SOURCE: “The Letters and Charters of Eleanor of Aquitaine,” The English Historical Review, Vol. LXXIV, No. CCXCI, April, 1959, pp. 193-213.

[In the following essay, Richardson painstakingly examines many of the official written documents of Eleanor, and concludes that she did not have the services of a formal chancellor.]

It may be worth while, if only to remove doubts and misconceptions, to devote some pages to the clerks who served Eleanor of Aquitaine in the capacity of chancellor or, if they did not bear that title, were responsible for the writing and sealing of her charters and letters. Though nothing like a complete collection of Eleanor's surviving acta exists, a good many have been printed (more or less accurately) here and there and are not unduly difficult of access, sufficient, at all events, with the addition of some in manuscript, to provide a representative sample and to enable us to draw certain conclusions. If incidentally it seems necessary to say something of Eleanor's own career, this may not be a disadvantage, for she has been less than happy in her biographers.¹

So far as I am aware, the earliest document mentioning her chancellor is a charter of Eleanor's, dated 27 May 1152, in favour of the abbey of Saint Maixent. This charter was ‘given’ ‘per manum Bernardi cancellarii mei’. The date, it may be noted, is a week or so at most after Eleanor's marriage to Henry, the young duke of Normandy.² Whether Bernard had been in her service before her marriage there seems nothing to tell, but he appears not to have served her very long as chancellor. Later in the same year 1152 a charter of Eleanor's in favour of the abbey of Fontevrault had, as its last witness, master Matthew:³ he is not qualified as ‘chancellor’, but no other is named as such, and it may be that he was performing the office without yet bearing the title. Certainly Matthew was the name of her chancellor soon after Eleanor became queen of England and quite certainly he was styled ‘master’. A letter from Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, to Pope Alexander III speaks of an action between ‘magister Mattheus illustris Anglorum regine cancellarius’ and the prior of Monmouth.⁴ Léopold Delisle suggested that the master Matthew of the Fontevrault charter should be identified with the Matthew to whom the education of the future Henry II had been confided⁵ and who appears as a witness to a few of that prince's charters under the style of ‘doctor ducis’.⁶ Since there is no trace of another master Matthew in the households of Henry II or of Eleanor, the identification of the queen's chancellor with the duke's tutor would hardly seem open to doubt. Nor would it seem open to doubt that the same master Matthew had been tutor to Henry's aunts, his father's sisters, and that he had on occasion written the charters of the count of Anjou.⁷

It is quite clear that Matthew had received preferment in England very early in Henry II's reign, for his dispute with the prior of Monmouth over the church of Llangarron dated back to the days of Pope Adrian IV, who, according to Matthew's story, had been tricked by the prior into giving an adverse judgment. Adrian died on 1 September 1159, and since a good deal of time is likely to have elapsed before the proceedings reached Rome, Matthew had in all probability, been presented to the benefice at least a year or two earlier.⁸ Much about the same time he was presented to another benefice, that of Westbury in the diocese of Salisbury. The patronage had evidently been assumed by Henry II, but the church was claimed also by the chapter of Salisbury, and on 19 October 1157 the king restored this and other churches to them:⁹ in consequence Matthew released to the precentor of Salisbury any rights he might have under the king's grant.¹⁰ Naturally we hear only of Matthew's misfortunes and it is quite likely that he received other preferments which had a happier history than Llangarron and Westbury. Delisle has suggested that he became dean of Angers, and a Matthew appears in that office in 1162.¹¹ This Matthew was one of those who were able, through personal knowledge, to give John of Marmoutier information about the life of Geoffrey, count of Anjou,¹² information which the Matthew, who had been tutor to the count's sisters and son, should have been well able to supply. Moreover, the dean was appointed just about the time that Matthew disappears from Eleanor's diplomata, though we cannot build very much upon that fact, since it is unlikely that after 1163 she issued any writs¹³ and the surviving charters from this period of her life are very few. However, so far as the evidence goes, it does make plausible the belief that master Matthew, having been Henry's tutor, passed into the service of Eleanor as her chancellor, and then, after some ten years or so, retired to the deanery of Angers.

What exactly did it mean to be the queen's chancellor? To begin with, it should be made clear that instruments of several classes were issued in Eleanor's name. Though her rights as duchess of Aquitaine passed to her husband during his lifetime, her assent was necessary to their alienation: this will account for some of her charters. Then, as queen of England, she had her dower lands, which (subject to certain limitations) were within her own disposition. As queen consort she might be called upon to act as regent, and writs would then run in her name. And then again, she would occasionally wish to have written for her less formal letters, which we cannot describe either as charters or writs.¹⁴ At a later period of her life, we shall find her issuing formal documents in other capacities, but at this stage we need not complicate the story by bringing them into consideration. Now Matthew ‘the chancellor’ appears as a witness to documents of the first and third of the classes we have described.

Let us, to begin with, examine the writs that compose the third class. Apart from the fact that they are in Eleanor's name and that they sometimes mention a writ of the king's as their warrant, these writs are in exactly the same form as Henry's own, and the witnesses, Matthew apart, are curiales, such as we should expect normally to find witnessing the king's writs. They include Earl Reginald (of Cornwall),¹⁵ Robert earl of Leicester,¹⁶ Richard de Luci,¹⁷ Jocelin bishop of Salisbury,¹⁸ Jocelin of Bailleul,¹⁹ Hugh of Gonzeville,²⁰ Reginald de Warenne,²¹ Robert of Denestanville.²² The name of Matthew the chancellor does not regularly appear, and in fact is found only in two or three of the thirteen writs the witnesses to which are known.²³ There is no reason to suppose that he was responsible for the organization which prepared and issued these writs during Eleanor's periods of regency. The interference of the ruler in the routine of government was very limited and we must not think of Eleanor's writs as necessarily, nor for the most part, evidence of her personal concern with the matter at issue. Every relevant consideration seems, on the contrary, to point to the conclusion that no special administration was set up when the king was absent from the realm and that the same group of clerks and administrators continued to function under king, regent or justiciar.²⁴ However, royal clerks were not highly specialized: no rigid division separated the household from the chancery or the chancery from the exchequer, which was the seat of the justiciar's activities. Matthew was certainly not a chancery clerk, if by that we mean a clerk in the service of Thomas Becket, nor an exchequer clerk, if by that we mean a clerk in the service of the justiciar or some other of the barons. But he was doubtless, in a general sense, a royal clerk, and might lend a hand in administrative work when opportunity presented itself and occasion required.

Now apart from his appearance as a witness to English writs, we find Matthew the chancellor witnessing a charter of Eleanor's, executed at Ruffec, confirming an arrangement between the treasurer and chapter of Saint Hilaire of Poitiers. This instrument is in similar terms to a charter of Henry II's and was doubtless considered desirable because Eleanor's own rights were affected and her express assent was therefore thought necessary.²⁵ Henry could not dispose on his sole responsibility of the jus uxoris, nor could Eleanor, of course, as a married woman, act on her own responsibility, for she was not sui juris. This charter is plainly an instrument of a very different kind from a regent's writ, and it is perhaps for this reason that Matthew has been qualified as chancellor ‘in Aquitaine’.²⁶ If it could be sustained that there was a separate chancellor and chancery for Aquitaine, controlled presumably by Eleanor, we should have to revise very considerably our notions about twelfth-century administration and about the legal consequences of marriage. Fortunately the English writs, also witnessed by Matthew the chancellor, show that his functions were personal to the queen and in no sense territorial. But Matthew probably did not even concern himself with all the charters that affected Eleanor personally. In a charter that evidently comes from the early years of the reign, the witnesses are Herman the chaplain, John the queen's clerk, Ansfrid the clerk of Easton and Roger of Windsor.²⁷ The first, as well as the second, witness was probably a member of Eleanor's household, though there is nothing specifically to show that either was responsible for writing or sealing the charter.

