1. The Thorrington dispute: a case study of Henry III’s interference with judicial process

This month Tony Moore, Research Associate on the ESRC-funded research project “Credit Finance in the Middle Ages: Loans to the English Crown c.1272-1340” at ICMA Centre, University of Reading, examines a short fine, but one that sheds light on the nature of Henry III’s style of government during the decade or so before 1258. This will hopefully help us to understand some of the motivations behind the ‘reform movement’ and the level of support that Simon de Montfort later received from local landowners during the Barons’ Wars.

1.1. C 60/49 Fine Roll 36 Henry III (28 October 1251–27 October 1252), membrane 14

1.1.1. 500

⁋1 Concerning a pardon. The king has pardoned to Hugh son of Richard [of Elmstead] the 20s. by which he made fine with him for taking an assize of novel disseisin between him and Warin de Munchesney before R[oger] of Thirkleby, concerning a tenement in Thorrington, which assize was later revoked by order of the king. Order to the barons of the Exchequer to cause Hugh to be quit from the aforesaid 20s. By R[obert] Walerand. [Westminster, 28 April 1252].

⁋1On first reading, this might not seem particularly significant or ground-breaking. It was, however, only one instance of a wider and much more politically-resonant series of events, namely Henry III’s interference with the judicial system in order to protect or advance the interests of his family members and those in favour at court. This was an explosive issue, as one of the core duties of any king was to maintain law and order. Since the reforms of Henry II, English kings had become associated with the upholding of the common law, which guaranteed property rights to all landholders. Since land was the basis of social respectability and political power, any threat to the security of property would alarm the landed (and therefore political) classes. Although the king was, in practice, allowed a measure of discretion, any monarch who seemed to undermine the neutrality of the common law could find themselves faced with serious political opposition. It has been convincingly argued that Henry III frequently interfered with the judicial process to protect his favourites, and that this discouraged local landowners from protesting about the activities of such people in the localities, leading to a building-up of resentment against Henry’s rule. 1 The ‘revocation’ of an assize referred to in the above fine is the most blatant example of Henry’s direct intervention in judicial process in Essex, and a careful unpicking of the Thorrington dispute can illuminate the reasons behind and consequences of Henry’s policy.

⁋2The ancestral holders of Thorrington were the d’Ectot family, originally from Ectot in Normandy (Calvados, arr. Caen, cant. Villers-Bocage, comm. Epinay-sur-Odon). The family seems to have come to England in 1066 with Walter de Lacy and were (eventually) rewarded with lands in Herefordshire. 2 A junior branch acquired Thorrington at some time during the first half of the twelfth century, possibly when the manor was in the hands of the Talbot family, who were linked by marriage to the Lacys. 3 Hamo (I) de Ectot was holding Thorrington in 1166 and there is a surviving twelfth century charter from Walter de Mayenne and his wife Cecily Talbot releasing £6 rent in Thorrington to Hamo de ‘Scotot’. 4 Over the following century, the d’Ectots of Thorrington took an active role within local society in North East Essex. Hamo (I) married Alice de Hawkwell, a member of an established Essex family, and served as a juror on three grand assizes in 1198. 5 His son Richard had succeeded by 1212 and himself served as a grand assize juror in 1212 and three times before the eyre of 1227, as well as being a viewer of essoin in 1233. 6 In addition to his administrative activity, Richard also witnessed a large number of local charters. 7 Richard’s last certain appearance is in 1235, when he recovered the dower land in Thorrington of Idonea, widow of his brother John d’Ectot. 8 The connection of the Ectots to the county came to an abrupt end, however, on 19 February 1250, when Hamo (II) son of Richard d’Ectot sold the manor and advowson of Thorrington to Hugh fitzRichard of Elmstead for 100 marks. 9 Thereafter the family disappears from local society.

⁋3Although the end of the line for the d’Ectots, at least in Essex, the sale of Thorrington only marked the beginning of our current story. The manor of Thorrington was held of Warin de Munchenesy, as part of his barony of Swanscombe. 10 Although the charter granting Thorrington to Elmstead had specifically safeguarded Munchenesy’s rights as feudal lord, it does not seem that Munchenesy was involved in, or even aware of, the sale. If, indeed, he was not consulted about the transfer of property held of his fee, then Munchenesy may well have had a legitimate grievance. Judging by his later actions, he might even have thought that he was entitled to a right of first refusal. Munchenesy therefore gathered a force from his associates and tenants and, at some time during the following two weeks, they forcibly ejected Elmstead from his seisin of Thorrington. In response, Elmstead sought the protection of the common law.

⁋4The story thus far is fairly typical and it was precisely these types of disputes that the royal judicial system was supposed to resolve. Unfortunately for Elmstead, however, Munchenesy had recently acquired some very powerful allies, as the result of the marriage of his daughter Joan to William de Valence, the king's Lusignan half-brother, on 13 August 1247. 11 This was potentially a very profitable match for Valence, since Joan was the only surviving child of Munchenesy’s first marriage, to Joan, youngest of the five daughters of William Marshal, and stood to inherit a fifth part of the vast Marshal inheritance. In strict law, Munchenesy’s own ancestral lands, including the barony of Swanscombe, would descend to William, his son from his second marriage to Dionisia daughter of Nicholas de Anstey of Ridgewell and widow of Walter de Langton (brother of the former archbishop of Canterbury), although, as we shall see, Valence may have had other plans for his step-cousin. Although an important baron, Munchenesy does not appear to have been active at court before 1247. After acquiring Valence as a son-in-law, however, Munchenesy was a frequent recipient of royal gifts. 12 In addition, as we shall see, he also secured a less visible but perhaps more valuable backstage pass to the workings of the royal administration.

⁋5To return to Thorrington, on 7 March 1250, Elmstead offered the king one mark to have an assize of novel disseisin against Munchenesy heard before a royal justice. The assize was originally to be held before Master Simon of Walton, but Walton's name was cancelled on the fine roll and replaced by Gilbert of Preston. It is not clear whether this was an innocent administrative matter or if any more suspicious motive can be adduced. 13 Before 30 March, Gilbert of Preston was commissioned to hear the assize brought by Elmstead against Warin de Munchenesy and others concerning a tenement in Thorrington. 14 This assize was held at Stratford-atte-Bow on 4 June, possibly before Roger of Thirkleby since the record of the plea survives in his assize roll. Elmstead did not proceed with his suit, however, and so he and his pledges (William Christmas of Elmstead and Bartholomew Lemot) were amerced. 15 It is not clear why Elmstead did not proceed with this suit, although there were presumably good legal or practical reasons behind his decision.

