Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T02:23:05.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Backers and Stabbers”: Problems of Loyalty in Robert Curthose's Entourage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Stephanie L. Mooers
Stephanie L. Mooers*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Robert Curthose, the eldest son of William I Duke of Normandy and King of England, received many blows of ill fortune during his long life (1051-1134). Most damaging to his image was his inability to emulate his father by conquering England after the great king's death in 1087, and again, after William Rufus's death in 1100. He attempted twice to restore the unity of the two lands, and twice he failed. Moreover, Robert's reign in Normandy was characterized by baronial feuds, civil war, lawlessness, and decentralization of authority, and his policies appeared “weak and blundering”. He enjoyed one glittering period of distinction: during the First Crusade (c. 1096-1100) he proved himself a brave and spirited participant. But upon his return to Normandy, insufficient baronial support and territorial control led in 1106 to his final degradation—the loss of his patrimony, the duchy of Normandy, and his permanent imprisonment at the hands of his younger brother, Henry I. Henry owed his victory, in large measure, to the fact that by 1106 most of Curthose's earlier companions had deserted him.

These almost unmitigated failures affected the loyalty of Curthose's companions in adverse ways. As will be shown, factors that frequently influenced political alliances in the Anglo-Norman world—long association, genuine fondness, a need to be on the winning side, and outside pressures—were, in Curthose's entourage, overshadowed by the desire for new acquisitions and the security of landed possessions. Because the duke was unable to safeguard and advance these primary interests, his power base was insecure and his retinue was characterized by shifting membership and short-term loyalty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , Fall 1981 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This paper was originally delivered at the April 1980 Pacific Coast Conference on British Studies where it received the helpful criticism of Scott Waugh (U.C.L.A.). I am indebted also to the thorough scrutiny of the paper by C. Warren Hollister and to the editorial assistance of Douglas Mooers.

1 Both David, Charles W. (p. 5 of Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Cambridge, 1920)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and R.H.C. Davis (p. 603 of his recent article, “William of Jumièges, Robert Curthose and the Norman Succession”, English Historical Review, pp. 597–606, July 1980)Google Scholar hesitate to fix a birthdate for the duke. I believe, however, that the evidence strongly indicates that this was in 1051. Marie Fauroux includes two charters of interest in her edition of Recueil des Actes des Dues de Normandie 911-1066 [Soctété des Antiquaires de Normandie] (Caen, 1961)Google Scholar. Nos. 124 and 126 are genuine diplomas which exist in the original and were issued in 1051 at St. Wandrille. No. 124 includes young Robert on the witness list: “…signum Roberti juvenis Comitis”; as does no. 126: “…signum Roberti [junioris] comitis”. The editor suggests (p. 295n) that the subscription of Robert Curthose was added after the acts of 1051, and while this seems probable, I find it unlikely that Duke William would have allowed the addition if his son had not been alive in that year. This birthdate is three years earlier than the usually-cited 1054, and makes the young duke sixteen when he was granted the duchy by his father in 1067 (Davis, p. 601) rather than thirteen. Having reached his majority, Robert's early involvement in the governance of Normandy no longer seems odd.

2 David, , Robert Curthose, p. 155Google Scholar; see also Haskins, Charles Homer, Norman Institutions (Cambridge, 1918), pp. 62–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who speaks of Robert Curthose's “indolence, instability, and easy-going irresponsibility” (p. 62).

3 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Stubbs, William, no. 90, vol. 2 (London, 1889)Google Scholar, Rolls Series, pp. 420 and 460; and Chibnall, Marjorie, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford, 1969–1975) V:110Google Scholar, Robert leads one of seven divisions against the Turks; V:156, he takes part in the siege of Jerusalem; V: 180-188, the duke heroically siezes the Turkish standard from the emir.

4 The inadequacy of sources for Curthose's life make identification of companions difficult; therefore, more than one mention of a person as a companion could imply considerable association. See Appendix B for a full list of Curthose's companions.

5 The young Robert is named as the son of William and Matilda on a donation to the church of Saint-Ouen in June 1063 (Fauroux, no. 158). Davis has hypothesized that Curthose was associated with his father as duke from a young age as a precaution to insure smooth succession in the duchy in the event of William's early death (p. 603).

6 Orderic Vitalis, whose work was completed in 1141, and William of Malmesbury, writing c. 1125, are our main sources for Curthose's role in twelfth-century politics. While both approved of Henry's firm, centralizing policies, neither men were official royal historians, and may be credited with some degree of objectivity. (Orderic IV:40)

7 Ibid., IV:114.

8 Haskins, , Norman Institutions p. 71Google Scholar. Haskins deduces this from the distribution of the surviving charters, most of which originated at Caen, Lisieux, and Rouen.

