. 12
( 55 .)


Conan had reason to visit England at any time in his capacity as earl of Richmond.
See below, pp. 82±5 and Appendix 3.

RT, i, p. 356±7, 361; Ann. ang., pp. 15, 36, 123; W. J. Millor and C. N. L. Brooke (eds. and

trans.), The letters of John of Salisbury, Oxford, 1979, ii, no. 173. For charters made by Henry II at
Fougeres, `in exercitu' see RT, ii, pp. 284±6, nos. xx, xxi; Actes d'Henri II, nos. cclvi, cclvii;
Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1247±1258, pp. 382±3.
WN, p. 146. 34 Actes d'Henri II, no. cclviii.

Henry II and Brittany
of Treguier.35 The grant to Henry II was his maternal inheritance;

Conan retained Treguier and the honour of Richmond, which repre-
sented his paternal inheritance.
This settlement was extraordinary in contravening contemporary
customs regarding succession. Conan and Margaret had been married
for nearly six years, yet apparently had produced only one child. The
chronicles unanimously recite that Constance was Conan's only
daughter (`unica ®lia'). But Constance was not the heiress in 1166; her
father was still alive, and contemporaries could not have been certain
that Conan and Margaret would not produce a son in the future,
assuming they were permitted to continue to cohabit. Margaret, at least,
was capable of childbearing after 1166, since she gave birth to a son in
her second marriage. In fact, there may have been sons of her marriage
to Conan. A charter of Margaret's includes a prayer for the souls of
Conan and of `our boys', possibly `our children' (puerorum nostrorum).36
One can only assume that these did not survive infancy and were not
alive in 1166, but who was William clericus, described in two charters of
c. 1200 as the brother of Duchess Constance?37 Although the obvious
conclusion is that he was an illegitimate son of Duke Conan, William
would have been an appropriate name for a son of Margaret, celebrating
her royal kin. Whether or not any legitimate son was born or survived
after 1166, the effect of the agreement of 1166 was to disinherit him,

although possibly Conan retained the barony of Treguier for this
purpose. In short, it suited Henry II's purposes that Conan IV should be
succeeded by a sole heiress, and this was arranged without waiting for
Conan's actual death.
The terms of the settlement were carefully considered. If the whole
duchy had been constituted as Constance's maritagium, then her mar-
riage during her father's lifetime, which would have been anticipated in
the normal course of things, would have left Conan a duke without a
duchy. The actual arrangement avoided this dif®cult situation. Conan
was a duke without a duchy, but at least his position was clear; he could

legitimately retain the barony of Treguier, and Henry II also granted
him the honour of Richmond.
In default of sons, the whole of the duchy of Brittany and the honour
of Richmond was Constance's inheritance in any event, but Conan was
still alive and it might be many years before Geoffrey would enjoy his
wife's inheritance. Again, the agreement avoided this. Conan gave his
lands to Henry II, and his infant heiress was in the custody of Henry II
RT, i, p. 361. The agreements were recorded in a charter of Conan IV which has not survived,

mentioned in the treaty of Falaise (Gesta, p. 75).
Charters, no. M6. 37 Charters, nos. C45, A16.

Brittany and the Angevins
pending her marriage. Henry II acquired possession of most of the
duchy and its revenues immediately, and hence could grant it to
Geoffrey whenever he chose. Only the remainder of Constance's

inheritance, the barony of Treguier and the honour of Richmond, now
depended on Conan's death. These circumstances explain the fact that
Henry II never added `Dux Britannie' to his of®cial title. The king
always acknowledged that he ruled Brittany as guardian of Constance
and Geoffrey.
Immediately after Conan's abdication, Henry II did two things of the
greatest symbolic importance, carefully recorded by Robert de Torigni.
First, at Thouars, he received the homage of `nearly all' of the barons of
Brittany. Hitherto the barons had owed their homage, in theory at least,
to Duke Conan, who in turn owed homage for Brittany to Henry II as
duke of Normandy. The barons' homage to Henry II con®rmed
Conan's abdication and their recognition of the king as their immediate
lord. Next, Henry II re-entered Brittany to take possession of the city of
Rennes, and symbolically the whole of the duchy, since dukes were
traditionally invested in the city's cathedral.39
It was probably on this occasion that Henry II appointed one of his
curiales, William de Lanvallay, to head the new royal administration in
Rennes. The next year, the king's chaplain, Stephen de Fougeres, was
appointed bishop of Rennes. Finally, Henry II celebrated his acquisition
of Brittany with his ®rst visit to Dol and Combour, en route to Mont
After 1166, Conan continued to use the title `dux Britannie et
comes Richemundie' although he had ceased to exercise ducal
authority. He nevertheless remained an important magnate and an
active participant in Henry II's regime. Conan still exercised seignorial