⁋6In any case, Elmstead soon resumed his litigation. On 29 January 1251 he offered a second, and larger, fine of 20s. to have an assize heard before Roger of Thirkleby. 16 As a result, c. 2 February 1251 Thirkleby was commissioned to hear an assize of novel disseisin brought by Elmstead against Munchenesy and others re: a tenement in Thorrington, again at Stratford-atte-Bow on Friday next after the octaves of the Purification (17 February 1251). 17 The assize was duly held and, this time, Elmstead appeared before the justice to claim that Munchenesy, Geoffrey Cook and Robert de Bures had disseised him of the whole manor of Thorrington, excluding the advowson of the church. The defendants, however, did not come before the court and, moreover, they had not been attached to appear because they could not be found. The sheriff then claimed that the writ had arrived too late either for him to attach the defendants or to find one of their bailiffs. The assize was therefore respited until the quindene of Easter (1–6 May) and the sheriff was again ordered to attach the defendants. 18 This raises an interesting point of law. Normally, an assize of novel disseisin would proceed even in the absence of the defendants, one of the reasons for its procedural speed and consequent popularity. According to Henry of Bracton and Donald Sutherland, moreover, the assize was supposed to be heard even if the defendant had received no advance notification of the assize. 19 There would therefore seem to be no good legal reason for the adjournment of the assize, and Thirkleby’s decision to postpone the case may be another instance of the flexibility of the law as it applied to the king’s favourites. There is no record of this plea appearing on the quindene of Easter in the assize roll, although Thirkleby was holding assizes in Essex five weeks after Easter (22–28 May). 20

⁋7The reason for the abandonment of the assize is not hard to find. A royal letter close was dispatched to Thirkleby on 15 February, informing him that the assize had been superseded until further order. 21 It is surely significant that this was sent before the assize was actually held, suggesting that someone had intervened with the king. It does not seem that this order reached Thirkleby before the actual assize convened, but it is not surprising that Munchenesy did not deign to attend, given his likely knowledge about these behind-the-scenes machinations on his behalf (and perhaps the sheriff, aware of the forces at work, did not try too hard to find him and his fellow defendants). In fact, this letter suspending the assize can probably be identified with the revocation of the assize by the king mentioned in the fine of April 1251, which forms the subject of this paper.

⁋8Despairing of recovering his right through the courts, Elmstead decided to cut his losses and sold the manor to Munchenesy, seeking to recover the 100 marks that he had paid. 22 It is noteworthy that Robert de Bures, Munchenesy’s co-defendant in the assize of novel disseisin, appears as a witness to this charter. Warin was later active in consolidating his hold on Thorrington, receiving a grant of free warren in his demesne lands there and in the neighbouring manor of Great Fordham, and both he and his son William bought up land and rents in the area. 23 Perhaps the only consolation for Elmstead was that the king pardoned him the 20s. that he owed for the second assize of novel disseisin. 24

⁋9Furthermore, this may not have been the only time that Warin de Munchenesy took advantage of his connections at court. On 27 December 1252 the king ordered Simon of Walton not to wait for Nicholas de Turri, but to take the assize that Walter of Avenbury had brought against Warin de Munchenesy and others at the due time and place. Shortly afterwards, on 8 January 1253, the king ordered Walton to respite the plea (concerning a tenement in Edgeworth) until one month after the feast of St. Hilary. 25 The reality of Munchenesy’s actions seem to contradict Matthew Paris’s post-mortem description of Warin as ‘a zealot for the peace and liberties of the realm’, although it does help to explain how he had accumulated an alleged fortune of 200,000 marks. 26 In any case, Munchenesy was certainly not the only one to benefit from such royal intervention and David Carpenter has found a similar example of Henry III, at the instance of the earl of Gloucester, ordering an assize not to be taken. 27

⁋10The legal narrative set out above provides an interesting perspective on Henry III’s style of government. The case study of Thorrington is unusual in that the surviving evidence permits a detailed reconstruction of some of the inner workings of the Henrician judicial system, but the ability of men with connections at court to secure royal intervention in their disputes may be more widely applicable. In this particular case, moreover, we are able to go further and examine some of the political repercussions of Henry’s interference in the judicial process, in order to advance the interests of men with connections at court at the expense of local landowners. This made possible by the survival of the two charters discussed above, the first by which Hamo (II) d’Ectot granted Thorrington to Hugh fitzRichard of Elmstead, and the second by which Elmstead subsequently granted Thorrington to Warin de Munchenesy. The witness lists to these charters can provide us with a window into local society, and are shown on the table below:

D’Ectot to Elmstead (19 February 1250) Elmstead to Munchenesy (1251–1252)
Sir Richard de Tany Sir Hubert de Rowley
Sir Robert Butler Sir William of Feering
John de Marines Sir Ralph of Basing
Ralph Martel Sir Ralph de Chalons
Gilbert of Dedham Richard de Rowley
Walter of Dedham Roger of Kelvedon
Thomas of Dedham Robert de Bures
John fitzRichard John de Bolebec
Simon Batilly John Chance
Robert de Hide William of Kirtling
Gilbert Foucher Hamo Petit
William de Cockayne John of Copford, clerk
William of Belstead

⁋11The first point to make is that there is no overlap between the two witness lists. This is noteworthy, since the charters concerned the same property and were granted within a year of each other and, usually, we would expect to find a recurring list of ‘usual suspects’ that frequently witness charters in any given area. The disparity in the witnesses may perhaps be taken as an indication of some division within local society between Elmstead and Munchenesy sympathizers. At first glance, the presence of as many as four knights among Munchenesy’s witnesses would seem to suggest that he enjoyed greater support among the gentry. A more detailed examination of the identities of the two sets of witnesses, however, focusing on the location of their lands, their social status and the connections between them, reveals a very different picture.

⁋12Hamo (II) d’Ectot’s charter granting Thorrington to Elmstead seems to have been witnessed by his fellow landowners from the immediate locality. Richard de Tany was the lord of Elmstead itself, and held several manors in Essex and Hertfordshire. 28 Robert Butler was probably the lord of the nearby manor of Alresford. 29 He may possibly be identified with Robert, son of Richard Butler, lord of Meesden (Herts) and Waterbeach (Cambs), Enfield (Middx) and Warham (Norfolk), and who also held a rent of 10 m. in Patching Hall in Broomfield (Essex). 30 John de Marines is a slight anomaly, holding the manor of Barkesden in Westmill (Herts.). 31 Ralph Martel held at Rivenhall and Ardleigh. 32 Gilbert of Dedham held a small estate, known as Overhall, in the parish of Dedham, and Walter of Dedham was a tenant of the Elmstead family. 33 Simon Batilly was lord of Wivenhoe, Pattiswick in Feering, and Battles Hall in Stapleford Abbots. 34 He also held a sizeable estate scattered through the nearby manors of Ardleigh, Stisted, Donyland, Feering and Bradwell, as well as 12s. rent in Elmstead itself. 35 Robert de Hide acquired land in Langham. 36 Gilbert Foucher held land in Elmstead, as will be discussed below. William de Cockayne was lord of the manor of Cokaynes in Alresford, and also held lands in Elmstead, Wivenhoe, Bromley, Stambridge, and Bentley. 37 William of Belstead has proved more difficult to track down, but he may have been linked to Belstead Hall in Broomfield.

