^{page 129 note 1} Manuscript and printed sources relating to the history, of the coronation generally are listed and discussed by Schramm, P. E. in “ Ordines-Studien III: die Krönung in England ” and “ Nachträge zu den Ordines Studien II-III ” in Archiv für Urkundenforschung (1937), xv. 305–91; (1939), xvi. 279–86Google Scholar. The same author's Geschichte des englischen Königtums im Lichte der Krönung (1937) (translated by L. G. W. Legg under the title of A history of the English coronation) includes a valuable discussion of the history of the oath as well as of other aspects of the coronation. The documents in print are widely scattered, but a very useful collection is that made by Legg, L. G. W., English coronation records (1901)Google Scholar. Some documents not to be found there can be conveniently consulted in Taylor, A.'s The glory of regality (1820)Google Scholar. For other documents and a discussion of sources, see Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xiii. 129–45; xiv. 1–9, 145–8; xv. 94–9; xvi. 1–11. See also Ward, P. L., “ The coronation ceremony in mediaeval England ” in Speculum, xiv. 160–78Google Scholar.

^{page 129 note 2} For a commentary on these, see McIlwain, C. H., “ Due process of law in Magna Carta ” in Constitutionalism and the changing world, pp. 94–8Google Scholar.

^{page 130 note 1} Thompson, Faith, The first century of Magna Carta, pp. 93 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 130 note 2} Statutes of the realm, i. 6–7; Wilkins, , Concilia, i. 703–4Google Scholar; Cal. of papal letters, i. 306. It is evident that the barons attached importance to the papal confirmation: see the charter of 14 March, 1265, which refers to “ carte antique … per nos dudum concesse, in quarum violatores ad peticionem nostram sentencia excommunicacionis dudum lata est et per sedem apostolicam specialiter confirmata ” (Statutes of the realm, i. Charters, p. 32).

^{page 130 note 3} Richardson, and Sayles, , The early statutes, pp. 5, 19, 44Google Scholar: cf. Bémont, C., Chartes des libertés anglaises, p. xxxGoogle Scholar, where he says that the great charter and the charter of the forest are “ comme la pierre angulaire de sa constitution écrite ”, and C. H. McIlwain's discussion of the great charter “ as in some sense a law fundamental ” in “ Magna Carta and common law ” op. cit., pp. 172–6, reprinted from Magna Carta commemoration essays, pp. 173–8.

^{page 130 note 4} The confirmation is in chapter 5: the statute begins with a recital that Henry III, Richard king of Germany, Edward the first-born of king Henry and the legate Ottoboni were present when the provisions were made.

^{page 131 note 1} Statutes of the realm, i. 168; Stubbs, , Constitutional history (fourth ed.), ii. 109n.Google Scholar, followed by Pollock, and Maitland, , History of English law, i. 384nGoogle Scholar. (more specifically by Maitland, , Constitutional history, p. 99Google Scholar), and Liebermann, , Über die Leges Angliae saeculo XIII. ineunte Londoniis collectae, pp. 53–4Google Scholar. In his paper on “ The coronation oath of Edward II ” in Historical essays in honour of James Tait, p. 406, Mr. B. Wilkinson questioned whether there was any ground for connecting this form with Edward I. As Liebermann pointed out, it follows, in some places word for word, the description of the duties of the king which we owe to the thirteenth-century London writer (loc. cit. and Gesetze der Angelsachsen, i. 635–6): but the oath of 1308 has also been put under contribution (Schramm, , History of the English coronation, p. 215Google Scholar; Ordines-Studien III, pp. 363–4).

^{page 131 note 2} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 11.

^{page 131 note 3} Schramm, , History of the English coronation, pp. 185 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 132 note 1} Gervase of Canterbury, Historical works (Rolls Series), ii. 97Google Scholar.

^{page 132 note 2} For example, the Leges Angliae Londoniis collectae (Gesetze der Angelsachsen, i. 635–6: Schramm, op. cit., p. 197); Bracton, fo. 1, 1b, 5b, 107, 107b; Grosseteste, , Epistolae, p. 96Google Scholar.

