• 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. Rose of Dover, Richard of Chilham and the duel for a manor

Here Christine Voth and Richard Cassidy employ an entry in the Fine Rolls both to trace intimately the development of a law case over a disputed inheritance which culminated in the waging of a judicial duel, and to explore the legal background and consequence of a decision to place one’s fate in the hands of a champion. They also breathe life into a complex and mysterious figure close to Henry III, his illegitimate half-brother Richard of Chilham.

⁋1(Christine Voth is presently working full-time on an MA in Medieval History at King’s College. She an MA in Linguistics from the University of Texas at Arlington).

1.1. C 60/28, Fine Roll 12 Henry III (28 October 1227–27 October 1228), membrane 7

1.1.1. 96

⁋1 For the wife of Richard of Chilham. The king has committed to Rose, [who cancelled] the wife of Richard of Chilham, the manor of Lesnes with appurtenances, which Richard and Rose recovered by a duel against Robert fitz Walter, so that Rose is to render £40 to the king from the aforesaid manor, which the king [paid cancelled] lent to Richard in order to wage the duel, namely 20 m. at Michaelmas in the twelfth year, 20 m. at Hilary next following in the thirteenth year, and 20 m. at Easter next following in the same year, and for this they have found the king Geoffrey de Say, John of Shillingham and William de Lisle as pledges, namely 20 m. from each pledge. Order to the bishop of Chichester etc. to cause her to have full seisin of the aforesaid manor. Witness as above [the King, Westminster, 1 March 1228]. ¹

⁋1This fine adds an intriguing element to a court case, part of which has been known to historians since the publication of Bracton’s Note Book; ² the king’s involvement apparently made it possible to bring the case to a conclusion, by fighting a duel over the rights to a manor. The fine itself was noted by Dugdale in 1675, but seems to have been overlooked in subsequent accounts of the case. ³

⁋2It is difficult to put together all the stages of the case, because Richard of Chilham is an elusive character. No less an authority than Sir Maurice Powicke wrote that the pirate outlaws of Lundy Island were captured in 1242 by ‘A certain Richard de Chilham, of whom I know nothing’. ⁴

⁋3Richard’s other major appearance in history took place much earlier, in 1217, when the chronicles referred to him as ‘Richard son of the King’ (Ricardus filius Regis) – for he was the illegitimate son of King John. Richard commanded a ship in the sea battle off Sandwich against the French fleet bringing reinforcements to Prince Louis. In some accounts he was credited with personally beheading the French commander, Eustace the Monk. ⁵ The fine takes us from the swashbuckling world of G.A. Henty to the more sedate courtrooms of Bracton – but it does at least involve a duel.

⁋4And it is hardly surprising if Powicke was confused. Richard was also known as Richard of Dover and Richard de Warenne (his mother was the sister of Earl William de Warenne). ⁶ In a charter, he called himself ‘Ricardus filius regis Iohannis’, and while his seal legend called him Richard de Warenne, its design drew attention to his royal father, featuring two Angevin lions passant. ⁷

⁋5To make matters worse, he crops up in the Curia Regis Rolls as ‘Ricardus filius Rogeri’ and ‘Ricardus filius Reginaldi de Childhal’’, presumably due to errors of transcription from Ric’ f’ Reg’. ⁸ Matthew Paris managed to muddle matters still further, recording Richard’s death and his son’s in 1245: Matthew’s list of ‘shields laid low’ includes ‘Ricardi filii Rogeri de Chileham. Ricardi de Dovere filii ejus.’ ⁹ J.H. Round thought that ‘Richard son of Roger’ was another example of a transcription error; ¹⁰ while Richard’s son, another Richard, known as Richard of Dover, was alive in 1247, when he married the countess of Angus. ¹¹

⁋6Richard of Chilham’s wife Rose was an heiress, and it was from her family that their lands, and claims to land, had been inherited. These properties were in Kent and Essex, and the next entries in the Fine Roll, on the day following the fine for the duel, order the sheriffs of those counties to take into the king’s hand Richard and Rose’s manors of Warden and Chingford. ¹² In September 1228, repayment of the first instalment of Rose’s debt is respited until the following Easter. ¹³ In 1229, the same sheriffs are ordered to take in hand all Richard and Rose’s lands, except Lesnes, which Rose has for her sustenance. ¹⁴

