^{page 187 note 1} Britnell, R. H., The Commercialization of English Society (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar suggests that Anglo-Norman England may have been more monetarized than has been suspected. On the importance of manors and the economic needs of kings and other lords, see Postan, M. M., The Medieval Economy and Society (Harmondsworth, 1975), pp. 81–122Google Scholar, and Chibnall, Marjorie, Anglo-Norman England (Oxford, 1986), pp. 141–47Google Scholar. Reynolds, Susan, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300 (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar, explores the close connection between land and markets (esp. pp. 219–49).

^{page 187 note 2} For example, Mortimer, Richard, Angevin England, 1154–1258 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 17–21Google Scholar. Also, Kealey, Edward J., “King Stephen: Government and Anarchy,” Albion 6 (1974): 201–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Keefe, Thomas K., “Place-Date Distribution of Royal Charters and the Historical Geography of Patronage Strategies at the Court of King Henry II Plantagenet,” Haskins Society Journal 2 (1990): 179–88Google Scholar. Itineraries have been published, but all are incomplete: Haskins, Charles Homer, Norman Institutions (New York, 1918), App. G, pp. 309–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Farrer, W., “An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First,” English Historical Review 34 (1919): 303–82, 505–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 188 note 3} Douglas, David C., William the Conqueror (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964), pp. 265–316Google Scholar; Appendices D and E present itineraries of the Conqueror's military campaigns during selected years.

^{page 188 note 4} Barlow, Frank, William Rufus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983)Google Scholar.

^{page 188 note 5} 1,494 charters were initiated by the king or were notices of his gifts and confirmations. 1,450 of these charters are calendared in Davis, H. W. C., et. al., Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 1066–1154, 4 vols., (Oxford, 1913–1966)Google Scholar [hereafter cited as Regesta I, II, or III; eleven are printed in the Worcester Cartulary, Register I of Worcester Cathedral Priory, ed. R. R. Darlington (Pipe Roll Society, 1968). Others are noted or printed in The Charters of Norwich Cathedral Priory (NCC, ed. Dodwell, B. (Pipe Roll Society, 1974, N. S., 40), no. 78 (45), a concession to Herbert bishop of NorwichGoogle Scholar; a notification by Henry I that the lands of the archbishopric of Canterbury are in his protection in Brett, Martin, The English Church under Henry I (Oxford, 1975), p. 165nGoogle Scholar; a precept to the justices of the Cotentin on behalf of the priory of Heauville in Couppey, Abbe, “Encore Heauville:”, Revue catholique de Normandie, 10: 350Google Scholar; Henry I's exemption from all customs of the goods transported for the provisioning of the Cistercian abbey of Pontigny in Martiene, E. and Durand, V., Thesaurus novus anecdotorum seu collectio monumentorum, 5 vols. (Paris, 1715), 3: 1227–28Google Scholar; a writ on behalf of the church of Holy Trinity, Aldgate printed in Van Caenegem, R. C., Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill, Selden Society, 77 (1959), no. 17Google Scholar; a letter of Henry I to Pope Innocent II printed in Pommeraye, F., Sanctae Rothomagensis ecclesiae concilia (Rouen, 1667), p. 133Google Scholar; Henry I's foundation of the leprosery-chapel of St. James at Rauville-la-Place (Manche) noticed by Renault, M., “Nouvelles Recherches sur les Leproseries et Maladeries en Normandie,” (Memoires de la Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie [hereafter M.S.A.N.]) 28 (Paris, 1870), p. 142Google Scholar; Henry I's grant to Guy bishop of le Mans printed in Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in Urbe Degentium, ed. Busson, G. and Ledru, A. (Le Mans, 190]), p. 432Google Scholar; a grant of the king to St. Peter's Gloucester of the royal manor of Radley printed in Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. Hart, W. H., 3 vols. (Rolls Series 33, 1863), 1: 110–11Google Scholar; Henry I's writ on behalf of the abbey of Cirencester printed in Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey, ed. C. D. Ross, 1, no 55; royal confirmation of the pancharte of the abbey of Preaux noted in Neustria Pia seu de omnibus et singulis abbatiis et prioralibus totius Normanniae, ed. du Monstier, A. (Rouen, 1663), pp. 520–25Google Scholar; Henry I's grant of privileges to the people of Pontorson, (Manche), discussed in Desroches, Abbe, “Annales Religieuses de l'Avranchin, pt. III,” M.S.A.N. 17 (1847): 355Google Scholar; Henry I's grant of land to the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in Robert of Torigny, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. Marx, J. (Rouen, 1914), p. 313Google Scholar; and the confirmation of the great charter of the abbey of Preaux referred to in Neustria Pia, pp. 520–25. Unpublished charters of Henry I are found in the Bibliotheque Nationale: MS. Lat. 13905 fo. 21v (three royal confirmations of donations to the abbey of Bee and a royal grant of the church of Steventon, Berks, to the abbey of Bec); MS. Lat. 10087 (Henry I's precept on behalf of the abbey of Montebourg at Foucarville (Manche)); Henry I's grant of freedom from tolls to the abbey of Montebourg; MS. Lat. 10086, fo. 64 (Henry I's confirmation of gifts to the abbey of Troarn); MS. Lat. 12884, fo. 165 (Henry I's confirmation to the monks of Bec of customary rights in the town of Bec) and MS. nouv. acq. lat. 1408, fo. 351v (an exemption from all customs for the leprosery of Le Grand Beaulieu, Chartres); in the Archives de l'Eure, H. 438, item 20 (a panchart of Henry I on behalf of the abbey of Lire) and H. 590, fo. 323 (Henry I's grant of tithes to the abbey of Lire); Cambridge University Library, Add. MS. 3020, fo. 19v “The Red Book of Thorhey” (Henry's grant to Thorney of liberties pertaining to Stamford); the Archives de Maine-et-Loire, H unclassified; Fonds de Fontevrault (Henry I's grant to Fontevrault of money from the Rouen mint); the Archives de Calvados, H. 1833(2) and H. 1833(1) (two pancharts of Henry I on behalf of Saint-Etienne, Caen confirming its rights and possessions); in the Bibliotheque de Grenoble, MS. 1392 (a diploma to Richard bishop of Coutances concerning the canons of Cherbourg); the Archives Nationales, K. 23B, no. 15, item 22 (Henry I's grant of a monthly stipend to the lepers of Rouen); and the Archives de la Seine-Inferieure, G. 4364 (a gift to Walter of Coutances of Henry I recalled in a charter of Henry II).

