^{page 165 note 1} There has been some confusion about the exact date of the ceremony, since conflicting entries are found in the sources, and varying estimates appear in secondary works. Thus, the following versions appear in primary sources: Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, ed. Stubbs, W., RS 1885, II, 4 Google Scholar: ‘Et dominica sequenti, quae evenit decimo septimo kalendas Julii . . . fecit ipse praedictum Henricum filium suum coronari et in regem consecrari. . . .’ (but 15 June 1170 fell on a Monday); Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum, ed. Hewlett, H. G., RS 1886-9, III 82 Google Scholar: ‘die Sancti Basilii’ (14 June); FitzStephen, William, Materials for the History of Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Robertson, J. C., RS 1875-85, III, 103 Google Scholar: ‘pridie festum sanctorum Viti et Modesti’ (14 June). And among secondary writers are found the following estimates: Lyttelton, G., The History of the Reign of Henry II, London 1769-72, IV, 297 Google Scholar, and Milman, H. H., History of Latin Christianity, London 1864, v, 110: 15 JuneGoogle Scholar; Froude, J. A., Life and Times of Thomas Becket, Short Studies on Great Subjects, 4th series, London 1917, 124 Google Scholar: 18 June. It is now generally agreed that the young king was crowned on the feast of St Basil, Sunday, 14 June 1170.

^{page 165 note 2} Hoveden, op. cit. 11, 4.

^{page 165 note 3} Becket forbade the coronation in a series of letters written in early 1170: Materials, VII, epp. 648, 649, 650, and 651.

^{page 165 note 4} Ibid, v, ep. 169; VII, epp. 632, 633.

^{page 165 note 5} Fawtier, R., The Capetian Kings of France: Monarchy and Nation, 987-1328, tr. Butler, L. and Adam, R. J., London 1960, from Les Capétiens et la France: lew rôle dans sa construction, Paris 1942, 48-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 166 note 1} Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford 1947, 217.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 2} Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. Stubbs, W., RS 1867, I, 7 Google Scholar, sub anno 1170; for Henry’s will at Waltham, 22 February 1182, see Delisle, L., Recueil des actes de Henri II roi d’Angleterre et duc de Normandie concernant les provinces françaises et les affaires de France, Paris 1909-27, 11, no. 612.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 3} William of Canterbury, Materials, I, 82 Google Scholar; Herbert of Bosham, ibid, III, 458; de Diceto, Ralph, Opera Omnia: Ymagines Historiarum, ed. Stubbs, W., RS 1876, I, 338; etc.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 4} FitzStephen, , Materials, III, 107 Google Scholar, ‘Prius tamen filio suo ita subito coronato, propter aliquod consequens, quod potuit contingere; et si quid mali contigisset, non deberet propter eum puniri regnum, cujus ipse rex non esset’: cited by Mann, H. K., The Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages, London 1914, x, 195, n.1.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 5} Paris, Matthew, Chronica Maiora, ed. Luard, H. R., RS 1872-83, II, 247.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 6} Materials, VII, ep. 690, ‘Henricus rex Angliae filio suo Henrico regi Anglorum.’

^{page 166 note 7} Diceto, op. cit. I, 388.

^{page 166 note 8} Ibid. II, 18, ‘Ricardus vehementer excanduit, incongruum esse dicens, ut dicitur, cum eodem ex patre, cum eadem ex matre, traxisset origincm, si fratrem primogenitum aliqua specie subjectionis superiorem agnosceret, sed sicut ipsi fratri suo regi lege primogenitorum bona debebantur paterna, sic in bonis maternis aequa lance successionem vendicabat.’

^{page 167 note 1} Foreville, R., L’Église et la royauté en Angleterre sous Henri II Plantagenet, Paris 1943, 301 Google Scholar; Knowles, D., The Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket, Cambridge 1951, 137–9.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 2} For an account of the Canterbury-York dispute, see Foreville, op. cit. 26-58, 276-300.

^{page 167 note 3} FitzStephen, , Materials, III, 16 Google Scholar, ‘Rogerus ille, Thomae successibus et favoris ejus primitiis invidens, apud archiepiscopum bis optinuit quod a curia jussus est se migrare.’

