| 1 |
Lestorie des Engles (Rolls Ser.), 11.
5315–26. It cannot be said to have
originated earlier, because it is not clear that
this district had previously formed a single
honour. The tradition that it had once
belonged to Edwin is probably correct,
but there is no contemporary evidence to
support it other than the grouping in
Domesday of Count Alan's manors under
two which are stated to have belonged to
Earl Edwin (Dom. Bk. Yorks. [Facsimile
ed. 1862], fol. 85). Moreover, it did not
include all Edwin's land (see below, n. 3
[b]), nor was all the land of the honour
south of the Trent his. |
| 2 |
Cott. MS. Faust. B vii, fol. 73, reproduced by Roger Gale, Reg. Honoris de
Richmond. |
| 3 |
This conclusion is based upon several
considerations:—
(a) William's style 'cognomine bastardus,' is to say the least unusual. Gale
claimed to have seen over a hundred
charters of the Conqueror, in no one of
which he so described himself (ibid. App.
225). Gale is supported by the numerous
charters of William I printed in Mr.
Round's Cal. of Doc. France. Rex Anglie
was not used until the close of the 12th
century.
(b) The substance is incorrect. Count
Alan could not have received all Earl
Edwin's lands in Yorkshire as therein
stated, for Ilbert de Laci and Roger de
Busli were holding some in chief at the
time of the Survey (Dom. Bk. Fac. 35,
43). But there could be no object in
forging a charter for a gift of which
Domesday Book affords ample proof (cf.
Eyton, Dom. Studies [Staffordshire], 31).
This cannot be called a deliberate forgery,
but merely a pictorial representation of
an actual grant. |
| 4 |
William marched on York to suppress
rebellions in 1068 and twice in 1069. |
| 5 |
Dom. Bk. Fac. 23–31. |
| 6 |
Ibid. 85. |
| 7 |
Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 27. |
| 8 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 340,
346, 350, 360–1, 404; ii, 4. |
| 9 |
See the genealogy of the house of
Britanny in Lobineau's Hist. de Bretagne. |
| 10 |
Dugdale, Baronage, i, 46; Christ.
Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 14; Whitaker,
Hist. of Richmondshire, i, 26; R. Gale,
Reg. Honoris de Richmond, Introd.
pp. i–vii. |
| 11 |
MM. Léchaudé-D'Anisy et de
Ste. Marie. See also M. Dupont's
Recherches historiques et topographiques
sur les compagnons de Guillaume le Conquérant, i, 122–4. |
| 12 |
Recherches sur le Domesday, 72–4. |
| 13 |
Cf. the Rev. George Mumford's
Analysis of Dom. Bk. for Norfolk, 10, and
T. C. Chisenhale-Marsh's Transl. of the
Essex Dom. lxix, n. (a). |
| 14 |
They attributed the land in Herts.,
Cambs., Northants, Notts., Lincs., and
some manors in Yorks. (all the manors
apparently which had not belonged to Earl
Edwin) to Alan Fergant. But the charters
of St. Mary's Abbey, York, show that Alan
Rufus held land in Lincs., for he gave the
church of St. Botolph in Boston to the abbey
(Dugdale, Mon. iii, 531, 547–8), while
Alan Niger (probably as his successor) gave
to the same abbey the tithes of Bassingbourn in Cambs. (ibid. 548). Mr. Round,
moreover, identifies the ' Count Alan' of
the Northants Domesday as 'of Richmond'
(V.C.H. Northants, i, 303), and evidently
considers the count of that name who
held land in Essex, Suffolk, Herts. and
Cambs. as one and the same person
(V.C.H. Essex, i, 350). In the account
of Alan Fergant given by Anselme in
his Hist. de la Maison Royale de France,
iii, 49, 52, he says nothing about his
accompanying William to the conquest of
England or receiving land from him as
the reward of his services, and Lobineau
omits all mention of Alan Niger when
enumerating the sons of Eudes who went
with the Conqueror (Hist. de Bretagne, i,
98). He gives two only: Alan Rufus
and Brian. Gale, however, adds Alan
Niger and Ribald (Reg. Honoris de Richmond, Introd. p. i). The close association
of Count Alan with either the Count
of Mortain or Earl Hugh or both, not
only in Domesday Book but also as
a witness to the royal charters of this
period (cf. Mr. Round's Cal. of Doc.
France), supports the view that the name
represented one man only. In every
county in which Count Alan held land, with
the exception of Essex, Earl Hugh was
a landowner, while the Count of Mortain
held land in all but Essex and Lincs.
Finally, the frequent occurrence of the
title without any distinctive suffix would
suggest that the Conqueror could have
had only one tenant-in-chief of that
name. Much stress cannot, however,
be laid on the silence of Domesday in
this respect. |
| 15 |
See Dom. Bk. Fac. passim. All these
territories, if not originally in the hands
of one member of the house of Britanny,
must have been united about the middle
of the 12th century through the marriage
of Alan III of Richmond with the heiress
of Britanny. She was descended from
Alan Fergant. The portion of Alan
Niger, if he had one, would have fallen
in when he succeeded his brother Alan
Rufus in 1089. |
| 16 |
Dom. Bk. Fac. 85. |
| 17 |
The definition given by Pollock and
Maitland in the Hist. of Engl. Law
(ed. 2), i, 282. The authors add the
following quotation from Madox: 'I
think there were not any honours created
de novo by feoffment in the reign of King
Henry III or perhaps of King John.' |
| 18 |
For instance, the land of the honour
in Suffolk does not appear in one document (Cal. Inq. p.m. Edw. I, 210),
though it does in others of about the same
date (Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xi, App. vii,
139; Cal. Close, 1272–9, p. 538). |
| 19 |
This was the case with certain Sussex
lands. The history of their connexion
with and separation from the honour is
given in Pat. 2 Jas. I, pt. xvii, m. 33–7.
Madame Inna Lubimenko in her careful
monograph on Jean de Bretagne has been
misled by the documents of her period
into including the Sussex lands in the
honour. |
| 20 |
This conclusion is supported by the
fact that manors granted away were still
recognized as a part of the honour after
a lapse of many years. Hinton in
Cambridgeshire, for instance, was given
away in 1235, subject to the possibility
of return to the 'right heirs' (Cal. Chart.