^{page 189 note 6} See Vitalis, Orderic, Ecclesiastical History, 6 vols., ed. and trans. Chibnall, Marjorie (Oxford, 1969–1980Google Scholar; [hereafter cited as OV]), 6: 174 in which Henry I confirms the privileges of Saint-Evroult while visiting the abbey in 1113, but signs a charter, drafted by the monks, to that effect afterward in Rouen.

^{page 189 note 7} I am grateful to Marjorie Chibnall for this suggestion. The comfortable residence at Quevilly, near Rouen, is described in the Draco Normannicus by Stephen of Rouen, in Howlett, Richard, ed., Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, 4 vols. (RS, 1884–1889), 2: 713Google Scholar.

^{page 190 note 8} Green, Judith, “Unity and disunity in the Anglo-Norman State,” Historical Research 62 (1989): 115–34; 120–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 190 note 9} Regesta II, nos. 507, 527–28, 553, 568–69, 584, 594, 643, 669, 681, 699, 704–05, 770, 777, 780 (spurious?), 807, 849, 929, 946, 957, 995, 1174 (genuine?), 1175–76, 1380, 1519, 1625, 1822, 1860d and 1952. On the meaning or per, refer to Van Caenegem, , Royal Writs, pp. 149–51Google Scholar]. Per stands for “by the authority of,” but in some cases, where the designated individual is not a familiaris or a major curialis, not a vice-regent or a close friend, the term may infer the deputy of the person receiving the writ.

^{page 190 note 10} One of the copies of Regesta II, no. 1175, a writ emanating from the Tower of London per Othuer fitzEarl, is missing the per (BL Cotton MS. Faust. A. III, fo. 130).

^{page 190 note 11} For example, the fact that one of three writs issued at Brampton in around 1102 (Regesta II, nos. 584–86) contains the per clause raises questions not so much about Henry I's stay in the small town, but about the meaning of the clause itself.

