1. Michel, de Bouard, “Le duché de Normandie,” in Histoire des institutions françaises au moyen âge, ed. Lot, F. and Fawtier, R. , Institutions seigneuriales (Paris, 1957), I, 23Google Scholar.

2. Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Prévost, A. Le (Paris, 1838–1855), IV, 201 (A. D. 1104)Google Scholar: William count of Evreux recalling the biblical injunction against serving two masters, expressed his wish to be subject to one lord only, lest, in being subject to two, he should satisfy neither, cf. ibid., III, 268–69. [Hereafter, Orderic, Historia.] On the general subject of Anglo-Norman unity see Le Patourel, John, Normandy and England, 1066–1144 (Reading, 1971)Google Scholar.

3. The period 1101–1106 saw an invasion of England, three campaigns against ducal Normandy, attacks by Norman enemies of Henry I against the Norman lands of Henry's friends, and the confiscation of English lands of Curthose's allies. These events are chronicled by Orderic, and by Robert of Torigny in Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. Marx, Jean (Rouen, 1914), pp. 266 ffGoogle Scholar.

4. The term was coined by the Hyde chronicler in the 1120s: “Chronica Monasterii de Hida juxta Wintoniam,” in Liber Monctsterii de Hyda, ed. Edwards, Edward (Rolls Series, 1866), p. 304Google Scholar.

5. See Douglas, David C., The Norman Achievement (London, 1969)Google Scholar.

6. See Suger, , Vie de Louis VI, ed. Waquet, Henri (Paris, 1964), p. 10Google Scholar. Rufus' Vexin campaigns of 1097–98 suggest a major effort to expand Normandy at French expense: ibid., pp. 6–12; Orderic, , Historia, IV, 21–24Google Scholar; Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Bouquet, M.et al. (Paris, 1877), XII, 5Google Scholar.

7. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series, 1887–1889), II, 379Google Scholar. Rufus' boast was fulfilled by Henry II in 1166.

8. ibid., p. 488.

9. William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, ed. Potter, K. R. (London, 1955), p. 14Google Scholar.

10. Normandy suffered warfare for about 1½ years in 1118–19, when hostilities were limited chiefly to the Pais de Bray, the Norman Vexin, the county of Evreux, and the Maine frontier. Although Henry's control of the duchy was severely threatened during these months, most of central and western Normandy remained free of violence. There were, in addition, about five months of hostilities in 1123–24, confined largely to the Risle valley. Suger remarks that in 1118 Louis VI invaded a land long accustomed to peace (pp. 184–86); likewise Orderic reports, relative to Count Geoffrey's invasion or Normandy after Henry's death: “provisions were abundant … after a long peace under a good prince …: Historia, V, 73Google Scholar. William of Malmesbury credits Henry with establishing such peace in Normandy as had never been known before: Gesta Regum, II, 476Google Scholar.

11. Orderic, , Historia, IV, 439–41Google Scholar. Amaury was lord of Montfort l'Amaury and Epernon in France, Count of Evreux in Normandy, and ancestor of the thirteenth-century English rebel, Simon de Montfort.

12. ibid., p. 448; Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros: Annales de sa vie et de son règne (Paris, 1890), p. cxvii and no. 334Google Scholar.

13. Suger, , Louis VI pp. 184–86Google Scholar. Lemarignier, Jean-François, Recherches sur l'hommage en marche et les frontières féodales (Lille, 1945), pp. 34–72Google Scholar.

14. Gesta Normannorum Ducum, p. 309; Orderic, , Historia, IV, 304Google Scholar and passim; The History of the King's Works, I, The Middle Ages, ed. Brown, R. Allen, Colvin, H. M., and Taylor, A. J. (London, 1963), 35Google Scholar.

