the de Burgh arms, this was Margaret’s only illusion to the legacy of her marriage, for the legend on the countess’s seal plainly stated SIGILL’ MARGARETE FILIE REGIS SCOTIE. ²⁶ Thus, assuming that Margaret had a genuine input in the design of her seal, ²⁷ and taking into account how she addressed herself in her charters, it would appear that her royal status contributed far more significantly to her sense of identity than the title of countess that was bestowed upon her in 1227. ²⁸ For Hubert on the other hand, his investment with the earldom of Kent stood as the defining pinnacle of his long career. Furthermore it was an accolade he might not have received, had it not been for the impressive marriage he made to Margaret in 1221.

⁋15It is possible, therefore, that the dichotomy between her royal status and Hubert’s less illustrious origins may have affected the power dynamic within their marriage and afforded her an opportunity to exert an influence (and perhaps even a degree of authority) within the confines of their union. I believe it is this context that one must place the events of 1230. The provisions made on her behalf before the king and Hubert departed overseas, followed by the severe repercussions faced by Criel after their return, not only indicate Margaret’s defiant nature (which went on to reveal itself most strikingly in her bold plan to marry Meggotta to Richard de Clare), but also demonstrates the influence that she was able to exert over Hubert as a result of her royal status.

1.2. C 60/30 Fine Roll 15 Henry III (28 October 1230–27 October 1231), membrane 9

1.2.1. 16

⁋1 Concerning the manor of Kettleburgh. Order to the sheriff of Suffolk to take the manor of Kettleburgh, which Bertam de Criel holds by bail of the king, into the king’s hand and to keep it safely until the king orders otherwise. [c.6 Nov. 1230].

1.3. C 60/30 Fine Roll 15 Henry III (28 October 1230–27 October 1231), membrane 8

1.3.1. 40

⁋1 Concerning land to be taken into the king’s hand. Order to the sheriff of Berkshire ²⁹ to take into the king’s hand the land that Bertram de Criel held by bail of the king in Moulsford, and to keep it safely with all chattels found therein until the king orders otherwise. [Westminster, 24 Nov. 1230].