A royal deputation, headed by William de Mandeville, Saher de Quincy and Richard de Hommet, the constable of Normandy, made ready to cross to England, confront Thomas, and probably to arrest him. But stung by the king’s reproach and eager to avenge him, a sworn group of four knights – Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy and Roger le Bret – had already secretly left the court and taken ship for England, with the intention of seizing Becket themselves.98 Earl William and Saher, who were to cross to Southampton and first visit the Young King in Winchester, were detained by contrary winds at Barfleur, although Richard made the crossing safely. On reaching Winchester, he ordered Hugh de Gundeville and William FitzJohn to send a force of household knights to Canterbury to arrest the archbishop.99 Significantly, William FitzStephen notes that Richard instructed them not to inform the Young King, which suggests that young Henry might well oppose such forceful measures against Thomas.100
The four knights, however, had already reached Canterbury.101 Making the long ride from Bur-le-Roi to Wissant, the shortest and most direct crossing, they had landed at Dover on 28 December, and were welcomed at Saltwood castle by Ranulf de Broc. The next day, they headed for Canterbury with a contingent of knights provided and led by de Broc, who had helped them formulate a plan of operations and who was in many ways the chief author of the events which now unfolded. Finding Thomas in an inner chamber of the archiepiscopal palace, the four knights presented the king’s grievances against him, and according to Benedict of Peterborough, Reginald FitzUrse, who acted as their spokesman, demanded in Henry II’s name that Becket go to Winchester and give satisfaction to the Young King. Thomas responded that he was anxious to see young Henry, his new lord, but would not go if this meant standing trial, for he was guilty of no crime.102 After an increasingly heated exchange, the knights declared Thomas to be under arrest, then left the hall to summon their retinue and to arm themselves. Becket’s servants, however, barred the doors, and, as de Broc’s men tried to break into the palace, Thomas was hurried by his clerks into what was hoped would be the safety of the cathedral. As night was falling, the four knights caught up with him in the north transept. Their intention had only been to arrest him, but in the scuffle that followed Becket fiercely resisted their attempts to remove him. Stinging insults were exchanged, and as mounting panic fuelled their exasperation, the knights finally struck him down.103
Reaction to the Murder of Becket
The Young King’s ministers would have been among the first to learn the shocking news of Becket’s murder on 29 December 1170, and word was at once sent to Henry II in Normandy.104 According to William FitzStephen, young Henry grieved bitterly, but also expressed thanks to God that the knights’ intentions had been kept secret from him, and that none of his own men had been involved: it was at least some small solace to him that the murder had taken place before Hugh de Gundeville and William FitzJohn had reached Canterbury.105 It is very probable that young Henry was genuinely saddened by his old guardian’s death, and his subsequent actions reveal what may have been a mounting sense of guilt for the part he had played, albeit unwittingly, in the archbishop’s demise. By the time of the Young King’s rebellion in the summer of 1173, he and his supporters were making effective capital out of Becket’s martyrdom. Yet there is little to support the assertion that in the immediate aftermath of the murder he held his father responsible for Becket’s death or that this was a fundamental cause of the rift between father and son.106 Like that of Henry II, the Young King’s reaction to Becket’s killing may have shifted over time.107 Initially at least, he may have concurred in the sentiments expressed in Henry II’s letter to Pope Alexander, in which he accused Becket of breaking the terms of the peace of Fréteval, of deliberately bringing not peace but strife on his return to England, and, in so doing, of challenging Henry’s kingdom and his crown.108 By excommunicating the king’s men, Thomas had been deliberately provocative, and ‘not willing to accept such impudence, the excommunicates and others from England fell upon him and (I say it with grief) killed him’.109 While Robert of Torigni had devoted considerable space in his chronicle to Henry II’s devotion and almsgiving during his pilgrimage to Rocamadour in September 1170, he merely noted Becket’s murder with a bland quatrain, closely followed by the report of the murder of Hamo, bishop of Léhon in Brittany, by his nephew: though highly regrettable, there was nothing special about Thomas’ death.110
Such a stance, however, rapidly became untenable as the international outcry grew ever louder. Among Henry II’s most vociferous critics were King Louis VII, Theobald of Blois and his brother William, archbishop of Sens, all of whom wrote to the pope demanding heavy penalties, while Sens himself laid Normandy, Anjou, Poitou and Brittany under an interdict, despite the appeal of Rotrou of Rouen and his colleagues.111 Fearing his own excommunication and an interdict on England, Henry II dispatched a major delegation headed by Roger of Worcester, Giles of Evreux and Richard Barre, the Young King’s chancellor, to the Curia to state the king’s case and extricate him from the rising tide of contumely and blame.112 The mission, which arrived in early March, received a hostile response, and eventually succeeded only in averting an interdict on Henry himself and his kingdom by conceding that although Henry had not ordered or wished for the archbishop’s death, he was in no small measure responsible, and the ambassadors bound the king by oath to accept the pope’s judgement on the matter.113 Alexander III had been outraged by Becket’s murder and authorized a papal commission to investigate Henry’s role in the martyr’s death and ‘to observe his humility’ before the pope would absolve him.114 Around Easter 1171, the Young King’s wife Margaret, who had still not been crowned as queen, crossed with her household from England to Normandy, and received 20 marks, as well as horses, sumpters and clothing for her retainers.115 No source states the reason, but it may well have been in order to visit her father Louis and to convey assurances that both royal father and son were guiltless in Becket’s murder.