15. Suger, , Louis VI, p. 106Google Scholar; Orderic, , Historia, IV, 46Google Scholar; below, n. 41.

16. Malmesbury, , Gesta Re gum, II, 488Google Scholar.

17. See The Complete Peerage (new ed.), XI, App. pp. 112–20Google Scholar; and, on the wife of Fergus earl of Galloway, Barrow, G. W. S., Robert Bruce (Berkeley, 1965), p. 36 n. 2 (the evidence for this marriage is strong but not conclusive)Google Scholar. A proposed marriage between one of Henry's daughters and Hugh II lord of Châteauneuf-en-Thymerais, probably c. 1113, was blocked on grounds of consanguinity: Ivo of Chartres, “Epistolae,” Recueil des historiens des Gaules, XV, 167–68Google Scholar. Many of these marriages occurred in connection with specific political crises or accompanied the conclusion of peace settlements.

18. Henry's relations with Wales were more complex and turbulent than with Scotland, owing largely to political instability among the Welsh, but here, too. Henry's policy was generally non-aggressive: see Nelson, Lynn H., The Normans in South Wales (Austin, 1966), p. 124Google Scholar: “Henry's ascendancy in Wales established an era of relative peace which was unparalleled in the history of the region.”

19. Henry had attempted unsuccessfully c. 1101 to marry a daughter to William II de Warenne earl of Surrey and to marry his sister-in-law Mary to William count of Mortain and earl of Cornwall: S. Anselmi Opera Omnia, ed. Schmitt, F. S. (Stuttgart, 1946–1961), V, ep. 424Google Scholar; Uber Hyda, p. 306.

20. Those of their wives who are known were heiresses of lands within the confines of the Anglo-Norman state. See Complete Peerage, XI, App. pp. 106–11Google Scholar.

21. As in Scotland under King David: Ritchie, R. L. G., The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954), pp. 179 ffGoogle Scholar.

22. See Recueil des Historiens des Gaules, XII, 281Google Scholar, and, for a general discussion, Lemarignier, , Hommage en marche, pp. 73–100Google Scholar.

23. Suger, , Louis VI, p. 182Google Scholar.

24. The Flemish money fiefs, or fiefs rentes, provided that the counts would render military service to Henry under certain stipulated conditions in return for an annual payment. The arrangement had existed under William I and William II and was renewed by Henry I in 1101 and 1110 with Count Robert II, in 1119 with Count Charles the Good, and in 1128 with Count Thierry. See Diplomatic Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office, I, ed. Chaplais, Pierre (London, 1964), nos. 1 and 2Google Scholar; Liber Hyda, p. 320; Galbert of Bruges, Histoire du meurtre de Charles le Bon, ed. Pirenne, Henri (Paris, 1891), p. 176Google Scholar; Orderic, , Historia IV, 483–84Google Scholar; Vercauteren De Smet, L., in Etudes d'histoire dédiées à la mémoire de Henri Pirenne (Brussels, 1937), pp. 418–23Google Scholar. In 1134 Henry arranged a marriage between his son-in-law's sister, Sibylla of Anjou, and Thierry Count of Flanders: Orderic, , Historia, IV, 484 and n. 4Google Scholar.

25. Robert II was killed in 1111 while in arms against Henry's ally, Theobald of Blois; Baldwin VII was mortally wounded in 1118 near Eu; Count William Clito was killed at the siege of Aalst in July, 1128.

26. See the discussions in Norgate, Kate, England under the Angevin Kings (London, 1887), I, 203 ff.Google Scholar; Halphen, L., Le Comte d'Anjou au xi^e siède (Paris, 1906), pp. 66–80, 178–90Google Scholar; and Latouche, Robert, Histoire du comté du Maine pendant le x^e et le x^e siède (Paris, 1910), pp. 31–53Google Scholar and passim.

27. Orderic, , Historia, IV, 103, 219, 225, 230Google Scholar; cf. the eyewitness account of Tinchebray, in English Historical Review, XXV (1910), 295–96Google Scholar.

28. This crucial marriage was the product of negotiations running back into the late eleventh century. Prior to 1098 Fulk IV, count of Anjou (1067–1109), had betrothed his eldest son, Geoffrey Martel, to Eremburga. Geoffrey was killed in 1106, and by 1109 his younger brother, Fulk V, had wed the Maine heiress. Thus, Fulk V succeeded to Anjou on his father's death in 1109 and to Maine on Elias's death in 1110: Halphen, , Le Comté d'Anjou, pp. 190, 318Google Scholar; Chartrou, Josèphe, L'Anjou de 1109 à 1151 (Paris, 1928), pp. 4–6Google Scholar. On Elias's feudal subordination to Henry I see Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. Arnold, T. (Rolls Series, 1879), p. 237Google Scholar; Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1110.