⁋7There is no explanation in the rolls for the king taking these manors in hand. They were all part of Rose’s inheritance. However, it may be significant that, in September 1227, shortly before the duel for Lesnes, the sheriff of Kent had been ordered not to allow Richard to waste, sell or ruin the manor of Northwood, which had been assigned to Rose for her sustenance, nor to permit Richard to intermeddle with it in any way. ¹⁵ In July 1229, their manor of Wenden, Essex, was to be handed over to cover Richard’s debt to Benedict Crispin. ¹⁶ (The Fine Rolls also record that Richard still owed money to Crispin in 1243, when part of his debt was pardoned by the king.) ¹⁷ In this context, it is worth noting that our fine commits the manor of Lesnes to Rose alone, although the loan to fight the duel was to Richard, and the court case was of course brought by both of them. But what was the duel about, and why did the king lend them £40?

⁋8An imprest of £40 to Chilham appears on the Liberate Roll for 15 November 1227, which is presumably the loan shown in the Fine Roll. ¹⁸ As will be seen, this date is shortly after the duel took place. It seems a large sum. In criminal cases, sheriffs regularly arranged judicial combats for a few shillings. ¹⁹ Such duels involved approvers, who fought as an alternative to hanging. In a land dispute, it was necessary to hire a champion, and a champion willing and able to fight to the death, if need be, did not come cheap. Around 1290, a champion would charge 50 marks, plus maintenance and expenses; in 1258, the market price was 20 marks. ²⁰ Richard and Rose had to hire two champions to fight for them, so £40 might be a reasonable amount to spend on their case.

⁋9Judicial combat – trial by battle or duel – was a form of ordeal; a means of turning to God to settle a dispute for which man could not or would not provide a verdict. Domesday Book entries indicate that several disputes between the English and the Normans over land had been settled through unilateral ordeal or by judicial combat. ²¹ The acceptance of duel as a means of settling land disputes in Anglo-Norman England gained strength with its inclusion in the so-called Leges Henrici Primi with a set minimum value of ten shillings for land cases tried by battle unless there was an associated criminal charge such as theft. ²²

⁋10By the reign of Henry II, a writ of right was to be issued in land claims that were capable of being tried by battle, and then the question arose of whether to choose the grand assize or the duel. ²³ According to Neilson, ‘the duel was reserved for a claimant of land or other real property who could not rely upon recent possession, while even in this case, as just said it was competent for the tenant, the party attacked, to reject the duel and adopt the grand assize.’ ²⁴ The author of Glanvill indicates that the choice was clearly available between the two options once a writ of right had been issued. ²⁵ The only prohibition to a duel was if the claimants were too closely related for the approval of the court for judicial combat. ²⁶ Both parties had to agree to the duel before proceeding. ²⁷

⁋11The main procedural difference between civil and criminal judicial combat was in the use of champions. In criminal trials, the use of a champion to fight for the accused was prohibited; if the accused lost the battle, he would still be held to pay the penalties of his crime, if he did not die in combat. ²⁸ Duels in civil trials were fought by a champion who served in two capacities: first as a witness who took an oath on behalf of the one he is championing; and second, as a pugilist willing to risk his life or reputation for this claim. In theory, the champion was someone who had stood as an oath-taker on behalf of the claimant ²⁹ or claimed to have witnessed the seisin, ³⁰ but the names of the same champions show up in multiple crown pleas. ³¹ Restrictions on the use of hired champions were eroded in the course of the thirteenth century, and a class of professional champions emerged, available for hire or even kept on a retainer. ³² The champion who lost the battle would, if he survived, be ‘proclaimed craven’, and the man for whom he fought would be liable for a fine ³³ and would lose any claim on the land in perpetuity. ³⁴

