¹ Gaudemet, J. has presented a very useful treatment of the entire subject in his article “Régale (Droit de)”, Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 7, 493–532. Most of the article is devoted to the right of spiritual and temporal regalia in the various periods of French history. Gaudemet also provides enough information on this right in other parts of Europe to institute comparisons with French practice.Google Scholar

² Lesne, E., ‘Les Origines du droit de Régale’ Nouvelle revue historique de droit français et étranger 45 (1921) 5–52; also Lesne, E., Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en Franc (Lille 1926) 2. 102-123; 172-184. What is said of a bishopric and episcopal properties should be understood to be generally applicable to abbeys as well. The main concern of this paper is with bishoprics. Temporal regalia applied to many abbeys in the area in which the kind had such rights over bishoprics. Spiritual regalia did not apply to abbeys.Google Scholar

³ Luchaire, Achille, Manuel des institutions françaises (Paris 1892)245–249; a more complete treatment is given in Phillips, G. J., Das Regalienrecht in Frankreich (Halle 1873 44ff.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. 59–60, lists the places in which the king held the regalia at the beginning of the fourteenth century.Google Scholar

⁵ See the striking assertion of the king's rights over church properties made in the protes sent by St. Louis to Innocent IV in 1247: ‘Dominus rex, cujus antecessores fundaverun ecclesias regni et de bonis suis eas dotaverunt specialiter pro divini cultus obsequio, iden honorifice faciendo, hoc proprium et speciale sibi et haeredibus suis retinuerunt, et sempe habuerunt in eisdem ecclesiis quae tenent de ipsis temporalia sua bona, quando temporali ecclesiarum jure humano, id est, jure regio possidentur, quod praeter spiritualia quae ta [multa] et magna servitia [habent] ad quae domino regi tenentur, istud etiam juris habe quod omnes ecclesiarum thesauros et omnia temporalia ipsorum pro sua et pro sui regr necessitate potest accipere sicut sua.’ Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi sancti Albani, Chrnica maiora, (ed. Luard, H. R., London 1882) 6. 110. For a discussion of this entire document, see my article, ‘The Protest of Saint Louis,’ Traditio 15 (1959) 405-418.Google Scholar

⁶ The history of episcopal elections is dealt with at length in Imbart de la Tour, P., Les élections épiscopales dans l'église de France du IX^e au XII^e siècle (Paris 1890). The canonical theory of episcopal elections by cathedral chapters in the thirteenth century has been treated in Desprairies, André, L'Élection des évêques par les chapitres au XIII^e siècle (Paris 1922). The history of the progressive monopolization of episcopal elections by cathedral chapters has been described by Roland, E., Les Chanoines et les élections épiscopales du XI^e au XIV^e siècle (Aurillac 1909). The fullest text which presents the actual procedures followed in an episcopal election is contained in the narration of the election of Guillaume le Maire as bishop of Angers in 1291: ‘Livre de Guillaume le Maire’ (ed. Port, Celestin), Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, mélanges historiques II (Paris 1877) 209-242. Ursmer Berlière has treated of abbatial elections in ‘Les Élections abbatiales au Moyen Age’ Académie Royale de Belgique (Deuxième Série) 20 (1927) 1-100.Google Scholar

⁷ Luchaire, , 31–32.Google Scholar

⁸ H. F. 13. 735. Louis VII indicated that he gave permission for the chapter of Bourges to elect as archbishop anyone but Pierre de Châtre; this, however, did not prevent his election and confirmation by Innocent II. Louis refused to receive him, and his case became a source of trouble between the king and the pope.Google Scholar

⁹ Teulet, A. et al. edd., Layettes du Trésor des Chartes (5 vols. Paris 1862-1909) 2. no. 3353. The king was sensitive about Châlons because of the trouble which he had had over the election of the previous bishop, Geoffrey de Grandpré.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., 2. no. 2940. In this case the dean and chapter were pointing out to the king that they had asked such permission before they elected Geoffrey de Grandpré.Google Scholar