29. Orderic, , Historia, VI, 304–05Google Scholar.

30. The threat would have been even greater had not Count Robert of Flanders been killed in 1111, leaving his county to his youthful son, Baldwin VII; Luchaire, , Louis VI, nos. 121–22Google Scholar.

31. So named by Orderic, from the Old English Ætheling — prince and heir.

32. Orderic, , Historia, IV, 307–08Google Scholar. Henry's overlordships of Belleme, Brittany and Maine were inherited from his father, though not without dispute (Lemarignier, , Hommage en marche, pp. 63–66, 114–21Google Scholar). Thus, at least from the Anglo-Norman point of view, the Gisors treaty represented a return to the status quo.

33. Fulk V, born in 1090 or 1092, married Eremburga sometime between 20 May 1106 and 14 April 1109. So Matilda was born between 1107 and 1111. Geoffrey was born on 24 August 1113: Halphen, , Le Comté d'Anjou, pp. 190, 318Google Scholar; Chartrou, , L'Anjou, pp. 1, 4, 15Google Scholar; “Annales de Saint-Aubin,” in Recueil d'annales angevines et vendomoises, ed. Halphen, L. (Paris, 1903), p. 7Google Scholar. Orderic, (Historia, IV, 439)Google Scholar thinks that Matilda was about 12 in mid-1119.

34. The chief sources are Orderic, Suger, and the Hyde chronicle.

35. See, on the near failure of nerve, Liber Hyda, p. 316 and Orderic, , Historia, IV, 328–29Google Scholar. On the assassination plot, Suger, , Louis VI, p. 190Google Scholar; Malmesbury, , Gesta Regum, II, 488Google Scholar.

36. Chartrou, , L'Anjou, pp. 11–13Google Scholar.

37. Orderic, touches on it (Historia, IV, 333)Google Scholar but underrates its importance. Cf. “Annales de Saint-Aubin,” p. 7; “Gesta consulum Andegavorum,” in Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise, ed. Halphen, L. and Poupardin, R. (Paris, 1913), p. 155Google Scholar; Suger, p. 192.

38. Orderic, , Historia, IV, 347Google Scholar; Suger, pp. 194–96; Malmesbury, , Gesta Regum, II, 495Google Scholar.

39. Ibid. Malmesbury alone describes the disposition of Maine and may well be confused. Cf. Norgate, , Angevin Kings, I, 238–39Google Scholar.

40. Luchaire, , Louis VI, no. 298Google Scholar and references therein.

41. Simeon of Durham Opera Omnia, ed. Arnold, Thomas (Rolls Series, 1882–1885), II, 267Google Scholar: terras, urbes, et castella. Cf. Orderic, , Historia, IV, 347–48Google Scholar: the town of Alençon reverted to Robert of Bellême's son and heir, William Talvas, but Henry himself received custody of the castle.

42. Chartrou, , L'Anjou, p. 16Google Scholar.

43. Henry's decisive victory was at Rougemontier on 25 March, 1124: see Orderic, , Historia, IV, 455–58Google Scholar; Gesta Normannorum Ducum, pp. 294–95. The rebellion was accompanied by attacks of William Clito from Anjou: Simeon, , Opera, II, 274Google Scholar.

44. Chartrou, , L'Anjou, p. 17 and n. 4Google Scholar; Luchaire, , Louis VI, p. cviGoogle Scholar. Clito and Sibylla were indeed related within the prohibited degrees, but so, to precisely the same extent, were William Adelin and Matilda, and, likewise, Geoffrey and the Empress Maud. On Henry V's abortive invasion of France see Luchaire, , Louis VI, nos. 348, 349, 358Google Scholar, and references therein.