^{page 167 note 4} King Stephen had obtained the legation of England for his brother Henry, bishop of Winchester, in a similar situation.

^{page 167 note 5} Materials, v, 91, 94.

^{page 167 note 6} Ibid. vi, ep. 310; the text is given in the Appendix below.

^{page 168 note 1} Ibid. V, ep. 13.

^{page 168 note 2} Lyttelton, op. cit. iv, 282; Robertson, , Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury: a Biography, London 1859, 238 Google Scholar; both cite Quanto personara as conferring the right to perform the coronation ceremony. Mile Foreville, however, op. cit. regards it as confirming the right to place the crown on the king’s head on great feast days; this too was claimed as a Canterbury privilege: see Schramm, P. E., A History of the English Coronation, tr. Legg, L. G. Wickham, Oxford, 1937, 31–2, 40-3Google Scholar, for the origin and dispute concerning the crown-wearing ceremony.

^{page 168 note 3} Bodleian, MS 937, pt 2, ep. 339.

^{page 168 note 4} B.M., MS Cotton Claudius B.II, iv, 45

^{page 168 note 5} Lyttelton, op. cit. iv, 238 and Appendix. XVI, 498-9.

^{page 168 note 6} Ibid, iv, 303; Milman, op. cit. v, III, n.5.

^{page 168 note 7} Lupus, F. C., Epistolae et Vita Divi Thomae Martyris, Brussels 1682.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 8} Cf. Lyttelton, op. cit. IV, 283. But in fact the MS Vat. Lat. 1220, used by Lupus, did not contain the letter, being dependent on an earlier recension of the Cottonian collection, from which it was absent. Lupus cannot then be accused of suppressing evidence.

^{page 169 note 1} Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Boehmer, J. H., Halle-Magdeburg 1747 Google Scholar; the letter does not actually appear in the Corpus Juris proper, but in the Collectio Casselana, which he added as an appendix in the second volume; for the position of this work among system atic collections, cf.van Hove, A., Prolegomena ad Codicem Iuris Canonici, Mal#x00ED;nes-Rome 1945. 352-3.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} Berington, J., The History of the Reign of Henry II, London 1790, Appendix II, 667-72Google Scholar; after a full discussion of Quanto per carissimum, he concludes on p. 672, ‘It was written by John of Oxford, or by those sent on the embassy, who were, at the same time, the authors of the rumour, which I mentioned.’ Actually the rumours concerning the coronation were connected with Richard Barre rather than with John, see below, p. 173.

^{page 169 note 3} Milman. op. cit. v, 110-11.

^{page 169 note 4} Jaffé, P., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, Leipzig 1885-8, 11 Google Scholar, sub annis; letters in the Regesta are so dated from 6-14 June 1161, 15-26 June inclusive being unrepresented; in 1167 letters are dated at Rome from 31 May-10 July.

^{page 169 note 5} Hutton, W. H., Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, Cambridge 1926, 191 Google Scholar; idem, S. Thomas of Canterbury, London 1889, 179-80, where the letter is translated; Dark, S., St Thomas ofCanterbury, London 1927, 140 Google Scholar; Froude, op. cit. 121; J. P. Migne, PL, cc, ep. 455, col. 457.

^{page 169 note 6} JL, 11353.

^{page 169 note 7} Robertson, , Becket, 245 Google Scholar; idem, Materials, VII, 206-7, na.

^{page 169 note 8} Reuter, H., Geschichte Alexanders des Dritten und der Kirche seiner zeit, Leipzig 1860, II, 683.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} Mann, op. cit. V, 192, n.2.

^{page 170 note 2} See above, p. 169, n5.

