¹ For a brief and general summary of some of the major changes, see Frank, Barlow, The English Church 1066–1154, London 1979, 314–17;Google ScholarMarjorie, Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England 1066–1166, Oxford 1986, 38–40.Google Scholar

² The evidence for what happened during the Confessor's reign is notoriously vague. But even if there were cases of behaviour similar to that of the Normans, it is clear thatthe Anglo-Saxon kings had no conscious policy of collecting ecclesiastical revenues for the crown during a vacancy. On this point, see below, n. 20. In the light of evidence from Orderic Vitalis and for Stigand, Margaret Howell has suggested that the care of vacant churches was in the hands of ecclesiastics before the Conquest and though the kings may have sanctioned Stigand's activity, they probably played little further role in the matter: Regalian Right in Medieval England, London 1962, 10–11. According to Orderic Vitalis, ‘the custom was that when the rectors of the churches died, the bishop carefully described the possessions of the monasteries which were in his diocese, and held the custody under his authority until abbots were properly ordained’:Google ScholarThe Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis,. ed. and trans. Chibnall, Marjorie M., 6 vols, Oxford 1969–1980, iv. 174. In mentioning this,however, Orderic was criticising post-Conquest practices under William 11 and probably coloured the past with rosier hues than was warranted in order to make his point. David Knowles responds by arguing that the bishop took charge only in special cases; generally the prior and his advisers administered:Google ScholarThe Monastic Order in England, 2nd edn, Cambridge 1950, 612–13. The Liber Eliensis reports that Stigand as archbishop of Canterbury held Ely, and several other churches which were vacant, by the grace of King Edward and King Harold. He was generous to these churches, but he also administered them to his own benefit:Google ScholarLiber Eliensis, ed. E. O. Blake (Camden, 3rd ser. xcn, 1962), 168, 412, 414, 425–6. 425–6.Google Scholar

³ Howell has found only two complaints against the Conqueror for siphoning off revenues from vacant churches. The chroniclers of St Albans and Ely complained of revenues being taken by the king; otherwise William's practice paralleled later practices in that he sent men to describe the possessions of a vacant house and provided a custodian to care for the administration: Howell, Regalian Right, 7–9.

⁴ Ibid. 1–48, esp. p. 10.

⁵ Emma, Mason, ‘William Rufus: myth and reality’, Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977), 1–20.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 2, 15.

⁷ Ibid. 1.

⁸ Barlow, English Church 1066–1154, 67–8. Barlow calculates the average length of vacancies under William at a little more than a year, ‘if we subtract three long vacancies’.Google Scholar He estimates Henry's average at about 18 months when four vacancies, that were due to the investiture dispute, are subtracted: Ibid. 77. See also Frank, Barlow, William Rufus, London 1983, 233–9, for a general discussion of vacancies under Rufus.Google Scholar

⁹ Most of the exceptions occurred during Henry's reign. The investiture conflict from 1102–7 prolonged vacancies because it precluded the consecration of bishops and blessing of abbots throughout its duration. Similarly, the primacy dispute between Canterbury and York delayed the consecration of the archbishop of York between 1114 and 1121. The king was responsible for the vacancies during these times only in so far as he delayed helping to end the disputes. It has also been called to my attention that a Welsh bishop delayed the vacancy at Hereford between 1127 and 1131. Robert, prior of Llanthony, was elected to Hereford in 1130; however, he was under the jurisdiction of Urban, bishop of Llandaff, who refused to release him to his see because of LlandafPs dispute with Hereford over diocesan boundaries. Urban thus delayed Robert's residency and consecration until June 1131 when the pope intervened: Martin, Brett, The English Church under Henry 1, Oxford 1975, 53–4, 105. Election disputes also served to prolong vacancies. Such delays, however, did not become a factor until later. I have found no mention of disputes during William's reign and the few disputes during Henry's reign of which I am aware were generally raised and resolved in a single meeting of the king's council. For example, the dispute over the election to Canterbury in 1114 occurred at Henry's council at Windsor in 1114:Google ScholarEadmer, , Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. Martin, Rule (Rolls Series [hereinafter cited as RS], 1884), 222–3;Google ScholarDorothy, Whitelock, Martin, Brett, Brooke, C. N. L. (eds), Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, Oxford 1981, i/2. 707–8. Similarly the dispute over the next appointment to Canterbury was resolved within a few days at the council of 1123:Google ScholarHugh the Chantor, , The History of the Church of York 1066–1127, ed. and trans. Charles, Johnson, London 1961, 108–11;Google ScholarCouncils, and Synods, , i/ii. 726. Disputes did at times delay appointments in both Stephen's and Henry n's reigns; for example at Lincoln (Feb. to Dec. 1148), Coventry (Apr. 1148 to Oct. 1149), and London (Sept. 1150 to Sept. 1152), under Stephen:Google ScholarAvrom, Saltman, Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury, London 1956, repr. New York 1969, 106–7, 114–16, 117–19; and, in Henry's reign, for example, it took three different meetings for the king and his clergy to agree on their candidate for Canterbury in 1184:Google ScholarGesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. William, Stubbs (RS, 1867), 1. 317–21;Google ScholarGervase of Canterbury, , The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. William, Stubbs (RS, 1879–1980), 1. 317–18.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Because this study focuses on royal motivation for controlling vacancies rather than on the actual amount of funds gleaned from them, vacancies are considered technically at an end once a prelate is elected to a vacant church. My reasoning is that once the king permitted an election to take place, he was showing his willingness to terminate the vacancy and his part in the matter ceased. For some appointments we only know the date of consecration or blessing. In these cases, therefore, churches are considered vacant for the entire time; otherwise, dates of election are used.