45. Recueil des historiens des Gaules, XV, 251, 258Google Scholar.

46. He married Matilda, heiress of Boulogne, a direct descendant of Edmund Ironside and the Wessex kings. Thus Stephen's heirs would inherit the same Anglo-Saxon royal blood that Henry's own children had inherited from their mother, Edith-Matilda. On the marriage see Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, ed. Round, J. H. (London, 1899), no. 1385Google Scholar.

47. Malmesbury, , Historia Novella, p. 2Google Scholar.

48. For the date see Round, J. H., Geoffrey de Mandeville (London 1892), p. 31 and n. 1Google Scholar.

49. The Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. Weaver, J. R. H. (Oxford, 1908), pp. 27–28Google Scholar.

50. Luchaire, , Louis VI, nos. 4, 5Google Scholar; Orderic, , Historia, IV, 472–74Google Scholar.

51. On his accession in 1119, Count Charles had continued the war against Henry I that his predecessor, Baldwin VII, had been waging, but the brief campaign ended with a treaty of peace and friendship: Liber Hyda, p. 320; Galbert of Bruges, Histoire, p. 176Google Scholar; Malmesbury, , Gesta Regum, II, 479Google Scholar. In the midst of the 1124 hostilities Charles was a guest at Henry I's court at Rouen: Orderic, , Historia, IV, 460–61Google Scholar.

52. Walter of Thérouanne, “Vita Karoli,” Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, XII, 557Google Scholar; Galbert of Bruges, Histoire, pp. 75–77, 81–84Google Scholar; Ganshof, F. L., “Trois mandements perdus du Roi de France Louis VI intèressant la Flandre,” Annales de la Société d'émulation de Bruges LXXXVII (1950), 117–30Google Scholar. On Louis' activities in Flanders see Ganshof, F. L., “Le Roi de France en Flandre en 1127 et 1128,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger, XXVII (1949), 204–28Google Scholar.

53. Walter of Thérouanne, “Vita Karoli,” pp. 557–58Google Scholar; Herman of Tournai, “Liber de Restauratione Monasterii S. Martini Tornacensis,” Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, XIV, 288Google Scholar. Clito's claim was through his grandmother, Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror.

54. Clito's various hopes are suggested by the language of his charter to Saint-Omer of 14 April, 1127: “Si contigerit mihi aliquo tempore preter terram Flandriae aliam conquirere, aut si concordia pads inter me et avunculum meum H. regem Angliae facta fuerit, in conquisita terra ilia aut in toto regno Anglorum eos liberos ab omni teloneo et ab omni consuetudine in concordia ilia recipi faciam”: Actes des comtes de Flandre, 1071–1128, ed. Vercauteren, Fernand (Brussels, 1938), no. 127, cl. 7Google Scholar. In his comital charters Clito styles himself Guilielmus, Dei gratia, comes Flandrie, filius Roberti comith Normannie (Ibid., no. 125; cf no. 128). He avoided claiming the Norman duchy as his own because his father still lived. See also Gesta Normannorum Ducum, p. 296, where Robert of Torigny asserts that the Anglo-Norman state enjoyed undisturbed peace from 1124 to 1135, despite Clito's doing his best to disturb it during his short tenure as count of Flanders.

55. Henry of Huntingdon, Historia, p. 247Google Scholar; cf. p. 312.

56. See Galbert of Bruges, Histoire, pp. 78, 146–47Google Scholar; Recueil des historiens des Gaules, XV, 341Google Scholar; Walter of Thérouanne, “Vita Karoli,” pp. 557–58Google Scholar; Henry actually asserted his own claim to Flanders, as son of Matilda of Flanders (ibid., p. 558; Simeon, , Opera, II, 282Google Scholar) but made no serious effort to acquire the province for himself. Henry's claim served as a symbol to which other claimants, otherwise mutually hostile, could rally. He put it forward, in Ganshof's words, “moins dans l'espoir de pouvoir s'en rendre maltre que dans le but d'en chasser son neveu”: “Le Roi de France en Flandre,” p. 210.