R. 1226–57, p. 213), and in 1299 it was
still described as part of the honour of
Richmond (R. Gale, Reg. Honoris de
Richmond, App. Ixxxi). Individual manors
could, of course, be detached by forfeiture,
e.g. Costessy (Rolls of Parl. i, 77); cf.
also p. 10, n. 100 below. For a detailed
boundary of the lordship in the 17th century see Exch. Spec. Com. 15 Jas. I,
no. 4889. |
| 21 |
He was long confused with his
cousin Alan Fergant, the son-in-law of
the Conqueror; cf. Dugdale, Baronage, i,
46, and Sir Henry Ellis, Introd. to Domesday, i, 366, n. 1. This confusion may have
been due to the fact that Alan Rufus
seems occasionally to have been called
Fergant; cf. E. A. Freeman, Norman
Conquest (ed. 1869), iii, 313, 314; Dugdale, Mon. v, 574. Gale says, however,
that he never found Alan Rufus called
Fergant except through confusion (Reg.
Honoris de Richmond, Introd. pp. i, ii).
That the Conqueror's son-in-law was a
son of Hoel (not of Eudes) and a duke
of Britanny is clear from a charter of
Constance his wife, and the epitaph of
Constance describes her as wife of Alan
Fergant and daughter of William King
of England (Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne,
ii, 124). That Alan Rufus, on the
other hand, was the son of Eudes is
shown by the register of Swavesey (Mon.
vi, 1001), and also by the account of the
foundation of St. Mary's Abbey, York,
written by Abbot Stephen (ibid. iii, 545).
A 15th-century genealogy of the lords
of Richmond gives a fairly satisfactory
account of Alan Rufus (ibid. v, 574). |
| 22 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 343. |
| 23 |
Ibid. This is a rare but by no means
singular instance of two brothers bearing
the same name. Curiously enough it
occurs twice in the history of the lords of
Richmond (Dugdale, Mon. iii, 550; Cal.
Pat. 1313–17, p. 556; Cal. of Doc.
France, 426). |
| 24 |
For doubts on this point see the
Rep. of the Lords' Com. on the Dignity of a
Peer (1826), iii, 123–4 and G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 343. It has been suggested that Stephen was the son and not
the brother of Alan Niger. There is
no need for another generation if Stephen
lived to be ninety, as it is suggested that
he did (R. Gale, op. cit. Introd. p. viii).
See also n. 28. |
| 25 |
R. Gale, Reg. Honoris de Richmond,
Introd. p. viii; G.E.C. Complete Peerage,
vi, 344. His son Alan is mentioned,
under the title Earl of Richmond, as
taking part in the historical events of the
year 1139 by Simeon of Durham (Op.
Hist. [Rolls Ser.], ii, 307–8). The title
of earl is not contemporary, for the account
was clearly written at a later date. |
| 26 |
Dugdale, Mon. v, 574. |
| 27 |
R. Gale, Reg. Honoris de Richmond,
App. 101. |
| 28 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 344.
The pedigree from Alan Rufus to Conan,
son of this third Alan, is given in a
charter of the said Conan to St. Mary's,
York (Cal. Pat. 1313–17, p. 556). |
| 29 |
'Gesta Stephani,' Chron. Stephen,
Hen. II (Rolls Ser.), iii, 64, 72. |
| 30 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i,
136. |
| 31 |
Called so by John of Hexham (The
Priory of Hexham [Surt. Soc.], i, 124).
He, however, probably wrote after 1160,
so it is not quite a contemporary title
(ibid. Introd. p. cliv; cf. also Simeon of
Durham, op. cit. ii, 301). |
| 32 |
See G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 345,
n. (a), and Mr. Round's Geoffrey de
Mandeville, 157, note 2, on this point.
His temporary charge of the county of
Cornwall may, however, have given him
the right to the title of earl. |
| 33 |
Dugdale, Mon. v, 568–9; R. Gale,
op. cit. App. 100. A charter of his is
printed in the Mon. vi, 990, in which
he styles himself Earl of Cornwall and
Richmond, as well as Count of Britanny.
As it is dated 1140 and neither of the
former titles appears in the charters to
Richmond which are held to be of later
date, it looks as if they had been added
in some subsequent transcript. |
| 34 |
On the date of his death see Mr.
J. H. Round's Geoffrey de Mandeville,
276; Dugdale, Mon. iii, 548; G.E.C.
Complete Peerage, vi, 345, n. (f). |
| 35 |
R. Gale, op. cit. App. 101; Dugdale, Mon. v, 574. |
| 36 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 157. |
| 37 |
The date of his mother's death.
His grandfather, Conan III, died in 1148.
Conan claimed the duchy shortly afterwards, but he had no real right to it
while his mother lived, even though she
apparently wished him to have it
(Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 149–54). |
| 38 |
Ibid. 155–6; G.E.C. Complete Peerage,
vi, 346. |
| 39 |
See the 15th-century genealogy of
the lords of the honour (Dugdale, Mon.
v, 574). |
| 40 |
This style appears in his charters
to: the burgesses of Richmond (R. Gale,
op. cit. App. 101); Jervaulx (Dugdale,
Mon. v, 572); St. Martin's near Richmond
(ibid. iii, 602); Kirkstead (R. Gale, op.
cit. App. 103–4); and Mont St. Michel
(J. H. Round, Cal. of Doc. France, 273).
The lords of Richmond seem to have made
a distinction in their charters between the
name of the town 'Richmund,' or 'Richemont,' and the name of the surrounding
district or honour, 'Richmundia,' and constantly to have styled themselves earls of
the district. If this is so it affords a fresh
criticism of the early uses of the title Earl
of Richmond given above—cf. n. 25, 31,
32 and 33—since it is the name of the
town, not of the district, which is given
in each case. |
| 41 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 346.
Three years before his death his honour was
assessed for the aid for marrying the king's
daughter (Pipe R. 14 Hen. II [Pipe R.
Soc.], 23, 90, 103); and two years before
this he owed £227 10s. for serjeants in
Wales. He paid only £52 6s. 8d. of
this and was pardoned the rest (ibid.
11 Hen. II, 49; 13 Hen. II, 80). |
| 42 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 346. |
| 43 |
Accounts for the 'Honour of Earl
Conan' were rendered to the Exchequer
throughout this period—see the volumes
of the Pipe R. (Pipe R. Soc), 17 Hen. II,
117; 18 Hen. II, 5; 20 Hen. II, 48
(two years); 21 Hen. II, 3; 22 Hen. II,
121; 23 Hen. II, 80–2; 24 Hen. II,
72–4; 25 Hen. II, 24–5; 26 Hen. II,
74–6; 27 Hen. II, 47; 28 Hen. II,
46–7; and the Pipe R. 29 Hen. II,
m. 5 d. |
| 44 |
L. A. Le Moyne de La Borderie,
Hist, de Bretagne, iii, 281; G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 346; Chron. of Reigns of
Stephen, Hen. II and Ric. I (Rolls Ser.),
iv, 249. |
| 45 |
Account for the honour was rendered
for 1182–3 (Pipe R. 29 Hen. II, m.