¹¹ For my evidence in tables 1 and 11, I examined lists of ecclesiastical appointments to determine when churches were vacant. For monasteries, I have used David, Knowles, Brooke, C. N. L., Vera, London (eds), The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, 940–1216, Cambridge 1972.Google ScholarFor episcopal vacancies I have used Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300, ed. Neve, John Le, comp. Greenway, Diana E., 1–3, London 1968, 1971, 1977 whenever possible.Google Scholar When Le Neve does not provide episcopal data, I have used, E. B. Fryde, D. E. Greenway, S. Porter, and J. Roy (eds), Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edn, London 1986. Domesday values, when available, are rounded to the nearest pound. These values are based on the combined totals of each church's landed estates as recorded in Domesday Book. Although such values are probably incomplete and outdated, reflecting conditions of 1086, most scholars would agree that Domesday Book provides an acceptable and reasonably accurate index of relative annual incomes for the instances under consideration here. Relative values for abbeys are taken from Knowles, , Monastic Order, 702–3; values for bishoprics are found inGoogle ScholarBrett, , English Church under Henry I, 103 n. 1.Google Scholar For the kings' itineraries, I have relied on Barlow, , William Rufus, 449–52,Google Scholar and William, Farrer, An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First, Oxford 1920.Google Scholar

¹² William granted the right to make appointments to Selby to Thomas, archbishop of York, in 1094: Knowles, Google Scholar, Monastic Order, 631. For further information on proprietary churches including Chester, Spalding, Colchester and Eynsham, see Ibid. 129, 402. Eudo Dapifer founded Colchester and had patronage until his death in 1120: ‘Annales Colecestrenses’, in Liebermann, F. (ed.), UngedruckteAnglo-Normannische Geschichtsquellen, Strassburg 1879, repr. Ridgewood, NJ, 1966, 159–62;Google ScholarWilliam, Page, Round, J. Horace (eds), The Victoria History of the Counties of England, Essex, 1, London 1907, 93–4.Google Scholar Robert Fitz Hamon became patron of Tewkesbury when William Rufus granted him the honour of Gloucester. Henry 1 confirmed this grant: ‘Cartae ad Theokesburiense Coenobium in agro Gloucestrensi spectantes’, in William, Dugdale (ed), Monasticon Anglicanum, new edn, John, Caley, Henry, Ellis, Bulkeley, Bandinel (eds), London 1817–1930, 2. 59–65. After Fitz Hamon's death in 1107, Henry married his natural son, Robert, into the Fitz Hamon family; however,Google Scholaraccording to Earldom of Gloucester Charters, ed. Patterson, Robert B., Oxford 1973, 152, it is not known when Robert married Mabel Fitz Hamon; they must have been married by 1121–2 when Robert became the first earl of Gloucester, and they may have been married some years earlier. Roger of Belleme founded Shrewsbury in 1083 and with his death in 1094, the house passed to his son Hugh who died in 1098:Google ScholarOrderic, Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, iii. 146, 148, 150 n. 1;Google ScholarThe Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, ed. Una, Rees, 2vols, Aberystwyth 1975,i. pp. xi–xii, nos. 2–4, 34–5. Robert of Bêlleme succeeded Hugh, but he rebelled in 1102 and was exiled:Google ScholarWilliam of Malmesbury, De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, W. (RS, 1887–1889), 2. 472–3;Google ScholarOrderic, Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, 6. 144;Google ScholarCartulary of Shrewsbury, i. pp. xiiGoogle Scholar. After this the abbey fell under the king's patronage, often with Richard Belmeis acting in a viceregal capacity after he became bishop of London in 1108: Ibid. vi. 144 n. 4; Cartulary of Shrewsbury, i. pp. xii–xiii, and e.g. nos 39, 42, 48.