57. Galbert, , Histoire, pp. 132–33, 137–51Google Scholar.

58. Ibid., pp. 157–59; Gallia Christiana, X, “Instrumenta,” col. 192.

59. For eight days Henry sat with his army between Paris and Chartres at Epernon, a castle of Amaury de Montfort, formerly Henry's enemy but now in rebellion against Louis. Henry of Huntingdon, Historia, p. 247Google Scholar, provides the year (1128) but not the month. Louis' sudden withdrawal into France can best be explained by placing the Epernon incident in May.

60. Galbert of Bruges, Histoire p. 171Google Scholar. Thierry had the best hereditary claim as grandson of Count Robert I and first cousin of Charles the Good (ibid., p. xli). On his support from Henry I, see Henry of Huntingdon, Historia, p. 249Google Scholar. Succeeding to Flanders on Clito's death, Thierry renewed the money fief treaty with Henry (Galbert, , Histoire, p. 176)Google Scholar. Orderic speaks of a secret alliance between them: Historia, IV, 484Google Scholar.

61. Cf. Malmesbury, , Historia Novella, pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

62. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1127. Cf. Gesta Stephani, ed. Potter, K. R. (London, 1955), p. 7Google Scholar: “King Henry gave his daughter in marriage with a politic design, that he might establish peace more surely and securely between the Normans and the Angevins …. He wanted to make peace in his own time.” Likewise, Simeon of Durham, II, 282: “Thus, in order that he suffer no evil from his nephew, Henry sought the friendship of the count of Anjou, to whom he had previously been hostile, desiring to join his daughter, the former empress, to the count's son in marriage.” Robert of Torigny (Gesta Normannorum Ducum, p. 300) says that Henry gave his daughter to Geoffrey in order to end the long feud with Anjou and to “escape Fulk's enmity and insolence.” William of Malmesbury states that William Adelin's marriage to Matilda of Anjou and Maud's to Geoffrey were products of a single motive: Henry's desire “to establish peace between himself and the count of Anjou": Historia Novella, pp. 2–3.

63. A charter of John bishop of Sées, dated at Sées, A. D. 1127, sixth indiction, Sept. 1127-Sept., 1128), bears the words, Signum Henrici regis Anglorum. Quando dedit filiam suam Gaufredo comiti Andegavensi juniori: de la Clergerie, Gilles Bry, Histoire des pays et comté du Perche (Paris, 1620), p. 106Google Scholar. Round (Calendar, no. 1192, n. 5) suggests that this clause may have been added later. Henry was probably in Rouen in the later months of 1127: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, II, ed. Cronne, H. A. and Johnson, C. (Oxford, 1956), nos. 1545, 1547Google Scholar; a later chronicle tradition makes Rouen the site of the betrothal; Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series, 1864–1869), II, 48Google Scholar.

64. The dating of the marriage presents formidable problems which Kate Norgate has satisfactorily solved: Angevin Kings, I, 258–60Google Scholar.

65. Chartrou, , L'Anjou, pp. 23–4Google Scholar. Fulk had been negotiating concurrently with Henry I and envoys from the kingdom of Jerusalem. He took the cross 17 days before Geoffrey's marriage to Maud.

66. Cf. the cases of the earldom of Huntingdon and the honor of Eudo Dapifer: Complete Peerage, VI, 638–42Google Scholar; Hollister, C. W., “The Misfortunes of the Mandevilles,” History, LVIII (1973), 18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67. Orderic, , Historia, V, 82Google Scholar.

68. Simeon, , Opera, II, 282Google Scholar. Simeon's remarks on continental events in 1127–28 are subject to caution. Cf. his clearly erroneous statement (ibid., p. 283) that after Clito's death, and with Louis VI's consent, Henry became suzerain of Flanders and Count Thierry held it as his vassal — a gross exaggeration of the 1128 renewal of the Anglo-Flemish money fief (above, n. 24). In the years following the marriage Henry did nothing whatever to prepare Geoffrey for the throne. Geoffrey received no lands in England or Normandy and, so far as is known, was never at Henry's court after 1128. He received no oaths from the Anglo-Norman barons and was virtually unknown to them.