⁋12The use of trial by battle was ‘discouraged’ by the Lateran Council in 1215, along with the other forms of ordeal. ³⁵ However, trial by battle continued as a viable option for pleas for land disputes and debts and in cases of treason beyond 1215. Paul Hyams suggests that by the end of the thirteenth century the choice of duel over assize in land disputes was seen by landowners as an ‘essential liberty’ ³⁶ yet it occurred with less frequency, becoming nearly obsolete during the reign of Edward I. ³⁷

⁋13It is interesting that Richard and Rose’s case was settled by duel rather than grand assize. The tenant in a case brought by writ of right had the option to choose the duel, and might prefer to do so if he thought that his neighbours would decide against him, if placed on a jury. ³⁸ In addition, as Glanvill notes, trial by battle could be a lengthy and expensive process. ³⁹ Once duel was chosen, ‘the plaintiff’s choice is irrevocable; he must play the rules of the game that he has chosen’; ⁴⁰ sixteen essoins are allowed, ⁴¹ which could conceivably lengthen the case for years; and there were numerous fees involved in the process. Perhaps their opponents elected for judicial combat in order to discourage Richard and Rose from their course. Given Richard’s habitual indebtedness, maybe they hoped that Richard and Rose could not afford to pursue their claims. As it was, he needed a loan from his brother to bring the case to its conclusion.

⁋14The case concerns part of Rose’s inheritance. From her grandfather, Fulbert of Dover, she had inherited the honour of Chilham, from which Richard took his title. This consisted of 14 or 15 knights’ fees in Kent and Essex. ⁴² Rose’s claim to Lesnes came from the other side of her ancestry, her grandmother, also called Rose of Dover. This involved her in a tangled tale of conflicting rights, going back to 1194, when the first Rose offered a £700 fine for her inheritance. ⁴³ She was outbid in 1198 by her uncle Godfrey de Lucy, bishop of Winchester, who offered £1,000. ⁴⁴ Richard and Rose’s court case over Lesnes went back at least as far as 1219, when they sought half of 104 acres in Lesnes against Richard de Montfichet, claiming that it was Rose’s by hereditary right. Montfichet claimed that the whole barony had belonged to bishop Godfrey in the reign of king Richard. ⁴⁵

⁋15From the evidence given in various court appearances over the next eight years, the conflicting claims become clearer. They depend on the relationships shown in the family tree below, which summarizes the genealogical evidence given to the court. ⁴⁶ Lesnes was once held by Richard de Lucy, Henry II’s Justiciar, who founded Lesnes abbey and endowed it with half his property in the area, the other half becoming Lesnes manor. ⁴⁷ Richard the Justiciar had two sons, Geoffrey, the older, and Godfrey, who became a bishop, and three daughters. The older son, Geoffrey, died before his father, leaving two sons, who died without heirs, and four daughters, including Rose de Lucy. Rose was known as Rose of Dover after her marriage to Fulbert of Dover.

⁋16Richard of Chilham and his wife the younger Rose explained their claim thus: after the death of Richard the Justiciar, his son bishop Godfrey was simply custodian of the Lucy inheritance on behalf of Geoffrey’s children. The death of Geoffrey’s sons meant that the property passed to Geoffrey’s daughter, Rose of Dover. She had held the land in the time of Henry II, and the right to the land had then descended to her son Robert (or Fulbert), and thus to the present Rose, his daughter and heir. Richard and Rose’s version of events was that Rose of Dover had lost the land by order of King Richard, who had handed it to bishop Godfrey, and Godfrey had then passed it to the fitz Walter and Montfichet families.

⁋17The competing claim was that the land had been held by bishop Godfrey, and then been divided between his three sisters, who had each married into prominent baronial families. These sisters were the mother of Robert fitz Walter, the mother of Richard de Umfraville, and the grandmother of Richard de Montfichet. Fitz Walter is best known as the leader of the baronial rebels in 1215. Umfraville was another of John’s opponents, and Montfichet was also a rebel, one of the 25 appointed to ensure the observance of Magna Carta. ⁴⁸ These three heirs claimed the property by hereditary right, and because the inheritance was shared between them they succeeded in dragging the case out by refusing to answer singly.