Master Matthew is one of the few members of Eleanor's house-hold, at any period in her long career, of whom sufficient is known to make him a living person. The tutor, who instructed princesses and princes alike, is a figure sufficiently remarkable among the courtiers of the young Henry and his father Geoffrey to warrant some little attention. Certainly the other clerks who wrote on Eleanor's behalf, with the solitary exception of Peter of Blois, are little more than names. They have their importance only in so far as they enable us to reconstruct the manner in which charters and letters were written for a royal lady, the second personage, for the best part of fifty years, in the Angevin empire.

It has already been indicated that Eleanor's surviving charters up to the time of her captivity in 1173 are few. It is not obvious why this should be so; nor indeed is it clear why there should be no trace of writs in her name after Michaelmas 1163. Eleanor seems to have remained in England until the spring of 1165, when she crossed to the Continent; but apparently she was back late in the following year and gave birth to the future King John at Oxford on Christmas Eve 1167. Thereafter her movements are still uncertain, though she spent most of her time on the Continent from 1168 until she returned to England, a prisoner, in 1174. The impression conveyed by modern writers that Eleanor kept continuous court at Poitiers until her flight and capture in 1173—‘the presiding genius in a society of troubadours and knights’²⁸—this cannot be correct. She certainly travelled outside Poitou from time to time during these years and was perhaps more often absent than present. The ascertained facts are few.²⁹ Two charters from this period, when master Matthew must be presumed to have left her service, may be mentioned. To one, which cannot be much later than 1168, the last two witnesses are master Bernard and Peter ‘capellanus meus’.³⁰ Bernard may be Eleanor's former chancellor, and it is quite likely that her chaplain Peter wrote the charter. However, in a charter of 1169-73, we find Peter as a witness again, but this time followed by Jordan, clerk and notary.³¹ Jordan was still in Eleanor's service in 1187 and was then apparently in control of her household, but he is given no specific title.³² It is indeed very doubtful whether ‘notary’ was more than a term descriptive of the clerk who drafted or penned the particular instrument in which his name appears: as we shall see, the word is used of other clerks in Eleanor's household.

Eleanor seems to have recovered her liberty by degrees, but though never free from restraint so long as Henry II lived, she can have been in no sense a prisoner during the last six years of her husband's life.³³ In the spring of 1185 she crossed over to Normandy³⁴ and there ensued the first of several transactions which, during the remaining nineteen years of Eleanor's life, were to create parallel, if not duplicate, jurisdictions in Poitou and Aquitaine. At the demand of his father, Richard, who had for thirteen years been recognized as duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitiers, surrendered the comté ‘with all its appurtenances’ to his mother.³⁵ Eleanor, of course, retained throughout her life the style of duchess of Aquitaine and countess of Poitou and continued to issue charters under that style, just as indeed she used the style of queen of England from 1154 until her death. This usage tells us nothing of itself and we can deduce from it nothing concerning her authority or legal status. The contents of charters may tell us more, and to one issued by Eleanor, apparently after Richard's surrender, in favour of the abbey of Fontevrault great importance has been attached.³⁶ It has been suggested that this charter made public the fact that Richard had been deprived of his appanage.³⁷ There is, however, no particular reason to suppose that this charter received great publicity and in all probability it is an example of several issued by Eleanor in France during the period April 1185 to April 1186.³⁸ Moreover, since Richard retained the style of duke and count and continued to issue charters as such³⁹—charters which presumably received just as much publicity as Eleanor's—it would seem evident that his surrender was little more than nominal. The surrender may, in fact, have been intended to rehabilitate Eleanor rather than to humiliate Richard. Nor is it without significance to find not only that Eleanor's gift to Fontevrault was confirmed, evidently on the same day, by a separate charter of the king's,⁴⁰ but that it was also confirmed on the same occasion by a separate charter of Richard's as count of Poitou.⁴¹ However, for our immediate purpose there is no need to seek to unravel the tangle of sovereignties of Henry, Eleanor and Richard in Aquitaine. Eleanor's charter interests us on account of its form and its witnesses. It provides for the endowment of the abbey of Fontevrault by Eleanor with a hundred livres, with the assent of King Henry and her sons Richard, Geoffrey and John. The sixteen witnesses do not include any recognizable member of her household, but among them are the seneschals of Anjou and Poitou and the king's almoner.

Of Eleanor's life from 27 April 1186, when she landed with Henry II at Southampton,⁴² until her husband's death little is known except that she lived in England.⁴³ No charters seem to be recorded for these years, and the fact that she did not act as regent during Henry's absences in France in the last years of his life⁴⁴ shows that she had not been restored to her former position; but it is not evidence that she was kept in confinement. There is no good ground for believing that one of Richard's first acts after his father's death was to order Eleanor to be ‘liberata de carcere mariti sui’,⁴⁵ though William Marshal seems to have had a story of how, after he had landed in England and fulfilled the mission with which Richard had entrusted him, he found the queen at Winchester ‘delivrée’ and more at ease than she had been for a long time.⁴⁶ The contrast with her former state was indeed striking. There is no doubt that after Henry II's death, until Richard's arrival in England, she exercised very great, perhaps paramount, authority. Yet she was hardly regent, as she has sometimes been termed.⁴⁷ In outward form the government was still carried on by the justiciar Ranulf Glanville, though certain of his writs, for the defence of the coast or the remission of a fine, were issued ‘per preceptum regine’ or ‘per reginam’, that is at her instance.⁴⁸ But she did not issue writs even for her own personal expenditure as she had done while acting as regent in the early years of Henry II's reign.⁴⁹ Still we have a very precise account, apparently from an official source, of the orders she gave for the release and trial of prisoners lying in the king's gaols and for fealty to be sworn to Richard.⁵⁰ We have, however, no other document purporting to emanate from Eleanor in the eight weeks between Henry's death on 6 July and Richard's coronation on 3 September, before which his own authority was limited to that of ‘lord’ of England.

Thereafter we get to know more of Eleanor's life, and her surviving charters and letters begin to grow numerous. A charter in which her agreement is signified to the grant to Waltham Abbey by the king of the manor of Waltham with the village of Nazeing cannot be much later than 20 October 1189 when Richard's own charter was granted:⁵¹ it shows her with her steward, Henry of Berneval, at Canterbury, where she is known to have been at the end of November.⁵² Another charter, presumably earlier, is dated 30 October 1189: this is issued at Freemantle (Hants) and witnessed by the bishops of Bath and Chester, the earl of Salisbury, William Marshal, Ralf fitz Godfrey and Geoffrey of Wanchy, the last-named of whom attests other charters of Eleanor's and who, we know, was her constable and not a clerk.⁵³ Later in the year, Eleanor is at Oxford, where she witnesses a grant to Thame Abbey by master John of Bridport, parson of St. Peter's, Oxford, and the king's physician.⁵⁴ Eleanor remained in England until March 1190 when she crossed to Normandy. She is found at Argentan on 6 April,⁵⁵ but, except for a record of her presiding with the seneschal of Anjou over an action between the abbey of Fontevrault and the town of Saumur in the same year,⁵⁶ she is then lost to view until she appears at Lodi, near Milan, on her way to Messina with Richard's bride.⁵⁷ It has been plausibly suggested that in the interval she had visited Spain and had negotiated Richard's marriage with Berengaria, daughter of King Sancho VI of Navarre.⁵⁸ Be that as it may, she started her return journey from Messina in April 1191 and, apparently by leisurely stages, reached Normandy, spending Christmas at Bonneville-sur-Touques.⁵⁹