¹³ For many of the smaller houses, the evidence is too sparse to establish the existence of a vacancy. See e.g. Athelney and Milton in Heads, 26, 56.

¹⁴ Archbishop Lanfranc appointed Gundulf bishop of Rochester before Rufus’ reign: William of Malmesbury, De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum, ed. Hamilton, N. E. S. A. (RS, 1870), 136.Google Scholar Anselm appointed Ralph bishop in 1108: Eadmer, , Historia Novorum, 196.Google Scholar For a general discussion of Canterbury's privileges over Rochester, see Brett, , English Church under Henry I, 67–8, 104; R. A. L. Smith, ‘The place of Gundulf in the Anglo–Norman Church’, EHR lviii(1943), 257–72, at pp. 261–4;Google ScholarChurchill, I. J., Canterbury Administration: the administrative machinery of the archbishopric of Canterbury illustrated from original records, 1, London 1933, 279–87.Google Scholar

¹⁵ A discussion of the evidence for these churches is to be found in the appendix.

¹⁶ The evidence for these churches is also discussed in the appendix.

¹⁷ The tables consistently show vacancies starting and ending at the beginning of the year when months are not known. For the high estimate, I have rounded off these dates to January for the beginning of a vacancy and to December for the end since a death or an election could theoretically take place at any time during the year. (It should be noted that blessings and consecrations generally would have occurred at one of the king's tri- annual councils, but as mentioned above I am considering date of election whenever possible.) Calculating vacancies in this way tends to exaggerate their length, but to counter this imbalance, I have reversed this approach by rounding off starting points to December and ending points to January for the low estimate. In the cases where conflicting and circumstantial evidence makes using a single date impossible, I have used the date which lengthens the vacancy for the high estimate and that which shortens the vacancy for the low estimate. For documentation of which dates were used for the high and low estimates, see above, n. 9, for Hereford; below, n. 66, for York; and the appendix. Although the vacancies during the investiture conflict were not entirely Henry's fault, they have still been included in the analysis.

¹⁸ Malmesbury has been omitted from all calculations because there are large gaps in the evidence for both reigns: Heads, 55. I have included it in the tables, however, since it was a prominent monastery. Shrewsbury, which also appears in both tables, has only been calculated for Henry's reign after 1102 since, before this time, it was a proprietary abbey outside either king's control. For William's reign, I have omitted the period during which William of St Calais was disseized of Durham (1088–91), because the king's removal of the see from the bishop had little to do with ecclesiastical matters (see below, n. 21). Ely's record has been calculated as an abbey for the first nine years of Henry's reign and then as a bishopric for the remaining twenty-six years owing to Ely's change of status in 1109.

¹⁹ ‘Auaricia, Sic regis in aecclesia Dei nimis exarsit': Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, 4. 174.Google Scholar

²⁰ Literally, ‘ad extremam paupertatem’: ‘Annales Monasterii de Wintonia’, in Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, H. R. (RS, 1864–9), 2. 39.Google ScholarFor RanulPs influence over the king see, e.g. Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, ed. Arnold, Thomas (RS, 1879),232;Google ScholarFlorence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis (A.D. 450–1117), ed. Benjamin, Thorpe (English Historical Society, 1848–9), 2. 44;Google ScholarSouthern, Richard W., ‘Ranulf Flambard’, in Medieval Humanism and Other Studies, New York-Evanston 1970, 183–205.Google ScholarThis amassing of churches under the control of a single individual calls to mind Stigand's ecclesiastical appropriations before the Conquest. It may also call to mind other pre-Conquest pluralists, such as Leofric who was abbot of Peterborough, Burton, Coventry, Croyland and Thorney: Hugh Candidus, The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, a Monk of Peterborough, ed. Mellows, W.T., London 1949, 65–7;Google ScholarThe Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a revised translation, trans. Dorothy Whitelock, Douglas, David C., Tucker, Susie I., London 1961, s. a. 1066 (MS E).Google ScholarStigand's and Leofric's situations were quite different from Flambard's, however. Leofric represented a practice of the Church before the Gregorian reform and although the number of churches under his control was exceptional, plurality was not as unusual nor intolerable as it would later become under the Normans. In Stigand's case, though Edward and Harold may have sanctioned the archbishopin his ecclesiastical activities, they were not placing him in these churches as part of a royal policy toward vacancies. Indeed, the narrative sources imply that Stigand took it upon himself to administer vacancies. Ranulf on the other hand clearly acted as the king's agent. Whether Stigand could be considered a precedent for Flambard also seems doubtful, since no Norman would consciously model himself on an Anglo-Saxon figure, especially one as notorious and afterwards vilified as Stigand. For Norman complaints about Stigand's ecclesiastical practices, see for example, Florence of Worcester, Chronicon, ii. 5;Google ScholarWilliam, of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 35–6.Google ScholarFor a fuller discussion of Stigand and his maverick ways, see Frank, Barlow, The English Church 1000–1066, 2nd edn, London-New York 1979, 77–81, 108.Google Scholar