69. A third son, William, was born in 1136: see Chartrou, , L'Anjou, p. 37Google Scholar. Maud's irrascibility has been ascribed to her resentment at being joined to a boy 11 years her junior and a mere count. But she was obviously aware of Henry I's exalted plans for her and may well have played an important role in the marriage deliberations. Two of Henry's three chief counsellors in the matter were Maud's close associates, Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count: Malmesbury, , Historia Novella, p. 5Google Scholar; cf. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1126.

70. Orderic, , Historia, V, 45 ff.Google Scholar; Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 253–54; Gesta Normannorum Ducum, p. 320.

71. Davis, R. H. C., King Stephen (London, 1967), p. 61Google Scholar: “All chroniclers agree that in her hour of victory she displayed an intolerable pride and wilfulness.”

72. Gesta Normannorum Ducum, pp. 299–300.

73. Malmesbury, , Historia Novella, pp. 3–4Google Scholar; cf. Robert of Torigny's dauntless attempt to connect Geoffrey's ancestors with the kings of France: Gesta Normannorum Ducum, pp. 301–02.

74. Malmesbury, , Historia Novella, p. 10Google Scholar: at Northampton, 8 Sept., 1131; cf. ibid., p. 13, and Henry of Huntingdon, p. 252.

75. At Westminster, probably in June or July: Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series, 1868–1871), I, 187Google Scholar: “… fecit archiepiscopos et comites et barones totius suae dominationis jurare fidelitates Matildi … et Henrico filio ejus adhuc minimo, et constituit eum regem post se.” See also Hexham, Richard of, “Historia de Gestis Regis Stephani et de Bello Standardo,” in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Howlett, R. (Rolls Series, 1884–1889), III, 145Google Scholar; Diceto, Ralph de, Opera Historica, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series, 1876), I, 246Google Scholar. Round, J. H. (Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 31, n. 2)Google Scholar dismisses this evidence, but on insufficient grounds; cf. Chartrou, , L'Anjou, pp. 36–37Google Scholar: According to the Gesta Stephani (p. 8), Robert of Gloucester, Henry I's bastard son and Maud's leading supporter, declared himself on Henry I's death for the succession of Maud's infant son Henry. This view seems to reflect Henry I's own; Robert was very close to Henry in his final years and was at the king's side in his last illness.

76. Regesta, III, nos. 634–35: Henricus filius filie Regis Henrici rectus beres Anglie et Normannie; cf. Round, , Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 186Google Scholar. Note the omission of a claim to Anjou.

77. Ibid., pp. 250–61; John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. Chibnall, Marjorie (London, 1956), pp. 83, 85Google Scholar. The pope decided against Maud, confirming Stephen in his possession of England and Normandy.

78. … ut filii sui hereditatem vindicet …: John of Marmoutier, “Historia Gaufredi Ducis,” in Chroniques des Comtes d'Anjou, ed. Halphen, and Poupardin, , p. 225Google Scholar.

79. Haskins, C. H., Norman Institutions (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), pp. 130–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Geoffrey “had won and held Normandy for his son and not for himself.” Cf. ibid., pp. 135 ff; Institutions françaises, ed. Lot, and Fawtier, , I, 30–32Google Scholar, and Regesta, III, xxxii–xxxiiiGoogle Scholar. Maud, meanwhile, was absent in England from 1139 to 1148 and could play no role in the governance of Normandy.

80. On Whitsunday, 22 May, 1149, at Carlisle, by David king of Scots. For a good discussion of the event and its implications see Ritchie, , Normans in Scotland, pp. 295–97Google Scholar.

81. Maud herself very nearly died in childbirth in 1134: Gesta Normannorum Ducum, pp. 303–05.

82. See Robert of Torigny, Chronica, in Chronicles of Stephen, ed. Howlett, , IV, 163Google Scholar. Geoffrey the Younger came into immediate possession of three or four Angevin castles (Chinon, Loudun, Mirabeau, and perhaps one other.)

83. William of Newburgh, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, in Chronicles of Stephen, ed. Howlett, , I, 112–14Google Scholar.