authority over the barony of Treguier and also the honour of
Richmond. In 1168, he attended Henry II's court at Angers. In 1169
or 1170 he led a military campaign against Guihomar de Leon.41 ‚
There is also evidence that Conan was permitted to exercise comital
WN, p. 146; RT, ii, pp. 25±6.

RT, i, p. 361. For the tradition of investiture at Rennes, see Chedeville and Tonnerre, Bretagne

feodale, pp. 47, 65 and Preuves, cols. 395, 915. Although none of the chroniclers mention the
presence of Geoffrey in Brittany in 1166, the Pipe Roll for the year ending Michaelmas 1166
records that Geoffrey crossed to Normandy that year (Pipe Roll 12 Henry II, 1165±1166,
pp. 100±1, 109), and it is probable that he was summoned, if not for a formal betrothal to
Constance, then to be present when Henry II took the homage of the barons at Thouars and
entered Rennes.
RT, i, pp. 361±2, and ii, p. 2.

Actes d'Henri II, nos. cclxvii and cclxviii; WB, p. 178; Cart. Quimperle, p. 108 (1170); Preuves,

‚ ‚
col. 104. Conan's barony of Treguier marched with Leon, so Conan was the logical person to
lead this campaign, probably at the behest of Henry II.

Henry II and Brittany
authority in the county of Cornouaille in this period: his foundation of
the Cistercian abbey of Carnoet (after 1167), and a con®rmation of his
predecessors' grants of comital rights in Treverner to Mont Saint-Michel
Henry II did not depose the native duke of Brittany with impunity.
The next two years saw the most widespread and serious uprising
against Angevin authority to occur in Brittany. In 1167, Eudo de

Porhoet, the ageing Harvey de Leon and his son Guihomar and other
Breton barons rebelled, allegedly in alliance with the viscount of
Thouars, and with the connivance of some Aquitanian barons and King
Louis VII.43 Henry II was so determined to quash the rebellion that he
®rst negotiated a truce with Louis VII so that he might attend to this
business without distraction. His campaign in August 1167 was so
effective that, according to Robert de Torigni, all the Bretons were

reduced to subjection, even Guihomar de Leon, who gave hostages
after his strongest castle was taken and razed. The poem `Draco
Normannicus' re¯ects the desperation of the Bretons, with a fantastic
account of Rolland de Dinan despatching a letter to King Arthur
seeking his aid. Henry II was still in Brittany when he received news of
the death of his mother, who had died at Rouen on 10 September, and
it was only this that prevented him from prosecuting the campaign
Returning to the Breton problem early in 1168, Henry II summoned
Eudo de Porhoet, Rolland de Dinan and his cousin Oliver de Dinan,
who all de®ed the summons. After meeting Louis VII and making a
truce to last from 7 April to 1 July, Henry II launched a new campaign
in Brittany. He began with the possessions of Eudo de Porhoet, who È
still retained ducal domains in the Broerec and Cornouaille. Henry II
®rst destroyed the Porhoet caput, Josselin, then seized the usurped ducal
domains, including the castle of Auray. The king next turned north-
‚‚ ‚
east, taking the castles of Hede, Tinteniac and Becherel. Two charters
of Henry II made at `Sanctum Touvianum in Britannia in exercitu' may
be attributed to this campaign.45 It is not possible to identify `Sanctum
Touvianum' with any certainty, but an interesting possibility is the
‚ ‚
modern Saint-Thual (canton Tinteniac, arrond. Saint-Malo, dep. Ille-
Preuves, cols. 662, 664±5; A. Du®ef, Les Cisterciens en Bretagne, aux XIIe et XIIIe siecles, Rennes,

1997, pp. 78±9; EYC, iv, no. 78.