Meanwhile in England the disputes, that had resulted in the deprivation of Longchamp of the justiciarship and his expulsion, had left the government of the country uneasily balanced between the ambitious Count John and the king's representative and justiciar, the vacillating Walter of Coutances, archbishop of Rouen. It was doubtless at the king's instance that Eleanor landed at Portsmouth on 11 February 1192.⁶⁰ At first she appears to have acted as mediator,⁶¹ but, when the news of Richard's captivity reached England, in February 1193 she assumed direct authority for the conduct of affairs.⁶² One of the most striking indications of the position she occupied and the public recognition of it is the statement of a woman who appealed another of felony that she had prosecuted her appeal before the queen and the justiciar.⁶³ It is from this period that there has come down to us more of her correspondence than from any other part of her life. Equally significant are the letters the king wrote to her from captivity⁶⁴ and the letter the monks of Canterbury wrote beseeching her intervention on their behalf.⁶⁵ It is at this period that Peter of Blois was for a brief time attached to the queen. He claims as his composition three letters that Eleanor wrote to Pope Celestine III imploring the assistance of the holy see in securing Richard's release,⁶⁶ and it may well be that he did other writing for her. A charter, if we may so term it, issued in her name is witnessed by Herbert, archdeacon of Canterbury, and Peter of Blois. This is something more than a private charter for it safeguards the monks of Christchurch from any future claim by reason of the assistance their men have been constrained to give in fortifying Canterbury.⁶⁷ We can connect this charter with Gervase's statement that it was Eleanor who, in the spring of 1193, gave orders for the coast to be fortified.⁶⁸ The evidence all points to the conclusion that she was exercising as great authority as she had done in the summer of 1189, but nevertheless there is nothing to suggest that she was invested with a formal regency, that Walter of Coutances was suspended or that ordinary administrative writs were issued in her name. She seems to have left the country to join Richard on the appointment of Hubert Walter as justiciar in succession to Walter of Coutances. She was in Cologne on 6 January 1194 and in Mainz on 2 February: then, returning with the king from Germany, she spent a short time with him in England.⁶⁹

A number of private charters of Eleanor's are known which come from the period between II February 1192 and 12 June 1194, when we find her in England for the last time. They present no kind of uniformity. One, in favour of Walter (of Ghent), abbot of Waltham, doubtless belongs to the year 1193: it is in any case subsequent to Christmas 1192.⁷⁰ It is important for the history of queen's gold, but all we need note at the moment is that it was issued at Berkhampstead and that the witnesses are headed by Herbert, archdeacon of Canterbury, and Peter of Blois, and that among other witnesses are Robert of Wanchy and Wandrille of Courcelles, who were members of her household and attest other charters of the queen at this period. Robert was one of the queen's clerks, but there is no reason to suppose that he wrote the charter, which may very well have been composed by the abbot. About this time she visited Waltham where she gave a charter of confirmation to the abbey. A number of witnesses, including the archdeacon of Canterbury (but not Peter of Blois), are common to this and the preceding charter.⁷¹ Robert of Wanchy is not, however, among them. The royal clerk, Jordan, who is still attached to Eleanor, is there, but since he is third on the list of witnesses he is not likely to have been the author of the charter, which may be a production of the abbey. Another charter, in favour of St. Edmund's Abbey, is dated at Westminster and is witnessed by the queen herself, master Ralf Niger, Henry of London ‘carte presentis auctor’, Richard, the queen's almoner, master Stephen of St. Edmund's, the abbot of Waltham, the king's chancellor and Geoffrey of Wanchy.⁷² The disorderly list of witnesses should be noticed: it does not suggest a trained hand. This charter cannot be earlier than May 1193 when Longchamp returned to England. Probably no very long interval separates it from a charter in favour of the abbey of Fontevrault, dated at Winchester and witnessed by Walter abbot of Waltham and seven others, of whom the two last are Robert of Wanchy and master Henry ‘de Civitate’, the queen's clerks.⁷³ Another charter in favour of Fontevrault, apparently issued at Westminster, is witnessed by Walter archbishop of Rouen, Richard bishop of London, Godfrey bishop of Winchester, Gilbert bishop of Rochester, Seffrid bishop of Chichester, Geoffrey fitz Peter, Hugh Bardulf, William Briguerre, the king's justices, Herbert archdeacon of Canterbury, William of Ste-Mère-Église, Henry of Berneval and Wandrille of Courcelles.⁷⁴ The last two witnesses, both laymen, were members of Eleanor's household, but no clerk of hers is named. The date of this charter must be before November 1193, since William of Ste-Mère-Église was in Speyer on the twentieth of that month,⁷⁵ while Walter of Coutances is apparently still justiciar. After the king's return to England Eleanor appears to have remained constantly with him. She was present at a council at Nottingham on 30 March 1194⁷⁶ and her stay at Winchester on the occasion of Richard's second coronation on 17 April is signalled by a royal charter of the 20th, which shows her there with Adam her cook and her steward and butler.⁷⁷ A charter that records the receipt of forty marks from Jurnet of Norwich for arrears of queen's gold shows that she was in London on 12 June 1194: the solitary witness is Hubert Walter, the justiciar. The date is given as fifteen days after Whitsunday following the death of Henry of Cornhill—a form of dating frequently found in Jewish bonds and receipts—and the charter may have been prepared by Jurnet.⁷⁸ The date is difficult to accommodate with the inferences that have been drawn from Roger of Howden's account of Eleanor's movements at this time, namely that she crossed from Portsmouth to Normandy with the king on 12 May 1194 and that shortly afterwards she effected a reconciliation between Richard and John.⁷⁹ We can only do so by supposing that thereafter she returned to England: this seems improbable, and it is more likely that she returned from Portsmouth to London and did not cross to Normandy until later.

It will be sufficiently evident from the particulars given in the preceding paragraphs that there is no indication that Eleanor had a chancellor or an organized scriptorium in the latter years of Henry II or the early years of Richard I. The fact that so prominent a royal clerk as Herbert le Poer, archdeacon of Canterbury, is a witness to the one document which might be termed a public instrument suggests that, in so far as she assumed responsibility for the government of the country, the queen made use of the normal administrative machinery. Herbert's fellow witness is not to be accounted for in this way, though Peter of Blois had been employed by Henry II and had had some experience under Ralf of Varneville, Henry's chancellor from 1173 to 1182.⁸⁰ But Peter was a freelance, and while he might undertake a special mission, it is unlikely that he would lend his talents to mere routine business, whether public or private. We can best account on other grounds for the presence of Herbert and Peter as witnesses to this and other charters of Eleanor's. They, like Walter of Ghent, who is also found frequently with her, had served Henry II. Doubtless they had personal motives for their attendance upon the queen, whose star was again in the ascendant, but to them, as to others, she must have represented peace and order in a land of strife: their attachment was not enduring. For humdrum tasks the services of royal clerks employed by the justiciar would have been Eleanor's for the asking, but nevertheless her private charters, where they were not the work of the recipient, seem more likely to have been the work of some clerk of her household, such perhaps as Henry of London, the writer of the charter in favour of St. Edmund's Abbey, who is perhaps identical with her clerk, master Henry ‘de Civitate’, of another charter. When, however, we regard the lack of uniformity between her charters and especially the disorderly array of witnesses in that written by Henry of London, we do not get the impression that they are the work of a skilled hand or that any single member of her household had the responsibility for drafting them.