⁋13Moreover, three men were members of the local social elite. Although only Tany and Butler were given the title of knight in this particular charter, however, several of the other witnesses were also of undoubted gentry stock, even if they were probably not formally knighted. This could change; Simon Batilly was presented as a valet (i.e. he held a knight’s fee and was of full age, but had not yet been knighted) in Lexden hundred in 1254 but served as a grand assize juror, a position legally limited to those formally dubbed as knights, in 1262 and 1272. 38 Batilly was also described as a knight in a several charters. 39 Before the eyre of 1254, Elmstead, Cockayne and Martel were all presented as valets in the hundred of Tendring, and Elmstead and Cockayne were presented again in 1262. In 1272, Elmstead yet again, William Butler, John de Cockayne, and William Martel were all presented as valets. 40 The same families could later produce men of knightly status, for instance in 1307, Sir Ralph de Cockayne witnessed a charter of Hugh Despenser concerning Layer. 41

⁋14It was on such men that the smooth running of local administration depended. The most important local office, at least until the later thirteenth century, was that of sheriff. Peter father of Richard de Tany was appointed sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire during the reforms of William of Savoy in 1236 and Richard himself under the reforming barons in 1259, while John de Marines took office as sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire in 1255–1256, although he left office in debt. 42 Richard, father of Simon, Batilly and Nicholas Foucher served as coroners. 43 Between the 1220s and 1242, judicial commissions to hear assizes were often issued to four local knights, including to Peter de Tany, William fitzRichard of Stapelford, and Richard Batilly. 44 The role most emblematic of the role of the local landowner was the grand assize, service on which was limited to full knights. The two knightly witnesses to the charter, Tany and Butler, both appear on the grand assize, as did Simon Batilly, as we have seen. 45 Richard de Tany, in particular, was continuing a long family tradition; his father Peter had served on the grand assize in 1242 and 1249, and Richard’s father-in-law, William fitzRichard of Stapelford, in 1227 and 1232, while William’s own father, Richard fitzWilliam of Stapelford, appears as a grand assize juror in 1198 and 1221. 46 Likewise, Geoffrey father of William de Cockayne was a juror on one grand assize and an elector on another in 1227, and also served as the viewer of an essoin in 1233. 47 The Ralph Martel who features on the grand assize in 1212 was probably a predecessor of the Ralph Martel who witnessed the above charter. 48 We have also seen that the d’Ectots, before selling up, had frequently served in such positions. On a slightly lower level, William de Cockayne was a presenting juror for the hundred of Tendring before the special eyre of 1268, and Robert of Dedham, who succeeded to Overhall, for Lexden hundred before the eyre of 1285. 49 There are, sadly, no surviving rolls from the hundred or county courts that might shed more light on the roles of such men in those fora.

⁋15Another means of assessing local significance is to look at charter attestations. The vagaries of survival mean that any attempt at statistical quantification would be pointless, but it is possible to gain a sense of the local standing and interests of a landowner by looking at the locations of the charters that they witness, their fellow witnesses, and by their place within the witness list. For instance, Cockayne and Martel witnessed a charter re: land in Ardleigh and another granting land in Elmstead to Simon Batilly in 1245, while Elmstead and Cockayne were the first two witnesses of another local charter. 50 Cockayne had previously witnessed a grant to Richard d’Ectot. 51 Another Elmstead charter was witnessed by Sir Simon Batilly and William son of Ralph Martel. 52 Ralph Martel himself and Robert Hide witnessed a charter in Ardleigh, and Belstead witnessed Neville charters re: Langham and Great Totham. 53

⁋16Finally, and in addition to these shared experiences in local office and other occasions, such as witnessing charters, there were long-standing family connections between these men. For instance, it seems likely that Hugh son of Richard of Elmstead sprang from a junior branch of the family that held Elmstead, Latton and Stambridge. In 1248, Elmstead released his claim to lands in Elmstead against Richard de Tany and Margery his wife, in return for Tany waiving his claim to collect 1d. in ale from Elmstead’s tenants. 54 In 1185 Richard son of William, lord of Elmstead, had confirmed to William son of Richard [son of Thomas] all the lands that William’s father had held by the gift of Richard’s father in Elmstead. This may have been provision for a younger brother or son. These charters were witnessed by Hamo (I) d’Ectot, Richard his son, and Ralph Martel, among other local figures. 55 Gilbert Foucher had married Christina, possibly Hugh of Elmstead’s mother, since they quitclaimed her dower rights in sixty acres in Elmstead to Hugh in return for 24 m. 56

⁋17Turning to the Munchenesy witnesses, Sir Hubert de Rowley held the manor of Shedingho in Manningtree and Mistley, and had formerly served as steward to the earl of Oxford and constable of Colchester. 57 He and his son Richard had been disgraced, however, for participating in a raid on the lands of Rose of Cockfield, part of a dispute over inheritance. 58 In 1243 he represented Munchenesy as his attorney. 59 (Sir) William of Feering was another member of the local gentry. Although his precise estates have not been located, he witnessed numerous local charters, in some of which he has the title of knight, and served on the grand assize in 1250 and 1254. 60 Robert de Bures may have been a professional administrator, serving as bailiff of the sheriff of Essex in 1233, attorney to Warin de Munchenesy in 1239, and later, in 1254, as steward to Sir Philip Basset. 61 It is more difficult to pin down his lands as there were several families of this name active at this time. 62

⁋18The remaining witnesses are more obscure but, with some digging, they can be identified as men of respectable means, if not of especial prominence, in the local area. John de Bolebec can probably be identified with a tenant of Richard de Tany in Stapleford and he may even have been a junior offshoot of the baronial family of the same name, who married into the earls of Oxford. 63 John Chance was also a substantial local figure. Before his death c. 1261, he held one messuage, sixty-nine acres of arable and two acres of meadow in Great Fordham and one messuage, forty acres of land and one-half mark in rent in Bromley. 64 Chance even made a grant of three acres of land in Bromley to Master Thomas of Wymundham, parson of the church, in return for reception into all benefits of the church. 65 Roger of Kelvedon could be the same man who held a moderate estate of one messuage, sixty acres of arable and two acres of meadow in Stanford and Fingringhoe, and may have held other lands elsewhere. 66 He must have been a man with no small financial resources, since the prior of Blackmore recognized that he owed a debt of 100 m. to Kelvedon before the eyre of 1248. 67 Alternatively, he could be the Roger of Kelvedon who served as under-sheriff to Walter of Essex at the end of Henry III’s reign. 68 William of Kirtling effectively granted the reversion of 100 acres of land in ‘La Raye’, East Mersey to William de Rowley in marriage with Hawise, probably a female relative of Kirtling. 69 These men also seem to have been respected members of local society, and can be found witnessing charters, albeit not at the head of the list. Bolebec and Chance witnessed charters in Great Fordham, and Chance and Copford witnessed another charter concerning the same place. 70 John Chance also witnessed a number of Crepping family charters in and around Great Tey. 71 Kirtling witnessed charters further to the north of the county. 72

⁋19Three other Munchenesy witnesses, however, do not seem to have had any connections to Essex beyond charter attestations. Ralph of Basing was a Hampshire landowner, holding the manor of Basing Byfleet. 73 He also appears in charters relating to Selborne priory and to the bishopric of Winchester in Hampshire. 74 Ralph de Chalons was probably the lord of Challonsleigh in Plympton St. Mary. He is found witnessing charters of his feudal lord, Baldwin de Redvers, earl of Devon, and Baldwin’s widow Isabel de Forz, countess of Aumale. 75 Basing and Chalons also witnessed a grant to Warin de Munchenesy of land in Denesgrave (Kent). 76 Hamo Petit can be identified with a man of the same name who witnesses numerous charters concerning the Munchenesys, in Norfolk as well as Essex, and in which he is occasionally given the title of knight. 77 He seems to have held land at Brantham and Stutton in Suffolk, and, although he does not seem to have held any land in Essex itself, Brantham is located just over the Suffolk bank of the Stour. 78 These men seem to have been linked to Munchenesy rather than to local society in Essex.