^{page 190 note 12} Green, Judith A., The Government of England Under Henry I, (Cambridge, 1986), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 190 note 13} See British Borough Charters, 1042–1216, ed. Ballard, A. (Cambridge, 1913), pp. 4–11 and 38–79Google Scholar; Borough Customs, ed. Bateson, Mary, Selden Society vols. 18 and 21 (London, 1904 and 1908)Google Scholar; and Marjorie Chibnall's recent assessment of urban developments in Anglo-Norman England, pp. 147–57. Tait, James, The Medieval English Borough (Manchester, 1936)Google Scholar, has been largely superseded by Reynolds, Susan, An Introduction to the History of English Medieval Towns (Oxford, 1977)Google Scholar. Stephenson, Carl, Borough and Town (Cambridge, Mass., 1933) remains a useful studyGoogle Scholar.

^{page 191 note 14} For example, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. Garmonsway, G. N. (London, 1960 [hereafter cited as ASC), s[ub] a[nnis] 1097 and 1104Google Scholar; Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I, ed. Hunter, J. for the Record Commission (London, 1833), p. 81 (hereafter cited as PR 31 Henry I)Google Scholar.

^{page 191 note 15} Twenty-five of his acta originated at Westminster; fifteen at Winchester; and nine at Windsor. London and Rouen were also active centers of government with eight and five charters respectively.65% of William I's charters with a known provenance came from these sites. Other places appear to have been far less important: Oissel and Bonneville-sur-Touques appear three times each; Caen, Le Marts, Lillebonne, Vaudreuil and York twice; and Bayeux, Berkeley, Berneville, Cherbourg, Downton, Gerberoy, Gloucester, Kenetford, Laycock, Mortain, Oxford, Salisbury, Pevensey, Troarn, Vallium, St. Georges de Boscherville, Woodstock, and Wiht or Wich (Isle of Wight?) once each.

^{page 191 note 16} Fourteen of William Rufus' acta were issued at Winchester, six at Westminster, five at Windsor, four at Old Sarum and three from Newcastle, Hastings and Brigstock.

^{page 191 note 17} Norwich, for example, had paid a yearly sum of £30 to king and earl in the time of Edward the Confessor; by 1086 the East Anglian city's obligation had tripled to a staggering £96, to be distributed among king, queen, earl, and one Godwin. Post-conquest increases on a similar scale were recorded at such places as Thetford, Gloucester, Guildford, and Lincoln, whose payment to the king and earl before 1066 had climbed from £30 to £100 (Domesday Book (DB), 4 vols., ed. A. Farley for the Record Commission (1783–1816), 2: 117a, b, 119a; 1: 162a, 30a, 336c.

^{page 191 note 18} ASC, s a 1097.

^{page 191 note 19} British Borough Charters, pp. 86–87.

^{page 192 note 20} Pounds, N. J. G., The Medieval Castle in England and Wales (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar.

^{page 192 note 21} Fairs were granted to Chichester and Hamdon, the site of Montacute Priory (Regesta II, nos. 810 and 735); extensions for existing fairs were given to Beverly, Eye, Malmesbury, Norwich, Whitby and Winchester (ibid., nos. 1257, 1436, 494, 971, 762, 1335 and 945, 947 and 1070); grants of markets were probably made to Abingdon, Battle, Binham, Buiy, Downham Market, Dunstable, Greenwich, Hadstock, Kingsclerc, King's Lynn, London, Mailing, Norton, Romsey, Eynsham, Salisbury, Tavistock, the Isle of Thanet and Yaxley (ibid., p. xxiv). The standard fee for the recognition of a guild in 1130 seems to have been one gold mark, or £6 (see PR 31 Henry I, 2, 37, and 109); p. 114 contains a reference to liberties agreed to on another occasion—“the weavers of Lincoln pay to have their customs as promised by the king in his writ.” On charters of liberties granted by Henry I toward the end of his reign, see Borough and Town, pp. 128–30.

^{page 192 note 22} Twenty-six towns and counties were charged aid in 1130, but many were pardoned some or all of their tax: Oxford, Nottingham, Shaftesbury, Salisbury, Winchester, Westminster, Cambridge, Southwick, Guildford, Hertford, Canterbury, Tamworth, Stafford, Gloucester, Winchecombe, Norwich, Thetford, Bedford, Lincoln, Stamford, Northampton, Colchester, Wallingford, London, Early, and Wilton.