5 d.). |
| 46 |
The fact that the Pipe R. of 32
Hen. II contains a note of expenditure on
'work done at the king's houses at Richmond' is not in itself sufficient evidence
on this point, since that was the year of
Geoffrey's death and Henry may have
held the honour until the re-marriage
of Constance. But as there is good
reason for believing that Richard I and
John both held the castle the entry is
significant in the absence of conclusive
evidence that Constance ever forfeited the
honour (see below). |
| 47 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 347.
According to some accounts he died of
a fever (Dict. Nat. Biog.). |
| 48 |
L. A. Le Moyne de La Borderie,
Hist. de Bretagne, iii, 286; Gesta Regis
Henrici Secundi (Rolls Ser.), ii, 29. |
| 49 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 176,
177; L. A. Le Moyne de La Borderie,
Hist. de Bretagne, iii, 288. |
| 50 |
On grounds of consanguinity (Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 180; G.E.C.
Complete Peerage, vi, 347). |
| 51 |
For documentary evidence see L. A.
Le Moyne de La Borderie, Recueils d'Actes
Inédits des Ducs et Princes de Bretagne, 129.
The fact of the marriage is also mentioned
by Hoveden (Chron. [Rolls Ser.], iv, 97).
For an account of Guy de Thouars see
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 347. |
| 52 |
G.E.C. loc. cit. n. (e), 348 n. (e).
M. Le Moyne de La Borderie says that
she had three daughters by her third
marriage (Hist. de Bretagne, iii, 288).
Considering its short duration, 1199–
1201, this statement is not very convincing. |
| 53 |
Former historians believed that
Richard held the honour and left it by will
to John (R. Gale, op. cit. Introd. p. xi;
Christ. Clarkson, Hist. and Antiq. of Richmond, Yorks. 25). The honour was not
accounted for in the Pipe Rolls of this
period as it should have been if in the
hands of the Crown. Constance was
assessed for the scutages of 1189 and 1193
(Pipe Rolls of 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 Ric. I et
seq.). In 1194 she was called to warrant
by a tenant of the honour who claimed
to have received his land from her and
from Earl Geoffrey (Rot. Cur. Reg. [Rec.
Com.], i, 56). Her court was mentioned
in the tenth year of Ric. I (Feet of F. 10
Ric. I [Pipe R. Soc.], 239), and she was
assessed for scutage in 1 John (Pipe R. 1
John [Yorks.]). Nevertheless the king
was taking a relief from one of her
tenants in Notts. early in 1200 (Rot. de
Oblatis et Fin. [Rec. Com.], 62). |
| 54 |
John guaranteed the farms from lands
of the honour of Richmond, which he was
letting to farm (Rot. Lit. Pat. [Rec. Com.],
4). The king, however, evidently held
the castle and constabulary, for he was
taking a relief for the latter in the same
year, whether before or after the death
of the countess is not clear (Rot. de Oblatis
et Fin. [Rec. Com.], 137), cf. n. 69. |
| 55 |
But Arthur was summoned to do
homage to his uncle, the king, in the
March following his mother's death
(Rymer, Foedera, i [1], 86). |
| 56 |
This was probably his title after the
death of Constance. He called himself
'Comes Britannie' merely, and neither
Duke of Britanny nor Earl of Richmond
as he had previously done (L. A. Le Moyne
de La Borderie, Recueils d'Actes Inédits des
Ducs et Princes de Bretagne, 129, 137, 140,
152; P. H. Morice, Preuves, i, 815). Nor
did John speak of him as Earl of Richmond.
In the first document he calls him merely
Guy de Thouars, in the other two Guy de
Thouars at one time Count of Britanny
('comes Britannie' here means count in
all probability. The rulers of Britanny
were in the habit of styling themselves
dukes, but in England they were at this
time more frequently entitled 'Comes').
This change of title suggests that Guy
was merely guardian to his stepson Arthur
or a tenant at farm. He does not appear
to have held in right of his marriage, at
all events. Arthur is, indeed, said to
have done homage for Britanny and his
other lands in his mother's lifetime (Roger
Hoveden, Chron. [Rolls Ser.], iv, 115;
Walter of Coventry, Hist. Coll. [Rolls
Ser.], ii, 160; G.E.C. Complete Peerage,
vi, 348). |
| 57 |
Red Bk. of Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 164.
It comes under the thirteenth year and
the fifth is suggested as an alternative.
Neither, however, fits in. |
| 58 |
Rot. de Oblatis et Fin. (Rec. Com.),
185; cf. Pipe R. 4 John, 8 John. |
| 59 |
Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 27. |
| 60 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 188–
90. |
| 61 |
Rot. de Liberate (Rec. Com.), 63.
If Guy de Thouars held only as the
guardian of Arthur he would naturally
lose the honour when the heir died.
Except in so far as she appears under the
title 'heirs of Britanny' there is no
recognition of the claim of Arthur's
sister Eleanor to succeed him. The
'heirs of Britanny' are mentioned on two
occasions between 1206 and 1210. In
1206 Wigan de Hartforth (see Gilling
parish) claimed that they ought to
warrant a charter which he had received
from Earl Conan (Rot. de Oblatis et Fin.
[Rec. Com.], 351); and in 1210 Ranulf
son of Robert claimed to hold charters
from the 'heirs of Britanny' (Abbrev. Plac.
[Rec. Com.], 74). John may have been
professing to hold as their guardian during
this period. He and Henry III kept the
eldest, Eleanor of Anjou, in prison. She
died a captive in 1241 (Chron. of the
Reigns of Edw. I and Edw. II [Rolls
Ser.], i, 38). The other two were in
Britanny with their father, Guy de
Thouars. |
| 62 |
Rot. de Liberate (Rec. Com.), 63.
The castle of Richmond and the things
which belonged to the custody of the
castle and the castle of Bowes were
excepted. He was granted his scutage,
however (cf. Pipe R. 5 John [Yorks.]). |
| 63 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, v, 44. |
| 64 |
At least his Richmondshire lands
(Rot. Lit. Pat. [Rec. Com.], 47–8). For
John's retention of the rest see Rot. de
Liberate (Rec. Com.), 84; Rot. Lit. Claus.
i, 59; Rot. de Oblatis et Fin. (Rec. Com.),
369. Early in 1205, moreover, the men
of Boston undertook to answer to the
Exchequer for the honour of Richmond
in Holland as they had been accustomed
to account to the Count of Britanny
(Pipe R. 6 John [Lincs.]). |
| 65 |
Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 51. The
'G. Comes Britanniae' mentioned in this
document as the former owner has been
held to be Geoffrey (Dict. Nat. Biog).