²¹ For further details concerning the rebellion, see Barlow, William Rufus, 74–93. At this time, Durham fell into the king's hands when William disseized its bishop, William of St Calais, for his part in the rebellion. The bishop went into exile in 1088 and did not regain the see until September 1091 when the king returned it to him in gratitude for his service in Normandy:Ibid. 82–9, 169, 294; Barlow, English Church 1066–1154, 282–7. Even though this was not a typical ecclesiastical vacancy, and has therefore not been calculated as such, the king doubtless collected episcopal revenues while the bishop was in exile.

²² Barlow, , William Rufus, 273–89, 296.Google Scholar

²³ Fasti, 2. 55, for Thetford, ;Google Scholar‘Annales Cicestrenses’, in Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische Geschichtsquellen, 93, and British Chronology,238, for Chichester, .Google Scholar

²⁴ Aldwin was deposed for simony at the Council of n 02: Eadmer, Hisloria Novorum, 142; though Herbert purchased Thetford for himself, it is not clear whether he technically bought New Minster, Winchester for his father. William of Malmesbury reports that ’ Herbert bought the bishopric of Thetford... with his father Robert of the same cognomen having been intruded into the abbey of Winchester’, ('emit episcopatum Tetfordensem Herbertus cognomento Losinga, quod ei ars adulationis impegerat, ex priore Fiscanni et ex abbate Ramesiae factus episcopus, patre suo Rotberto ejusdem cognominis in abbatiam Wintoniae intruso'): Gesta Pontificum, 151. On the other hand, Florence of Worcester relates that Herbert had purchased the bishopric for himself and the abbey for his father from the king for 1,000 pounds: Chronicon, ii. 33–4 n. 1. Herbert later repented of this purchase and sought absolution from Pope Urban 11; but because William had not yet recognised Urban as pope, he disseized Herbert of the bishopric sometime between Feb. 1094 and Apr. 1095: Councils and Synods, i/ii. 642 and n. 4.

²⁵ Many of the chroniclers attribute these appointments to the king's illness, see e.g. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s. a. 1093 (MS E); Eadmer, , Historia Novorum, 30–8;Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, 5. 176.Google Scholar

²⁶ Eadmer, , Historia Novorum, 38–9.Google Scholar

²⁷ According to Henry of Huntingdon, the liberties that Robert secured with his payment were hisepiscopal rights to the city of Lincoln and in Lindsey, which the archbishop of York had been claiming falsely for himself: Historia Anglorum, 216–17. Eadmer writes that Anselm also experienced pressure to buy the king's favour. The archbishop offered William 500 pounds to help with the king's military expenses, but William contemptuously rejected this offer indicating the amount was not high enough and that he would prefer a gift of 2,000 pounds or, atthe very least, 1,000 pounds. Anselm decided to give the money to the poor and requested that William offer his favour freely; the king denied this request: Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 43–5.Google Scholar

²⁸ For Anselm's complaints about vacancies and church councils, see Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 48–50. For a discussion of the debate over Urban 11, see Barlow, William Rufus, 338–46; Sally N. Vaughn, Anselm. of Bee and Robert o/Meulan: the innocence of the dove and the wisdom of the serpent, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1987, 173–89; Councils and Synods, i/ii. 643–4.

²⁹ For details of the revolt, see Barlow, , William Rufus, 346–55.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. 363–7.31 Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 74–5.

³² Ibid. 79–89; Barlow, William Rufus, 373–5.

³³ For William's campaigns in France, see Ibid. 376–95; for his plans regarding Normandy, see C. Warren Hollister, Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World, London 1986, 66–7.

³⁴ Barlow, , William Rufus, 401;Google ScholarAnselm, , Opera Omnia, ed. Schmitt, F. S., Stuttgart 1968, ep. 214.Google Scholar

³⁵ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s. a. 1100 (MS E).