⁋20The comparison of these two witness lists would suggest that it was Elmstead who was more closely linked to local landed society than Munchenesy. It is interesting that two of the four knightly witnesses to the second charter, as well as Hamo Petit, were not from Essex, and may perhaps have represented members of Munchenesy’s wider affinity. In particular, Rowley, Basing and Bures all seem to have been connected to the Basset family of Wycombe, who were prominent at court and active in the Essex land market in these years. 79 It is more difficult to account for the appearance of Chalons. Although Munchenesy’s charters did include local landowners, men like Bolebec, Bures, Chance, Kelvedon, and Kirtling were not members of the first rank of local society. Although they all held reasonably substantial estates, none of these men seem to have been manorial lords or to have played a ‘knightly’ role in local administration. Moreover, they had no family history of such activity. We might therefore conclude that the established local gentry did not wish to be associated with Munchenesy’s ‘purchase’ of Thorrington, forcing him to issue a charter witnessed by members of his affinity and those of other thrusting courtiers, padded out with men from the second tier of local landed society. It therefore seems reasonable to advance the hypothesis that Henry III’s interference with the judicial system to support a relative of one of his foreign favourites at the expense of a well-established member of local gentry family might well have had political consequences.

⁋21We might therefore expect to find other indications of conflict within local society at this time. There may have been some tension between Robert Butler of Meesden and Warin de Munchenesy. In 1253 Butler complained that Munchenesy had ordered his men to assault one of Butler’s tenants and to fill in a ditch at his manor of Meesden (Herts) in 1253. Butler was also suing Munchenesy for a debt of 100s. in 1254. 80 Given this history, it might have led to some uncomfortable family gatherings when, after Warin’s death, his widow Denise chose to remarry the same Robert Butler. 81 It is possible to attempt a more systematic test of this hypothesis by examining the sympathies of the men named in the two witness lists during the period of reform and rebellion, 1258–67. Given the characterization of the two groups advanced above, we might expect to find more rebels among those linked to Hugh of Elmstead and more royalists among those connected with Munchenesy. The results, however, are more interesting than this simple dichotomy would suggest.

⁋22After the history recounted above, the support of Hugh of Elmstead himself for the reformers and Simon de Montfort should need little further explanation. 82 It was possibly because of debts incurred as a result of his rebellion that Hugh later had to lease out his lands in Elmstead. 83 Sir Richard de Tany was probably the leading Montfortian in Essex. He was chosen as one of the four county knights from Essex in 1258 and then served as sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire in 1259–60. 84 During the attacks on the lands of leading royalists masterminded by Simon de Montfort in 1263, Tany played a central role, and he was considered sufficiently important to witness the letters of the barons agreeing to the arbitation of Louis IX in December 1263. 85 After de Montfort’s victory at Lewes, Tany served as the baronial custos pacis in Essex, entrusted with ‘royal’ orders concerning the lands of royalists that had been seized, and with raising money for de Montfort. 86 Although John de Marines does not seem to have rebelled himself, his brothers Theobald and William did. 87 In addition, William son of Ralph Martel fought for the rebels at Lewes. 88 It is also possible that Cockayne was a rebel, as a ‘William Cocoine’ was named at the head of a list of local men accused of breach of the peace, although this identification is uncertain and, given the lack of any full pleading, it is not known whether this plea had anything to do with the events of the civil war. 89

⁋23Turning to the Munchenesy witnesses, and contrary to the hypothesis advanced above, we again find more Montfortians than royalists. This must be because William son of Warin de Munchenesy was a leading Montfortian baron. 90 William seems to have been joined in rebellion by Hamo Petit, whose land at Stutton was granted to Nicholas the porter of the wardrobe after Evesham, and possibly by Robert de Bures. 91 This reflects the diversity of motives behind involvement in the rebellion. Although his father Warin had benefitted from his association with Valence, at the expense of Hugh of Elmstead, William himself may also suffered at the hands of the king’s half-brother. As we have seen, Valence had married William’s step-sister, and succeeded to the lands of her maternal inheritance, while William stood to inherit the Munchenesy’s ancestral lands, together with Swanscombe and Painswick. Unfortunately for William, he was still under-age when his father died in July 1255. Naturally, William de Valence was well-placed to secure the wardship of William and his lands. 92 The Munchenesy estates remained in Valence’s hands for just over a year, until October 1256. In theory, at least, Valence should have protected the interests of his young ward, but the Lusignans were known for their harsh exploitation of the estates in their custody. Indeed, Valence may even have harboured ambitions of his own towards the lands of his young relative. 93 This experience may have motivated William, like several other future rebels whose wardships had been entrusted to the tender mercies of the Lusignans and other courtiers, to support the opposition to the king. 94 William’s support for the reform movement might then have encouraged men close to the family, such as Petit and possibly Bures, to follow suit. This would tend to minimize any differences between the loyalties of the two groups of witnesses.

⁋24It is much more difficult to find concrete evidence of any of the witnesses to either charter taking the king’s side during the civil war. William of Feering complained before the Essex eyre de terris datis in 1268 that this lands had been plundered during the period of the disturbance in the realm, which may refer to the plundering of the lands of royalists from 1263, but could equally be a result of the more general disorder without any political overtones. Moreover, Sir Theobald of Feering was certainly a Montfortian, although his precise relationship to William has not been established. 95 Sir Ralph of Basing received a grant of simple protection for one year in 1266, and this may suggest royalist sympathies, although he does not seem to have received any more substantial reward, which suggests that he had not been particularly active in the king’s cause. 96

⁋25Before concluding this investigation, it should also be stressed that, while the foregoing discussion concentrated on the connections within the set of witnesses to each of the two key charters, it is equally possible to find links between the two groups. Hubert de Rowley, in particular, was an active member of local society in North East Essex, serving on juries and witnessing charters with his neighbours. 97 Although doubtless personal and political differences could give rise to tensions, the relatively small number of gentry families holding manors, combined with the extent to which the realities of landholding and the needs of local administration dictated contact and co-operation, militated against the hardening of divisions and the ostracism of particular families.