¹¹ March 1246, Ibid., 2. no. 3472.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., 3. no. 3906, October 1250.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid., 3. no. 4102, 9 June 1254.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Olim, 1. 35, 12 May 1258.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Philip Augustus had granted such an exemption to the dean and chapter of Mâcon in 1209, Gallia Christiana, 4. Instrumenta c. 288. In the Layettes and Delisle's, L. Cartulaire Normand (Paris 1852), there is considerable evidence of bishoprics and abbeys asking permission to elect. From these sources I have been able to compile a list of fifteen bishoprics which were obliged to seek the licentia eligendi: Angers, Auxerre, Avranches, Châlons-sur-Marne, Coutances, Évreux, Laon, Le Mans, Meaux, Nevers, Rheims, Rouen, Séez, Térouanne Troyes. All of these were north of the Loire. While this list is undoubtedly incomplete, it does give a good indication of the general area in which the king's rights were concentrated. Besides these bishoprics, many abbeys were subject to the obligation; most of the available evidence concerns abbeys in the North, the majority of which were Benedictine.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Roland, , op. cit. (n. 6 supra) 176–179.Google Scholar

¹⁷ E. g., Gallia Christiana 12. Instrumenta c. 74, June 1257, Henry, archbishop of Sens, did liege homage to the king for the house of Noolon.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ordonnances des Rois 1. 60, June 1248.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Langlois, C., Le Règne de Philippe III le hardi (Paris 1887) 438, pièces justificatives, no XVIII.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cange, Du, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis 3. 488 s.v. fidelitas. Google Scholar

²¹ Lottin, René, ed. Chartularium insignis ecclesiae Cenomanensis (Le Mans 1869), 20.Google Scholar

²² Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 927.Google Scholar

²³ Layettes, 2. no. 2246; 4. no. 5554.Google Scholar

²⁴ Kleinclausz, A., Histoire de Lyon (Lyon 1939) 1. 183.Google Scholar

²⁵ Gaudemet, Jean, La Collation par le roi de France des bénéfices vacants en régale des origines à la fin du xiv^e siècle (Paris 1935) 63–66.Google Scholar

²⁶ Olim, 1. 570–571.Google Scholar

²⁷ This was ten pounds of Paris. Since 1191 the office of seneschal was open, and the king claimed for himself the revenues which this official usually received.Google Scholar

²⁸ Olim, 1. 573.Google Scholar

²⁹ Olim, 1. 624–625.Google Scholar

³⁰ 1266, Olim, 1, 654.Google Scholar

³¹ Olim, 1. 570.Google Scholar

³² 1276, Olim, 2. 77. Note that the schedule of payments is slightly different here. I*** the case of Guillaume d'Auxerre, ten pounds were specified for the chamberlain; here five pounds went to the chamberlain and five pounds were divided among his assistants. I the former case, it might have been assumed that this type of division would be made by the chamberlain himself after he received the ten pounds.Google Scholar

³³ Olim, 2. 162.Google Scholar

³⁴ Olim, 2. 182–183.Google Scholar

³⁵ H. F. 21. 254.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 255.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., 258.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., 259.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 24. 296.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Brussel, , Nouvel Examen de l'usage général des fiefs en France (Paris: 1727, 2 vols.) 1. 469, note a.Google Scholar

⁴¹ H. F 21. 282.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., 22. 739.Google Scholar

⁴³ Brussel, , 1. 470, note.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ H. F. 22. 663.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Layettes, 3. no. 2045.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ 30 January 1252, Layettes, 3, no. 3976.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Martène, et Durand, , Thesaurus novus anecdotorum (5 vols. Paris 1717) 1, 1001–1002 Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Auvray, Lucien, ed., Les Registres de Grégoire IX (Paris: 1896-1955) no. 5983; Layettes 2, no. 3150; Berger, Élie, ed., Les Registres d'Innocent IV (Paris 1884-1919) nos. 287, 316 Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Berger, Élie, Saint Louis et Innocent IV (Paris 1893) 42.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ de Sainte-Marie, Anselme, Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France (3rd edition, 9 vols. 1726-1733) 2. 314–319. d'Arbois de Jubainville, H., Histoir des ducs et des comtes de Champagne (6 vols., Paris 1859-1866) 4. 274-75.Google Scholar