^{page 192 note 23} For these see Reedy, W. J., “The Origin of the General Eyre in the Reign of Henry I,” Speculum 41 (1966): 688–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the growth and complexity of royal government, see Holister, C. Warren and Baldwin, John W., “The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I and Philip Augustus,” American Historical Review 83 (1978): 867–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stephanie L. Mooers, “A Reevaluation of Royal Justice Under Henry I of England, ibid. 93 (April 1988): 340–58; Warren, W. L., The Governance of Norman and Angevin England, 1086–1272 (Stanford, 1987), pp. 78–86Google Scholar; and Green's conclusions, summarized in Green, , Government of England, pp. 215–19Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 193 note 24} In terms of revenue alone, Henry I's expectations of his sheriffs were sharply disappointed. Not only did he replace officials who could not pay their tax farms, but his Exchequer Court saw fit to fine recalcitrant sheriffs for a variety of infractions: Richard fitzRalph was fined over £6 “for the profit that he should have made and did not make” in the city of Northampton (PR 31 Henry I, 136). Another Pipe Roll entry records an agreement between the king and a Norfolk fermor, Benjamin, who “guaranteed to make a profit of 500 silver marks” (£333) and reveals official concern with effective management of royal lands (ibid., 91). The proceedings of the court—a semi-permanent and chief agency for the administration of finance and justice—reveals that the king's income was roughly one third of what it might have been in 1130. Green, , Government of England, p. 225Google ScholarPubMed: whereas nearly £69,000 were demanded by the Exchequer Court in 1130, only £22,864 were paid. £5,250 were allowed as exemptions, pardons and gifts—some masking shortfalls in amounts owed by sheriffs at the biannual audits of the Exchequer (Stephanie Mooers Christlelow, “The Barons of the Exchequer and Royal Patronage in 1130,” unpublished paper).

^{page 193 note 25} The editors of Regesta II and of other collections have assigned dates to Henry I's charters based on internal evidence but only 882 can be dated to within a year. Charters whose year of issue is uncertain are given a year range by the editors: 1100–1102, for instance; or, in sixteen cases, 1100–1135 (see Regesta II, nos. 1966–1970). To achieve statistical validity, I assigned a date range to each of Henry I's charters, even those with a known date. Thus, a charter with a known year of issue was given a range in which year one (y1) was identical to year two (y2). In all other cases, the range determined by the editors of Regesta II and other works was used. A mean date was determined (yl+(y2-y1)/2) to give the frequency and percent of charters issued in a given year and within five year groups (see Table A). One can sort charters by either the first year in the date range, the second year or by mean dates. Each method is unsatisfactory in that it is uncertain whether a charter dated as 1100–1105, for example, was actually issued in 1100 (year one), 1105 (year two) or 1103 (the mean date), or in fact, was made in 1102 or 1104. Most of Henry I's charters have a very limited date range to within two or three years, so clustering charters within five year episodes, as Kealey did in “King Stephen: Government and Anarchy,” p. 204, can alleviate some of the ambiguity. The subject is pursued in the introduction to the Appendix, below.

^{page 196 note 26} Southern, R. W., St. Anselm and his Biographer (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 163–65 and 176–80Google Scholar, and Vaughn, Sally N., Anselm of Bee and Robert of Meulan, The Innocence of the Dove and the Wisdom of the Serpent (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1987), pp. 265–312Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 27} Worcester Cartulary, nos. 22, 260, 261 and possibly 262; Regesta II, nos. 528a, 682, 698, 689–90 and 683, 693, 695–97, 699–703, 721–22, 724, 726 and 736.

^{page 196 note 28} Regesta II, nos. 558, 548, 544, 646, 618 and 627.