But previous evidence suggests that he
may have been Guy de Thouars, see
n. 56. |
| 66 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 59,
215; Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 95. |
| 67 |
He was not only one of the wit
nesses to Magna Carta on the king's side,
but he appears to have been faithful to
him to the end, and he was certainly
present at the coronation of Henry III
(Dict. Nat. Biog.); cf., however, Stubbs,
Const. Hist. (ed. 6), i, 581–3, which suggests
that there was a moment of infidelity. |
| 68 |
He rendered account for the sixth
scutage of John (Pipe R. 7, 10 & 11
John [Yorks.]); and he was quit by writ
for the seventh scutage (ibid. 8 John),
and for the scutage of Scotland (ibid.
13 John). In the ninth year of John,
moreover, he rendered account of scutage
for a moiety of the honour of Richmond
(Red Bk. of Exch. [Rolls Ser.], 749).
See also the king's orders to him respecting the castle (Rymer, Foedera, i
[1], 141). |
| 69 |
Roald the Constable paid a sum into
the Exchequer for the custody of the castle
in 1207–8 (Pipe R. 9 John); cf. above
n. 46, 62. |
| 70 |
The Pipe Rolls of 10 & 11 John
indicate that these lands were in the
possession of the Crown at that date.
In Yorks. the Constable of Richmond
Castle and Henry of Ravensworth were
separately assessed for scutage. |
| 71 |
Peter is often, but it seems erroneously, called de Dreux (G.E.C. Complete
Peerage, vi, 349). He was also surnamed
Mauclerc. He was a younger son of
Robert II, Count of Dreux and Braine.
The Bretons having refused to accept
Eleanor, Arthur's sister of the whole blood,
as their ruler while she was John's prisoner
at Bristol, the next heir her half-sister
Alice succeeded. In 1212 Philip Augustus
of France betrothed Alice to his kinsman
Peter de Braine, and in the following
year Peter did homage for Britanny and
was recognized as its duke (L. A. Le
Moyne de La Borderie, Hist. de Bretagne,
iii, 292–8). Guy de Thouars retired into
private life and made no further claim
to Britanny or to Richmond after the
marriage of his daughter, and he died in
1213 (Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 199).
Peter de Braine is frequently styled Count
or Earl of Britanny in English documents,
but he called himself Duke of Britanny in
his charters and will be so styled here.
In the majority of his charters he appears
also to have used the title Earl of Richmond ('Richemundia') (Le Moyne de
La Borderie, Recueils d'Actes Inédits des
Ducs et Princes de Bretagne, 156–82). He
appears as Peter de Dreus or Drous in
the (Lincs., Norf. and Suff.) Pipe Roll of
2 Hen. III. |
| 72 |
Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 152. |
| 73 |
Pipe R. 2 Hen. III. In the Lincolnshire portion of the roll the partition is
said to have been made between the Earl
of Chester and Peter; in the Norfolk
and Suffolk account between the king
and Peter, John keeping thirty fees in his
own hands. From this it is clear that
the division was the same as that in the
following reign (see below). |
| 74 |
Walter of Coventry, Hist. Coll. (Rolls
Ser.), ii, 233. |
| 75 |
By 'Henry III' before his coming
of age in 1227 must be understood the
rector regis et regni and council. |
| 76 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 325;
Cal. Pat. 1216–25, p. 97. |
| 77 |
Ibid. p. 120; Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec.
Com.), i, 340. |
| 78 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 346.
Possibly he took the whole honour into
his hands at this date preparatory to the
division of it (see ibid. 347). |
| 79 |
Ibid. 350. |
| 80 |
This was done in Lincs., Norf.,
Suff., Derby, Cambs., Herts., Notts. and
Northants, and probably elsewhere (Rot.
Lit. Claus. [Rec. Com.], i, 360, 361, 379,
404). The compensation which the
Earl of Chester subsequently received
(see below) indicates that a revaluation
with a view to a more equitable division
was in progress. |
| 81 |
Ibid. 385. |
| 82 |
R. Gale, op. cit. App. p. 107. |
| 83 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 385.
He seems to have had seisin of some
lands in the counties of Lincs. and Cambs.
in 1218 (ibid. 357, 358). The counties
mentioned in 1219 include besides :
Norf., Suff., Notts. and Hertford. |
| 84 |
Cal. Pat. 1216–25, p. 158. |
| 85 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 451.
This may have referred to the land
granted to him in 1218, which was subsequently resumed by the Crown (see
above). |
| 86 |
He lost his lands in Lincs., Norf.,
Suff., Herts. and Cambs., at all events
(Rot. Lit. Claus. [Rec. Com.], i, 566). |
| 87 |
Ibid. ii, 4. |
| 88 |
An attack which he is said to have
inspired (P. H. Morice, Hist. de Bretagne,
i, 151–2). |
| 89 |
Cal. Pat. 1216–25, p. 512. |
| 90 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), ii, 72.
The castle in question was the castle of
Chateauceaux, and its owner had apparently 'conducted himself for fifteen years
as a pirate and brigand rather than as a
man of birth and honour' (P. H. Morice,
Hist. de Bretagne, i, 152). |
| 91 |
Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), ii, 36. |
| 92 |
Rymer, Foedera, i (1), 180. |
| 93 |
Though the mandate only mentions
land in Lincoln, Cambridge, Herts., Norfolk and Suffolk (Rot. Lit. Claus [Rec.
Com.], ii, 36), the Richmondshire portion
was said to belong to the Duke of Britanny
when it was re-granted to the Earl of
Chester in 1227 (Cal. Pat. 1225–32,
p. 124). But it is not clear when and
how Ranulf had been deprived of it. It
is probable that Richmondshire was
called part of the Duke of Britanny's
property because it was part of his wife's
inheritance and that the grant to the
Earl of Chester was merely one of the
confirmations by which Henry III made
so much money at this date (Stubbs,
Const. Hist. [ed. 4], ii, 40). Ranulf
originally held by the gift of John, but
the partition of the honour during Henry's
minority may have been thought to need
confirmation. |
| 94 |
P. H. Morice, Hist. de Bretagne, i,
155, 156. |
| 95 |
Excerpta e Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), i,
147, 161; Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.),
ii, 186, 195. |
| 96 |
This assertion has been made by
two historians of Richmond: R. Gale,
Reg. Honoris de Richmond, Introd. p. xiv;
Christ. Clarkson, Hist. and Antiq. of
Richmond, 27, and it has even found its
way into the biography of Richard Earl
of Cornwall (Dict. Nat. Biog.). It is based
on a statement by Roger of Wendover
(copied apparently by Matthew Paris)
that Richard received the lands of his
mother's dower and the lands of the
Count of Britanny (Matt. Paris, Chron.