⁵¹ 1259-1260, Layettes, 5, no. 704.Google Scholar

⁵² 13 June 1270, Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 795.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., no. 856.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ E.g., Olim, 1. 275, 466-467, 842-843, 856-857, 885; 2. 57, 59, 122, 157, 183, 193, 210; Delisle, L., Essai de restitution d'un volume perdu des Olim (Paris 1863) nos. 306, 400, 451, 504.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ As we have seen above, the amount reported in 1278 for Sens was slightly higher, i. e., 61 1. 19s. 6d.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ 1267, Olim, 1. 678–679.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Brussel, 1. 543.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ E.g. Reg. Innocent IV, no. 1151; Brussel, 1. 472; Olim, 1. 570, 622-623. When Phili III was crowned, the archbishopric was vacant and the regalia in the king's hands; the bailli of Vermandois made the burghers of Rheims contribute to the expenses of the king crowning. The archbishop had customarily paid the expenses and then compensated himself from his people. On this occasion, the see was vacant and affairs were in disorder. The expenses ran up to 5000 pounds or more. (Varin, Pierre Joseph, Archives administratives de lville de Reims (Paris 1839) 1. pt. 2, 919-923. An appeal to Paris was of no avail and the burghers had to pay the sum.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 887; Brussel, 1. 472; Reg. Innocent IV, no. 6131 Olim, 1. 18; 2. 122.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Olim, 1. 247–248.Google Scholar

⁶¹ E.g. Varin, , Arch. Admin. 1, pt. 2, 989–992; Olim, 2. 59.Google Scholar

⁶² Olim, I, 52.Google Scholar

⁶³ Layettes, 4. nos. 4822, 4907; Olim, 1. 561-562.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Layettes, 3. no. 3976.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Layettes, 4. no. 5296; H. F. 21. 255.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ E.g. Layettes, 2. no. 2206; Brussel, 1, 471; Langlois, Charles, Inventaire d'anciens royaux dressé par Robert Mignon (Paris 1899) 54–55, nos. 239-241.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Isambert, , Recueil général des anciennes lois Françaises (Paris 1822) 1. 158–160.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ E.g., Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 306; Boutaric, E., Les Actes du Parlement de Paris (Paris 1863) 1. 1994; Delisle, , Fragments inédits du registre de Nicolas de Chartres, 20-21; 53-54, 54-55.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Layettes, 2. nos. 1983-1984; Potthast 20652; Langlois, Charles, Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 55-56, nos. 249-253.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Layettes, 5, no. 704.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Reg. Innocent IV, no. 3640.Google Scholar

⁷² Olim, 1. 570–571. See also, Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon. 58, no. 270.Google Scholar

⁷³ Luchaire, Achille, Manuel des institutions françaises (Paris 1892) 512, n. 2. Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 50, no. 210: ‘Creditur quod capitulum habet litteras regias de quittancia regalie ibi.’ Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Olim, 1, 678–679; Brussel, 1. 470, note.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ H.F. 21. 282; Olim, 1. 466-467; Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 451. Olivier-Martin, F., ed., Registres de Martin IV, no. 159.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ H. F. 21. 254; Olim, 2. 157, 193.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Gallia Christiana 12, Instrumenta 147.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ H.F. 19. 498–499.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Lot, F. et Fawtier, R., Histoire des institutions Françaises au moyen âge (Paris 1962) 3. 249.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Quantin, Maximilien, Recueil de pièces pour faire suite au cartulaire général de l'Yonne, xiii^e siècle (Auxerre et Paris 1873) lvii.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Reg. Innocent IV, no. 2386.Google Scholar

⁸² Lebeuf, Jean, Mémoires concernant l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile d'Auxerre (2 vols. Paris 1743) 1. 400.Google Scholar

⁸³ Brussel, 1. 292-293; Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 63–66. Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 50-51, no. 211: ‘Dicitur tamen quod modo non habet rex regale ibi, quia quittati sunt pro excambio vel ex alia causa. Sciatur et habeatur deliberatio super hoc.’ Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Lebeuf, 1. 480, 571, 600, 650.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ H.F. 24. preuves, 296.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ H.F. 23. 739.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Brussel, 1. 469, note a. Luchaire claims that Philip Augustus renounced his regalian rights in Rouen. (Op. cit. 512, n. 2.) He quotes Delisle, , Catalogue des Actes de Philippe-Auguste, no. 1042. The reference is faulty because the act cited has nothing to do with Rouen or the regalia. In the same work (no. 1109) there is a declaration by Vivien, bishop of Coutances, (around 1208) to Philip Augustus that during the vacancy of the see of Rouen the administration of the temporal and spiritual affairs of the archbishopric belonged to the cathedral chapter. This document was been printed by Abbé Lecanu (Histoire des évêques de Coutances [Coutances 1839] 165-166.) When Philip heard this claim, he designated thirteen knights to conduct an inquest; the results showed Vivien to be in error. There was evidently no difficulty in getting the chapter to accept this decision, for in 1222 they wrote to the king and told him of their election of a new archbishop and asked him to return the regalia. (Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 298.) Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 512; Layettes, 3. no. 4077; 4. no. 5593; Lecanu, , Histoire du diocèse de Coutances et Avranches (2 vols. Coutances 1877-1878) 1. 315.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Layettes, 3, no. 3914; Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 937; Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 69.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 272.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Layettes, 2. no. 2176; 4, no. 4843; Brussel, 1. 472; Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, nos. 390, 844.Google Scholar