A Perilous Absence: Henry II’s Expedition to Ireland
Before the impending papal legation could arrive, Henry II had determined to undertake an expedition to Ireland, moved more, it has been argued, by political necessity than by his desire to delay making satisfaction to the Church.116 Though he had contemplated the subjugation of Ireland as early as 1155, the scheme had long been postponed, and in 1169 the king had given permission for English marcher lords from south Wales to assist the exiled king of Leinster, Dermot McMurrough, to recover his lands. By 1170, these adventurers had taken the city of Dublin and the coastal towns of Wexford and Waterford, while in May 1171 Richard de Clare, who was married to Dermot’s daughter, Eva, had inherited Leinster on Dermot’s death. Their rapid success had alarmed Henry, and fearing lest they should carve out autonomous principalities beyond his dominions, he now determined to assert his authority directly over these English lords as well as over the native Irish rulers.117 In their social habits and ecclesiastical traditions, the Irish were deemed backward and unorthodox by the standards of twelfth-century Europe. By using his overlordship to effect major reforms in the Irish Church, Henry might demonstrate his good faith and concern for the universal Church and thereby offset some of the mounting opprobrium for Thomas’ death.
After holding a great council at Argentan in July 1171 to discuss plans for the campaign, Henry left for England on 3 August.118 By early September, Henry’s great army had set out for Pembrokeshire; sailing from Milford Haven, the king arrived at the head of a great fleet of 400 ships near Waterford on 18 October 1171.119 A number of the Young King’s leading tutores had accompanied Henry II to Ireland, notably Hugh de Gundeville and William FitzAldelin, who was to play a key role as a royal representative in Irish affairs from the outset of Henry’s expedition.120 Shortly before leaving the duchy, Henry II had summoned the Young King to join him in Normandy: the Old King judged it expedient for there to a be a continuing royal Angevin presence in his continental lands, not least at a time when he ha
d recently asserted control over Brittany and when international outrage at Becket’s death had significantly increased the possibility of open hostilities by Louis VII.121
In Ireland, Henry II’s expedition met with considerable success. He took the homage of the English lords, who surrendered the major towns and received their lands back as fiefs, while he also accepted the submission of the great majority of the Irish princes.122 Letters were dispatched to the Young King in England, informing him of the king’s safe crossing and reception, and it is probable that such newsletters advertising Henry II’s achievements were circulated beyond the court.123 In early November, an ecclesiastical council at Cashel proceeded to promulgate a series of measures aimed at the radical reform of the Irish Church, and recognized the overlordship of Henry II.124 These decrees were swiftly sent to the papacy, with a request for papal confirmation of the possession of Ireland by Henry and his heirs.125 But as late autumn turned to winter, the weather grew increasingly severe. Gales and rough seas made communications all but impossible, and Henry II was effectively cut off from his son, from England, and from his continental domains.126
Like Henry II’s severe illness in 1170, these circumstances again highlighted the practical wisdom of the Young King’s associative kingship as a guarantor of stability and security. With the effective governance of the kingdom remaining in the hands of the justiciar, Richard de Lucy,127 young Henry’s presence in the Norman duchy may have been an important factor in deterring French attack. As his title proclaimed, he was not only king of the English, but also duke of the Normans and count of the Angevins, and thus equally able to exercise authority in the Angevin continental lands.128 A number of charters show him engaged in the administration of Normandy, assisted by his father’s trusted ministers, including the two archdeacons. A confirmation by the Young King of a gift in favour of Montebourg abbey, issued at Bur-le-Roi during one of his stays in Normandy between 1171 and 1172, was witnessed by William de St John, Geoffrey Ridel, Richard of Ilchester and Reginald of Salisbury, as well as Hugh de Cressy, Richard de Camville, Reginald de Courtnay, William de Lanvalei and John, dean of Salisbury.129 Likewise, in the record of a gift made by William d’Abouville to the abbey of St Stephen at Caen ‘in the presence of the lord king Henry the younger’, we again glimpse him at an important gathering of nobles and clergy, including William de St John and William de Courcy, the king’s justices, and bishops Arnulf of Lisieux, Froger of Sées, Jocelin of Salisbury and many others.130
Not all of young Henry’s time, however, was devoted to affairs of state. The History of William Marshal speaks only in vague terms about the period from the Marshal’s entry into the Young King’s household in 1170 until the crisis of 1173, but stresses how as a result of the Marshal’s careful tutelage, young Henry’s chivalric propensities flourished: ‘He did much for him, and brought him on so, that as a result of what he had learned, the Young King’s reputation increased, along with his eminence and the honour paid to him; he also acquired the quality of valour’. For the History claims it was at this time that he began to participate in the tournament circuit of northern France, and to engage in a life of knight-errantry:
At that time, there was no war, so the Marshal took him through many a region, as a man who knew well how to steer him in the direction of places where tournaments were to be held. The Young King knew about the use of arms, as much as any young nobleman could be expected to know. The life of combat pleased him well, which was very pleasing for his tutor. He travelled far and wide, he spent lavishly, for he was aiming at those heights which a king, and a son of a king, should rise to, if he wishes to attain high eminence.131
In reality, given his role as regent in Henry II’s absence, it would have been impossible for young Henry to have undertaken any kind of itinerant knightly adventuring in 1171–72. Here the History seems merely to be reverting, perhaps from a dearth of information, to a topos familiar from the Arthurian romances, and suspiciously gives no details of time or place. Nevertheless, during his residences in the duchy during this period, it would have been easy enough for the Young King to have attended one of the great tournaments already being held with increasing regularity in the borderlands of Normandy and France.132 He was now of an age to undertake such martial sports: his near contemporary, Arnold lord of Ardres, participated in bohorts – a form of hastilude – ‘and tournaments all over’ before he entered the court of Philip of Flanders and was knighted by him.133
Young Henry and Margaret also spent time in southern England, based in Winchester, where Ailward his chamberlain is found purchasing robes for the king at the city’s fairs.134 Margaret was provided with the furnishings necessary for her own chapel: a pyx, two liturgical ewers, candlesticks, lamps and a thurible, all of silver, as well as an altar covering. That she shared her husband’s itinerant lifestyle is reflected in the provision of a sumpter horse and chest for these, as well as a palfrey for her chaplain, William, while expensive ‘robes for riding’ were bought for Margaret herself.135
It was in Normandy, however, that Henry II’s extended absence in Ireland gave the Young King the opportunity to make his own mark. At Christmas 1171, while his father was lavishly feasting the Irish kings at Dublin, young Henry had held his own court at Bur-le-Roi, a favoured royal residence near Bayeux. As Robert of Torigni noted, ‘because he was holding his first court in Normandy, he wanted to have the festival celebrated in magnificent fashion. Bishops, abbots, counts and barons were there, and many gifts were given to many men.’136 The kind of splendid feasting enjoyed on such great occasions is captured by Lambert of Ardres’ description of a banquet in the hall of the castle at Ardres in 1178:
[D]ishes innumerable to the point of extravagance were liberally set down and joyfully accepted and one wine after another – Cyprian, Megarian, spiced wine and claret – flowed into goblets … The servers and waiters, who were instructed and trained by the butlers … poured the precious wine of Auxerre into glasses and small vessels from flagons.137
Such a throng of nobles, leading clergy and their retinues had assembled at Bur-le-Roi that the palace was overflowing. As a humorous solution to this overcrowding, two of the leading royal officials, William de St John and William FitzHamon, the seneschal of Brittany, forbade any knight whose name was not William from dining in the chamber they were in. Even so, as Torigni notes, ‘when they put the others out of the room, there remained a hundred and ten knights who were all named William, in addition to many others of the same name who ate in the hall (in aula) with the king’.138 The joke about the great number of Williams may also have been an allusion to the rising popularity of William Marshal as the most prominent of the Young King’s household knights, or a compliment to William FitzHamon, Henry II’s main agent guiding young Geoffrey in Brittany.139 The presence of Geoffrey himself was also a reminder of a recent Plantagenet triumph. Conan, duke of Brittany, had died earlier that year and Henry II had taken effective control of the duchy, which was to come to Geoffrey on his marriage to Conan’s daughter Constance.140 Young Henry seems to have been on consistently good relations with Geoffrey, and for the moment both could enjoy their position, temporarily free from their father’s overbearing presence. Beyond the feasting and pleasantries, this Christmas court was an opportunity for young Henry to mix with the assembled nobility of Normandy and further afield, who readily saw in the open-handed and affable young man a very different figure from his father.
There were, however, more sinister matters afoot. The well-informed Ralph of Diss noted that it was while Henry II was in Ireland that at Eleanor’s instigation, ‘as it is said’, her uncle Ralph of Faye and Hugh of St Maure, a prominent lord in the Touraine, began to incite the Young King against his father.141 Gerald of Wales likewise believed that ‘the conspiracy of nobles against their prince, and of the sons against their father’, occurred between Henry’s departure for Ireland and the arrival of the papal legates in Normandy in early 1172.142 There was a rising groundswell of disco
ntent among many of the Norman magnates. In the spring of 1171, Henry II had ordered a major investigation into the extent of royal lands and rights as they stood at Henry I’s death in 1135, as well as what lands, woods and other demesne had since been occupied by his barons or knights. Amercements and confiscations soon followed, which, Torigni believed, had doubled the king’s revenue from the duchy.143 Henry II’s heavy-handed policies there had alienated more Norman lords than he appears to have realized, and there can be little doubt that at young Henry’s Christmas court there had been whispers of a major rebellion in the name of the new king.
Henry the Young King, 1155-1183 Page 18