^{page 196 note 29} Ibid., nos. 519, 552, 564, 661 and 688; 543, 572, 578, 707 and 729. Eudo dapifer was a principal benefactor, receiving five grants and a confirmation of his religious foundation of St. John's, Colchester in 1104 (ibid., no. 677). For a full discussion of Eudo dapifer's honor, see Farrer, William, Honors and Knights Fees, 3 vols. (London and Manchester, 1923–1925), 3:164–295Google Scholar. Eudo's landed wealth was based on holdings in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire and his political influence is suggested by his 72 charter attestations. In 1130, ten years after his death, his rural and urban land was still tax exempt (PR 31 Henry I, 60, 66, 103 and 138). The Peverels of Nottingham were important landholders and curiales under William the Conqueror and his sons, with estates in as many as six counties (Complete Peerage, by GEC, 13 vols. in 12 (London, 1910–1959), 4: 761ff). William I Peverel (d. 1114) was the founder of the Cluniac priory of Lenton and was the castellan of Nottingham castle; his son, William II Peverel, inherited his power and his office (Dugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum (MA), 6 vols. in 8 (new ed.; London, 1817–1830), 5:108Google Scholar. In 1130, William II's mother, Adeline, and his sister, Matilda, received danegeld exemptions on their Nottingham and Northhamptonshire lands; William rendered account of Nottinghamshire's forest pleas (PR 31 Henry I, 12, 87 and 7). The family's favor may have derived from a blood connection with the Conqueror (MA, 6:114) but this is disputed by Freeman, E. A., The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1867–1879), 3: 80 and 662Google Scholar, and 4: 200. William Mauduit was a chamberlain of the Exchequer and a prominent curialis toward the end of Henry I's reign (Regesta II, no. 1719 (where he is named as chamberlain), and nos. 1255, 1364, 1507, 1508, 1689, 1690, 1695, 1698, 1710, 1760, 1781, 1846, 1847, 1848 (spurious) and 1849 in which he is listed as a witness (spurious). In 1130, he was pardoned payment of auxilium civitatis in Hampshire (PR 31 Henry I, 41).

^{page 197 note 30} Ibid., nos. 1034, 1035 and 1062. For Walter of Beauchamp and his family of sheriffs and constables, see Mason, Emma, The Beauchamp Cartulary Charters, 1100–1268 (Pipe Roll Society, 1980)Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 31} Worcester Cartulary, no. 35.

^{page 197 note 32} Earldom of Gloucester Charters, ed. Patterson, Robert B. (Oxford, 1973), p. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 33} Robert received the highest amount in fiscal patronage of all those acquiring tax exemptions and monetary pardons in 1130 (Mooers, Stephanie L., “Patronage on the Pipe Roll of 1130,” Speculum 59 (April 1984): 282–307, Appendix A)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The £317.16.02 awarded in over 64 separate instances is a reflection of the earl's mammoth landholdings and, quite possibly, of his influence on the Exchequer court: he is mentioned twice in the Pipe Roll as an auditor of the treasury at Winchester (PR Henry I, 131–31).

^{page 197 note 34} ASC, s a, 1127. See Hicks, Sandy Burton, “The Impact of William Clito upon the Continental Policies of Henry I of England,” Viator 10 (1979): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 198 note 35} Regesta II, nos. 1477–78, 1479, 1485, and 1499.

^{page 198 note 36} Ibid., nos. 1517–18. Henry of Aubigny was the son of Nigel d'Aubigny, Domesday lord of Cainhoe (d. 1107) and a cousin of William d'Aubigny pincerna (d. 1139), whose lands included the Norfolk honour of Old Buckenham (English Baronies, pp. 26, 70). Henry of Aubigny's marriage to the daughter of Patrick of Chaworth was approved by the king between 1113 and 1127 (Regesta II, no. 1517). Eustace of Barenton was a forester (d. ca. 1135) who, according to a charter of Stephen, held land in Essex/Herts. (Regesta III, 40 and 41); he may be the Eustace of Barleton who was given three danegeld exemptions in 1130 (PR Henry I, 46, 49 and 86).

^{page 198 note 37} Regesta II, nos. 1550–51.

^{page 198 note 38} Green, Judith A., “William Rufus, Henry I and the Royal Demesne,” History 64 (1979): 337–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Mooers, , “Patronage in the Pipe Roll of 1130,” pp. 301–04Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 39} Some places, like Rockingham, maintained a favored status throughout the reign. Others carried more weight at either the beginning or toward the end of the reign: Cornbury, whose 12 charters are dated between 1105 and 1110, is an example of the first tendency; Fareham, whose royal visits were in 1129 to 1133, exemplifies the second (Regesta II, nos. 699–706, 815, and 959–961 for Cornbury and nos. 1663 and 1770–1778 for Fareham).