Of Eleanor's life for nearly five years, from June 1194 to April 1199, there is little trace. Two instruments of 1196 have survived, while an entry on a pipe roll informs us that in 1197 she joined with Walter of Coutances in praying the king that part of a fine due from Reading Abbey should be remitted.⁸¹ She was apparently living at Fontevrault in as much detachment from the world as was possible for a woman of her position and temperament.⁸² Consequently we should certainly not expect any greater evidence of formality in instruments issued in her name than at previous periods when she was active in public affairs. A charter of April 1196 records the settlement of a dispute between the abbey of Bourgueil and Eleanor's men of Jaulnay regarding the tithe of wine. It is witnessed by two of her knights and bears the curious dating clause: ‘Actum anno gratie mcxxxvi coram nobis apud Fontem Ebraudi feria iv^ta post Pascha et in sequenti feria apud Burgolium.’⁸³ Another charter dated at Saumur in the same year, but without indication of month or day, has among its six witnesses three of those whom we have seen with Eleanor a few years earlier in England: Geoffrey of Wanchy, Henry of Berneval and Wandrille of Courcelles. The last witness is William the queen's almoner, who may have written the charter.⁸⁴

Richard I's death on 6 April 1199 brought Eleanor from her retirement at Fontevrault back into political activity. The uncertainties of the succession apparently induced her to assert her rights to her hereditary fiefs in France. We are told by Rigord that she did homage to Philip Augustus for Poitou, and this event can be dated in July 1199.⁸⁵ Shortly afterwards she surrendered Poitou to John and received it back again, John undertaking to recognize her as his ‘lady’.⁸⁶ The reason and effect of this arrangement are alike obscure, but the result seems to have been to create some sort of condominium in Poitou at least. What happened in regard to Aquitaine is still more obscure. The absence of any reference to that province by Rigord or in the instruments by which Eleanor made over her rights to John and received them back again, might lead us to suppose that Aquitaine had been deliberately excluded from the complicated transaction into which she entered with Philip Augustus on the one hand and John on the other. Her charters seem to show, however, that her position in Aquitaine was exactly parallel to her position in Poitou, and it is probably a fair inference that she did homage for both provinces to Philip Augustus. But John also exercised jurisdiction over both Poitou and Aquitaine, and he, and not Eleanor, appointed the seneschals.⁸⁷ In whatever way we are to define the relationship, whether we are to say that John governed and Eleanor reigned or that their authority was co-ordinate and co-extensive, there is no room for doubt that Eleanor was, in some sense, a sovereign prince, and her charters henceforth, and especially in the year 1199, are numerous. These charters are, for the most part, unlike any of those we have already discussed. They are not issued under any delegated power nor do they require confirmation to become effective. They are as authoritative and binding as the charters of any English king. In such circumstances it might be thought that, whatever looseness there may have been in earlier periods of her career, Eleanor's charters would now give indications of an organized chancery and a hierarchy of administrative officials. Actually we find nothing of the sort. Let us first consider those of Eleanor's charters which come from about five months in 1199, that is between 11 April and the late summer of that year. These charters are, with few exceptions, easily distinguishable, either because they are precisely dated or because they are witnessed by Peter Bertin, seneschal of Poitou. While no single or consistent form is maintained, there are some, as we should expect, that follow one or two common patterns. Three charters include a final clause which, with some slight variations, runs: ‘Data apud X. per manum Rogeri capellani nostri’.⁸⁸ In one instance Roger is described as ‘capellanus et notarius noster’.⁸⁹ These three charters may be ascribed to dates in July and August 1199. Roger had been responsible also for a charter dated 4 May, but to this charter he is not the final witness and his responsibility is indicated by the words ‘qui cartam harum libertatum scripsit’.⁹⁰ It is clear, however, that Roger was not the only clerk engaged on writing or sealing Eleanor's charters at this time, for we have two issued at Poitiers, evidently on the same occasion—the long lists of nineteen witnesses are identical—but one of these two charters is given ‘per manum Rogeri predicti capellani nostri’⁹¹ and the other, to which this same Roger is a witness, ‘per manum Willelmi de sancto Maxentio clerici nostri’.⁹² A little later a charter was issued by the queen at Bordeaux in favour of ‘Chitrus’, the king's and her serjeant: Roger is again among the witnesses, but the final witness is William of Saint Maixent ‘notarius noster’.⁹³ Not only is this so, but some of the most important charters issued by Eleanor in these few months, those which grant or confirm franchises to the towns of Poitou and all of which, of course, have a family likeness, include no dating clause at all, beyond the mere indication of the year of the Incarnation, and do not include among the witnesses any of the queen's chaplains or clerks. In the case of each of these charters, Peter Bertin is a leading witness, and it may well be that the seneschal's clerks prepared them.⁹⁴ It should be observed, however, that while eleemosynary grants to religious foundations are often the work of Eleanor's clerks and while municipal charters are not only in a different form but give no direct clue to the identity of the clerks responsible for them, there is no rigid distinction between the forms employed. Thus a charter in favour of the abbey of Notre Dame de Charron, dated May 1199, was witnessed by two abbots, Peter Bertin, and two knights of Eleanor's household, but, if we can trust the transcripts, no clerk of the queen's put his name to it.⁹⁵

It has already been indicated that the greatest period of administrative activity on Eleanor's part is during the first few months following Richard's death. Many fewer charters have come down to us from the last three and a half years of her life. Such as they are, they seem to show a relaxation even of the standards reached in the charters of the spring and summer of 1199. Though the formal dating clause does not disappear altogether, only the year and not the day or month, is indicated, and in some charters even the year is omitted. Thus a charter from the latter end of 1199 concludes ‘Datum per manum Willelmi de sancto Maxentio clerici nostri apud Fontem Ebraldi anno incarnati verbi millesimo c⁰lxxxx⁰ nono, anno regni regis Iohannis primo’.⁹⁶ Another, apparently belonging to June 1200, is given ‘per manum Rogeri capellani nostri’: it is to be noted that the last witness to this charter is William of Saint-Maixent, the queen's clerk.⁹⁷ An undated charter, which cannot be earlier than 1201, has as its last witness Roger the queen's chaplain and it is also given by his hand.⁹⁸ The charter granting a commune to Niort is ‘Actum anno ab incarnatione Domini millesimo ducentesimo tertio, regnantibus Philippo rege Francorum et Iohanne rege Anglie’: among the six witnesses are Ralf and Jocelin the queen's chaplains, Richard the clerk and ‘Galfridus clericus noster de camera’ who is the last named and may be responsible for this charter.⁹⁹ To the same year, 1203, should probably be assigned an undated charter confirming to the archbishops of Bordeaux all gifts and franchises formerly granted by lords of Gascony: its witnesses are Élie archbishop of Bordeaux, Robert of Thornham seneschal of Poitou, Martin Algeis seneschal of Gascony and Jocelin and Ralf the queen's chaplains.¹⁰⁰