⁹² Olim, 1. 275, 900-901.Google Scholar

⁹³ Layettes, 3, no. 4498; 4, no. 5652; Brussel, 1. 472; Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, no. 43.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Delisle, , Cartulaire Normand, nos. 795, 856.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Layettes, 3, no. 3975; Brussel, 1. 472; H. F. 22. 663.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ d'Achery, Luc, Spicilegium (Paris 1723) 3. 623.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Lottin, René, Chartularium insignis ecclesiae Cenomanensis, 20; Layettes, 2, nos. 2146, 2315; 3. no. 4450; 4. nos. 5619, 5620; Gallia Christiana 14, Instrumenta 142.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Gallia Christiana, 4 Instrumenta, c. 197 Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Reg. Innocent IV, no. 1056; on the other hand, Robert Mignon found no accounts for Langres, Langlois, Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 72, no. 429: ‘Nihil.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Gallia Christiana 4, Instrumenta 288; Brussel, 1, 306-307, note.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ For example in 1262 the archbishop of Lyons notified the king that a new bishop of Mâcon was elected and confirmed, but the archbishop did not use the formula usually used when the king's men had been administering the regalia, Layettes, 4, no. 4768.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Layettes, 2. no. 2137.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ There are many documents that present the facts of this case. The whole question is explored by Gaudemet, Jean, ‘Les origines de la régale réciproque entre Lyon et Autun,’ Mémoires de la société pour l'histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays bourguignons, comtois et romands 5 (1938) 21–48.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Olim, 1. 881–882.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Devic, C. et Vaissette, J., Histoire Générale de Languedoc (Revised Edition, Toulouse 1879) 1447.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Gallia Christiana 2, Instrumenta 24; Brussel, 1. 469, note a; Layettes, 2, no. 2755.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Delisle, , Frag. du Reg. de Nic. de Chart. 56–57; Olim, 2. 183-185.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Layettes, 3. nos. 3894, 3906; Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 60 no. 293.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Gallia Christiana 4, Instrumenta 197.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ H.F. 21. 258.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Brussel, , 1. 469, note a.Google Scholar

¹¹² Olim, 1. 399.Google Scholar

¹¹³ This whole question has been dealt with by Devic, et Vaissette, , (Op. cit.) 6. 838–839.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Layettes, 3, no. 4102.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Ibid. no. 4119.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Ibid. no. 4268.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Olim, 1. 35.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Layettes, 3, no. 4505.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Devic et Vaissete, 7. 533.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ibid., 6. 838, note 3.Google Scholar

¹²¹ To the king: Reg. Grégoire IX, no. 4189; to the prelates: de Marca, Pierre, De concordia sacerdotii et imperii (Frankfurt 1708) 1187–1188.Google Scholar

¹²² Boutaric, E., Saint Louis et Alfonse de Poitiers (Paris 1870) 436.Google Scholar

¹²³ Devic, et Vaissette, , 8. 1196.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Potthast 21231.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Devic et Vaissette, 5. 1443. Robert Mignon found no accounts for Béziers, Langlois, , Inventaire de Robert Mignon, 71, no 412.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Ibid. 5, 1262–1264, this is a vidimus in 1464 by Louis XI of Louis VII's grant.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Layettes, 3, no. 4208.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Ibid. 5, no. 780.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Ibid. no. 781.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Ibid. 783.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Gallia Christiana 6. 547.Google Scholar