⁋26The tangled dispute over Thorrington reconstructed above provides a rare opportunity to assess some of the hidden workings behind the technical language and studied neutrality of the official court records. Although we have little explicit evidence of Henry III’s interventions within the judicial process, contemporaries certainly believed that the king’s biases weighted the law in favour of his relatives and other courtiers and against local landowners without such influential friends. As William de Bussey, William de Valence’s steward, was alleged to have said: ‘If I do you wrong, who will do you right?’ 98 It would certainly be over-stating the case to argue that the Thorrington case itself was the reason behind the support of so many Essex gentry for the ‘Reform Movement’ and Simon de Montfort, but it was certainly one symptom of a much wider and more systematic failure of governance on the part of Henry III. This misgovernance had many aspects; administrative, financial, diplomatic and political, but the king’s willingness to bend the rules for his favourites had an especial resonance for the local gentry, even though relatively few suffered directly, because any of them could be the next in line.

Footnotes

1.
D.A. Carpenter, ‘King, Magnates and Society: the Personal Rule of Henry III, 1234–1258’, in The Reign of Henry III (London, 1996), pp. 81–85; J.R. Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta and the Local Community, 1215–1259’, Past and Present 102 (1984), pp. 54–61. Henry must have been aware of the potential political dangers of such extra-judicial activities, after the setting aside of a royal charter in the Upavon Basset case contributed to the rebellion of Richard Marshal in 1233 (N.C. Vincent, Peter des Roches: an Alien in English Politics, 1205–1238 (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 331–39). Presumably he thought that individuals of purely local significance, like Hugh of Elmstead, could be ignored with impunity. A more humorous example of the lengths to which Henry would go can be found in the case of the men of Rothley, recently examined by David Carpenter, in which Henry was prepared to declare himself as being still ‘under-age’ in 1230, at the age of 23, in order to set aside a royal charter (D.A. Carpenter, ‘The peasants of Rothley in Leicestershire, the Templars and King Henry III’, Fine of the Month for April 2009). Back to context...
2.
Their chief holdings were at King’s Pyon and Wormsley in Herefordshire and Bitterley in Shropshire. Wightman suggests that these enfeoffments were made quite late, some time after 1086. In 1166 the Lacys included a number of ‘landless’ knights among their tenants, who held land of a stated value rather than a designated fee, including two members of the d’Ectot family. Thorrington may have been belated landed provision for such a man (W.E. Wightman, The Lacy family in England and Normandy, 1066–1194 (Oxford, 1966), pp. 2, 155, 198–99, 211; L.C. Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, eds. C.T. Clay and D.C. Douglas (Harleian Society 103, 1951), p. 39; Domesday people: a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents, 1066–1166, ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (Woodbridge, 1999), p. 210; Domesday descendants: a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents 1066–1166, ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (Woodbridge, 2002), p. 448). For the eventual fate of the main branch of the family, see R. Bartlett, ‘Colonial Aristocracies of the High Middle Ages’, Medieval Frontier Societies, eds. R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (Oxford, 1989), pp. 38–41. Back to context...
3.
The descent of Thorrington given by Philip Morant is misleading (P. Morant, The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex: Compiled from the Best and Most Ancient Historians (2 vols, London, 1768), i, pp. 450–51). Although complicated, it is worth the effort to unpick the early history of the manor and its lords. In 1086, Thorrington was held of Odo bishop of Bayeux by Ralph son of Turold of Rochester. Turold had previously served as steward to Odo. When Bishop Odo forfeited his lands after rebelling against his nephew, William II, it seems that many of his feudal tenants suffered the same fate, probably including Ralph (Domesday people, pp. 341, 431). Also implicated was Helto Dapifer, holder of Swanscombe in Kent and Turold’s successor as steward to Odo (ibid, p. 247). This is significant because it seems that Thorrington was granted with Swanscombe to Geoffrey I Talbot, and henceforth the manor was held of the honour of Swanscombe. Geoffrey I Talbot was holding Thorrington c. 1108–1126 and was succeeded by his son, Geoffrey II, c. 1129–1130, who was still holding the honour of Swanscombe in 1135 (Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria, ed. S.A. Moore (2 vols, London, 1897), pp. 142, 546; Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii vel Magnum Rotulum Pipae de Anno Tricesimo-Primo Regni Henrici Primi, ed. J. Hunter (London, 1833), p. 67; Liber Rubeus de Scaccario, ed. H. Hall (3 vols, London, 1896, i, p. 195). By 1166, Thorrington had been granted to Hamo d’Ectot. Back to context...
4.
T[he] N[ational] A[rchives], E 40/819. Back to context...
5.
B[ritish] L[ibrary] Harley MS 3697, ff.143–143v; C[uria] R[egis] R[olls], i, pp. 189–190. Back to context...
6.
E[ssex] R[ecord] O[ffice], DU/23/32; CRR, vi, pp. 124–25; TNA JUST 1/229, mm. 2, 3, 9d; CRR, xv, p. 19. Back to context...
7.
TNA E 40/3370 (Bergholt and Fordham), /13809 (Tendring ), /13986 (Wix); E 326/3465, /5486 (Ardleigh). Back to context...
8.
Feet of Fines for Essex, ed. R. E. G. Kirk (4 vols, Colchester, 1899–1947), i, p. 105. Back to context...
9.
TNA E 40/821. Back to context...
10.