The recital of these details is sufficient to show how little order was observed in drafting Eleanor's charters and bears out what has already been said, that they give no indication of an organized chancery or hierarchy of administrative officials. The charters, together with other scattered items of information, would enable us to reconstruct in large measure Eleanor's household in the later years of her life. We could name her steward, her constable, her butler, her knights and serjeants, her almoners, her chaplains and clerks, some of her damsels, her nurse, her cooks, her ewerer.¹⁰¹ We could go some way towards tracing her journeyings and we could mention a good many of the distinguished people who were, from time to time, to be found in her company. But we should catch no glimpse of a chancellor. It would be strange, in view of the quite extensive material available, that there should be no word of him if such an officer should have existed, and we must come to the conclusion that he did not. In some fashion Eleanor made do without a chancellor, even when in 1199 there must have been a great demand for her charters and when she doubtless sent a good many letters. It has been suggested that Roger the chaplain, who evidently was responsible for a number of her charters in the last five years of her life, might be called her chancellor.¹⁰² There is, however, a danger in using the word even as loosely descriptive of the functions of some particular clerk in the queen's household. Certainly the casual addition of ‘notary’ to his description would not justify us in styling Roger the chaplain Eleanor's chancellor. Her chaplains and clerks, perhaps also the clerks of the senechaussée of Poitou, managed the bulk of the writing done on her behalf, while quite possibly some of those who sought a grant or confirmation from her provided the document and asked only for her seal. A more extensive investigation into her surviving charters and writs, while adding welcome detail on other matters, cannot upset this conclusion. However her household was organized, it is certain that it included nothing like a scriptorium, no officer like a chancellor.

APPENDIX

I. QUEEN ELEANOR AND QUEEN'S GOLD

of queen's gold before the reign of Henry II. According to Richard of Ely in his Dialogus de Scaccario, queen's gNothing appears to be knownold was payable at the rate of one mark of gold for every hundred marks of silver paid to the king for fines and reliefs. The queen's interest was secured by the presence of one of her clerks, who saw to it that in the summonses of the exchequer an addition was made for queen's gold; and this, when paid, was received by officers specially appointed by the queen. At the time when Richard was writing it was a disputed question whether queen's gold was due in respect of payments to the king of amounts less than a hundred marks.¹⁰³ But when was Richard writing and why was there this uncertainty?

There is general agreement that the text of the Dialogus, as it has come down to us, represents two stages of composition. It seems to have been begun in the year 1177 and to have been completed within two years. But the original text was revised ten years or so later, and in any case some time before the death of Henry II.¹⁰⁴ There is, however, no easy way of distinguishing the original from the revised text, and although the passage relating to queen's gold has not hitherto been recognized as an addition to the original text, it may well be. The passage is complete in itself, without obvious links with the matter that precedes and follows.¹⁰⁵ If it were removed, there would be no patent sign of its removal: the text would run on without any abrupt transition or noticeable interruption; indeed it might well be said to be improved. What arguments can be advanced for supposing the passage to be an interpolation?

Now there is no doubt that, prior to Eleanor's captivity in 1173, queen's gold was being paid to her, for Richard of Anstey's gifts in 1167 included a hundred marks to the king and a mark of gold to the queen.¹⁰⁶ Even assuming that such payments had ceased in 1173, it would be odd if the treasurer, writing in 1177-8, should be in doubt whether lesser payments than a hundred marks to the king entailed payment of queen's gold. But suppose there had been a lapse, not of four or five years, but of ten years or twelve years and that Richard of Ely was writing not long after the payment of queen's gold had been re-instated, when memories of its incidence were blurred. Eleanor's representatives at the exchequer might then well be arguing that both large and small sums carried with them liability to queen's gold, and Richard would be justified in saying ‘Litigat sane de his pars regine cum debitoribus et adhuc sub iudice lis est’. But can we imagine Richard writing thus in 1177-8?¹⁰⁷ Are we to suppose that Eleanor's imprisonment made no difference at all and that she was free, as before, to appoint her representatives in the exchequer and receive her gold? We can be sure, however, that Eleanor's right to queen's gold had been restored to her by the later years of Henry II's reign and that the debts due to her had been recorded in the exchequer in the way described in the Dialogus. The evidence is a writ which she addressed to the exchequer in 1194 notifying the receipt of forty marks, due in the previous reign, that had just been paid direct to her.¹⁰⁸

Not only did Eleanor receive her gold in the later years of Henry II's reign, but she continued to do so under Richard I. The evidence is provided by the charter printed below. This shows that, starting from Richard's coronation—before which, of course, he was not king and there could be no question of the payment of queen's gold—Walter of Ghent, now abbot of Waltham but formerly a prominent minister of Henry II's, had provided a clerk to act with other clerks of the queen's in collecting queen's gold. This arrangement had continued until Christmas 1192, when the account was audited and the abbot and the clerk were given a discharge. Not the least remarkable feature of this charter is the disclaimer of any intention that the service the abbot has rendered shall be drawn into a precedent ‘per nos aut succedentes nobis reginas Anglie’. It is remarkable because these words were written after the coronation, in May 1191, of Queen Berengaria, who evidently had not succeeded to the right to enjoy queen's gold, which, we must infer, was Eleanor's personal possession. And this possession she continued to enjoy under John, for queen's gold was exacted as soon as the great seal was brought into use on 7 June 1199¹⁰⁹ or sixteen months before Isabelle of Angoulême was crowned queen of England. Evidently, if we exclude Berengaria, as it seems we must,¹¹⁰ the only queen who could receive the gold during this period was Eleanor. A clerk of hers (or one acting on her behalf), it must be presumed, annotated the entries on the first two fine rolls of John's reign to indicate when queen's gold was payable. These entries continue after Isabelle's coronation but cease abruptly in January 1201. This may, however, mean nothing more than a change of clerk or a change in office procedure.¹¹¹ The fact that Eleanor's right to queen's gold did not lapse after Henry II's death or after the coronation of Berengaria and of Isabelle suggests that queen's gold had been secured to her as part of her dower. This suggestion is supported by Roger of Howden's statement that Richard assigned to Eleanor as dower all that his father had assigned to her.¹¹² The instrument of 5 May 1204, necessary, after Eleanor's death, to settle upon Isabelle the late queen's dower lands does not mention queen's gold, but if this emolument had indeed formed part of her dower, it presumably passed to Isabelle under the general words which conveyed to her everything that had been assigned to Eleanor in dower¹¹³

CHARTER OF QUEEN ELEANOR IN FAVOUR OF WALTER ABBOT OF WALTHAM (1193)¹¹⁴

Alienor Dei gracia humilis Anglie regina omnibus ad quos presens scriptum peruenerit salutem in Domino. Ad vniuersitatis vestre noticiam volumus peruenire dilectum nostrum Walterum abbatem de Waltham ad peticionem et instanciam meam, non ex debito aut consuetudine aliqua que ad ipsum aut ad domum suam de Waltham pertineat, sed ex sola gracia inuenisse nobis clericum quendam qui, cum aliis clericis nostris, aurum nostrum ad scaccarium domini regis filii nostri colligeret a tempore coronacionis eiusdem domini regis filii nostri vsque ad Natale proximum post reditum nostrum de Sicilia, scilicet Natale anni quarti regni domini regis filii nostri Ricardi.¹¹⁵ Ne autem huiusmodi seruitium ab eo aut successoribus suis, abbatibus de Waltham, per nos aut succedentes nobis reginas Anglie de cetero exigatur, compotum ab eo et a clerico suo de toto termino prefato, simul cum aliis clericis nostris, ex integro audiuimus et eum et clericum suum Willelmum omnino quietum clamauimus de tota receptione auri et aliorum reddituum nostrorum quos receperant. Testibus his, Herberto Cantuariensi et Petro Blesensi Bathoniensi archidiaconis, Willelmo filio Aldelini, Gaufrido de Caritate, Galfrido de Claro Monte, Siluio cognato nostro, Roberto de Wanci, Iohanne de Sanford, Ricardo de Clahall’, Wandregisilo de Crucell’. Apud Berchamst[ede].