Maj. [Rolls Ser.], iii, 125; Roger of
Wendover, Chron. [Rolls Ser.], ii,
322). But no such grant appears in the
Patent, Close or Charter Rolls of this
year, nor does the subsequent history of
the honour confirm the story in any
way. No other evidence to show that
Richard ever held any of the Duke
of Britanny's lands has been found. In
August 1227, however, he did receive
from the king the land which had formed
part of his mother's dower, together with
the lands of the Count of Dreux (Rot.
Lit. Claus [Rec. Com.], ii, 197–8), lands
which were not even in the same counties
as those of the honour of Richmond
(ibid. 164, 189; Cal. Pat. 1225–32,
pp. 129, 191). He received a similar
grant in February 1230–1 (Cal. Chart. R.
1226–57, p. 129). Cf. p. 4, n. 71. |
| 97 |
Cal. Pat. 1225–32, p. 124. |
| 98 |
Ibid. p. 127. Perhaps the earl had
not received seisin. |
| 99 |
Ibid. p. 136. |
| 100 |
Rot. Lit. Claus (Rec. Com.), ii, 200.
This was in September and in October.
Wissett, Suff., Swaffham, Norf., and an
annual rent from the sokemen of Holand
were committed to various persons (ibid.
202, 203). |
| 101 |
The order to give the duke seisin
was addressed to the Sheriff of Yorks
(Cal. Close, 1227–31, p. 355). But he
did not apparently have seisin of the
manor and castle of Bowes until February
1232–3 (Cal. Pat. 1232–47, p. 10). |
| 102 |
L. A. Le Moyne de La Borderie,
La Bretagne aux Grands Siècles du Moyenâge, 132–3; Cal. Pat. 1232–47, p. 67.
P. H. Morice, Hist. de Bretagne, i,
162–4, maintains that Louis desired the
truce. |
| 103 |
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (1),
212; P. H. Morice, Hist. de Bretagne, i,
167. Both parties were apparently
aggrieved. Henry III complained to the
pope of Peter's conduct (Rymer, Foedera
[Rec. Com.], i [I], 215). |
| 104 |
L. A. Le Moyne de La Borderie,
La Bretagne aux Grands Siècles du Moyenâge, 133. |
| 105 |
Cal. Pat. 1232–47, pp. 93, 96. |
| 106 |
His wife, the duchess Alice, had
died in 1221 (P. H. Morice, Hist. de
Bretagne, i, 149). |
| 107 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 253;
La Borderie, La Bretagne aux Grands
Siècles du Moyenâge, 134. Ranulf Earl
of Chester died in 1232 (Matt. Paris,
Chron. Maj. [Rolls Ser.], iii, 229). His
widow seems to have held some of the
lands of the honour in dower (Cal. Pat.
1247–58, p. 33). The author of the
'Additions to Dugdale's Baronage' expresses the opinion that Peter must
have died before the petition of his son
for the honour of Richmond (Coll. Topog.
et Gen. vi, 247), but Hen. III couples
him with his son in his reply (Foedera, i
[I], 250). |
| 108 |
Cal. Pat. 1232–47, p. 152. |
| 109 |
To be held until it should be restored
to the rightful heirs (Cal. Chart. R.
1226–57, pp. 213, 218). |
| 110 |
Cal. Pat. 1232–47, pp. 156, 176. |
| 111 |
Annales Monastici, Dunstable (Rolls
Ser.), iii, 149. |
| 112 |
To hold to Peter and his heirs (Cal.
Chart. R. 1226–57, p. 252). The grant
included land of the honour in the counties
of York., Linc., Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs.
and Herts. The manor of Aldborough
in Richmondshire was not, however,
granted until 1247 (ibid. 327). |
| 113 |
He also received the castle (ibid. 259).
It is not clear whether Peter de Braine had
ever held the castle or not, but he possibly
received it when the whole honour was
given to him. |
| 114 |
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (1),
250. |
| 115 |
Ibid. 253. |
| 116 |
L. A. Le Moyne de La Borderie, Hist.
de Bretagne, iii, 351. |
| 117 |
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (1),
260. There is no evidence that the
money was paid, and in La Borderie's
opinion it was not intended that it should
be paid before the marriage. The valuation was to be made after it had taken
place (Yorks. Inq. [Yorks. Arch. Soc.], i,
129–31). |
| 118 |
Rymer, op. cit. i (1), 382, 386. |
| 119 |
Ibid. 391. |
| 120 |
Rymer, op. cit. i (1), 406. Henry III
showed himself very anxious to satisfy
the Duke of Britanny as regards the
value of the honour (ibid. 413); cf. Cal.
Pat. 1258–66, pp. 82, 160. |
| 121 |
Rishanger, Chron. et Annales (Rolls
Ser.), 74; Royal Letters, Hen. III, 1236–72
(Rolls Ser.), 148. For a letter from John's
mother relating to his movements in this
year see Rymer, op. cit. i (1), 394. |
| 122 |
Cal. Chart. R. 1257–1300, p. 41.
This limitation was to brothers and kinsmen ('consanguinii'). His executors were
to have the profits of the honour for seven
years (Cal. Pat. 1258–66, p. 161). |
| 123 |
Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of Engl.
Law (ed. 2), ii, 27. |
| 124 |
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (1),
417. |
| 125 |
Cal. Chart. R. 1257–1300, p. 42. |
| 126 |
Cal. Pat. 1258–66, p. 377. |
| 127 |
Ibid. 452; Rymer, op. cit. i (1), 458. |
| 128 |
Rymer, op. cit i (1), 468, 469; Cal.
Pat. 1258–66, pp. 591, 666. |
| 129 |
By consent of Henry III (Rymer,
op. cit. i [1], 475–6). |
| 130 |
Ibid. 475, 482, 490; Cal. Pat.
1272–81, pp. 94, 386, 438; 1281–92,
p. 87; Cal. Close, 1272–9, pp. 10,
452. |
| 131 |
Rymer, op. cit. i (1), 476; Cal.
Pat. 1272–81, p. 94. |
| 132 |
Rymer, op. cit. i (1), 476. |
| 133 |
Hinton in Cambs. was not restored,
nor apparently the manors in Norfolk
and Suffolk in exchange for which Peter
of Savoy had received the honour, castle
and rape of Hastings. For these Henry III
promised him compensation (R. Gale,
op. cit. App. p. 141). |
| 134 |
Rymer, Foedera, i (1), 478. |
| 135 |
Eulogium Hist. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 136.