The descent of the honour of Swanscombe is tied up with the confused genealogy of the Lacy family. According to David Crouch (D.A. Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, 1135–1154 (Harlow, 2000), p. 79), the reconstruction suggested by H.A. Cronne (although, in fact, this solution seems to have been first proposed by E. Stokes and H. W. Hughes in G.E. Cokayne, Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, eds. V. Gibbs and H.A. Doubleday (rev. ed., 12 vols, London, 1910–59), ix, pp. 424–26) should be preferred to that of Wightman and Sanders, followed by Keats-Rohan (I.J. Sanders, English Baronies: a study of their origin and descent, 1086–1327 (Oxford, 1960), p. 144; Wightman, Lacy Family, pp. 175–77; Domesday People, pp. 231, 264–65; Domesday Descendants, pp. 577, 536–38, 1122). This reconstruction also has the advantage of better explaining how Swanscombe descended to the Munchenesy family, the feudal lords in 1250. According to Stokes and Hughes, Geoffrey I Talbot married Agnes daughter of Walter de Lacy and sister of Hugh de Lacy. Their son, Geoffrey II Talbot, joined his Lacy relatives in opposing Stephen, and it seems that Swanscombe, lying firmly within Stephen’s area of control, was seized. After Geoffrey II’s death c. 1140, it seems that Stephen promised the honour to Geoffrey, one of the brothers of Aubrey de Vere, first earl of Oxford (Crouch, Reign of King Stephen, pp. 182–83). Although its fate during the later years of Stephen’s reign is unclear, by 1166 Swanscombe had passed to Walter de Mayenne, third husband of Cecily daughter (and co-heiress) of Sibyl wife of Payn fitzJohn. Sibyl was probably the sister of Geoffrey II and Cecily was thus grand-daughter of Geoffrey I Talbot and Agnes de Lacy. Cecily had previously been married to Roger son of Miles of Gloucester, earl of Hereford (and is therefore sometimes described as Countess Cecily) and William of Poitou. Although Sibyl had a sister and nominal co-heiress, Agnes (married Warin (I) de Munchenesy), it seems that Mayenne held the full barony of Swanscombe. Possibly Agnes held the Lacy lands granted to Payn fitzJohn, presumably in marriage with Sibyl, including Painswick in Gloucestershire or, alternatively, Mayenne may have enjoyed a life-grant of the whole honour from the king. Mayenne died in 1190 without issue, and now the honour of Swanscombe seems to have been divided between the widowed Cecily and Ralph de Munchenesy, son of Warin and Cecily’s sister Agnes. Ralph de Munchenesy was head of a junior branch of the Munchenesy family of Edwardstone (located on the Suffolk side of the border with Essex), previously settled in Norfolk. Their succession to the lands of Payn fitzJohn in the marches and to Swanscombe, however, vaulted them above the senior branch of the family in terms of wealth and influence (for the Munchenesys, see Complete Peerage, ix, pp. 418–26). Ralph died without issue before 1190, and was succeeded by his brother William. In his turn, William died without issue c. 1204, leaving a minor son William (II). After Cecily’s death without issue c. 1207, the honour of Swanscombe was reunited in the hands of William (II) de Munchenesy, although he seems to have died before coming of age, being succeeded by his brother Warin (II), who entered into his inheritance in 1213 and died, after a long career, in 1255. Back to context...
11.
Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, ed. H.R. Luard (7 vols, London, 1872–83), iv, p. 628. It is indicative of the considerations underlying such family affairs that the marriage of Valence and Joan de Munchenesy swiftly followed the death of her brother John, the only male issue of Warin and Joan Marshal, in June 1247. This immediately made Joan a very attractive match and Valence wasted no time in securing her hand (and lands). Back to context...
12.
Two weeks before the marriage of Joan and William de Valence, on 29 July at Woodstock, the king issued a confirmation and inspeximus of a charter of Henry II to Ralph de Munchenesy, Warin’s uncle, acquitting him of various suits to royal courts (C[alendar of the] Ch[arter] R[olls] 1226–57, p. 325. A copy of this charter survives as TNA C 146/9817, possibly produced for submission as evidence in a legal dispute over suit to the hundred of Barstable, for which see KB 27/18, m. 47; and recited again in a letter patent of 1280, E 40/5285). On 23 May 1248 the king ordered the justices in eyre in Hertfordshire to postpone all cases involving Munchenesy until the quindenes of the Nativity of St. John (C[alendar of] C[lose] R[olls] 1247–51, p. 52). Before the Essex eyre of 1248, it was presented that Munchenesy removed the suit that he and his tenants owed to the hundred of Barstable (JUST 1/232, m. 8) and he also removed the suit he owed to Bisley (Gloucs) (CRR, xix, p. 114). The king seems to have turned a blind eye to these encroachments. On 27 December at Winchester, the king repeated that Warin was to have the same liberties as his uncle Ralph (CCR 1247–51, p. 249), the date perhaps suggesting that Warin spent Christmas at the royal court. During the dispute with Elmstead, moreover, Munchenesy continued to receive marks of favour, an ominous sign for his opponent. On 10 June 1250 Munchenesy was gifted four stags from the forest of Whittlewood (CCR 1247–51, p. 293) and on 8 January 1251 he was granted six does from the same forest (ibid, p. 395) and, on 27 December 1251, Munchenesy received another six does from Whittlewood (CCR 1251–53, p. 28). Back to context...
13.
CFR 1249–50, no. 228. This fine was paid into the treasury by the sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire on Hugh's behalf (E 372/94, r. 8 m. 2d.). Back to context...
14.
TNA C 66/61, m. 8d. Back to context...
15.
TNA JUST 1/1177A, m. 4. William was a tenant of Hugh in Elmstead (ERO, Drg/1/18; Dr/T42/1). Back to context...
16.
CFR 1250–51, no. 244. Back to context...
17.
TNA C 66/62, m. 12d. Back to context...
18.
TNA JUST 1/1177A, m. 5d. Back to context...
19.
D.W. Sutherland, The Assize of Novel Disseisin (Oxford, 1973), pp. 19–20, 64–67. Back to context...
20.
TNA JUST 1/1177A, m. 6d. There is a file of writs sent to Thirkleby between 1251 and 1257, concerning thirty-seven assizes, but none concern this case [JUST 4/1/2]. Back to context...
21.
CCR 1247–51, p. 529. Back to context...
22.
TNA E 40/825. Back to context...
23.
CChR 1226–57, p. 428; TNA E 40/3807, /6544, /7740; E 42/16. Back to context...
24.
The Pipe Roll for Michaelmas 1251 to 1252 records that Hugh fitzRichard was pardoned the 20s. that he owed for an assize (TNA E 372/96, r. 15 m. 2d.). Back to context...
25.
CCR 1251–53, pp. 439, 441. Back to context...
26.
Chronica Majora, v, p. 504. Paris may also have been referring to Munchenesy’s youthful support for the baronial rebels against King John between 1215 and 1217 (Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati, ed. T.D. Hardy (2 vols, London, 1833–34), i, p. 341). Back to context...
27.
Carpenter, ‘King, Magnates and Society’, pp. 82–83. Back to context...
28.
Tany held two fees in Eastwick and Bengeo (Herts) inherited from his father Peter (Liber Rubeus de Scaccario, ii, pp. 504–06), and eight fees at Stapleford Tawney, Great Stambridge, and Elmstead inherited from his father-in-law, William fitzRichard, along with manors at Chignall Tawney and Latton Tawney (C[alendar of] I[inquisitions] P[ost] M[ortem], II, p. 248). According to his IPM, the total value of Tany’s lands in Essex (excluding Stambridge) was nearly £45. For more information about the family, see L.R. Buttle, ‘The Tanys of Stapelford Tawney’, Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, 20 (1930), pp. 155–72. Back to context...