II. SENESCHALS OF ANJOU, POITOU AND GASCONY, 1199-1204.

ANJOU. At the time of Richard I's death the seneschal was Robert of Thornham, and as such he witnessed a charter of Eleanor's on 21 April 1199.¹¹⁶ In Anjou Arthur's claim to succeed Richard was recognized and he appointed as seneschal William des Roches, who appears in that office in June 1199.¹¹⁷ It seems clear, however, that William was not appointed until May, at earliest, since on 11 April and 4 May he witnessed charters of Eleanor's which do not give him any distinguishing title.¹¹⁸ Although Arthur's appointment of William cannot have been recognized by John and Eleanor, Robert of Thornham apparently dropped the title of seneschal when he could no longer effectively discharge the office.¹¹⁹ William de Roches came to an understanding with John in September and is found attesting the king's charters as early as the 18th of that month. But he was not immediately recognized as seneschal, and his name appears without title as late as 8 October.¹²⁰ The earliest reference to him as seneschal seems to be in a charter of Eleanor's dated 1199, coming quite certainly from the last few months of the year.¹²¹ From January 1200 onwards William is regularly given the title of seneschal in John's charters¹²² and on 24 June the king granted him the hereditary office of seneschal of Anjou, Maine and Touraine.¹²³

POITOU. At the time of Richard's death, Peter Bertin appears to have been seneschal.¹²⁴ As such he witnessed a charter on the day of the king's funeral¹²⁵ and for some months was a frequent witness to Eleanor's charters.¹²⁶ He was succeeded by Geoffrey de la Celle who witnessed, as seneschal, a charter of John's, dated 8 November 1199,¹²⁷ and, before the end of the year, a charter of Eleanor's, where he is found in company with the seneschals of Anjou and Gascony. To this charter Peter Bertin, who is given no title, is also a witness.¹²⁸ Shortly afterwards Geoffrey was replaced by Ralf of Mauléon, who is given the title of seneschal on 29 January 1200¹²⁹ and for a few days thereafter, the last reference to him being on 4 February.¹³⁰ His very brief period of office was terminated by his death¹³¹ and he was replaced by Geoffrey de la Celle, re-appointed by John on 22 February.¹³² Geoffrey died soon after 27 July 1201, when the last reference to him occurs.¹³³ Robert of Thornham was appointed by John to succeed him before 23 September¹³⁴ and he was still in office on Eleanor's death.¹³⁵

GASCONY. The office of seneschal of Gascony was sometimes held with that of Poitou and was sometimes independent. Brandin appears as seneschal of Gascony before the end of 1199¹³⁶ and again on 29 January 1200.¹³⁷ On the first occasion Geoffrey de la Celle is seneschal of Poitou and on the second occasion Ralf of Mauléon holds that office, and it seems clear therefore that Brandin held an independent post. Whether the re-appointment of Geoffrey de la Celle as seneschal of Poitou, on 22 February 1200, carried with it authority over Gascony is uncertain, but as early as 19 March 1201 he is described as seneschal of Poitou and Gascony.¹³⁸ Robert of Thornham, his successor, was specifically appointed to hold the combined office.¹³⁹ On 4 December 1202, however, Martin Algeis was appointed by John seneschal of Gascony and Périgord,¹⁴⁰ and he continued in office after Eleanor's death.¹⁴¹

The information available indicates that Eleanor interfered no more with the appointment of seneschals in Poitou and Gascony than she did in Anjou. While the appointment of every seneschal is not precisely recorded, the evidence is enough to show that the office was conferred by John during Eleanor's lifetime. The inference therefore is that John was in command of the administration, whatever rights of sovereignty were reserved for Eleanor. John's administration of Poitou and Gascony during the first three years of his reign has been the subject of severe strictures. ‘Once he had received the duchy from the hands of his mother’, said Charles Petit-Dutaillis,¹⁴² ‘the administration of Aquitaine was characterised by confusion and incoherence’. The evidence adduced is the appointment of seneschals. ‘Sometimes there were two sénéchaussées, sometimes only one; sometimes the office was committed to reliable men, French or English; sometimes it was given over to local barons or captains of mercenaries’. This extravagant language reflects a common prejudice against John: it is quite unjustified by the ascertainable facts detailed above.

Notes

1. Eleanor's latest biographer, Miss Amy Kelly, is in advance of her predecessors, but her Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings depends almost entirely upon literary sources and largely ignores the not inconsiderable bulk of record material. The same is unfortunately true of M. E-R. Labande's critical essay ‘Pour une image véridique d’Aliénor d’Aquitaine’ in Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de l’Ouest (1952), 4^e série, ii. 175-234.

2. Delisle, Actes de Henri II, i. 30-1; cf. ibid. Introduction, p. 123.

3. Ibid. i. 32; ibid. Introduction, pp. 127-8, n.; Cal. Documents in France, no. 1061.

4. Epistolae Gilberti Foliot (ed. Giles), i. 201-2, no. 151. As printed the text reads ‘regis’, but there can be no doubt that this is a mistake for ‘regine’.

5. Actes de Henri II, Introduction, pp. 404-5; Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, i. 125.

6. Actes de Henri II, i. 50, 77.

7. He witnesses a charter of Geoffrey's of 1 July 1133 as ‘Matheus, magister sororum mearum, qui hoc cirographum scripsit’ (Chartrou, L’Anjou de 1109 à 1151, pp. 377-9). Gervase of Canterbury places under the year 1142 Matthew's appointment as tutor to Henry and says that it lasted for four years.

8. The status of the church of Llangarron is a little obscure. It appears as ‘ecclesia de Langara’ or ‘Langare’ in lists of churches belonging to Monmouth priory, which have been dated 1148-63 and c. 1160 (Marchegay, Chartes anciennes du Prieuré de Monmouth, pp. 31, 34) or c. 1140-50 (Cal. Documents in France, nos. 1145, 1148). In the Taxatio Ecclesiastica P. Nicholai (p. 160b) it is returned as a rectory. Later it is regarded as a dependent chapelry of Lugwardine, and as such passed to the dean and chapter of Hereford by grant of Joan de Bohun (Registrum Thome de Charlton, p. 16).

9. Sarum Charters, pp. 29-30, no. 35.

10. Ibid. p. 17, no. 19. The connection of this document with no. 35 is evident, but it is misdated by the editor, c. 1145-50.

11. Actes de Henri II, Introduction, p. 405. Delisle unfortunately confused two different Matthews. The reference he gives, Gallia Christiana, xiv. 570, is to Matthew of Loudon, abbot of Saint Florent of Saumur, elected bishop of Angers in 1156 and dead in 1162, probably at the beginning of March (Boussard, Le Comté d’Anjou sous Henri Plantagenet et ses fils, pp. 97-8). An account of Matthew, the dean of Angers, will be found in Gallia Christiana, xiv. 592. He may have been in office as early as 1161: his successor, Stephen, appears in 1177. Mlle. Chartrou has likewise confused the two Matthews, though they appear in the same charter (op. cit. pp. 220, 378).

12. Marchegay and Salmon, Chroniques des comtes d’Anjou, p. 231: De virtute et actibus principis Andegavorum et ducis Normannorum Gaufredi, Matheus Andegavensis decanus nos docuit … qui circa eum quotidie nova, quotidie admirantes meliora, frequentiam virtutum pro miraculo iam non haberent quae in aliis personis pro miraculo celebrarent.