On condition that service should be
done by his men (Cal. Pat. 1272–81,
p. 316). |
| 136 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 277;
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 352. The
author of the 'Additions to Dugdale's
Baronage' (Coll. Topog. et Gen. vi, 249)
in correcting a mistake of Dugdale and
others falls into the error of ante-dating
the death of John I of Britanny. He
attributes an inquisition of 1285 to him.
It is not, however, an inquisition postmortem, but an extent of his son's lands
(Cal. Inq. p.m. Edw. I, 342). |
| 137 |
Cal. Close, 1288–96, p. 24. |
| 138 |
If Dugdale confused the first two
Johns of Britanny, later writers were
equally incapable of distinguishing between
John II and his son. It has been not
infrequently asserted that the former took
the part of the English when the war
began (e.g. G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi,
352; Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 283;
Le Moyne de La Borderie, Hist. de
Bretagne, iii, 360; Morice, Hist. de
Bretagne, i, 214; Coll. Topog. et Gen. vi,
249). There can be little doubt that he
was faithful to the King of France
throughout (Cal. Pat. 1292–1301, pp. 126,
181, 207, 221, 296, 327, 330, 334).
On this point see also M. Bémont, Roles
Gascons, iii, Introd. 62–9; and Mme.
Inna Lubimenko, Jean de Bretagne, Comte
de Richmond, 6. |
| 139 |
Cal. Close, 1296–1302, p. 152. |
| 140 |
Except what had been levied thereof
for the king's use (ibid. p. 176). |
| 141 |
Ibid. p. 279. |
| 142 |
Cal. Pat. 1292–1301, p. 523. |
| 143 |
Ibid. 1301–7, p. 228; Rymer,
Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (2), 953, 963. |
| 144 |
G.E.C. op. cit. vi, 353. |
| 145 |
Cal. Pat. 1301–7, p. 410; Cal. Close,
1302–7, p. 387. |
| 146 |
Langtoft, Chron. (Rolls Ser.), ii,
372–5. |
| 147 |
Mme. Inna Lubimenko, Jean de
Bretagne, 2, 2 n. 6, 22–6. |
| 148 |
Chart. R. 34 Edw. I, no. 19. |
| 149 |
Mme. Inna Lubimenko, Jean de
Bretagne, pt. ii, cap. i, ii, iii. |
| 150 |
Cal. Pat. 1307–13, p. 275; Rymer,
Foedera (Rec. Com.), ii (1), 113. |
| 151 |
Ibid. |
| 152 |
Rymer, op. cit. ii (1), 498. |
| 153 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 353;
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), ii (1), 534.
A subsidy was demanded from Parliament but refused (Walsingham, Gesta
Abbatum Mon. S. Albani [Rolls Ser.],
i, 171). |
| 154 |
Rymer, Foedera, ii (1), 622; Cal.
Close, 1323–7, p. 552. The Sheriff of
Sussex was ordered to attach the earl. |
| 155 |
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), ii (1),
630; Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), i,
294, 304; Cal. Close, 1323–7, p. 592. |
| 156 |
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), ii (1),
648–9; Cal. Close, 1323–7, p. 625;
1327–30, p. 260; the order to deliver
the issues from his lands was not, however, executed until the following reign
(ibid. 1327–30, p. 27). These facts do
not bear out the statement that he was a
party to a plot against the lives of the
queen and prince (Walsingham, op. cit.
i, 179). But if Edward II proposed it
John may have betrayed it (Capgrave,
Chron. [Rolls Ser.], 194). This would
explain his desertion of Edward and
friendship with the queen. But cf. Mme.
Inna Lubimenko on this point, Jean de
Bretagne, 112–14. |
| 157 |
Cal. Close, 1327–30, pp. 206, 362;
1330–3, pp. 307, 607. |
| 158 |
Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), ii (2),
873. |
| 159 |
At any rate as regards her heirs
(ibid. 874). |
| 160 |
Mme. Inna Lubimenko, Jean de
Bretagne, 119; G.E.C. Peerage, vi, 353;
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 308. |
| 161 |
The king appointed a keeper for
them (Abbrev. Rot. Orig. [Rec. Com.],
ii, 83), and in April he ordered him to
pay the wages due to the bailiffs and
other officials (Cal. Close, 1333–7, p. 215). |
| 162 |
Rymer, op. cit. ii (2), 882–3.
John was the son and heir of Arthur
Duke of Britanny. He succeeded his
father in 1312 (G.E.C. Complete Peerage,
vi, 353). |
| 163 |
Syllabus of Rymer (Rec. Com.), i,
273; Cal. Close, 1333–7, p. 235. |
| 164 |
Cal. Close, 1333–7, p. 235. |
| 165 |
Ibid. 1337–9, pp. 122, 553; 1339–
41, p. 93. Lobineau, however, says that
Edward III took the honour from him
because of his attachment to France in
order to give it to Robert d'Artois (Hist.
de Bretagne, i, 309); cf. Froissart, Chron.
i, 227. But no confirmation of these statements has been found in the Cal. of Pat. |
| 166 |
Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), ii,
145; Cal. Close, 1341–3, p. 175. |
| 167 |
Son of Arthur, late Duke of Britanny,
by a second marriage. |
| 168 |
She was daughter and heir of Guy
Count of Penthievre, the second son of
Arthur's first marriage. |
| 169 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 313–
16. |
| 170 |
Rymer, op. cit. ii (2), 1176. |
| 171 |
Ibid. 1187. |
| 172 |
Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i,
319. |
| 173 |
Ibid. 336. The count had been a
prisoner for some months before he was
deprived of Richmond; cf. Cal. Pat.
1340–3, p. 485. |
| 174 |
He granted both title and honour to
him and his issue (Duchy of Lanc. Royal
Chart. 294, 295, 309; Chart. R. 25
Edw. III, m. 13). |
| 175 |
Cal. Pat. 1340–3, p. 569; Cal. Close,
1341–3, p. 622; Cal. Pat. 1343–5,
p. 197; 1345–8, p. 466; 1348–50,
p. 319; 1350–4, pp. 204, 287. |
| 176 |
Cal. Close, 1354–60, p. 361. |
| 177 |
Ibid. 1360–4, pp. 250–1. The
King of England was guardian under the
will of the father (Lobineau, Hist. de
Bretagne, i, 337). |
| 178 |
Rymer, Foedera, iii (2), 935–6, 953,
955–6. |
| 179 |
Duchy of Lanc. Misc. Bks. xiii,
fol. 8 d.; Syllabus of Rymer (Rec. Com.),
i, 462. |
| 180 |
Chart. R. 46 Edw. III, m. 5. See
also Cal. Pat. The duke's alliance with
England appears to have been very unpopular in Britanny and he was compelled to seek refuge in England in 1373
(Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 406). |
| 181 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 355. |
| 182 |
Cal. Pat. 1377–81, p. 74. |
| 183 |
Ibid. p. 284. |
| 184 |
Ibid. p. 295; 1388–92, p. 377. |
| 185 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 355.