³⁶ William probably collected revenues from Ely throughout his reign. About 1087, Abbot Simeon requested royal assistance because he was having difficulties managing the church's affairs. Ranulf was sent to govern although it is not clear whether he was sent by Rufus or by the Conqueror: Liber Eliensis, 218–20, esp. p. 218 n. 3.

³⁷ Barlow notes that Rufus could not have made appointments to Winchester or Salisbury, but that he was able to appoint a bishop to Durham because the archbishop of York could have made the consecration: English Church 1066–1154, 71.

³⁸ In Bury's case, the abbey fell vacant after William had returned Herbert to Thetford/Norwich, Bury's diocesan church, and although the abbey had successfully claimed exemption from the authority of its diocesan bishop, it also claimed the right to decide which bishop would consecrate its abbot. Only later did Canterbury assert its right to consecrate all abbots of Bury: Vaughn, Anselm of Bee and Robert of Meulan, 329–32.

³⁹ William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 151, 205; Hugh the Chantor, History of York, 7.

⁴⁰ Councils and Synods, i/ii. 654–5.

⁴¹ Ranulf was disseized of Durham, but only temporarily. For his reconciliation with Henry and his resumption of the bishopric, see the appendix, and Craster, H. H. E., ‘A contemporary record of the pontificate of Ranulf Flambard’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser. 7(1930), 33–56, at pp. 42–50. Although Ranulf returned to the bishopric, he was never readmitted to the king's inner circle: Southern, ‘Ranulf Flambard’, 199.Google Scholar

⁴² The Peterborough appointment may have been delayed for a couple of reasons. On the one hand, the monks may have been petitioning the king for a free election at the time of the other appointments - since at some point Henry allowed them one. On the other hand, had the king already granted them the election, they might not have chosen their abbot in time for these appointments, especially if the abbey had only recently become vacant. For a discussion of the king's grant of a free election and of the problems in dating the start of the vacancy, see the appendix. With regard to St Augustine's, it is not clear why Henry delayed this appointment, or how long he intended to leave the abbey vacant, for the election date of the next abbot is unknown. This problematic date is also discussed in the appendix.

⁴³ The interpretation centres on what Henry meant when he said he would not take anything, ‘aliquid’, from the church. Margaret Howell has suggested that he perhaps meant various feudal reliefs and aids, or the granting of lands to his own men: Regalian Right, 22–4. Other scholars have followed her in this. See e.g. Brett, English Church under Henry I, 106 n. 1; Councils and Synods, i/ii. 653.

⁴⁴ Brett has previously noted this phenomenon: The English Church under Henry I, 106.

⁴⁵ Eadmer, , Historia Novorum, 144–5; Councils and Synods, i/ii. 656–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ ‘Annales de Wintonia’, 41; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 109–10; Anglo- Saxon Chronicle, s. a. 1102 (MS E); Councils and Synods, i/ii. 657–8.

⁴⁷ Memorials of St Edmunds Abbey, ed. Thomas, Arnold, 3 vols (RS, 1890–6), 1. 354–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Liber Eliensis, 226–7, 413; Councils and Synods, i/ii. 669.

⁴⁹ Eadmer, , Historia Novorum, 142; Councils and Synods, i/2.669.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For Henry's appointment of the abbot of Peterborough, see the appendix. Concerning the abbot of Milton, I agree with Councils and Synods, i/ii. 669. The dates for the succession of the abbot of Pershore are unclear: Heads, 58–9. William, however, definitely made the appointments to Ramsey and Tavistock: Ibid. 62, 72.

⁵¹ Simeon of Durham reports that Coventry was sold for 3,000 marks: Simeon of Durham, ‘Historia Regum’, in Symeonis Monachi Opera omnia, ed. Thomas Arnold (RS, 1882–5), "o 283- William of Malmesbury says that Theulf, bishop of Worcester, repented on his deathbed that he had acquired his prelateship by simony: Gesta Pontificum, 290 n.; Brett calls attention to both of these incidents, in English Church under Henry I, 105.

⁵² Aldwin, deposed from Ramsey, was later restored after the new abbot's death: Heads, 62. Peterborough's new abbot was enthroned in October, Ibid. 60. Richard returned to Ely after the king reinvested him sometime between 1103 and February 1105: Councils and Synods, i/ii. 658, 690. Robert n was elected to Bury in 1102 although not blessed until 1107. For his blessing see Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 188, and Memorials of St Edmunds Abbey, i. 355; the abbey's chronicle does not specifically say he was elected in 1102, but it does say that he ruled for five years before dying in 1107: Ibid. iii. 5. The records are sketchy for the other abbeys whose abbots were deposed. For these abbeys, Cerne, Muchelney, Pershore and Tavistock, see Heads, 37, 57, 59, 72.