^{page 132 note 3} Foedera, i. i. 229 (June, 1236): cf. ibid., p. 234 (bull of 20 February, 1238). As Professor Schramm points out (op. cit., pp. 196, 270), the evidence of the chroniclers is no guide to Henry's actual words. It can hardly be the result of accident that Gregory's words in 1236: “ Cum igitur in coronatione tua iuraueris, ut moris est, iura, libertates et dignitates conseruare regales ”, should correspond so closely to the words of the contemporary London compiler: “ Debet uero de iure rex … omnes dignitates et iura et libertates corone regni huius in integrum … obseruare et defendere ” (Gesetze der Angelsachsen, i. 635).

^{page 132 note 4} Parliamentary writs, i. 381–2.

^{page 133 note 1} Prynne, , Exact chronological vindication, iii. 631Google Scholar. The date of the council must be late August or early September.

^{page 133 note 2} Prynne, op. cit., p. 886.

^{page 133 note 3} Parliamentary writs, i. 103–4; Palgrave, , Documents illustrating the history of Scotland, p. cxxxiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 133 note 4} Cf. Schramm, op. cit., pp. 183–5, 88.

^{page 133 note 5} Parliamentary writs, i. 104: the king had previously been careful to limit his concessions by a saving in respect of his oath and the rights of the crown (Statutes of the realm, i. 126–8).

^{page 134 note 1} Foedera, i. ii. 978; Bémont, , Chartes des libertés anglaises, pp. 110–12Google Scholar.

^{page 134 note 2} Ibid., 1011: letters patent of 10 March 1307. I should, perhaps, remark that Professor Schramm cited this document only to reject its evidence for the additional promise included in Edward's coronation oath (op. cit., pp. 199, 270–1): but he did not mention the other evidence I have noted above, which establishes an overwhelming case for the view I have adopted. I gather that Professor Schramm may have since modified his conclusion: see Archiv für Urkundenforschung, xvi. 284, where also he draws attention to the evidence for a similar clause in the coronation oath of the king of Hungary in the early thirteenth century.

^{page 135 note 1} See the (? draft) gravamina of the clergy preserved in the register of John of Pontoise, where the king is reminded “ quod regimen populi tarn in corporibus quam in bonis sibi committitur et ad hoc in sua coronacione se, prout bene recolit, obligauit ” (Registrum Iohannis de Pontissara (Canterbury and York Soc), p. 779)Google Scholar.

^{page 135 note 2} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xiii. 131–7; xiv. 145; xvi. 1–11; Schramm, , Ordines-Studien III, pp. 340 ff., 356 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 135 note 3} 1 W. & M., c. 6.

^{page 136 note 1} The need for revising the view which had long been current was indicated by Tout, , Reign of Edward II (1914), pp. 75–85Google Scholar: cf. Chapters in mediaeval administrative history, ii. 191–2.

^{page 136 note 2} For this incident, see my forthcoming paper “ Clement V and the see of Canterbury ”, English Historical Review, vol. lvi.

^{page 136 note 3} The bull citing Winchelsey is dated 12 February 1306, but was not served until 18 May at Dover priory: he left for the Curia immediately (Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. cvi, cvii, 144–5).

^{page 137 note 1} Cf. Birchington, in Anglia sacra, i. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 2} The effects of the vast accumulation of debt must have been evident: cf. Tout, , Chapters in mediaeval administrative history, ii. 121, 125–30Google Scholar. The coronation itself entailed preparations and expenses that would in any case interfere with the prosecution of the war. The coronation of Edward I can hardly have cost less than £6,000, and may well have cost more: three accounts on the Pipe Rolls of 2, 5 and 8 Edward I show expenditure of £1,100 (E. 372/118, m. 18b), £200 (121, m. 21), £4,295 (124, m. 24b): and £666 appears to have been spent in addition by Luke of Lucca (Tout, op. cit., p. 5, n. 1). Dr. Tout elsewhere gives other details of expenditure on Edward I's coronation, but they appear to be mistaken. I have not traced accounts for Edward II's coronation, but we know that it was on a magnificent scale.

^{page 137 note 3} Op. cit., ii. 192. The charter will be found in Lords' reports on the dignity of a peer, v. 12–14, and Foedera, ii. i. 2.