^{page 200 note 40} Regesta II: for Cornbury, see nos. 699–706 (which may all derive from one sojourn in October 1105), 815, and 959–61; for Eling, nos. 1347 and 1496–1509; for Fareham, nos. 5, 1663 and 1768–78; and for Waltham, nos. 900, 989–90, 1308, 1310, 1350, 1409, 1416, 1438a, 1609–10, 1617, 1668, and 1711. The number of visits to places in England is derived from both a reading of the itinerary of Henry I contained in Regesta II, nos. xxix–xxxi and a reexamination of Henry's charters. The Cartulary of Cirencester Abbey, for example, contains a charter issued between 1131 and 1133 at Brinkworth, Wiltshire on behalf of the abbey (no. 55). It is not found in Regesta II and was not included by the editors in their listing of places visited by the king in the early 1130s.

^{page 200 note 41} The most important sites are ordinarily agreed to be those with mints, bishops' seats, or a population of over one thousand (Reynolds, , English Medieval Towns, p. 35Google Scholar), or those which were obvious centers of royal administration (Chibnall, , Anglo-Norman England, p. 151Google Scholar).

^{page 200 note 42} Regesta II, nos. 1015, 1016, and 1017 were issued at Avranches and possibly one at Cherbourg, if the identification with “Chigeberga” is correct (ibid., no. 763; the editors suggest that this is Chigborough, Essex); Countances and Gavray present no royal acts to us. Even Lyons-la-Forêt, where Henry died, was the origin of only two charters (ibid., nos. 676 and 1586).

^{page 200 note 43} I have given 1117, for which we lack information on Henry's movements, a figure representing an average from the other eight years that he spent entirely in Normandy: 1112 (4); 1118 (14); 1119 (14); 1124 (7); 1125 (3); 1128 (5); 1134 (4); and 1135 (7).

^{page 201 note 44} Henry's first queen, Matilda, and his friend, Robert count of Meulan, died in 1118 (ASC, s a).

^{page 201 note 45} See above, Table A “The Mean Year of Issue of Henry I's Charters”: the greatest percentage of the king's surviving acta (90 charters or 6%) were issued in 1121.

^{page 202 note 46} Barlow, , William Rufus, pp. 371–72Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 47} “In this year [1111] king Henry did not wear his crown at Christmas, nor at Easter, nor at Whitsuntide.” (ASC, s a).

^{page 202 note 48} William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Requm Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, William, 2 vols. (RS, 1887–1889), 2: 495Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 49} Brown, R. A., “The Treasury' of the Later Twelfth Century,” in Studies Presented to Sir Hilary Jenkinson, ed. Davies, J. Conway (Oxford, 1957), pp. 35–49Google Scholar, and Green, Judith, “Financing Stephen's War,” Anglo-Norman Studies XIV (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1992), pp. 91–114, esp., 110–11Google Scholar.

^{page 203 note 50} fitzStephen, William, Norman London, ed. Stenton, F. M. (New York, 1990), p. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 203 note 51} An exception is Regesta I, no. 174, a spurious charter that claimed to be issued at Westminster “in concilio Lundoniensi.”

^{page 203 note 52} The Tower of London was specified as the place of issue for at least three royal charters (Regesta II nos. 1174, 1175 and 1176).

^{page 203 note 53} Norman London, map 68–69.

^{page 204 note 54} The term is almost synonymous with “men”; Regesta II no. 1511, printed no. cxcvii. See also The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. Searle, Eleanor (Oxford, 1980), pp. 108–12Google Scholar: “aliique barones quamplurimi,” who seem to have been minor landholders without particular distinction; and NCC 18, “se dedisset cum uxore et filiis et baronibus suis,” in which Roger Bigod, a minor baron himself, is conferring burial rights.

^{page 204 note 55} ASC, s a.

^{page 204 note 56} Norman London, p. 9.

^{page 204 note 57} Keene, D. J., A Survey of Medieval Winchester, in two parts, Winchester Studies II (Oxford, 1985), 1: 101Google Scholar.

^{page 204 note 58} Hollister, and Baldwin, , “The Rise of Administrative Kingship,” p. 878Google Scholar.

^{page 205 note 59} Henry I and his entourage frequently stayed in Winchester prior to embarking for Normandy (see, for example, Regesla II, nos. 1641–44) and on his return (Farrer, , “Outline Itinerary,” pp. 303–82, 505–79Google Scholar; esp. pp. 331–33 and 423–29).