⁵³ Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 159, 186; Barlow, English Church 1066–1154, 297–302. Anselm was disseized of Canterbury sometime in 1104.

⁵⁴ Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 165–6; Vaughn, Anselm of Bee and Robert of Meulan, 267–307.

⁵⁵ Hollister, C.Warren, ‘War and diplomacy in the Anglo-Norman world: the reign of Henry I’, in Brown, R. Allen (ed.), Anglo-Norman Studies 6(1983), 72–88, at p. 73.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Eadmer, , Historia Novorum, 186; Councils and Synods, i/ii. 689–94.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ I can find no specific date for the month of the abbot of Ramsey's restoration, but it was likely to have been at this time as is assumed by Councils and Synods, i/ii. 692. See also the appendix for the situations at Muchelney and Cerne, which were probably not vacant at the time of the council.

⁵⁸ Heads, 45; Brett, English Church under Henry I, 57–8; Liber Eliensis, 225–6, 227–8, 235–6. For Hervey's custodianship and subsequent installation as bishop, see Ibid. 245–6, 414; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 325, and Edward Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely, Cambridge 1951, repr. 1969, 75.

⁵⁹ Hollister, , ‘War and diplomacy’, 80.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid. 73–4.

⁶¹ Ibid. 84–5.

⁶² Hugh the Chantor, History of York, 128–9.

⁶³ Hollister, ‘War and diplomacy’, 86.

⁶⁴ Abbots were elected for Westminster and Abingdon at Henry's council held during Epiphany (January), as were bishops for Chester and Hereford. The bishop of Norwich was elected in March when the bishop of Chester was consecrated: Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 290–1; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon, ii. 75–6, esp. p. 75 n. 3. Seffrid was probably appointed abbot of Glastonbury at this time as well, although the month is uncertain. In his history of the abbey, William of Malmesbury writes that Seffrid succeeded in 1120; however, he also supplies other information that conflicts with this date. Elsewhere, he lists an ‘ordination’ date of 1125 and a reign of six years for Seffrid: John Scott, The Early History of Glastonbury: an edition, translation and study of William of Malmesbury's ‘De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie’, Woodbridge 1981, 146, 162. It seems more likely that Glastonbury's abbot was appointed with the other prelates in 1121, as is indicated by ‘Annales de Wintonia’, 46. Perhaps William's date of 1120 reflects a nomination date at the end of the year in anticipation of Henry's council.

⁶⁵ For the White Ship disaster, see Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 288–9; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon, ii. 74. Both Sir Richard Southern and C. N. L. Brooke have noted that, after 1120, Henry's benefactions to churches increased, evidently out of piety brought on in part by this disaster: C N. L. Brooke, ‘Princes and kings as patrons of monasteries’, in // monachesimo e la riforma ecclesiastica (104^–1122), Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali vi, Milan 1971, 125–52, at p. 139; R. W. Southern, ‘The place of Henry 1 in English history’, Proceedings of the British Academy xlviii(1962), 127–69, at pp. 163–4. Henry's enhanced piety may have affected somewhat the lengths of vacancies in these later years as well. After 1120, there were 28 vacancies with a combined total ranging in length from 25 years to 33 years and 3 months, or an average of 11 months to 1 year and 2 months. Between August of 1107 and 1120, there were 26 vacancies ranging from 47 years and 10 months to 59 years and 6 months, or a slightly higher average of 1 year and 10 months to 2 years and 4 months.

⁶⁶ In addition it should benoted that between 1114 and 1121, the primacy dispute between Thurstan of York and Ralph of Canterbury left York without its archbishop at times. Throughout this period, Thurstan remained unconsecrated. Pressured to profess his obedience to Ralph at the Lenten council of 1116 (in March), Thurstan instead resigned his office. York remained vacant until Thurstan became reconciled with- the king and, after a delay, returned to his office in February 1118: Hugh the Chantor, History of York, 41–56; Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 238–9, 244; Councils and Synods, i/ii. 717. Once again the dispute flared when Pope Calixtus consecrated Thurstan before the Council of Rheims in October 1119. Because the archbishop obtained consecration without professing obedience

⁶⁷ See above, n. 38.

⁶⁸ Chronica Monasterii S Albani {A.D. 793–1488), ed. Henry T. Riley (RS, 1863–76), iv.i– 73–4-

⁶⁹ C. Warren Hollister and John W. Baldwin, ‘The rise of administrative kingship: Henry 1 and Philip Augustus’, American Historical Review lxxxiii(1979), 867–905, at p. 875.

