Dutton, Kathryn Ann (2011) Geoffrey, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy, 1129-51. PhD thesis ...

394 Pages·2011·2.32 MB·English

by  Kathryn Dutton

Dutton, Kathryn Ann (2011) Geoffrey, Count of Anjou and Duke of
Normandy, 1129-51. PhD thesis.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3052/

Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author

A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or
study, without prior permission or charge

This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the Author

The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author

When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the
author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given

Glasgow Theses Service
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/
[email protected]
GEOFFREY, COUNT OF ANJOU AND DUKE OF NORMANDY, 1129-51
Kathryn Ann Dutton
MA (Hons.), MA
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of PhD (History)
History (Medieval Area)
School of Humanities
College of Arts
University of Glasgow
August 2011
GEOFFREY, COUNT OF ANJOU AND DUKE OF NORMANDY, 1129-51
KATHRYN DUTTON

APPENDICES
CONTENTS AND NOTE ON TEXT
APPENDIX I Comital and ducal acta, 1129-51
APPENDIX II The Bayeux Inquests
APPENDIX III The conflict with Bishop Ulger of Angers
APPENDIX IV Post-9th September 1151 references to lost acta
APPENDIX V Letters, 1129-51
APPENDIX VI Acta, 1129-51, petitioned for or witnessed by Geoffrey
NOTE ON TEXT
This calendar of texts is arranged alphabetically, by beneficiary, and details of
their geographical and diocesan locations supplied. References to Chartrou’s
catalogue of acta are provided in smaller numbers adjacent to the main number
where necessary.
Manuscripts have been lettered and ordered according to their date. ‘A’ has
been used only where the existence of an original manuscript is attested, either
by its survival or by reliable references to lost texts.
Details of dating and witnesses have been provided in full, with the exception of
the acts catalogued in Appendix IV (later confirmations of lost acts) as all of
these texts are printed in full and discussed elsewhere, and the witnesses and
dates of issue are all posterior to Geoffrey’s reign. The only exception is
Appendix IV, no.14, which reproduces the witnesses and sureties to Geoffrey’s
original charter in favour of the men of Rouen in 1144.
Transcriptions have been provided where possible and where no published
edition exists. Abbreviations have been silently expanded; where doubt exists
over transcription, triangular brackets have been used. Square brackets denote
more precise identification of individuals suggested by the author.
Occupational names and titles have been left in the original Latin, with the
exception of common titles such as bishop, abbot, count and duke. Toponymics
have, where possible, been translated into their modern French equivalents.
Where doubt exists, the original Latin has been included.
Geoffrey’s titles (count, duke) have been provided for each text in the order in
which they appear.
Every effort has been made to supply complete lists of the manuscripts in which
these texts appear, but there are without doubt some omissions and errors
which will need to be rectified through future archival work. Where possible
these have been noted.
Abstract
Count Geoffrey V of Anjou (1129-51) features in Anglo-French historiography as a
peripheral figure in the Anglo-Norman succession crisis which followed the death of his
father-in-law, Henry I of England and Normandy (1100-35). The few studies which
examine him directly do so primarily in this context, dealing briefly with his conquest
and short reign as duke of Normandy (1144-50), with reference to a limited range of
evidence, primarily Anglo-Norman chronicles. There has never been a comprehensive
analysis of Geoffrey’s comital reign, nor a narrative of his entire career, despite an
awareness of his importance as a powerful territorial prince and important political
player.
This thesis establishes a complete narrative framework for Geoffrey’s life and career,
and examines the key aspects of his comital and ducal reigns. It compiles and employs
a body of 180 acta relating to his Angevin and Norman administrations to do so,
alongside narrative evidence from Greater Anjou, Normandy, England and elsewhere.
It argues that rule of Greater Anjou prior to 1150 had more in common with
neighbouring principalities such as Brittany, whose rulers had emerged in the tenth and
eleventh centuries as primus inter pares, than with Normandy, where ducal powers over
the native aristocracy were more wide-ranging, or royal government in England. It
explores the count’s territories, the personnel of government, the dispensation of justice,
revenue collection, the comital army, and Geoffrey’s ability to carry out ‘traditional’
princely duties such as religious patronage in the context of Angevin elite landed
society’s virtual autonomy and tendency to rebel in the first half of the twelfth century.
The character of Geoffrey’s power and authority was fundamentally shaped by the
region’s tenurial and seigneurial history, and could only be conducted within that
framework. This study also addresses Geoffrey’s activities as first conqueror then ruler
of Normandy. The process by which the duchy was conquered is shown to be more
intricate than the chroniclers’ accounts of Angevin siege warfare suggest, and the ducal
reign more complex than merely a regency until Geoffrey’s son, the future Henry II