84. “Since both the paternal and maternal inheritances would fall to Henry as the eldest son,” argues William of Newburgh, “the count was unwilling that provision for the others [Geoffrey and William] should be wholly dependent on their brother's favor, for he knew not what disposition Henry might show towards them.” (ibid.) William's analysis of the count's motivation in this matter is doubtful. The awarding of Anjou and its dependencies shows a far greater generosity than Henry could ever have been expected to display towards his brother. Likewise, there is no record of any bequest to the third Plantagenet son, William.

85. See Boussard, Jacques, Le Gouvernement d'Henri II Plantagenêt (Paris, 1956), p. 8Google Scholar.

86. Henry abandoned England in 1149, reports the Gesta Stephani (p. 148), in order to return with the aid of a larger force, enlisting the support of both the Normans and his father. Shortly before his sudden illness, Geoffrey, along with Henry, called for a council to convene at Lisieux on 14 September, 1151, to discuss preparations for the new invasion. Geoffrey died in the week prior to the appointed date and the council never met. Henry scheduled another meeting of the barons in April, 1152, and was ready to embark for England in June with a strong army when hostilities with the king of France delayed him. Finally, in January, 1153, he was able to set out on the long awaited expedition. (Robert of Torigny, Chronica, pp. 162, 164–65, 171Google Scholar).

87. Ibid., p. 165; “Annales de Saint-Serge;” in Recueil d'annales angevines et vendômoises, ed. Halphen, , p. 101Google Scholar; “Annales de Saint-Aubin,” ibid., p. 12. Louis' brother, Robert of Dreux, and his future son-in-law, Henry of Champagne, were also members of the 1152 coalition.

88. Immediately following Henry's departure for England in 1153 Louis launched a series of attacks in the Norman Vexin and kept up this harassment until August 1154 when he reached an accord with Henry: Robert of Torigny, Chronica, pp. 171, 172, 174, 175, 180Google Scholar. Between August an dNovember 1154, as a result of this accord, Louis discontinued styling himself “duke of Aquitaine": Etudes sur les actes de Louis VII, ed. Luchaire, A. (Paris, 1885), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

89. Pacaut, Marcel, Louis VII et son royaume (Paris, 1964), p. 185Google Scholar. Louis' sister Constance had been formerly married to King Stephen's son, Eustace of Boulogne, whose death in August, 1153, broke the marriage alliance connecting Stephen and Louis. Constance's second marriage took place in 1154.

90. William of Newburgh, Historia, pp. 112–14Google Scholar; Henry was absent at the time of his father's death. When he arrived for the funeral ceremony, he learned that the count had issued instructions to the bishops and magnates present not to give his body burial until his eldest son had sworn to observe his will. Not knowing the will's contents, Henry at first refused to take the oath, but the outcry at allowing his father's body to suffer further corruption caused him to relent.

91. Ibid.

92. Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani a Thoma Walsingham, ed. Riley, H. T. (Rolls Series, 1867–1869), I, 126–27Google Scholar.

93. “Antules de Saint-Serge,” p. 102. The annalist says that the revolt began at “media hieme.” In medieval writings the term “mid-winter” usually refers to Christmas week, the winter solstice arriving on 21 or 22 December. Midwinter Day was 25 December.

94. Eyton, R. W., Court, Household, and Itinerary of King Henry II (London, 1878), p. 15Google Scholar. Cf. Robert of Torigny, Chronica, p. 186Google Scholar, n. 4 [A.D. 1156]: “Henricus rex in Normanniam transfretavit, prosecutusque est Gaufridum, fratrem suum, qui ab eo dicesserat in Andegavensem pagum.”

95. Eyton, , Court, Household and Itinerary, p. 16Google Scholar; Recueil des actes de Henri II, roi d'Angleterre et due de Normandie, eds. Delisle, L. and Berger, E., (Paris, 1909–1927), I, 107–08Google Scholar: charter of Henry II in favor of the hospital of Santingfeld near Wissant, issued apud S. Audomarum [1156].