P. Marchegay and E. Mabille (eds.), Chroniques des eglises d'Anjou, Paris, 1869, `Chronice Sancti

Albini Andegavensis in unum congeste' (entry for 1167).
RT, i, p. 367; `Stephani Rothomagensis monachi Beccensis poema, cui titulus `Draco

Normannicus'', in R. Howlett, Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, Rolls
Series, London, 1885, book ii, chs. xvii-xxii and book iii, ch. i.
RT, ii, pp. 5±7; Ann. ang., p. 15; Actes d'Henri II, nos. cclxxii and cclxxiii.

Brittany and the Angevins
et-Vilaine).46 This would have been a suitable location for a camp while
‚‚ ‚
the king's forces attacked Hede and Tinteniac. Meanwhile, royal forces
attacked `Giguon' ( Jugon?), and, north of Rennes, Gahard, Chahane,
the lands of William de Saint-Gilles and the barony of Montfort.47
According to Robert de Torigni, the king next planned to besiege
the castle of Lehon, upon which Rolland was relying for the defence of
Dinan. The truce with Louis VII was due to expire, though, so the king
merely set his forces to pillage the area around Lehon and lands along
both sides of the Rance towards the north, sparing only the ancient
monastery of Saint-Magloire de Lehon.48
In July, Eudo de Porhoet and Rolland de Dinan, in league with

Louis VII, attended the conference between the kings at La Ferte-
Bernard. There they attempted to shame Henry II with allegations, inter
alia, that the king had abused Eudo's daughter whom he held as a
hostage. The girl was almost certainly Adelaide, Eudo's only known
daughter by Duchess Bertha.49 It is possible that Eudo had given
hostages to Henry II as a condition of his return from exile in 1164, or
as a sign of his good faith at some time between 1164 and 1167. While
Eudo had custody of Adelaide she might have been used as a ®gurehead
for revolt, as the daughter of Bertha, the daughter and heiress of Duke
Conan III.50
At around this time, all of Bertha's offspring were in some way
prevented from assuming this role. In addition to her son Conan,
Bertha had two daughters from her ®rst marriage: Constance, who was
married off to Alan de Rohan, and Ennoguent, who became a nun at
Saint-Sulpice-la-Foret. Bertha also had a son from her marriage to

Actes d'Henri II, i, p. 421 note (a), `sans doute pour Touriavum' (Saint-Thuriau, commune and

‚ Ã
canton of Quintin, arrond. Saint-Brieuc, dep. Cotes-d'Armor). Cf. ibid. p. 420, `Saint-Thuriau
. . . se trouve dans le voisinage de Josselin'. There is also a place-name `Saint-Thurial' on the

route between the ducal castle of Ploermel and Rennes (canton Plelan-le-Grand, arrond.

Rennes, dep. Ille-et-Vilaine), which Henry II might equally have taken in the course of this
campaign, between Josselin and Montfort.
‚ ‚ Á
A. Bertrand de Brousillon, `La charte d'Andre II de Vitre et le siege de Kerak en 1184', Bulletin

Historique et Philologique (1899), 47±53 at 52.
While one Breton source credits William ®tzHamo with having persuaded the king to spare the

monastery at Lehon (`Chronicon Britannicum', Preuves, col. 104), the vita of Hamo of Savigny
credits the monk Hamo with curbing the depredations of Henry II's army (E.P. Sauvage (ed.),
`Vit± B. Petri Abrincensis et B. Hamonis monachorum cúnobii Saviniacensis in Normannia',
Analecta Bollandiana 2 (1883), 475±560 at 523).
Millor and Brooke (eds. and trans.), Letters of John of Salisbury, ii, no. 279. Adelaide, abbess of

Fontevraud, `Eudonis comitis Britannie ®lia', died in 1220. Her obituary records that she was, `a
primoevo juventutis sue in aula regis Anglorum et regine venerabiliter educata' (BN ms latin
5480, pp. 5±6; Preuves, col. 845).
Cart. St-Sulpice, no. I; Preuves, col. 623.

Henry II and Brittany
Eudo, Geoffrey, who was alive in 1155 but who must have died young
since nothing more is known of him.
When a settlement was negotiated between Louis VII and Henry II


. 12
( 55 .)