^{page 170 note 3} Foreville (op. cit. 283-4) refers to the three privileges granted to Becket during 1166: Illius dignitatis (5 April: Materials, v, ep. 169), declaring that the coronation of kings was a right of Canterbury, and forbidding York and the rest of the English episcopate to crown the young king; In apostolicae sedis (8 April: Materials, v, ep. 170), granting the primacy of England to Becket; and Sacrosanct a Romana ecclesia (24 April: Materials, V, ep. 172), bestowing on him the legation of the English Church, with the exception of the province of York. The further letter, Ex injuncto nobis (24 April: Materials, v, ep. 173), informed the Canterbury suffragans of the granting of the legation.

^{page 170 note 4} Friedberg, E. Die Canones-Sammlungen zwischen Gratian und Bernhard von Pavia, Leipzig 1897 Google Scholar: photo, reprod., Graz, 1958, Bambergensis, XLVII, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 5} Friedberg, op. cit. Lipsiensis, LVI, 4.

^{page 170 note 6} Boehmer, ed. cit. LV, 4.

^{page 171 note 1} Tanner, VI, 7, 4; Sang., VII, 144. For Tanner, see Holtzmann, W., ‘Die Decretalensammlungen des 12 Jahrhunderts, I. Die Sammlung Tanner,’ Festschrift zur Feier des 200 jährigen Bestehens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil-Hist. kl. CXXXI (1951), 83–145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Sangermanensis, see Singer, H., ‘Neue Beiträge über die Dekretalen- sammlungen vor und nach Bernhard von Pavia,’ Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil-Hist. kl. CLXXI (1913), 68–354 Google Scholar.

^{page 171 note 2} B.M., MS Egerton 2901, ff. 19 ^v -20^r.

^{page 171 note 3} Cf. Bamb. XLVII, 4 and Egert. 2901, ff. 19 ^v -20 ^r .

^{page 171 note 4} Tanner, VI, 7, 4, Datum Rome apud Sanctam Mariam Novam XII kalendas Iulii’; cf. Sang., VII, 144.

^{page 171 note 5} Cf. Appendix, below.

^{page 171 note 6} B.M., MS Cotton Claudius B. II, IV, 45; Lambeth Palace, MS 136,231; Bodleian, MS 937, pt 2, 339.

^{page 172 note 1} For Henry’s letter acknowledging Alexander HI as the true pope, see Delisle, op. cit. no. 139.

^{page 172 note 2} John of Oxford and Richard of Ilchester represented the king at Würzburg; cf. Materials, 1, 61 and v, 433.

^{page 172 note 3} Diceto, op. cit. 1, 317, ‘Robertus comes Legecestriae justiciarais regis ilium schismaticum in osculum non recepit. Eversa sunt passim altaría super quae Missam illi celebrarunt schismatici.’

^{page 172 note 4} Cf. Henry’s letter to Reginald of Cologne (Materials, v, ep. 213, provisionally dated 1166), which begins, ‘Diu desideravi justam habere occasionem recedendi a papa Alexandro et a perfidis cardinalibus suis, qui proditorem meum Thomam, quondam Cantuariensem archiepiscopum, contra me manutenere praesumunt.’ There can be no doubt that this danger was an ever-present threat to Alexander’s position.

^{page 172 note 5} He was born in 1155; cf. Diceto, op. cit. i, 301.

^{page 172 note 6} Ibid. I, 302.

^{page 172 note 7} Ibid. I, 303, sub anno 1160; the marriage was celebrated by the authority of the papal legates Henry of Pisa and William of Pavia.

^{page 172 note 8} Grim, Edward, Materials, II, 366 Google Scholar, ‘Cancellarium quoque misit in Angliam pro diversis negotiis, et praesertim ut filio suo, jam tune coronando in regem, fidelitatem et subjectionem acciperet ab universis, et juraretur in regem.’

^{page 173 note 1} Materials, V, 100, ep. 55, ‘Et ut eis citius credatur, ipsi (nuntii regis) domino papae . . . dabunt spem veniendi in Angliám, dicentque regis filii dilatam coronationem ut manu apostolica consecretur.... Jam enim quidam nobis insultant, dicentes dominům papam ad Cantuariensem ecclesiam accessurum, ut moveat candelabrum vestrum, ibique aliquamdiu sedeat.’