He was recalled to Britanny, it appears,
in 1379 (Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i,
422), and made a treaty with Charles V
in January 1381, and did homage to him
in September of the same year (ibid.
437–9, 442). |
| 186 |
Cal. Pat. 1381–5, p. 51. But in
September of this year the duchess was
appointing an official in Cheshunt (ibid.
p. 308). |
| 187 |
Ibid. pp. 285, 297; Lobineau, Hist.
de Bretagne, i, 440–4. The Duke of
Britanny had already sent to England to
recall the duchess, who had been detained
by Richard II, and to ask for the return
of Richmond and Brest. He was informed
that the former had been confiscated because he had done homage to the King of
France and that for the latter he had
received an exchange (ibid.). |
| 188 |
Cal. Pat. 1381–5, p. 343. |
| 189 |
Parl. R. iii, 279. |
| 190 |
Cal. Pat. 1381–5, p. 511. |
| 191 |
Ibid. 1391–6, p. 13. |
| 192 |
Ibid. 1385–9, p. 175. |
| 193 |
Syllabus of Rymer (Rec. Com.), ii, 513. |
| 194 |
Chart. R. 9 & 10 Ric. II, m. 1. |
| 195 |
Cal. Pat. 1388–92, p. 393. |
| 196 |
Ibid. 1391–6, p. 13; Chart. R. 15–17
Ric. II, m. 35. |
| 197 |
Cal. Pat. 1391–6, pp. 68, 101, 105,
217. This confiscation was doubtless
due to the Treaty of Tours between the
King of France and the Duke of Britanny,
26 Jan. 1392 (Lobineau, Hist. de
Bretagne, i, 476). |
| 198 |
Cal. Pat. 1396–9, p. 13. |
| 199 |
Ibid. |
| 200 |
Ibid. 1391–6, p. 726. |
| 201 |
Chart. R. 21-3 Ric. II, m. 12;
Cal. Pat. 1396–9, p. 350. |
| 202 |
Syllabus of Rymer (Rec. Com.), ii, 534. |
| 203 |
Cal. Pat. 1396–9, p. 574. The
grant is said to have been made to
John Duke of Britanny, Joan his
sister, Anthony Ricz and Nicholas Alderwych. Yet the Letters Patent by which
a constable of the castle was appointed
were in the names of Joan, Anthony and
Nicholas alone (ibid. 1399–1401, p. 546). |
| 204 |
John Duke of Britanny died early in
November following (G.E.C. Complete
Peerage, vi, 355). |
| 205 |
Cal. Pat. 1399–1401, p. 24. In
spite of a petition of the Commons that
it might be given to the Duke of Britanny
(Trokelowe, Annales [Rolls Ser.], 311).
Provision for outstanding claims or leases
was made in this grant. Members of the
house of Britanny still, however, assumed
the title of Earl of Richmond, and a
request for the restoration of the honour
was made as late as 1442 (Capgrave,
Chron. [Rolls Ser.], 312; Proc. of P.C.
[Rec. Com.], i, 6, 17, 37). |
| 206 |
Chan. Inq. p.m. (Yorks.), 4 Hen. VI,
no. 37. There is a strange story that it
was granted to the Earl of Dunbar in
1400 (Eulogium Hist. [Rolls Ser.], iii,
387, 414). |
| 207 |
Cal. Pat. 1413–16, p. 259; Parl. R.
iv, 41. The manor of Bainbridge and the
free chase of Wensleydale were excepted
from the grant, Henry IV having released
all right to them to Ralph and his heirs
and assigns in 1413 (Cal. Pat. 1408–13,
p. 467; 1413–16, p. 259). |
| 208 |
Chan. Inq. p.m. 4 Hen. VI, no. 37. |
| 209 |
Cheshunt, however, fell in later
(Parl. R. iv, 460–2). |
| 210 |
He died on 14 Sept. of that year
and Henry VI was found to be his heir
(Chan. Inq. p.m. 14 Hen. VI, no. 36). |
| 211 |
Cal. Pat.1436–41, pp. 24, 41. |
| 212 |
Ibid. 1429–36, pp. 492, 498, 507,
510; 1436–41, pp. 18, 24, 36, 96, 120,
181, 188, 236, 289, 303, 345, 401,
490; 1441–6, pp. 50, 112, 139, 150,
229, 324, 429; 1446–52, pp. 158, 281,
282, 329, 334, 455, 469. |
| 213 |
Ibid. 1446–52, p. 281. |
| 214 |
Parl. R. v, 309. |
| 215 |
The son of Owen Tudor and
Katherine of France, the queen-dowager. |
| 216 |
Parl. R. v, 251. |
| 217 |
Chan. Inq. p.m. 35 Hen. VI, no. 19.
The third part of the honour was still
held by the Duchess of Bedford in dower. |
| 218 |
Cal. Pat. 1461–7, pp. 71, 114, 130. |
| 219 |
Ibid. p. 197; Parl. R. vi, 228. |
| 220 |
Cal. Pat. 1461–7, p. 212. |
| 221 |
Ibid. p. 474; Mins. Accts. (Gen. Ser.),
bdle. 765, no. 4. |
| 222 |
Cal. Pat. 1467–77, p. 241. The
grant was made in March 1471 'from
Michaelmas' last, and it was possibly the
price of the duke's allegiance. |
| 223 |
Ibid. p. 342. |
| 224 |
Ibid. p. 457. There were certain
exceptions in Lincs., Suff., Herts. and
Norf. |
| 225 |
Ibid. p. 529. |
| 226 |
Ibid. 1476–85, pp. 70, 87. |
| 227 |
Ibid. p. 90. |
| 228 |
Parl. R. vi, 124. |
| 229 |
He was appointing officers and
granting issues or annuities from it
throughout this period (Cal. Pat. 1476–
85, pp. 70, 87, 119, 142, 157,
159, 179, 247, 258, 310). There are
also accounts for this time (Duchy of
Lanc. Mins. Accts. Yorks. bdle. 639,
no. 10379, 10380). |
| 230 |
Duchy of Lanc. Mins. Accts. bdle.