9 David, , Robert Curthose, pp. 18, 37, 41Google Scholar.

10 Duby, Georges, “Youth in an Aristocratic Society”, The Chivalrous Society (Berkeley, 1977), pp. 112–22Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., pp. 114-15, 117.

12 Ibid., p. 115.

13 David, , Robert Curthose, p. 18Google Scholar.

14 Roger of Caux, Hugh II of Chateauneuf-en-Thymerais, Odo Bishop of Trêves, Robert “the Frisian” Count of Flanders, and William of Breteuil, in addition to those names in the text. See also Appendix A.

15 Orderic, II:308.

16 Ibid, III:126.

17 Hollister, C. Warren, “Magnates and Curiales in Early Norman England”, Viator, 8 (1977)71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Orderic, IV:114.

19 Fauroux, Recueil, no. 99.

20 Davis, H.W.C. (ed.), Regesta Regum Anglo-Normanorum, 1066-1154, (Oxford, 1913–1969), I.Google Scholar, nos. 2, 25a, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 92a, 96, 105, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 125, 130, 146a, 150, 168, 170, 172, 173.

21 Malmesbury, , Gesta Regum Anglorum, p. 462Google Scholar.

22 Orderic, IV:182.

23 Ibid. Orderic describes Curthose's motivations in the following way: “There upon Duke Robert, to put up a barrier against his numerous enemies, gave his daughter by a concubine in marriage to Helias the son of Lambert of Saint-Saëns, and provided Arques and Bures, and the adjoining province as her marriage portion …” The Hyde chronicle contains a poignant account of Helias' fidelity to Clito: “…et cum eodum fugiens omnibus abdicates quae in Anglia sive in Normannia possidebat, exul multis annis multas terras pervagavit.” Edwards, Edward (ed.), Liber Monasterii de Hyda, (London, 1964), p. 308Google Scholar.

24 Orderic, III:110.

25 Ibid., IV:40.

26 See Appendix B.

27 Regesta I, nos. 2, 105, 140, 150, 170, and 171; Fauroux, Recueil, no. 219.

28 Regesta I, nos. 30, 105, 168, 170, 172, 173, 182, 183a, and 104; and Fauroux, Recueil no. 219 with Curthose.

29 Robert's tutor, Ilger; Hugh of Goumay; Gilbert Bishop of Évreux; Ralph son of Ansered; William Count of Évreux; William Archbishop of Rouen; Ingelrann fitz Ilbert; and William of Mortain.

30 Hugh II of Gournay, without actually participating in Robert's revolt, is known to have appealed to William I with other magnates for the pardon of “their own sons and brothers and kinsfolk who had gone into exile with Robert”. Orderic III: 110.

31 Orderic, IV:164 and VI:178. The two men waged war against each other briefly in 1102-03, but were reconciled in 1104; Ibid, VI:32-36, 46, 56.

32 Not only did he witness six of William I's charters with Curthose (Regesta I, nos. 73, 105, 125, 150, 168, and 170) but he attested two of Robert's surviving charters after 1087 (Regesta I, nos. 310 and 342).

33 Orderic, IV:214.

34 David, , Robert Curthose, p. 158Google Scholar.

35 Other some-time companions who later opposed the duke (with the exception of William Count of Évreux)—Robert of Montfort, Ralph Mortimer, Rotrou of Mortagne, Stephen Count of Aumale, and William of Warenne—did not carry an early association with him from childhood.

36 Regesta II, nos. 552 and 648; see also no. 577.

37 Orderic, VI:55.

38 Ibid., VI:57;

39 The Peterborough chronicler remembers that William II had been “very harsh and fierce in his rule over his realm, and towards his followers and to all his neighbors and was very terrifying …” Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. Garmonsway, G.N. (London, 1953), sub anno 1099, p. 235Google Scholar.

40 Ibid, sub anno 1097 and 1098, p. 233.

41 Regesta I, nos. 416, 422, 423, 425, 440, and 480.

42 Ibid. The one remaining attestor of Rufus's Norman charters, William fitz Oger (Regesta I, no. 423), attests no other surviving acta of William I or II or Robert Curthose.

43 Robert of Bellême, with the permission of William Rufus, and after the payment of a fee, succeeded to the English earldom of his younger brother in 1098. Orderic, V:224.

44 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub anno 1100, p. 236; also Orderic, V:300.