^{page 138 note 1} I doubt whether we can build very much upon witness-lists, which record the names of those present—or supposedly present—at court, but do not tell us anything of their views on the subject matter or their feelings towards the beneficiary. The Malmesbury writer says that, apart from the earl of Lincoln and some others, the magnates protested against the grant (Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. 155): the witness-list will hardly enable us to check the truth of his assertion. Can we deduce anything from the fact that the charter of 5 August 1309 in favour of Gavaston and his countess (Lords' reports, v. 14–17) was witnessed by six of the seven earls who are said to have demanded his exile in May 1308 (Triveti annalium continuatio (1722), p. 4) ?

^{page 138 note 2} Foedera, ii. i. 9, from Close Roll, 28 October 1307.

^{page 138 note 3} L.T.R. Memoranda Roll, 1 Edw. II (E. 368/78), m. 93b. The letter to the monks is dated 30 November 1307, and that to the abbot 28 February following. The exact phrases used to describe the kingly office are worth quoting: in the first letter, “ volentes, ut tenemur, populum regni nostri tractari cum iusticia ”; in the second, “ nos advertentes interesse nostra prospicere populum regni nostri sub habenis iusticie pertractari ”.

^{page 139 note 1} Statutes of the realm, i. 159, c. 9.

^{page 139 note 2} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 9–10. For what it is worth, the testimony of the Pauline annalist is to the effect that there was great resentment, but no open display of it, at the banquet (Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. 261–2).

^{page 140 note 1} See archbishop Winchelsey's declaration of excommunication against Gavaston should he infringe the conditions of his exile (Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, i. 237–40; also, in part, in the Londonienses, Annales (Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. 154–5)Google Scholar; another copy, dated 19 May 1308, is in Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Dd. vii. 14, fo. 228).

^{page 140 note 2} Edward, of course, treated as a precedent in 1305 Clement IV's action in relieving Henry III of his obligation to observe the Provisions of Oxford (Foedera, i. ii. 975). Conversely the barons in opposing Edward II must have had in their minds the precedent set by Simon de Montfort: this is reflected in the Malmesbury writer, Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, ii. 196.

^{page 141 note 1} Legg, , English coronation records, p. 71Google Scholar; Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 6, n. 3.

^{page 141 note 2} Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 407–12; followed by Schramm, , History of the English coronation, pp. 204–7Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 3} So Stubbs, , Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. lxxviGoogle Scholar; followed by SirRamsay, James, Genesis of Lancaster, i. 11, n. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 141 note 4} For an examination of that portion of the Annales Paulini which treats of the coronation, see Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 3–5.

^{page 141 note 5} Parliamentary writs, ii. ii. 1 ff.

^{page 142 note 1} For the details following, see Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 3–5, and my forthcoming paper mentioned above, p. 136, n.2.

^{page 143 note 1} His movements after 28 January do not seem to be known: but I presume that he continued to reside at the Curia, which was then at Poitiers, until he started on his return journey to England, which he is said to have reached on 24 March (Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, ii. 33)

^{page 143 note 2} Foedera, i. ii. 508, 509, 513; Hemingburgh, , Chronicon, ii. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 143 note 3} Harl. MS. 2901. This manuscript is, of course, to be distinguished from the better known “ Liber Regalis ” in Westminster Abbey, containing the fourth form of the fourth recension of the office.

^{page 144 note 1} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xiii. 134–5; xiv. 145; xvi. 10–11.

^{page 144 note 2} It is implied in an article on “ Early coronation records ”, which, with DrSayles, G. O., I contributed to the Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research (xiii. 143)Google Scholar, that the oath was administered in Latin. In the light of further knowledge, I believe that the oath was invariably administered in the vernacular from 1308 onwards. It seems very likely that this was the practice also in the thirteenth and earlier centuries. It will be evident, from what has been said above, that the mediaeval coronation office, in whatever recension, is a doubtful guide to the actual words of the oath at any period.

^{page 144 note 3} Galbraith, V. H., Literacy of the medieval English kings, p. 17Google Scholar. Professor Galbraith, however, does not question the legend of the two oaths.

