Article contents
V.—Roger of Salisbury, first bishop of Bath and Wells, 1244-1247
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2012
Extract
The episcopate of Roger of Salisbury, first bishop who bore the title of Bath and Wells, is short, but memorable in the annals of the church of Wells.
It was the time when the rule of election of the bishop by the joint action of the two chapters of the monks of Bath and the canons of Wells was authoritatively and finally settled, and the style of the bishop, Episcopus Bathoniensis et Wellensis, was officially adopted.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1890
References
page 90 note a Vide Appendix A.
page 91 note a Hist. Angl. iii., 467 (R. S.)Google Scholar; Chr. Maj. iv., 330Google Scholar.
page 91 note b R. i., f. 73.
page 91 note c R. i., f. 75
page 92 note a R. i., f. 73, 74, 75.
page 92 note b R, i., f. 75. Archer, f. 139
page 93 note a R. i., f. 65.
page 93 note b E. I, f. 76, 77.
page 93 note c R. i., f. 78.
page 94 note a R. i., f. 78 in dors.
page 94 note b R. i., f. 64.
page 94 note c The city of Bath was part of the queen's dowry. Rymer, , Fœd., i., 420Google Scholar.
page 95 note a R. i., f. 78, 9.
page 95 note b Paris, M., Hist. Angl. ii. 472.Google Scholar
page 95 note c R. i., f. 79.
page 95 note d Vide Matt. Paris, Hist. Angl. ii., 479Google Scholar: “Vas superbiae et omnis contumeliae cui inter omnes genere, castris, et possessiombus secularibus erat potentissirmis.” He died next year, 9, the Octave of the Purification.
page 95 note e R. i., f. 98.
page 95 note f R. i., f. 94.
page 96 note a R. i., f. 94.
page 96 note b R. i., f. 96
page 97 note a Quoted in Appendix C.
page 97 note b Matt. Par. Chr. Maj. iii. 285Google Scholar.
page 97 note c R, i., f. 80.
page 97 note d Vide Appendix C. E. iii., f.108, in dors.
page 98 note a Vide Appendix C.
page 98 note b R. i., f. 67.
page 98 note c Appendix B.
page 99 note a Orig. Doc. 45, 46, 47.
page 99 note b Hom. II. xxii. 149.
page 100 note a Vide p. 7.
page 100 note b The loan was for £100, and 390 marcs—so estimated by Archer (f. 147) and that may multiplied at least by fifteen or twenty, to give an approximate value in modern times.
page 100 note c R. i., f. 95.
page 100 note d R. i., f. 98.
page 100 note e R. i., f. 98.
page 101 note a R. 1, f. 97.
page 101 note b R. 1, f. 69.
page 101 note c R. 2, f. 15 in dors.
page 101 note d R. 3, f. 11 in dors.
page 105 note a Hugh de Welles 1204-10.
page 105 note b ? Richard de Kenelworth.
page 105 note c ? Peter.
page 105 note d William de Wrotham 1264.
page 105 note e Thomas de Dinan 1199.
page 105 note f Adam ?
- 1
- Cited by