29.
‘Fulk Basset’s Register and the Norwich Taxation’, ed. R. C. Fowler, Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, NS 18 (1926), p. 124. We later find a William Butler of Alresford witnessing a local charter, and a man of the same name held one-eighth fee there in 1303 (ERO, Drg/1/225; Feudal Aids, 1284–1431 (6 vols, London, 1899-1920), ii, 129–31). Back to context...
30.
CIPM, i, p. 53; TNA KB 26/172, m.17d. Back to context...
31.
V[ictoria] C[ounty] H[istory] Hertfordshire, iii, pp. 400–01. Back to context...
32.
CIPM, i, pp. 60, 122. Back to context...
33.
VCH Essex, x, p. 168; TNA KB 26/195, m. 42. Back to context...
34.
Morant, History of Essex, ii, pp. 173, 187; VCH Essex, iv, p. 227, x, pp. 281, 290. Back to context...
35.
Feet of Fines for Essex, i, pp. 163, 219. Back to context...
36.
TNA DL 25/1510. Back to context...
37.
Morant, History of Essex, i, p. 453; Feet of Fines for Essex, ii, p. 22. Back to context...
38.
TNA JUST 1/235, m. 18d.; JUST 1/236B, m. 2; JUST 1/238, m. 1d. Back to context...
39.
For example, E 40/11629; ERO, Dwv/T1/3. Back to context...
40.
TNA JUST 1/235, m. 17; JUST 1/236B, m. 5d.; JUST 1/238, m. 57. Back to context...
41.
TNA E 40/523. Back to context...
42.
For Peter de Tany, see C[alendar of] P[atent] R[olls] 1232–47, p. 144; TNA E 372/80, r. 17 m. 1; /81, r. 3 m. 1; /82, r. 11 m. 2; /83, r. 4 m. 1). For Richard, see E 372/104, r. 11 m. 1; /105, r. 7 m. 1d.). For Marines’ appointment as sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, see CPR 1247–58, pp. 410, 473. His arrears and debts were later transferred to the Essex and Hertfordshire account on the pipe roll (E 372/102, r. 4 m. 2). Back to context...
43.
Batilly served at some time between 1227 and 1235 (TNA JUST 1/235, m .6) and Foucher at some point between 1254 and 1272 (JUST 1/236B, m. 1; JUST 1/238, m. 46). Back to context...
44.
TNA C 66/44, mm. 15d., 13d.; /45, m. 6d.; /46, mm. 13d., 11d.; /47, m. 11d.; /48, m. 4d.; /49, mm. 9d., 8d., 7d., 5d. These commissions were entered on the dorse of the patent roll and are, with one or two exceptions, omitted from the printed calendars. Back to context...
45.
Tany served in 1248 and 1262 (TNA JUST 1/231, m. 1; JUST 1/236B, m. 2) and Butler in 1239, 1248, 1249 and 1251 (CRR, xvi, pp. 197–98; JUST 1/231, mm. 1, 2, 8; CRR, xix, pp. 3–4; KB 26/216, m. 1d.). Back to context...
46.
CRR, xvii, p. 142, xix, pp. 3–4; TNA JUST 1/229, mm. 3, 7; CRR, xiv, p. 444; CRR, i, p. 201, x, p. 174. Back to context...
47.
JUST 1/229, mm. 3, 9d.; CRR, xv, p. 19. On the latter occasion he served with Richard d’Ectot. Back to context...
48.
CRR, vi, pp. 124–25. Back to context...
49.
TNA JUST 1/237, m. 1; JUST 1/242, m. 64. Back to context...
50.
TNA E 329/255; ERO, D/DU 23/34; ERO, Drg/1/18. Back to context...
51.
TNA E 40/4109. Back to context...
52.
ERO, Drg/1/18. Back to context...
53.
TNA E 326/99; DL 26/1697; DL 36/1/164, /168. Back to context...
54.
Feet of Fines for Essex, i, p. 176. Back to context...
55.
ERO, D/DU 23/31; D/DU 23/32. Back to context...
56.
Feet of Fines for Essex, i, p. 181. Back to context...
57.
Morant, History of Essex, i, p. 461. CRR, ix, p. 125; Feet of Fines for Essex, i, p. 244, ii, p. 20. Rowley was a grand assize juror in 1227 (TNA JUST 1/229, m. 3) and 1251 (KB 26/216, m. 1d.). His sister Idonea was prioress of Wix nunnery (E 40/13887), and Rowley was both a grantor to the house (E 40/3741) and a frequent witness to grants to the house, from greater and lesser figures (there are more than thirty extant charters witnessed by Rowley. Examples include E 40/474, /799, /13680). He served as steward to the earl of Oxford in 1239 (E 372/83, r. 4 m. 1d.). Hubert died c. 1279 holding ‘Sidingeho’ (Essex) and ‘Godelisford’ (Suffolk) of the countess of Aumale as one-half fee, leaving a widow, Isabella (C 145/37, no. 8). Back to context...
58.
CFR 1241–42, no. 332. Rowley also forfeited his manor of Kersey (Suffolk) and, to regain royal favour, agreed to serve on the king’s campaign to Gascony (CPR 1232–47, p. 337). While in Gascony, he was granted a respite from answering for his debts at the Exchequer, including the fine for his son’s trespass (CFR 1242, no. 465). The king later granted Kersey to Philip Basset (CPR 1232–47, p. 374), and from then on the Rowleys were frequent witnesses to Basset charters, as will be discussed shortly. Back to context...
59.
CRR, xviii, p. 37. Back to context...
60.
ERO, DU 646/32; CRR, xix, 318; TNA JUST 1/233, m. 15; see also the descents of Feering and Pattiswick in Morant, History of Essex, ii, pp. 172–73. Back to context...
61.
CRR, xv, p. 136, xvi, p. 142. In 1254, Bures was Sir Philip Basset’s steward (TNA E 40/543) and also served as Basset’s attorney before the eyre of the same year (JUST 1/233, m. 4). He is a frequent witness of Basset charters (e.g. E 40/768, /772, /774, /807, /13498, /13951, /13954, /13959; CChR 1226–57, pp. 440–41). Back to context...
62.
A Robert son of Walter de Bures held in Writtle in the 1220s (TNA JUST 1/229, m. 12d.). Another Robert held land of the fee of the Earl Warenne in 1235 (Liber Feodorum: the book of fees commonly called Testa de Nevill, reformed from the earliest manuscripts (3 vols, London, 1920–31), i, pp. 483–84). Perhaps the most promising candidate is the Robert who was presented by the hundred jurors of Hinckford for removing wardpenny from his lands in ‘Bures’ c. 1265 (most likely Bures Hamlet, now a civil parish but then in Alphamstone, but possibly either Bowers Hall in Steeple Bumpstead or Bowers Hall in Pentlow), held in 1285 by William de Bures (JUST 1/242, mm. 82d.–83). Bures Hamlet is just across the Stour from Bures St. Mary in Suffolk, and a family based in this area later achieved some prominence (J.C. Ward, 'Sir Robert de Bures', Transactions of the Monumental Brass Society, 10:3 (1965), pp. 144–50). Back to context...
63.
TNA JUST 1/242, m. 33d. Sir Gilbert de Bolebec witnessed a Berkshire charter of Warin de Munchenesy (E 40/146). Back to context...
64.
TNA KB 26/171, m. 77. Back to context...
65.
Feet of Fines for Essex, i, p. 207. Back to context...
66.
After his death, sometime before 1252, Roger’s widow Agnes sued his lord, the prior of Blackmore, for a third part of the said property as her dower (TNA KB 26/147B, m. 24d.). Back to context...
67.
TNA JUST 1/231, m. 28 Back to context...
68.
Rotuli Hundredorum (2 vols, London, 1812–18), i, p. 140. This man also witnessed a charter in 1270 (TNA LR 14/31). Back to context...
69.
Feet of Fines for Essex, i, p. 211. Back to context...
70.
ERO, DU/646/4, /28, /45, /52. Back to context...
71.