45 Robert of Montfort attested for William Rufus in 1096-1097 (Regesta I no. 397), but it can hardly be argued that this constituted a shift in allegiance. Robert's father Hugh had been chief constable of Normandy, and the younger Montfort, although possessing extensive lands in England as well, naturally assumed administrative responsibilities during Curthose's early reign (see Regesta I, nos. 310, 324, and 384) as well as for William Rufus in the duke's absence.

46 Orderic, II:358.

47 Ibid, III:96.

48 Ibid. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has a less imaginative version of the motivations for Robert's revolt: “because his father would not let him govern his earldon in Normandy, which he himself and also King Philip with his consent had given him: and the leading men in the country had sworn him oaths and accepted him as lord”, sub anno 1079, pp. 213-214.

49 Orderic, III:100.

50 For example, Ralph Mortimer appears as a witness on two charters between 1088 and 1091 (Haskins, , Norman Institutions, p. 290, 291Google Scholar); Ralph of Conches attests twice with Curthose in the period 1091-1092 (Ibid. p. 291; Regesta I, no. 317).

51 In the context of the events of 1088, Orderic (IV:154) names several “early supporters” of the duke. These include William of Breteuil, William of Évreux, Geoffrey of Mayenne, and Helias Count of Maine.

52 Hollister, , “Magnates and Curiales”, pp. 63–81Google Scholar.

53 Robert of Belleme had inherited his mother's Talvas lands and was heir to the Montgomery patrimony in Normandy; in 1088, he could not have known that he would inherit the honors of Shrewbury and Arundel on the death of his younger brother, Hugh, ten years later. Breteuil received, on his father's death, Paci and Breteuil. The family's English lands had been forfeited to the king in 1075.

54 Orderic, IV:122.

55 Hollister, , “Magnates and Curiales”, p. 66Google Scholar.

56 Orderic, IV: 122 and Malmesbury, , Gesta Regum Anglorum, p. 360Google Scholar.

57 Holt, J.C., “Politics and Property in Early Medieval England”, Past and Present, 57 (1972), 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Orderic, IV: 122-24.

59 Ibid., V:318.

60 Anglo-Saxon, Chronicle, sub anno 1095, p. 231Google Scholar.

61 This modifies Duby's conclusion that youthful “relationships were prolonged into a new generation”, p. 115.

62 Orderic, IV:230-232.

63 Ibid, IV:198 and IV:286.

64 Ibid, III:104-106.

65 Ibid, V:24.

66 Ibid, III:104-106.

67 William of Malmesbury does not specify to whom he is referring, Gesta Regum Anglorum, p. 461.

68 Orderic, IV:154.

69 The exceptions seem to be a charter issued at Caen in 1101-1105. Haskins, , Norman Institutions, p. 286Google Scholar, no. 3 (the same as Regesta II no. 621); and a grant issued in 1087-1106 (Regesta II no. 801).

70 Orderic, IV: 154.

71 Ibid, IV:186.

72 Ibid., IV:186; IV:154, Odo of Bayeux had been disinherited and exiled from in England in 1088 for his leadership of the pro-Curthose rebellion of that year.

73 Ibid, IV: 186, V:271-272.

74 Ibid, IV:186 and IV:224; William, monk of Arques, attested in 1088-91 (Haskins, Norman Institutions, p. 289Google Scholar) and in 1088 (Regesta I, no. 299).

75 Orderic, IV: 159.

76 Ibid, IV:258.

77 Orderic, VI:20-32.

78 Ibid., VI:164. Orderic's account of the relationship between the two men is, at times, contradictory. Bellême seems to have held a grudge against Curthose for a previous imprisonment and troubled the duke continually for fifteen years (IV: 158). Yet c. 1090, Bellême is named as a ducal counselor (IV:186). It is possible that Orderic exaggerated the importance of the quarrel.

79 Sanders, I. J., English Baronies, (Oxford, 1960), p. 61Google Scholar.

80 Ivo had been called “tall, handsome, and brave” (Orderic, rV:341), but while at Antioch, he gained the humiliating reputation as a “clandestine rope-dancer” for his cowardly escape (Ibid, V:99).

81 Ibid, VI:12-14.

82 David, , Robert Curthose, p. 149Google Scholar.

83 Orderic, VI:56, and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 239-40.

84 Gilbert de Laigle held some lands in Sussex, but would be granted, after the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106, William of Mortain's confiscated estate in Pevensey by a victorious Henry I (Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 136)Google Scholar.

85 Orderic, VI:56.

86 Ibid., VI:20-22.

87 David, , Robert Curthose, p. 157Google Scholar.

88 Haskins, , Norman Institutions, p. 62Google Scholar.