^{page 145 note 1} Statutes of the realm, i. 168, from Canterbury Chapter Library MS. K. II: the oath follows the ordinances of 1311 and the additional ordinances, which were presumably presented to the king late in that year.

^{page 145 note 2} For all that precedes, see Customary of St. Augustine, Canterbury, and St. Peter, Westminster (Henry Bradshaw Soc), i. 254–76Google Scholar, ii. 223–8: cf. i. 210, ii. 164. We may take these two great houses as representing the norm of English Benedictine practice.

^{page 146 note 1} Schramm, , History of the English coronation, pp. 205–6Google Scholar; Ordines-Studien III, pp. 349–50.

^{page 147 note 1} The phrase “ et super hoc —certitudinem stabilire ” is difficult to translate into unambiguous English. The underlying notion is that the law, if properly interpreted, is adequate, but it may be wrongly interpreted: when it is correctly interpreted by common counsel of the realm, then that interpretation should be clearly set down and observed in future. In this connexion, compare chapter 6 of the Ordinances regarding the elucidation of the charters (Statutes of the realm, i. 158).

^{page 148 note 1} Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. 215: a comparison with p. 227 will show that the coronation oath lies at the back of the argument.

^{page 148 note 2} The articles against Gavaston, which are said to have been presented in the Easter parliament of 1308, put in an extreme form the powers claimed by the peers: but even here it is stated that the king is bound by oath to govern his people and his lieges are bound to govern with the king and in aid of the king (ibid., i. 153–4; also B.M. Burney MS. 277, fo. 5b-6). The words “ et en defaute de lui ” which follow in the “ bill ” attributed to the younger Despenser (Statutes of the realm, i. 182), are not found in the articles of 1308: this bill is, in any case, a malicious fabrication, as I hope to show elsewhere. In the articles of 1310, which led to the Ordinances of 1311, similar language is used: the king is called the governor of the land and the magnates claim no more than that they are bound by. their allegiance to maintain the crown (Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. 168–9; Liber custumarum, pp. 198–9; Chron. de Lanercost, pp. 525–6). With the articles of 1308 and 1310 may be compared the petition presented by bishop Grandison of Exeter, in 1337, in which he states that ’ la substance de la nature de la corone est principaument en la persone le roi, come teste, et en les piers de la terre, come membres, qi tenent de lui par certeyn homage ' (Register of John de Grandisson, ii. 840).

^{page 148 note 3} Statutes of the realm, i. 189.

^{page 149 note 1} Schramm, , History of the English coronation, p. 206Google Scholar; Ordines-Studien III, p. 350.

^{page 149 note 2} So far as Henry III and Edward I are concerned, this statement needs no support. The elaborate provision for the chapel of St. Edward at Windsor in 1313 is sufficient evidence for Edward II's devotion to the saint (Foedera, ii. i. 193).

^{page 149 note 3} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 7, 10. The model was doubtless furnished by the tapestries which hung round the choir. These had been provided by abbot Berking (d. 1246): see Robinson, J. Armitage, Flete's History of Westminster Abbey, pp. 28–9Google Scholar. It is not known whether the offertory had taken this form at the coronation of Edward I, nor whether the precedent of 1308 was followed by Edward III in 1327. It is probable that Richard II, like Henry IV, made his offertory in gold nobles. As to the latter, Adam of Usk's testimony seems conclusive (Chronicon, p. 119). As to the former, if, as it seems legitimate to do, we judge by Henry's coronation roll, which is slavishly modelled on that of Richard's (for texts, see Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xiii. 133), the ceremonies in 1377 and 1399 were as far as practicable identical. An offering in coined gold would not have been possible at any earlier coronation—unless, which is unlikely, a foreign coinage had been used—since the noble was first minted by Edward III. A previous attempt under Henry III to introduce a gold coinage had been abandoned.

^{page 150 note 1} Not only had the laws of the Confessor been remembered in the days of John (cf. Annals, Burton in Annates monastici, i. 213Google Scholar; Wendover (ed. Coxe), iii. 260), but the charters themselves had been put under his protection in the Sentencia lata of 1253. This text would be found in most volumes of statutes. For the cult of the saint at Westminster in the fourteenth century see the Henry Bradshaw Society's Missale ad usum Ecclesie Westmonasteriensis, col. 669n., 1359–60Google Scholar, and Customary of St. Augustine, Canterbury and St. Peter, Westminster, ii. passim.