⁋18When the case began in 1219, the two sides put forward these conflicting tales. Chilham and Rose said they made no claim against Umfraville, because he had already settled with them, nor against Robert fitz Walter at that stage, because he had immunity as a crusader. (Fitz Walter was at the siege of Damietta, in the fifth crusade; ⁴⁹ oddly enough, so was Richard of Chilham.) ⁵⁰

⁋19Several further stages in the case are recorded in the court rolls. In 1221, the sheriff valued 40 acres at Lesnes, which Richard had recovered from Montfichet, at 10 m. 5 s. a year. ⁵¹ The case carried on, with Montfichet and fitz Walter appearing in court in 1223, and Richard and Rose being amerced for non-appearance. ⁵² In 1225, Richard and Rose appeared to make their case concerning Lesnes, claiming 144 acres against fitz Walter, and 52 acres each against Richard and Ralph de Montfichet, and a date was set for all the parties to attend. ⁵³ In 1226, the case was put off again. ⁵⁴

⁋20Finally, Martin of Pattishall’s eyre came to Kent, sitting at Canterbury in September and October 1227. ⁵⁵ Richard of Chilham and Rose appeared again, to make their case against fitz Walter and Montfichet: Rose of Dover was seised of the land at Lesnes in the time of King Richard, her rights had descended to her son and heir Robert of Dover, and then to the present Rose. Fitz Walter and Montfichet said that they need not reply without their partner Richard de Umfraville, who was now dead, ⁵⁶ but Richard and Rose replied that they were not making a case against Umfraville: they had already settled with him, and he had handed his part of the land to Rose.

⁋21Fitz Walter and Montfichet then denied Rose’s right, and put forward their champions for trial by battle, William de Cumpeigne and Godwin de la Mare respectively. Richard and Rose argued against the combat, on the grounds that there should not be a duel between such close relatives, all tracing their ancestry back to Geoffrey de Lucy and his sisters. But, if need be, they would prove their rights ‘per corpora duorum liberorum hominum suorum’ – their two champions, Henry of Pontefract and Anxelinus of Ripon. At last there was a decision: Richard and Rose only claimed from the seisin of Rose of Dover, while fitz Walter and Montfichet claimed nothing by descent from that Rose; they were not too closely related, so a duel could be waged. The outcome was recorded at the next stage of Pattishall’s eyre, when it had reached Chelmsford in Essex. On 8 November 1227, there was a final concord between Richard and Rose, and Robert fitz Walter, over 144 acres in Lesnes, concerning which a duel was waged between them in the same court. Fitz Walter acknowledged the land to be Rose’s by right, and quitclaimed from himself and his heirs to Richard and Rose, and Rose’s heirs. ⁵⁷

⁋22There is thus confirmation of the Fine Rolls entry: there was a duel, and Richard and Rose won the case, and recovered the manor. Their victory is reflected in the court rolls several years later, for in 1240 they farmed the manor of Lesnes for 16 years to Robert Marmion junior for 1,000 marks – it was evidently worth fighting for. ⁵⁸ The relationship with one of the competing branches of the family also continued: in 1242–43 Ralph Montfichet held a tenth of a fee in Lesnes from Richard fitz Regis and Rose his wife. ⁵⁹

⁋23Despite their success in court, Richard continued to face financial difficulties, running up debts to both the king and moneylenders which remained unpaid for years. ⁶⁰ Richard’s debts may explain both why they needed royal backing to fight the duel for Lesnes, and why, when Richard and Rose recovered Lesnes, it was committed to Rose alone, and she retained it for her sustenance. Rose outlived him, in June 1246 performing homage for all the lands from Rose’s inheritance which her former husband had held in chief. ⁶¹ The manors which had been taken into the king’s hand must have come back to her at some point; she died in 1264/5, and the assets inherited by her grandson, yet another Richard, son of Richard of Dover, included Chingford, and Northwood, Chilham and Lesnes manors as part of the barony of Chilham. ⁶²