648, no. 10486, 10487. See also his
appointments of officers or grants from
it (Cal. Pat. 1476–85, pp. 380. 453, 513,
535). |
| 231 |
Henry's mother Margaret Countess
of Richmond was also attainted and deprived of her lands, but in consideration
of his 'fidelity' her husband Lord Stanley
was permitted to hold them for life (Parl.
R. vi, 245, 250). After the accession of
Henry VII she held part of the honour
in dower (Mat. for a Hist. of Hen. VII
[Rolls Ser.], ii, 130; De Banco R. Hil.
9 Hen. VII, m. 250). |
| 232 |
Pat. 17 Hen. VIII, pt. i, m.
42. |
| 233 |
Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), xlviii, 92,
163; lii, 36. |
| 234 |
Ibid. liv, 53; L. and P. Hen. VIII,
v, 1714; vi, g. 929 (40). |
| 235 |
Pat. 21 Jas. I, pt. x, m. 12. He
had been created Earl of Richmond ten
years before (ibid. 11 Jas. I, pt. iii,
no. 19). |
| 236 |
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 359. |
| 237 |
Ibid. 361. |
| 238 |
He received the site of the castle
and its walls, the pond or moat, and all
land and tenements within the walls and
the whole bank from the castle to the
Swale, except castle-ward rents and suit
at the court and liberties and services of
the said castle concerning houses between
the town and castle and the castle and
the Swale (MSS. of the borough; Pat.
27 Chas. II, pt. iii, no. 32). |
| 239 |
Quarters for non-commissioned officers, the property of the War Office,
were built in the castle yard in 1857,
while the keep served as a storehouse
for militia uniforms and weapons. |
| 240 |
Pipe R. 6 Ric. I (Yorks.); 1 John
(Yorks.). |
| 241 |
The Earl of Chester was assessed
for 40½ fees in Richmondshire, the Constable of Richmond for 6½, and Henry
son of Harvey for 3 (Pipe R. 10, 11 &
13 John [Yorks.]). The grant of Richmondshire to the Earl of Chester gives
the number of fees held by Henry
as 3¼, but Henry only acknowledged
responsibility for 3 (Rot. Lit. Pat. [Rec.
Com.], 51). |
| 242 |
Shirley, Royal and Hist. Letters of
Hen. III (Rolls Ser.), ii, 210. |
| 243 |
Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of Engl.
Law (ed. 2), i, 275. |
| 244 |
Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.),
198; Cal. Close, 1323–7, p. 592; Cal.
Pat. 1348–50, p. 57; Chart. R. 21–3
Ric. II, m. 12, no. 16; Cal. Pat. 1399–
1401, p. 24; 1476–85, p. 90. |
| 245 |
Cal. Pat. 1399–1401, p. 24. |
| 246 |
Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), 198. |
| 247 |
Cal. Chart. R. 1226–57, p. 394;
Cal. Pat. 1307–13, p. 310; Cal. Rot.
Chart. (Rec. Com.), 188; Cal. Pat. 1399–
1401, p. 24. |
| 248 |
Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), 100. |
| 249 |
Roger Gale, op. cit. 89. He also
claimed gallows and tumbrel at Bassingburn (Plac. de Quo Warr. [Rec. Com.],
100). |
| 250 |
Cal. Pat. 1348–50, p. 57; 1436–41,
p. 181; 1441–6, p. 429; 1476–85,
p. 90. |
| 251 |
Roger Gale, loc. cit. |
| 252 |
In 1379 the Crown acknowledged
their prescriptive right to freedom from
payment of toll, pontage, murage, pavage,
passage, lastage, quayage and picage
(Rymer, Foedera, iv [1], 65; Cal. Pat.
1247–58, p. 543; 1377–81, p. 461;
1461–7, p. 474). Clarkson gives an
instance of the claim for freedom from
toll being successfully asserted at Darlington in 1658 (Hist. of Richmond, 91–2). |
| 253 |
Rot. de Oblatis et Fin. (Rec. Com.),
371; cf. Yorks. Inq. (Yorks. Arch. Soc.),
i, 230; Whitaker, Hist. of Richmondshire,
i, 54–5. |
| 254 |
Cal. S. P. Dom. 1601–3, p. 568, and
Add. 1547–65, p. 551; Exch. Dep. East.
37 Eliz. no. 24. |
| 255 |
After the eldest son, the eldest
daughter had the right to succeed, and
failing either son or daughter the next of kin
(Exch. Dep. Mich. 27 & 28 Eliz. m. 36).
A tenant could only grant away his tenement, except for life and six years after
his death, by licence (Exch. Dep. East.
16 Jas. I, no. 17). It was said that
the tenants had bequeathed their tenements to whichever of their children
they pleased before the commission of
Elizabeth, but whether they had or had
not a right to do so was unknown (Exch.
Dep. East. 37 Eliz. no. 24). |
| 256 |
Cal. S. P. Dom. 1601–3, p. 568. |
| 257 |
Exch. Dep. Mich. 1651, no. 17. |
| 258 |
Dugdale, Mon. v, 574. |
| 259 |
Lestorie des Engles (Rolls Ser.),
11. 5324–5. |
| 260 |
Dom. Bk. Fac. 85. |
| 261 |
According to the confirmation of
Henry II, Alan Rufus was the donor
(Dugdale, Mon. iii, 548), but it is curious
in that case that Richmond is not mentioned in the confirmation of William II
(ibid. 547). If not granted by Alan Rufus
it was given by Stephen (ibid. 548). |
| 262 |
Dugdale, Mon. v, 578. Henry II
spent a good deal of money on houses,
keep, and the castle of Richmond (Pipe
R. 18 Hen. II [Pipe R. Soc.], 5;
21 Hen. II, 3). |
| 263 |
Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), i, 59, 61,
91, 186; Cole, Doc. Illust. of Engl.
Hist. 233–4. |
| 264 |
Cal. Pat. 1272–81, p. 270. |
| 265 |
Mins. Accts. (Gen. Ser.), bdle. 1116,
no. 9; Cal. Close, 1296–1302, p. 71. |
| 266 |
Whitaker, Richmondshire, i, 54. |
| 267 |
Leland, Itin. (ed. Toulmin Smith),
iv, 25. |
| 268 |
L. ana P. Hen. VIII, xiii (1),
598. |
| 269 |
Assize R. 1057, m. 29 d. |
| 270 |
Chron. of the Reigns of Stephen, Hen. II and Ric. I (Rolls
Ser.), i, 183–5; Cal. Close, 1288–96, p. 425. |
| 271 |
Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. iv, App. 381; Chron. of the Reigns of
Edw. I and Edw. II (Rolls Ser.), ii, 47. |