^{page 205 note 60} Barlow, F., Biddle, M., von Feilitzen, Otto, and Keene, D. J., Winchester in the Early Middle Aqes: An Edition and Discussion of the Winton Domesday, Winchester Studies I (Oxford, 1976), pp. 45, 49, 51, and 68Google Scholar.

^{page 205 note 61} Winchester Studies II, 1: 387Google Scholar. This was probably the case in other administrative centers. Frequent petitioners for royal favors or royal justice may have formed a category of urban resident as well: Faritius, abbot of Abingdon, whose abbey figured as a beneficiary on over 60 charters during his 21-year tenure (1100–1121), had houses in London, Windsor, and Winchester (Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. Stevenson, J., 2 vols. [RS, 1886], pp. 75, 112Google Scholar).

^{page 206 note 62} See above, Table D. Caen held an annual fair at Cheux from as early as 1102, when granted permission to do so by Robert Curthose (Regesta II, no. 621). Royal charters pertaining to the abbeys of Caen, which are revealing of religious and urban relations, have been compiled and edited by Musset, Lucien in Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquerant et de la Reine Mathilde pour les abbayes caennaises, M.S.A.N., Caen, 37 (1967)Google Scholar.

^{page 206 note 63} See the ASC's account of Henry's border activities in 1111 and 1116.

^{page 206 note 64} Haskins, , Norman Institutions, pp. 106–08 and 180Google Scholar. The Exchequer may have met as easily at Caen or Lisieux, as John bishop of Lisieux seems to have presided over it (ibid., p. 99). Assemblies and councils of barons and prelates were held mainly at Lisieux, Falaise, and Rouen during the first two decades of Henry I's reign; after 1120, Evreux, Caen, and Seez figure prominently as well (ibid., pp. 86–87 and 309–20).

^{page 206 note 65} For Rouen's commercial links with southwest England, see Green, , Government of England, p. 213Google ScholarPubMed.

^{page 207 note 66} Regesta II, no. 1910.

^{page 207 note 67} See, for example, ibid., no. 1552.

^{page 207 note 68} Regesta II, no. 1258, a writ issued by Henry I in 1121 on the abbey's behalf.

^{page 207 note 69} OV, 6: 100.

^{page 207 note 70} Clanchy, M. T., From Memory to Written Record, England, 1066–1307 (Cambridge, Mass., 1979)Google Scholar.

^{page 208 note 71} For example, Regesta II., nos., 588, 787, 1377, 1591, and 1965; ibid., no. 1745; ibid., nos. 1146, 1147, 1733, 1734, 1797, and 1962; ibid., no. 1865.

^{page 208 note 72} Regesta II, no. 1000, is dated tentatively to September 30, 1111, and placed at Winchester “in thesauro.”

^{page 208 note 73} Ibid., nos. 50, 615, 683, 695, 696, 699–703, 812, 858, 956, 958, 970, 972, 980, 981, 1089, 1128, 1477, and 1641.

^{page 208 note 74} Ibid., nos. 522, 666, 769, 1177, and 1476; ibid., nos. 1234, 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965; ibid. nos. 489 (spurious), 490, 818, 1178, and 1377; ibid., no. 1380.

^{page 209 note 75} PR 31 Henry I, pp. 2, 37, 109, and 114; Borough and Town, pp. 128–30.

^{page 209 note 76} The convergence of government under the Angevins at the twin sites is discussed in Mortimer, Angevin England, pp. 17 and 183.

^{page 210 note 1} Farrer, “Itinerary,” 571, nos. 696 and 696a.

^{page 211 note 2} Woodstock, however, was responsible for the issue of 93 charters, making it the fifth most important site for the conducting of official business during Henry I's reign (above, Table D “Places of Issue of Royal Acts, 1100-1135”).

^{page 212 note 3} These sources are problematical as well. Most do indicate a place of issue for each charter, but give only a date range for the time of issue. Worcester Cartulary, no. 22, for example, was issued between 1100 and 1108, telling us that Henry visited the cathedral prior at some point during these years, information lacking in Regesta II. But the date range is too broad to allow the charter's evidence to be included in an itinerary.

^{page 212 note 4} Spurious charters are omitted, although they may well contain accurate evidence of court meetings. In such cases, the information they present will be mentioned in the notes following the itinerary for the applicable year(s).