^{page 173 note 2} Materials, VII, ep. 684. Miserationis oculo was Becket’s formal report to the pope of the Fréteval meeting, in which his discussion of the coronation with the king is recorded almost verbatim; see especially p. 331, ‘Ille vero se, de mandato vestro quod prídem obtinuerat, adversus hanc petitionem nostram tutum esse respondit; et super hoc litteras protulisse, quibus constitit episcopis celebraturis hoc munus sibi indultum esse, ut filium suum faceret, a quocumque vellet episcopo, coronari. Ad quod, ei respondentes, supplicavimus ut reduceret ad animum quando et guare litteras impetrasset, quibus suum et episcoporum defendere nitebatur excessum. Constabat enim eas, quando Cantuariensis ecclesia vacabat, eo proposito fuisse impetratas, ne Eboracensis archiepiscopus, si praefatam Cantuariensem ecclesiam diutius vacare contingeret, ad innovandi regis coronationem prae caeteris provincie nostrae episcopis auderet aspirare.’ [italics mine.] The letter then continues in oratio recta giving Becket’s speech to the king: ’”... Certum vero est, quod priori mandato per posterius derogatur. Esto ergo, quod tune tales litteras impetraveritis; nostrae vero, quia posteriores sunt, Ulis debuerant derogasse. . . .”’

^{page 174 note 1} Materials, VII, 182, Becket writes to Alexander and John, his clerks at the Curia, late 1169: ‘His enim duobus articulis, videlicet coronationi filii sui et consecrationibus episcoporum, insistit rex Anglorum . . .’: cited by Foreville, op. cit. 302.

^{page 174 note 2} Materials, VII, 227, bishops Baldwin of Noyons and Maurice of Paris to the pope at the beginning of n 70: ‘Sed idem rex (Anglorum) in redini nuntiorum suoram, scilicet magistri Ricardi Barre et Radulfi Landavensis archidiaconi redeuntium a sanctitate vestra, more suo resiliit a pactis, dicens se cum festinatione iturum in Angliám, ut filium suum, in laesionem et injuriam Cantuariensis ecclesiae, per manum domini Eboracensis vel alterius episcopi, faceret coronari. Et sicut apud nostrates celebre est, praefati nuntii ejus gloriati sunt se . . . hanc novi regis coronationem obtinuisse a vobis . . .’; see also 294.

^{page 174 note 3} Ibid. VII, 294, Becket to the pope, early 1170: ‘. . . Sagiensis episcopus, signifer eorum qui Deum non verentur, se hoc, si alii defuerint, de familiari mandato vestro gloriatur esse facturam.’

^{page 175 note 1} See above, p. 174, n.2.

^{page 175 note 2} Materials, vu, epp. 648, 650, and 651.

^{page 175 note 3} Ibid, vu, 259-60, Becket to Roger of Worcester, early 1170: ‘Rogamus itaque et obsecramus ... quatenus litteras apostolicas, quas vobis mittimus, ostandatis venerabili fratri nostro Rogerio Eboracensi archiepiscopo et aliis fratribus et coepiscopis nostris, et inhibeatis, auctoritate domini papae, vos et alii fratres nostri ne praefatus Eboracensis filio domini regis consecrationis munus dare, aut coronam . . . praesumat imponere . . . similiter inhibeatis episcopis Londoniensi et Saresberiensi, et caeteris, si hoc ausus fuerit attentare.’ In the event Roger was prevented from leaving Normandy by royal agents.

^{page 175 note 4} Ibid. epp. 632, 633.

^{page 175 note 5} Diceto, op. cit. 1, 338.

^{page 175 note 6} Herbert of Bosham, Materials, 111, 459 Google ScholarPubMed, ‘Et directas has sibi litteras quidam episccporum ante coronationem receperunt, alii vero de mandato praemuniti recipere noluerunt. Unde et contra inhibitionem apostolicam quotquot consecrationi pontificale ministerium praebuerunt.’ William of Canterbury, ibid. 1, 82, ‘Eboracensis vero nihilominus contra prohibitionem falcem suam in messem alienam mittere praesumpsit.’ William FitzStephen, ibid, in, 103, ‘Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis ... a domino papa litteras obtinuerat, in sabbato dominicae coronationis illius Eboracensi et Londoniensi oblatas, ne ipsi vel alii episcopi Angliae citra eurn non ad hoc revocatum ei coronando manum imponerent. . . .’