⁷⁰ Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154, ed. Charles Johnson and H. A. Cronne, Oxford 1956, ii. no. 1203.

⁷¹ The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. and trans. Eleanor Searle, Oxford 1980, 132, 134.

⁷² Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, 245. It seems likely that the other vacancies were filled in this manner, although Glastonbury, which became vacant when Abbot Seffrid was consecrated bishop of Chichester in April 1125, may have been filled upon the king's return to England in September 1126. Henry appointed his highly-favoured nephew, Henry of Blois, to the abbey sometime in 1126, but the exact date of his succession is unknown: Heads, 51. Martin Brett notes these appointments and suggests that Gilbert, bishop of London, may also have been appointed while the king was on the continent: English Church under Henry I, 106. Henry made the appointments of 1125 immediately before the papal legate, John of Crema, visited England. John would hold a council there the following September: Councils and Synods, i/ii. 730–3. Perhaps Henry's anticipation of this visit encouraged him to make the appointments, even though he was away from England at the time.

⁷³ Fasti, i. 1, for London; Heads, 82, for New Minster, Winchester; British Chronology, 228, for Bath. There is a possibility that the abbot of New Minster, Winchester died after the king. The month of the abbot's death in 1135 is unknown, but if he died after 1 December, then he outlived Henry.

⁷⁴ Margaret Howell, ‘Abbatial vacancies and the divided mensa in Medieval England', this JOURNAL xxxiii(1982), 173–92. Howell notes in particular that William and, later, John did choose at times to ignore divisions of ecclesiastical property: Ibid. 180, 182. 76 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 125 n. 6; Gesta Stephani, ed. K. R. Potter, rev. R. H. C. Davis, Oxford 1976, 26, 28.

⁷⁶ For a discussion of Henry's greater astuteness in ecclesiastical patronage, see Brooke, 'Princes and kings’, and Southern, ‘Place of Henry 1’.

⁷⁷ Orderic writes that’ the king appeared cold towards God and towards the growth and cultivation of the church': Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, iv. no.

⁷⁸ Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 49–50. Eadmer's overall neutrality towards William has been questioned: Mason, ‘William Rufus’. But the scene he paints here is consistent with William's irregular appointment practices; and, as we shall see, it is well in keeping with the specific kinds of complaints levelled against the king.

⁷⁹ Frank Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042–1216, 4th imp. London1977, 151. C. N. L. Brooke has also noted the conflicting ideals behind these remarks as reported by Eadmer, ‘Princes and kings’, 125–6.

⁸⁰ Howell, , Regalian Right, 13–16.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154, ed. Davis, H. W. C., Oxford 1913, i. no. 388.Google Scholar

⁸² Simeon of Durham, ‘Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae’, in Opera omnia, i. 135.

⁸³ Worcester and Durham had some form of divided property from the time of Domesday Book at the latest: Howell, ‘Divided mensa’, 175.

⁸⁴ Barlow, William Rufus, 401; ‘Annales de Wintonia’, 39.

⁸⁵ Chronica S. Albani, iv. i. 65. St Albans had some sort of arrangement for the maintenance of the monks: Howell, ‘Divided mensa’, 174 nn. 5, 6. It is not clear, however, that this would have protected the abbey's trees.

⁸⁶ Eadmer, , Historia Novorum, 26.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ibid. 218.

⁸⁸ Howell, ‘ Divided mensa’, 175 and n. 11. The monks’ rights to administer their own lands became even more independent under Anselm and there are indications in Domesday Book that the archbishop controlled lands supposedly set aside for the monks: F. R. H. Du Boulay, The Lordship ofCanterbury, London-Edinburgh 1966, 21. If Lanfranc had been holding any of these lands at his death, this may partly explain why William felt free to encroach on some of the monks' land.

⁸⁹ Howell, Regalian Right, 12–13.

⁹⁰ ‘Annales de Wintonia’, 39.

⁹¹ Ibid. 37, 40. The ecclesiastical properties were probably not divided at Chertsey. Howell gives no evidence that it was, nor have I been able to find any.

⁹² Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. Joseph Stevenson (RS, 1858), ii. 42. The first sign that Abingdon's property was divided appears toward the end of Henry II'S reign when that division was challenged: Howell,’ Divided mensa ‘, 179. The abbey may therefore have been experiencing dire straits in part from the lack of such a division during William's reign; but, compare Henry's decidedly kinder treatment, below, p. 386.

⁹³ Chronicon de Abingdon, ii. 285.

⁹⁴ Chronicle of Battle Abbey, 100.

⁹⁵ Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History, v. 202.