For Chance’s lands in Tey, see TNA JUST 1/236A, m. 7; Feet of Fines for Essex, i, p. 236; and for charter attestations, see ERO, DU/646/54, /63, /67. Back to context...
72.
E 40/3911, /9312, /13709. Back to context...
73.
VCH Hampshire, iv, p. 121. Back to context...
74.
Calendar of charters and documents relating to Selborne and its priory, preserved in the muniment rooms of Magdalen College, ed. W.D. Macray (2 vols, Hampshire Record Society, 1891–94), i, pp. 58, 60, 61, ii, pp. 8, 9, 82; Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, episcopi Wyntoniensis, 1282–1304, ed. C. Deedes (Canterbury & York Society, 1915–24), pp. 615–17. Back to context...
75.
Liber Feodorum, ii, p. 789; CChR 1257–1300, pp. 303–04. Ralph de Chalons was still holding Challonsleigh in 1284–86 (Feudal Aids, i, p. 334). The Chalons family were frequent attestors to Redvers charters in the twelfth century (Charters of the Redvers family and the earldom of Devon, 1090–1217, ed. R. Bearman (Exeter, 1994), pp. 69, 103, 106, 109, 166). Back to context...
76.
TNA E 40/5562. Back to context...
77.
Petit witnessed two charters of Warin de Munchenesy (TNA E 40/825 and E 42/16), apparently before his promotion to knighthood. In at least three charters of Warin’s son William de Munchenesy, Petit does have the title of knight (E 40/2978, /3807, /6511; in a fourth charter it is not clear whether he should be included amongst the knights or not: E 40/6505). Back to context...
78.
Rotuli Selecti ad Res Anglicas et Hibernicas Spectantes: ex Archivis in Domo Capituli Westmonasteriensi, Deprompti Cura Joseph Hunter, ed. J. Hunter (London, 1834), p. 255; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii, p. 177. In 1302–03, James Petit and Cecily Maupetit held one-eighth fee in Stutton and Brantham (Suffolk) of the honour of Richmond, and in 1346 Robert Petit and Robert Maupetit were holding the same estate (Feudal Aids, v, pp. 24, 49). Back to context...
79.
Rowley witnesses numerous Basset charters concerning property in Northern Essex (for example, TNA E 40/13899, /13901, /13903, /13904, /13905). Ralph of Basing witnesses two Basset charters, and he may have been linked to the Bassets through their tenure of Maplederwell, which adjoins the parish of Basing in Hampshire (Basset Charters, pp. 255, 263; VCH Hampshire, iv, p. 150). Back to context...
80.
TNA KB 26/149, m. 7d.; KB 26/154, m. 32d.; JUST 1/233, mm. 3, 8. Back to context...
81.
Complete Peerage, ix, p. 421. Back to context...
82.
C[alendar of] I[nquisitions] M[iscellaneous], i, 205, 207; Rotuli Selecti, p. 138. Back to context...
83.
TNA JUST 1/241, m. 16. Back to context...
84.
CPR 1247–58, p. 646; TNA E 372/104, r. 11 m. 1; /105, r. 7 m. 1d.; CPR 1258–66, pp. 163–64. Back to context...
85.
Tany was accused of robbing Nicholas d’Audley, John of Colchester, and Robert of Tattershall, and also seems to have acted as a sort of local liaison with the Londoners in their raid on Peter of Savoy’s manor of Cheshunt (TNA KB 26/175, mm. 5, 6, 24, /184A, m. 16; Rotuli Selecti, p. 127). For the letters of the Barons, see Documents of the Movement of Baronial Reform and Rebellion, 1258–67, eds. R.H. Treharne and I.J. Sanders (Oxford, 1973), pp. 284–85. Tany had earlier attended the parliament organised by de Montfort in London (CCR 1261–64, p. 290). Back to context...
86.
On 12 July 1264, Tany was ordered to restore some lands to the wife of the royalist and Marcher lord Maurice de Berkeley, which had been seized on account of the recent disturbances (CCR 1261–64, p. 290). The justiciar Hugh Despenser also sent letters to Tany, authorising him to raise an aid in Essex (TNA KB 26/175, m. 17). Back to context...
87.
CPR 1258–66, p. 606. Back to context...
88.
Rotuli Selecti, p. 134. Back to context...
89.
TNA KB 26/189, m. 3d. Back to context...
90.
He was one of the young supporters of de Montfort dismissed by the royalist chronicler Thomas Wykes as the ‘boys’ of England (Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard (5 vols, London, 1864–69), iv, p. 133). He was named as a baronial arbitrator in 1264 and helped to set up the triumvirate and council of nine through whom de Montfort ruled England after Lewes (Documents of the Movement of Baronial Reform and Rebellion, pp. 298–99; J. R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (Cambridge, 1994), p. 332). Munchenesy’s lands were seized and after Evesham and, naturally, they were granted to William de Valence (CIM, i, pp. 202, 203; Rotuli Selecti,, pp. 129, 131). Back to context...
91.
Rotuli Selecti, p. 255; CPR 1266–72, pp. 416–17. Back to context...
92.
CPR 1247–58, pp. 419–20. Back to context...
93.
S.L. Waugh, The Lordship of England: Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics, 1217–1327 (Princeton, 1988), pp. 203–04. Back to context...
94.
C.H. Knowles, ‘The Disinherited, 1265–80: a political and social study of the supporters of Simon de Montfort and the Resettlement after the Barons' War’ (unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Aberystwyth, 1959), p. 42. Knowles does not mention Munchenesy, but this would only strengthen his argument. Back to context...
95.
CPR 1266–72, p. 38; CIM, i, p. 207; Rotuli Selecti, p. 118. Roger of Feering was also a rebel (CPR 1266–72, pp. 130–31). The names William, Theobald and Roger recur in the family. Back to context...
96.
CPR 1258–66, p. 614. Back to context...
97.
Hubert de Rowley and Richard d’Ectot served on the same grand assize in 1227 (TNA JUST 1/229, m. 3). In 1272 Rowley, Nicholas Foucher, Simon Batilly and Theobald de Feering served on the same grand assize (JUST 1/238, m. 1d.). One of the most frequent interactions between local landholders was to act as pledges or sureties for each other, and in 1254 twenty landholders from Northern Essex, including Hubert and Richard de Rowley, Ralph Martel and Nicholas Foucher, stood as pledges for Master Geoffrey le Gros for a fine of 500m that Geoffrey had made with Fulk Basset for the wardship of Geoffrey’s nephew, William son and heir of Sir Hugh le Gros (JUST 1/233, m. 19d.). Rowley witnessed a charter of John de Boville of Ardleigh, along with Richard Butler, Richard d’Ectot and Ralph Martel (E 326/98), and he later witnessed a charter of Hugh of Elmstead, with Simon Batilly, William Butler and William le Gros (ERO, DRG/1/18). Ralph Martel also witnessed a charter in favour of Warin de Munchenesy, with Feering and Petit, and the local lords Walter de Crepping, Hugh le Gros and Ralph of St. Osyth (E 42/16). Such examples could easily be multiplied. Back to context...
98.
Chronica Majora, v, p. 738. For Bussey’s career, see A.H. Hershey, 'The Rise and Fall of William de Bussey: a Mid-Thirteenth-Century Steward', Nottingham Medieval Studies, xliv (2000), pp. 104–22. Back to context...