^{page 175 note 7} Hutton, Thomas Becket, 238.

^{page 175 note 8} The full text of these constitutions is given in Materials, VII, 147-9; for references in narrative sources, see William of Canterbury, ibid. 1, 53; Gervase of Canterbury, Chronica, ed. Stubbs, W., RS 1879-80, 1, 214 Google Scholar; Roger of Hoveden, op. cit. 1, 231.

^{page 175 note 9} Materials, VII, 250-1, Becket to the papal commissioner Bernard of Nevers, early 1170: ‘Cum vobis fuerit transfretandum, litteras originales quas recepistis non deferatis vobiscum, sed transcripta, quia insidias in littore posuit et exploratores gravissimos, qui litteras hujusmodi praecipere consueverunt.’ Cf. FitzStephen, ibid, 111, 102-3, ‘Si quis inventus foret litteras eorum (i.e. papae et archiepiscopi) deferens .traderetur potestadbus, tanquam coronae regis capitalis inimicus. . . . Rex facit portus maris districtissime observari.’ FitzStephen seems here merely to have rephrased the first clause of the 1169 constitutions: cf. ibid, vii, 147-8.

^{page 176 note 1} Materials, vii, 309, ‘Litterae ergo domini papae super prohibitione consecrationis hujus diu est quod mare transierunt; sed inutiles prorsus effectae, in manibus illius cui traditae sunt perierunt, nec alicui ostensae nec ullatenus propalatae.’ After the coronation, a further letter informs Becket (ibid. 317), ‘De inunctione quoque pueri nolite nimium turbari, sed vobis imputate, qui litteras non misistis quae poterant consecrationem impedire.’ Roger of York later swore that he had not received the letters in question: cf. Diceto, op. cit. 1, 348, sub anno 1171 (6 December), ‘Eboracensis (archiepiscopus) sacramento praestito purgavit innocentiam suam, quod ante coronationem novi regis, . . . litteras prohibitionis a domino papa transmissas nequaquam susceperat. . . .’

^{page 176 note 2} Ibid. vii, 305-06.

^{page 176 note 3} See n,1, above.

^{page 176 note 4} Materials, v, ep. 169.

^{page 176 note 5} E.g. for Becket sources, B.M., MS Royal 13A XIII, 238; for Foliot sources, Bodleian, MS e. Musaeo 249, 179.

^{page 177 note 1} Materials, vii, 328-32.

^{page 177 note 2} Ibid. vii, ep. 696.

^{page 177 note 3} PL, cc, col. 1383.

^{page 177 note 4} tertius omit CBL; eidem Eboracensi archiepiscopo B.

^{page 177 note 5} ad Rogerium insert CL.

^{page 177 note 6} Eboracensem archiepiscopum CL.

^{page 177 note 7} illustrem Anglorum ins. CBL.

^{page 177 note 8} Anglie illustrem om. CBL.

^{page 177 note 9} comoda E.

^{page 178 note 1} pro CBL.

^{page 178 note 2} constantia CBL.

^{page 178 note 3} cariorem CBL.

^{page 178 note 4} nostris visceribus CBL.

^{page 178 note 5} promtius E.

^{page 178 note 6} nobis in Christo om. CBL.

^{page 178 note 7} ejus om. CBL; nostrum Henricum ins. CBL.

^{page 178 note 8} Henricum om. CBL; filium suum ins. CBL.

^{page 178 note 9} communicato CBL.

^{page 178 note 10} vestra L.

^{page 178 note 11} Quoniam igitur hoc ad officium tuum pertinet ins. CBL

^{page 178 note 12} precipiendo om. CBL.

^{page 178 note 13} sedis apostolice C.

^{page 178 note 14} decernimus CBL.

^{page 178 note 15} Novac E.

^{page 178 note 16} This date is omitted by CBL.