13. There is no trace of such a writ in any pipe roll after Michaelmas 1163. Delisle has sumarized the evidence in Actes de Henri II, Introduction, pp. 171-4.

14. It may be well to give an example, from Brit. Mus. Harleian MS. 1708, fo. 113b: the date is 1154-1157.

    Alienora regina Anglie etc. Iohanni filio Radulfi vicecomiti Londonie salutem. Conquesti sunt michi monachi de Rading’ quod dissaisiti sunt iniuste de quibusdam terris apud Londoniam, quas illis dedit Ricardus filius B. quando monachus deuenit, de tenuris scilicet abbatis de Westmonasterio et abbatis sancti Augustini de Cantuaria. Precipio itaque ut sine dilacione perquiras, si ita est et si hoc verum esse comperis, omni mora postposita, monachos resaisiri facias, ne amplius inde aliquem clamorem audiam pro penuria recti et iusticie. Et nullatenus volumus pari ut aliquid iniuste amitant quod ad eos pertinet. Valete.

15. Pipe Rolls, 2, 3 and 4 Henry II, p. 60; Eyton Itinerary of Henry II, pp. 42-3; Cal. Charter Rolls, v. 61.

16. Registrum Malmesburiense, p. 335.

17. P.R.O., D.L. 42/149, fo. 101b.

18. Eyton, op. cit. pp. 42-3.

19. Pipe Rolls, 2, 3 and 4 Henry II, p. 175; Eyton, op. cit. pp. 42-3; Hist. Mon. Abingdon, ii. 225; Stenton, Danelaw Charters, pp. 360-1; St. Benet of Holme (Norfolk Rec. Soc.), p. 20; P.R.O., D.L. 10/39.

20. Hist. MSS. Comm., Manuscripts of Duke of Rutland, iv. 126.

21. Eyton, op. cit. pp. 42-3.

22. Ibid.

23. Early Charters of St. Paul's (Camden Ser.), p. 34; Memoranda Roll, 1 John (Pipe Roll Soc.) p. lxviii. The copyist of a writ, with the attestation clause ‘Teste Cancellario aput Oxenefordiam’, may have omitted the initial M. before cancellario: otherwise the witness would be Thomas Becket, which is unlikely (Cart. Mon. S. Iohannis Baptiste in Colecestria, i. 54).

24. Memoranda Roll, 1 John, pp. lxviii-lxxxi.

25. Delisle, Actes de Henri II, i. 114 (no. 20), 117-18 (no. 24).

26. Ibid. iii. 163.

27. Cart. Mon. S. Iohannis Baptiste in Colecestria, i. 38: for its date cf. Henry II's charter, ibid. pp. 14-17.

28. A. L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 333.

29. She was at Falaise in the summer of 1170 (Materials for History of Thomas Becket, iii. 103-4), at Chinon at Christmas 1172 (Gesta Henrici, p. 35; R. de Torigny, p. 255), while an entry in Pipe Roll, 19 Henry II, p. 184, strongly suggests that she had previously (in 1172) paid a visit to England, where she was in the company of the young king and his queen.

30. Delisle, Actes de Henri II, Introduction, pp. 411-12.

31. Ibid. p. 436. This charter is dated at Saint-Jean d’Angely: it must be before March 1173, when Eleanor was taken captive.

32. Pipe Roll, 33 Henry II, p. 39.

33. She was in strict confinement when the archdeacon of Wells announced to her the death of the young king (‘De morte … Henrici regis iunioris’ in R. de. Coggeshall Chronicon, pp. 272-3). It had been the dying king's wish that his father should treat her more leniently (‘Chronica Gaufredi Prioris Vosiensis’ in P. Labbe, Nova Bibliotheca (1657), ii. 339), and later in 1183 the elder king gave orders that she was to be free to visit her dower lands (Gesta Henrica, i. 305), though the chronicler attributes an unworthy motive to Henry. She attended a council at Westminster in November 1184, and was present at Windsor the following Christmas (ibid. pp. 319, 333). The pipe rolls give some indication of her treatment. An entry in 1184 shows her at Berkhampstead, one of her manors (Pipe Roll, 30 Henry II, p. 134). The payment of, her expenses to her clerk, Jordan, in 1186-87 suggests that she had recovered control of her household (Pipe Roll, 33 Henry II, p. 39). Rather curiously, the wool from two of her manors in Berkshire was appropriated to the king's use until 1188 (Pipe Roll, 34 Henry II, p. 143, and previous rolls). Presumably the right to receive queen's gold was restored to her with her dower lands (see Appendix I).

34. Gesta Henrici, i. 337; Pipe Roll, 31 Henry II, p. 215.

35. Gesta Henrici, i. 338.

36. Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, xix. 330-1; Cal. Documents in France, no. 1080; Delisle, Actes de Henri II, Introduction, p. 353.

37. A. Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii. 233-4.

38. The fact that none seems to have come to light does not, of course, argue that no others were issued. The charters of Fontevrault have been singularly well preserved.

39. Richard, op. cit. ii. 236.

40. Delisle, Actes de Henri II, ii. 270-1; Cal. Documents in France, no. 1082.

41. Cal. Documents in France, no. 1081. Richard, as count of Poitou, had, with the assent of his father and mother, granted 1000 sous poitevins to Fontevrault, charged, like the later grant, on the prévoté of Poitiers (ibid. no. 1085). It seems clear that the later grant was an enlargement of this.

42. Gesta Henrici, i. 345.

43. This is implied by the references to provision made for her in Pipe Roll, 33 Henry II, pp. 39, 40, 194 and Pipe Roll, 1 Richard I, pp. 197, 223.

44. No writs in her name are recorded on the pipe rolls.

45. Gesti Ricardi, ii. 74.

46. Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, ll. 9503-9.

47. K. Norgate, England under Angevin Kings, ii. 272; Ramsay, The Angevin Empire, p. 265. The ultimate source is Diceto (Opera, ii. 67), whose language is in accord with other authorities.

48. Pipe Roll, 1 Richard I, pp. 163, 180.

49. Cf. ibid. p. 197.

50. Gesta, iii. 74; Howden, ii. 4.

51. Harleian MS. 391, fo. 51b; Landon, Itinerary of Richard I, no. 98.

52. Gesta Ricardi, p. 98; Howden, iii. 24.

53. Jeayes, Charters at Berkeley Castle, p. 18. For Geoffrey's office see Rotuli Chartarum, p. 25.

54. Thame Cartulary (ed. Salter) no. 191.

55. Landon, Itinerary, no. 268.

56. Cal. Documents in France, no. 1087.

57. Landon, op. cit. p. 45.

58. Ibid. p. 227.

59. Gesta, ii. 161, 235; Howden, iii. 100, 179.

60. Gesta, ii. 236; Richard of Devizes (ed. Howlett), p. 430.

61. In this conclusion I follow Ramsay, Angevin Empire, p. 316.

62. Gervase of Canterbury, Opera, i. 515: ex mandato reginae Alienor, quae tunc temporis regebat Angliam.

63. Rotuli Curiae Regis, i. 77.

64. Epistolae Cantuarienses, pp. 362-5; Howden, iii. 208-10.

65. Epistolae Cantuarienses, p. 358.

66. Epistolae (ed. Giles), nos. 144-6; Foedera, i. 56-9.

67. Litterae Cantuarienses, iii. 379-80.

68. Gervase of Canterbury, Opera, i. 514-15.

69. Landon, Itinerary, pp. 82, 86, 89, 91.

70. Appendix I.

71. Harleian MS. 391, fo. 50b-51b.

72. Brit. Mus., Add. MS. 14847, fo. 40: a corrupt text is printed in Monasticon, iii. 154.

73. Cal. Documents in France, no. 1093.

74. Ibid. no. 1090.

75. Landon, Itinerary of Richard I, p. 80.

76. Howden, iii. 241.

77. Cartae Antiquae (Pipe Roll Soc.), i. 96. The charter is in favour of Adam. The steward, Henry of Berneval, and the butler, Ingelram, are witnesses. It is indicative of Eleanor's status that at Richard's second coronation her position was exactly that of Stephen's queen at his second coronation (Howden, iii. 248; Gervase of Canterbury, i. 527).