(1150-89), came of age.
Through use of a much wider body of evidence than previously considered in
connection with Geoffrey’s career, and a charter-based methodology, this thesis
provides a new and appropriate treatment of an important non-royal ruler. It situates
Geoffrey in his proper context and provides an account of not only how he was
presented by commentators who were sometimes geographically and temporally remote,
but by his own administration and those over whom he ruled. It provides an in-depth
analysis of the explicit and implicit characteristics of princely rulership, and how they
were won, maintained and exploited in two different contexts.
i
Contents
Abstract i
Accompanying material iv
Acknowledgements v
Abbreviations vii
Note on texts, translations and names x
Introduction Evidence, traditions and contexts 1
Historians and historiography 5
Evidence 9
From Anjou to Greater Anjou: the rise of the comital 18
dynasty
Chapter 1 The narrative of two reigns 27
1120-29: formative years 27
1129-35: count of the Angevins 30
1135: a new challenge 38
1135-44: the fight for Normandy 40
1144-50: duke of the Normans 58
1150-1: cession, conflict and an untimely death 61
Chapter 2 Authority, aristocracy and administration in Greater
Anjou 67
Demesne, baronial estates, fortifications and urban centres 68
Military prerogatives 78
Judicial prerogatives and practices 88
ii
Chapter 3 Family, friends and followers in Greater Anjou 96
Family 98
Local administration and officials 111
Familiar men: household and retinue 116
Chapter 4 Geoffrey and the Church in Greater Anjou 137
The Greater Angevin episcopate 137
Monastic patronage 156
Saint-Laud of Angers 168
Chapter 5 The conquest of Normandy 177
1135-41: defection, unrest and the Angevin foothold 179
1141-4: consolidation and de facto rule 197
1144: the fall of Rouen and Geoffrey, duke of the Normans 206
Chapter 6 The ducal reign 211
Heir to Henry I: confirmations and restitutions 215
The Bayeux Inquests 220
Patronage and prerogatives 229
Cross-Channel activities 233
Succession and cession 240
Conclusion 245
Bibliography 251
Maps Greater Anjou 275
Normandy 276
iii
Accompanying material
The accompanying CD-Rom contains six appendices of calendared acta, referred to in
the text, as follows:
Appendix I Comital and ducal acta, 1129-51
Appendix II The Bayeux Inquests
Appendix III The conflict with Bishop Ulger of Angers
Appendix IV Lost comital and ducal acta referred to after 9th September 1151
Appendix V Letters to and from Geoffrey, 1129-51
Appendix VI Acta petitioned for or witnessed by Geoffrey, 1129-51
iv
Acknowledgements
I have incurred many debts during the course of writing this thesis, a process which was
first suggested by my supervisors, Dr Stephen Marritt and Prof. Matthew Strickland,
while I was studying at University College London in 2005 and finally completed while
working at the University of Liverpool in 2011. I thank them for their support, advice
and insight, as well as their patience and friendship. Generous funding from the
Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland made my research possible.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my examiners, Prof. Daniel Power
and Prof. Dauvit Broun, not only for their insightful comments and criticisms, but also –
along with the chair, Dr Andrew Roach – for making the viva such a positive, pleasant
and constructive experience. Any errors of style or substance which remain are my
own.
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of Prof.
Nicholas Vincent, whose generosity with archival and unpublished material led in
several cases to new discoveries, and who provided clarification on many technical
matters. Dr Stuart Airlie, Prof. David Bates, Prof. Dauvit Broun, Dr Elisabeth van
Houts, Prof. John Hudson, Dr Graeme Small and Prof. Julia Smith all offered their
assistance, advice and access to unpublished material. M. Luc Forlivesi, directeur des
Archives départementales d’Indre-et-Loire, and M. Florent Lenègre, directeur adjoint
des Archives départementales de la Seine-Maritime, amongst many other archivists,
were particularly helpful in providing original documents, which in some cases were
undergoing conservation. The generosity of M. Octave Julien made my research trips to
France not only possible, but also a pleasure. Maps were drawn up by Mr Mike Shand.
Fellow PhD students have unhesitatingly offered their help, knowledge and
friendship, and I owe particular thanks to Dr Richard Allen, Ms Colette Bowie, Dr
Laura Crombie, Dr Daniel Gerrard, Mr William Hepburn, Dr Andrew Smith and Ms
Vanessa Traill. I am also grateful to my colleagues at the University of Liverpool, who
encouraged and patiently waited for me to complete this thesis while also serving in a
teaching post. Particular thanks are owed to Dr Jonathan Hogg, who has contributed
more than he knows, as well as Dr Christoph Laucht, Dr Stephen Kenny, Prof. Mark
Peel and Dr Mark Towsey, and Dr Siobhan Talbott of the University of Manchester,
who all made the task a little less daunting and took me out for more well-earned drinks
v
than I can justify.
My most personal thanks are for Hibah Akram, Paolo Basetti-Sani, Desmond
McKenna, Brendan and Marc McKenna-Nicoll, Phoebe Weller, and most particularly
Dr Maureen McCue and Maisie Taylor, who were there through all the ups and downs.
My final thanks are for my parents, Shirley and Charles, and my sister, Caroline, whose
support and love is immeasurable. This thesis is dedicated to them.
vi