^{page 150 note 2} Palgrave, , Documents illustrating the history of Scotland, pp. cxcvi ff, 367Google Scholar.

^{page 150 note 3} Londonienses, Annales in Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, i. 212Google Scholar.

^{page 150 note 4} Ibid., p. 214.

^{page 151 note 1} Parliamentary writs, i. 104; Statutes of the realm, i, Charters, p. 44; Bemont, , Chartes des libertés anglaises, p. 109Google Scholar.

^{page 151 note 2} Statutes of the realm, i. 165, c. 31.

^{page 151 note 3} Annates Paulini, p. 327; cf. Richardson, and Sayles, , The early statutes, p. 29Google Scholar; McIlwain, C. H., “ Magna Carta and common law ”, Constitutionalism and the changing world, pp. 150–1Google Scholar, reprinted from Magna Carta commemoration essays, pp. 148–9.

^{page 152 note 1} Constitutional history, p. 100.

^{page 152 note 2} Foedera, ii. ii. 643–4; Parliamentary writs, ii. i. app. 292.

^{page 152 note 3} Murimuth, , Continuatio Chronicarum, p. 273Google Scholar.

^{page 153 note 1} Foedera, ii. i. 96.

^{page 153 note 2} Cf McIlwain, C. H., Growth of political thought in the West, pp. 376–9Google Scholar; Richardson, and Sayles, , The early statutes, pp. 27–9Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 1} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 7, 10.

^{page 154 note 2} Legg, op. cit., p. 88. This seems to make it clear that the oath of 1308 was not regarded as safeguarding the privilegium fori or other specifically ecclesiastical rights, such as canonical election.

^{page 154 note 3} Historia Roffensis (Faustina B.V), fo. 49: Dominus Iohannes de Suly miles Roffensem episcopum requisiuit an rex legem quam populus suus elegit custodire vellet, episcopus querenti respondens quod alioquin non coronabitur nisi prius prestito iuramento de seruando leges. John of Sudeley had been the king's chamberlain in 1306 (Cat. Patent Rolls, 1301–7, p. 460), but he seems not to have been holding any official position in 1327.

^{page 155 note 1} Bulletin Inst, Hist. Research, xiii. 142: compare the words of the authoritative form cited above.

^{page 155 note 2} Ibid., xiv. 9, 148; xvi. 2, n. 5.

^{page 156 note 1} Above, p. 131. Harl. MS. 1317 (which contains the oath at fo. 82b) appears to be earlier, though not by many years, than Lettou and Machlinia's printed text, which is ascribed to 1481. For later editions, see Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xiii. 144. An English translation, different from that of the abridgements, is to be found independently in a legal collection written soon after 1500, Harl. MS. 1777, fo. 75b.

^{page 156 note 2} A garbled version of it was introduced into a document known as the “ Forma et modus ” which purports to prescribe the arrangements for the coronation. The date of this is uncertain, but it must be in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century (Legg, op. cit., pp. 172–82: the oath is at pp. 178–9).

^{page 156 note 3} Rot. Pari., iii. 417b.

^{page 156 note 4} Add. MS. 18669: although this manuscript has been adapted to suit Henry VII's coronation, there is no question that it was prepared, or is a contemporary copy of the Little Device prepared, for Richard's coronation on 6 July 1483.

^{page 156 note 5} Acts of the privy council, 1547–30, pp. 29–33.

^{page 157 note 1} The evidence of the “ Forma et modus ” seems to point to the use of French at the coronation of Henry IV: cf. Schramm, , Ordines-Studien III, p. 370Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 2} Legg, op. cit., p. 230; Maskell, , Monumenta ritualia, ii. xlix–1Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 3} Acts of the privy council, 1547–50, p. 31. This doctrine had been expressed in very similar terms two centuries before: see Richardson, and Sayles, , The early statutes, p. 39Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 4} For the changes in the form see Legg, op. cit., pp. xxix–xxxi.

^{page 158 note 1} Charles des liberés anglaises, p. xlviii.