78. Pipe Roll, 10 John, p. 15. Henry of Cornhill died after Michaelmas 1193 and before Richard I's return to England on 13 March 1194 (Pipe Roll, 6 Richard I, p. 179).

79. Howden, iii. 251-2, who, however, puts the reconciliation later than the Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, ll. 10352-10428, and R. de Diceto, Opera, ii. 114. The inconsistencies between these chroniclers do not inspire confidence in any of them.

80. Delisle, Actes de Henri II, Introduction, p. 101; Memoranda Roll, I John.... lxii.

81. Pipe Roll, 9 Richard I, p. 98.

82. Just as she had been approached by the monks of Reading to intervene on their behalf, so she was approached by the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, in 1198, to intervene in their dispute with the archbishop (Epistolae Cantuarienses, pp. 437-8).

83. Cal. Documents in France, no. 1092.

84. Ibid. no. 1094.

85. Rigord (ed. Delaborde), i. 146; Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii. 353, n.

86. Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 30b, 31.

87. Appendix II.

88. Cal. Documents France, no. 1248 (4 July); ibid. p. 387, n.; Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, no. 508 (Cal. Documents France, no. 1307).

89. Cal. Documents France, no. 1248.

90. Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, no. 495; Cal. Documents France, no. 1304.

91. Bibliothèque de l’École de Chartes, xix. 340-1.

92. Ibid. pp. 339-40; Cal. Documents France, no. 1100. Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii. 338, dates this 4 May, citing Marchegay, Notices et pièces historiques, p. 257.

93. P.R.O. C. 52 (Cartae Antiquae Roll) 33, no. 22.

94. Foedera, i. 75; Joly, Offices de France, ii. 1833; Giry, Eatablissements de Rouen, ii. 143-146; Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, no. 507; Cal. Documents France, no. 1096.

95. Gallia Christiana, ii. Instrumenta, 389-90.

96. Cal. Documents France, no. 1101.

97. Ibid. no. 1107: for date cf. Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 71b-72.

98. Cal. Documents France, no. 1108.

99. Thibaudeau, Histoire de Poitou, ii. 419.

100. Gallia Christiana, ii. Instrumenta, 285.

101. Her household, which was drawn from both sides of the Channel, should be well worth studying. Many particulars are accessible in print (notably in the Rotuli Chartarum and the Calendar of Documents preserved in France); but occasional details can be gleaned from manuscript sources. Eleanor's ewerer, Philip fitz Vital, for example, is the subject of a tragic story: he had fallen in love with a married woman and was falsely accused by her son of felony and hanged, perhaps during the queen's captivity (Harleian MS. 391, fo. 69). Eleanor's butler Ingelram, again, was a benefactor of Dunstable Priory: there are charters of his, as well as a charter of Eleanor's, in the cartulary (Harleian MS. 1885), of which a digest was published by G. H. Fowler in Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, Publications, vol. x (pp. 61-63).

102. V. H. Galbraith in Antiquaries Journal, xiii, 275-6.

103. Dialogus de Scaccario (ed. Johnson), pp. 122-3.

104. Ibid. pp. xx-xxi.

105. Beginning ‘Ad hec nouerint hii’ (p. 122) and ending ‘regine debetur’ (p. 123).

106. Palgrave, Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth (1921), ii. 117.

107. Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 123.

108. Pipe Roll, 10 John, p. 15.

109. For this date see John's constitution in Foedera, i. 75-6.

110. The documents recording the successive compositions agreed with Berengaria to meet her claims for dower do not indicate the lands or rents with which she was endowed (ibid. i. 84, 137-8), but they could not have included anything of which Eleanor was in enjoyment. It would appear from the instrument of 5 May 1204, mentioned below, that Eleanor surrendered no part of her dower on Richard's death. This consideration apart, it cannot be supposed, in view of John's grudging attitude towards Berengaria, that he would make her a present of queen's gold.

111. Rotuli de Oblatis, pp. 1-31, 76-99. For the date of the last entries see Memoranda Roll, 1 John, p. xcvi: I withdraw the suggestion I made there that the reason for the cessation of the annotations was that queen's gold had passed from the king to Queen Isabelle.

112. Gesta, ii. 99; Howden, iii. 27. That nothing should be lost to Eleanor, it was provided that she should have all that Henry I had assigned to Queen Maud or that Stephen had assigned to his queen. It does not appear that, as a result, Eleanor gained anything, nor is there any evidence that these earlier queens were entitled to queen's gold.

113. Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 128, 213-4.

114. Text from Harleian MS. 391, fo. 51b-52 (transcript, early thirteenth century) collated with Tiberius C. IX, fo. 62b-63 (later transcript, without witnesses).

115. 25 December 1192.

116. Cal. Documents France, no. 1301: for Richard's reign see Landon, Itinerary of Richard I, pp. 100-44.

117. Cal. Documents France, nos. 1030, 1305.

118. Ibid. nos. 1097, 1100.

119. Charters of 30 July and 24 August 1199 in Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 10b, 12.

120. Ibid. pp. 23b, 25b, 30b.

121. Cal. Documents France, no. 1101. This charter was misdated by A. Richard (Comtes de Poitou, ii. 371) under the mistaken belief that Geoffrey de la Celle was not seneschal of Poitou before 22 February 1200.

122. Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 34, 59b, 60 &c.

123. Ibid. p. 72.

124. He had been seneschal early in Richard's reign but had been superseded in 1196-7 by Geoffrey de la Celle (Landon, op. cit. pp. 25, 32, 114, 115, 124). Precise details are not available.

125. Cal. Documents France, p. 389, n.

126. Ordonnances des Rois de France, xi. 319-20; Gallia Christiana, ii. 389-90; Giry, Etablissements de Rouen, ii. 143-6; Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, i. no. 507; Cal. Documents France, no. 1096.

127. Rotuli Chartarum, p. 138.

128. Cal. Documents France, no. 1101.

129. Rotuli Chartarum, p. 58. The attribution of a writ, in Foedera, i. 76, to 30 June 1199, instead of 30 January 1200 (Rotuli Chartarum, p. 58b), has misled A. Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii. 349.

130. Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 34, 35, 58-9.

131. Ibid. pp. 34b, 35a.

132. Ibid. p. 59b.

133. Richard, op. cit. ii. 389-90, citing Brutails, Cartulaire de Saint-Seurin, p. 345.

134. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, pp. 1, 2.

135. Ibid. p. 44b (8 August 1204).

136. Cal. Documents France, no. 1101.

137. Rotuli Chartarum, p. 30.

138. Rotuli Chartarum, p. 102b.

139. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, p. 2. The offices were still combined on 7 June 1202 (Rotuli Normanniae, p. 48).

140. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, p. 21.

141. Ibid. pp. 28b, 53b.

142. La Monarchie féodale en France et en Angleterre, pp. 189-190.