⁹⁶ See, e.g. Chronica S Albani, iv. i. 67, which calls his death ‘divine vengeance’ against a ‘tyrant'; Henry of Huntingdon says, ‘in the midst of his injustice’ the king was ‘rightly cut off prematurely': Historia Anglorum, 232; Florence of Worcester reasons that his death was effected by ‘ the great power and vengeance of God': Chronicon, ii. 45; Eadmer also refers to ‘the just judgement of God1: Historia Novorum, 116.

⁹⁷ Howell, Regalian Right, 29.

⁹⁸ Simeon of Durham, ‘ Historia Dunelmensis’, i. 139.

⁹⁹ I am grateful to Warren Hollister for this suggestion and for directing my attention towards these particular references in Simeon of Durham's work.

¹⁰⁰ Values had declined sharply in the North after William I'S harrying of the region in 1069/70, although Durham did not suffer to the same degree as other areas. By William's and Henry's reigns, Durham's manors were being reorganised, a process which was bringing new prosperity to landholders there. In addition the North became increasingly stable politically under William and Henry: William E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North: the region and its transformation, 1000–1135, Chapel Hill, NC 1979, esp. pp. 174–5, 181–94. As a result of these changes, land values were probably rising too.

¹⁰¹ Ranulf s deathbed charters indicate that he was returning to the monks what he had taken away from them, namely the altar gifts, burial fees and some land: Durham Episcopal Charters 1071–1152, ed. Offler, H. S. (Surtees Society 279, 1968), no. 24. Simeon of Durham informs us that Ranulf had been putting these fees towards the construction of the cathedral, an allocation of funds which the monks evidently continued, for the nave was finished during the vacancy: ‘Historia Dunelmensis’, 139, 141.Google Scholar

¹⁰² vVilliam of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 125 n.6; Gesta Stephani, 26, 28. I n the passage from Gesta Stephani Henry's past behaviour is being contrasted with Stephen's anticipated behaviour. Stephen has just been made king and his clergy are listing all the wrongs against the church which the new king should right. It is interesting to note that one of the first things Stephen promised to relinquish in his 'Oxford' charter of liberties was simony: Councils and Synods, i/ii. 764

¹⁰³ Chronicle of Battle Abbey, 108. There was no separation of property at Battle: Howell, 'Divided mensa’, 180–1.

¹⁰⁴ Chronicle of Battle Abbey, 116.

¹⁰⁵ See above, p. 384.

¹⁰⁶ Chronicon de Abingdon, ii. 159; for the monks’ reaction to Abbot Vincent's arrival, see Ibid. ii. 161–2. It is not clear whether there was any division of property at this point. Howell gives no evidence that there was; however, the chronicle's added note that Henry took money but left the monks abundant food and clothing suggests that there might well have been. Nevertheless, even if divided, Henry could still have disregardedthe abbot's arrangements, but did not.

¹⁰⁷ Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 159.

¹⁰⁸ William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, 125. As has already been noted, William himself was critical of this response: Ibid. n. 6. Hugh the Chantor offers an interesting explanation for the vacancy. He says that the Canterbury clergy besought the king not to impair the rights that they had enjoyed under the Conqueror, and that they offered to let him keep the archbishopric vacant, nor would they complain about this if only the king would allow them to keep their liberties. This seems an unlikely story, as Hugh himself suggests, ‘ then came... the monks of Canterbury, offering many things and promising more than anyone could easily believe': History of York, 24–5.

¹⁰⁹ Canterbury was divided, and one of the things which Henry left the monks was their claim to chrism pennies: Brett, English Church under Henry I, 164–5 n- 4- For an analysis and listing of the sources of chrism pennies, see The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury, ed. David C. Douglas, London 1944, 5–14, 77–9. For a general discussion of the divisions of property at Canterbury as they developed from the time of Domesday Book to Anselm, see Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury, 16–22.

¹¹⁰ Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 221.

¹¹¹ Henry n had not yet issued the Constitutions of Clarendon in which he would claim his right to collect revenues from ecclesiastical vacancies in writing, but perhaps the climate of the time strengthened Theobald's resolve to make some provisions. For an analysis of Henry n's claim to vacancies in the Constitutions of Clarendon, see W. L. Warren, Henry II, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1973, 384–5. For the text of the Constitutions, see David C. Douglas and George W. Greenaway (eds), English Historical Documents 1042–118$, 2nd edn, London-New York 1981, ii. 766s–70.

¹¹² The Letters of John of Salisbury, i, ed. W. J. Millor and H. E. Butler, rev. C. N. L. Brooke, London 1955, 246–7; 2, ed. W. J. Millor and C. N. L. Brooke, Oxford 1979 pp. 16–xvii.