96. Decades earlier Sibylla had seen her marriage to William Clito dissolved by papal annulment and had subsequently married Clito's rival and successor, Thierry count of Flanders. On Count Thierry and Countess Sibylla in Rouen see Robert of Torigny, Chronica, p. 186Google Scholar.

97. Eyton, , Court, Household and Itinerary, p. 16Google Scholar; Robert of Torigny, Chronica, p. 186Google Scholar.

98. Maud attests a royal charter as “My Lady the Empress” at this time (Eyton, , Court, Household and Itinerary, p. 17Google Scholar). The third Plantagenet brother, William, is not mentioned as being in Rouen by any of the sources, but he was with Henry at St. Omer and almost certainly accompanied him to the Norman capital (above, n. 95). He was with Henry in Chinon shortly thereafter (c. February, 1156: ibid., p. 18; Recueil des actes de Henri II, I, 110–11.Google Scholar)

99. Arnulf attested two royal charters at Rouen during this period (Eyton, , Court, Household and Itinerary, pp. 16–17Google Scholar). Frank Barlow has expressed doubt that Arnulf participated in the mission to the papal court, using a letter of Adrian IV as his evidence: The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux, ed. Barlow, F., Camden, , 3rd Series, LX (London, 1939), p. xix, n. 5Google Scholar. The letter, dated 25 April, 1156, mentions Robert of St. Albans and the bishops of Evreux and Le Mans as being present but omits any mention of Arnulf: Epistolae Pontificum Romanorum Ineditae, ed. Loewenfeld, S. (Leipzig, 1885), no. 228, pp. 124–25Google Scholar. It seems much more likely, however, that Arnulf did in fact go to the pope on Henry's behalf in October but had returned by February. The Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani (p. 127), which names Arnulf as one of the envoys, states that Abbot Robert returned to England in June 1156 and that the bishops had gone home earlier. Robert of Torigny places the bishop of Evreux in Normandy on 10 June (Chronica, p. 188). Since Abbot Robert and the bishops of Evreux and Le Mans were all with the pope on 25 April, and since the homeward journey would have equired six or seven weeks, the appearance of Abbot Robert and the bishop of Evreux in England and Normandy in June suggests that, contrary to the St. Albans writer, the bishops of Evreux and Le Mans did not leave the papal court prior to Abbot Robert's departure. Giles Constable in his article, “The Alleged Disgrace of John of Salisbury,” (English Historical Review, LXIX [1954], 69)Google Scholar, quite properly concludes that the Gesta passage actually refers to the previous departure of only one bishop: Arnulf of Lisieux. Evidently Arnulf returned early to inform Henry of the pope's decision concerning the oath, while the other envoys remained to carry on additional business at the papal court.

100. William of Newburgh, Historia, pp. 112–14Google Scholar; Henry easily obtained absolution from his oath on the grounds that oaths extorted under pressure are not binding (above, n. 90). Cf. Chartrou, , L'Anjou, p. 86Google Scholar. The English pope Adrian IV was having serious difficulties at the time with Sicily and with the Roman people, and might have been in an accommodating mood toward powerful potential supporters such as Henry II.

101. Robert of Torigny, Chronica, p. 186Google Scholar; Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series, 1868–1871), I, 215Google Scholar; The policy of reconciliation was subsequently cemented by the betrothal of Henry II's eldest son to Louis' daughter Margaret.

102. Robert of Torigny, Chronica, p. 186Google Scholar.

103. Ibid., pp. 186–87.

104. Ibid., p. 189. In a letter of spring or summer, 1156, John of Salisbury points out the nature of the rift between the two brothers and Henry's final object when he writes, “Geoffrey has refused to abjure in his [Henry's] favor the whole of the inheritance received from his father.”: The Letters of John of Salisbury, ed. Millor, W. J. and Butler, H. E., revised by Brooke, C. N. L. (London, 1951), No. 13, p. 21Google Scholar.

105. Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, ed. Stubbs, W. (Rolls Series, 1879–1880), I, 162Google Scholar; Richard of Poitou, Recueil des historiens des Gaules, XII, 417Google Scholar.