¹³² Brussel, , 1. 287, note.Google Scholar

¹³³ Ibid., 288–289, note.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Olim, 1. 829, 880-881; 2. 107-108; Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 295.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Mansi, , 24, c. 90, cap. XII.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 15.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ The best treatments of this problem are contained in Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants , and Mollat, G., 'L'Application du droit de régale spirituelle en France du xii^e au xiv^e siècle, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 25 (1929) 425–446; 645-676.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 20.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ H.F. 19. 488–489.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Gallia Christiana 12, Instrumenta 147; H.F. 19. 498-499.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Feb. 1208, Gallia Christiana 12, Instrumenta 283-285.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Gaudemet has suggested that Innocent might have shown some moderation here because he needed Philip's support against Otto IV, Lot, et Fawtier, , Histoire des institutions françaises au moyen âge, 3. 253.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ ‘Vita Sancti Ludovici, auctore Gaufrido de Belloco,’ H.F. 20. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Ordonnances des Rois, 1. 60.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Ibid. 11. 347.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Layettes, 2, no. 2468.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 28.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Layettes, 2, no. 3213.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants, 29.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Layettes, 2, no. 2880; Potthast 10819.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Boutaric, , Actes du Parlement, 1. CCCXIX; Baluzius, Stephanus, Miscellanea (2nd edition, 4 vols. Lucca 1761) 3. 101.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Reg. Innocent IV no. 6972.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Olim, 1. 35.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Guiraud, Jean, Les Registres d'Urbain IV (Paris 1901-1929) no. 2448.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ 27 November 1263 Ibid. no. 2243.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ 18 or 23 December 1266, Jourdan, Edouard, Les Registres de Clément IV (Paris 1893-1945) no. 1159.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ 13 September 1267, Gallia Christiana 10, Instrumenta 66.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Matthaei Parisiensis 6. 99–112.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Sextus, Lib. III, tit. IV, cap. II; Friedberg, 2. 1021.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ 11 March 1268, Martène et Durand, 2. 580; Potthast 20288.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ 13 June 1268, Martène et Durand, 2. 607–608.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Ibid. 2. 608.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Potthast 20561. It is possible that Gregory X did not have much enthusiasm for Clement's decree, or it may have been that widespread complaints had arisen because of it. At any rate, during the Second Council of Lyons (1274) the decree was modified. Henceforth the ordinary collator of a benefice was authorized to make an appointment to the office if, after a month, it remained vacant, Mansi, 24. 95, cap. XXI; Sextus, Lib. III, tit. IV, cap. III; Friedberg, 2. 1021.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Olim, 2. 125.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Delisle, , Essai de Restit. no. 346. In 1209 Richard, bishop of Amiens, had declared to Philip Augustus that prebends which became vacant during regalia were reserved to the future bishop, Phillips, 76.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Clim, 2. 106.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Possibly some of the trouble that arose over the prebend of Laon can be explained by the circumstances on the international scene when Nicholas was elected. Philip and Alphonse, king of Castille and Leon, were at the point of war and Nicholas was desperately anxious to prevent a clash. He was obviously quite angry with Philip; it is worthy of note that before he had sent Philip a formal notice of his election, Nicholas wrote to both kings to try to avoid a conflict, Potthast 21259-21260. He also wrote to the Master General of the Dominicans and the Minister General of the Franciscans and told them to use persuasion and even excommunication and interdict against the kings, if that would be necessary, Potthast 21261. This was all the more unusual because Nicholas, no friend of the Angevins, had sent notice of his election to Charles of Anjou in the beginning of December, Potthast 21258.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ 23 August 1278, Gay, Jules, ed, Registres de Nicolas III, no. 298: ‘Nam cum canonicatus et prebende collatio spirituale jus indubitanter existat et per eam spiritualia utpote jus eligendi prelatum et alia similia conferantur nec pro eo quod personis secularibus forsan ex privilegio sit concessa vel in eis per patientiam tolerata desinat spirituale jus esse, non est dubium quando laici ad se ilium asserunt pertinere non esse a plenitudine apostolice potestatis exempta nec ab ejusdem libera in omnibus spiritualibus administrationem subtractam.’ Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Ibid. no. 299.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Ibid. no. 300 Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Langlois, C., Le Règne de Philip III le Hardi 230, note 2.Google Scholar

¹⁷² 11 October 1285, Prou, Maurice, Registres de Honorius IV, no. 488.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Lecanu, , Histoire du diocèse de Coutances et Avranches 1. 315.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Gaudemet, , Collation des bénéfices vacants 36–39.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ E.g. Phillips, , 76.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Mollat, , 675–676.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Maiora 6. 110.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Gaudemet, , Collation de bénéfices vacants, 21–22. Howell, Miss Margaret (Regalian Right in Medieval England [London 1962] 187–200) has discussed this question from the English standpoint and concludes: ‘From the king's point of view advowsons of churches were feudal perquisites; they were in every way an integral part of the temporalities of the see. It may be argued that the claim to present to prebends, one of the most highly valued of all the king's sede vacante rights, cannot possibly be included in this category. But what is significant is that the king strove hard to force the claim into this category, that he classed it with the claim to advowsons of churches as annexed to the temporalities and that he would not allow a bishop to collate to a prebend until he had done fealty for the temporalities.’ Google Scholar