. 15
( 55 .)


catalogues des dignitaires jusqu'a la revolution, Paris, 1916, pp. 128±9).
Preuves, col. 588. 93 Actes d'Henri II, no. cclxxi.

`Jordan Fantosme's Chronicle', pp. 18, 19; WN, p. 176; RT, ii, pp. 44±5; Gesta, pp. 57±8.

Actes d'Henri II, nos. dxci, dccxlv.

Brittany and the Angevins
consequences of their rebellion, are obscured by uncertainties sur-
rounding the genealogy of the Dinan family in this period.96 It is
suf®cient to note that around 1120 the barony of Dinan was divided
between the two elder sons of Geoffrey I de Dinan, Oliver II and Alan.
Alan received the southern lands of the barony, with part of the town of
Dinan, and established his caput at Becherel.97
The rebel Oliver must have been a younger son of Oliver II de
Dinan. Robert de Torigni's account of the events of 1167±8 is the only
record of Oliver in this period, and his motives for rebelling are
unknown. Oliver later received all the English estates of both the
Becherel branch and the senior branch of the Dinan family, apparently
by agreement with his nephew, Oliver III, son of Geoffrey II, but this
did not occur until the 1190s.98 This chronology resolves the dif®culty
encountered by historians, who knew of Oliver's English interests, but
had to explain his presence in Brittany in the 1160s. Presumably, in the
1160s, Oliver was a landless younger son who had nothing to lose from
allying with Eudo de Porhoet against Henry II.99
Rolland de Dinan is much better known, and the evidence indicates
that his rebellion was an isolated event, probably in reaction to the
deposition of Conan IV. Rolland was the son and heir of Alan son of
Geoffrey I de Dinan, and hence the lord of Becherel, and also had
substantial estates in England.100 Some of Rolland's English lands were
taken into the king's hand for six months between Michaelmas 1160
and Michaelmas 1161, but the reasons for this forfeiture are not
recorded.101 No particular motive can be discerned for his rebellion of
1167 either, but the timing suggests Rolland was protesting against
Henry II's actions of 1166.
In June 1168, the king destroyed the castle of Becherel, and was only
prevented from besieging Lehon, which also pertained to Becherel, by
the expiry of his truce with Louis VII. Meanwhile, all of Rolland's
English lands had been taken into the king's hand. Rolland must have
admitted the futility of further resistance to Henry II's superior military
force, although he and Eudo de Porhoet maintained the diplomatic
offensive in the immediate aftermath of the 1168 campaign.

K. Jankulak, The medieval cult of St Petroc, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2000, ch. 5, `Roland de Dinan

and the rebellion of 1167±8'.
See Appendix 1, note 29.

M. Jones, The Family of Dinan in England in the Middle Ages, Dinan, 1987, p. 28.

Assuming he is to be identi®ed with `Oliverius ®lius alterius', who attested the charter at Vitre

with Eudo de Porhoet (see above, note 86). An Oliver de Dinan also attested a charter with
Eudo de Porhoet in 1165 (Preuves, col. 656; AE, iv, 279).
K. Jankulak, St Petroc, Appendix III, `Lands of Roland de Dinan in the Pipe Rolls'.

Pipe Roll 7 Henry II, 1160±1161, pp. 34, 46, 48, 52±3.

Henry II and Brittany
Rolland made peace with Henry II soon afterwards, probably in
1169.102 The `Chronicle of Saint-Brieuc' records that the terms of the
settlement were that Henry II retained half of the `villa' of Dinan in his
hand, allowing Rolland the other half.103 This may be the attempt of a
chronicler ignorant of the earlier division of the barony of Dinan to
explain the fact that the great Rolland de Dinan was not lord of the
whole barony. There is certainly no evidence that half of Dinan was
henceforth held as ducal domain, and it would be curious if Henry II
had seized the lands of the senior branch of the family (then headed by
Geoffrey II de Dinan, who is not recorded as having rebelled) but failed
to punish Rolland. Indeed, in England in this period, the senior branch
recovered manors which had been held by Rolland.
It was in Henry II's interest, however, that the barony of Dinan
should remain divided, as to both its Breton and English lands. Thus,
when it became apparent that Rolland de Dinan would have no
legitimate issue, there was no question of permitting the lordship of
Becherel to revert to the senior branch. Instead, Rolland adopted as his

heir his nephew Alan, a younger son of Robert de Vitre. Robert de
Torigni speci®cally states that Rolland adopted Alan in the presence of
the king.104 While this may be seen as merely a token of Rolland's
loyalty to Henry II, it may equally indicate that the king had dictated to
Rolland his choice of heir. Alan's suitability as heir of Becherel from
Henry II's point-of-view suggests in itself that he was the king's choice.

He could rely upon the loyalty of a member of the Vitre family, since
both Alan's father and elder brother had proved themselves consistently
loyal to the Angevin cause.
The king dealt very generously with Rolland de Dinan, evidently
restoring his lands upon his submission in 1169. As with Ralph de
Fougeres, this policy successfully turned an aggrieved and rebellious
baron into a loyal ally.

The last of the magnates to resist Henry II was the lord of Leon; in
fact three generations of the family actively resisted Angevin rule.

Harvey de Leon and his son and heir, Guihomar, had joined the
widespread Breton rebellion in 1167. Although he was obliged to
submit to Henry II in 1167, and was defeated in battle by Conan IV in

1169 or 1170, Guihomar de Leon was not chastened. In January 1171,
Preuves, col. 104. The pipe roll for 1169/70 indicates that some of Rolland's English lands were

restored to him that year (Pipe Roll 16 Henry II, 1169±70, pp. 23, 97±8, 125) .
RHF, xii, p. 567.

RT, ii, p. 46. This is recorded under the rubric for 1173, but the event Torigni records for

1173 is the death of Robert de Vitre and the succession of his eldest son, Andrew. Torigni then
adds that Rolland named Andrew's younger brother Alan his heir in the presence of the king.
Andrew's succession and Alan's adoption need not have occurred at the same time.

Brittany and the Angevins

Hamo, bishop of Saint-Pol de Leon, was murdered, allegedly at the
behest of Guihomar, his elder brother. The circumstances naturally
invited comparison with the murder of Thomas Becket the month
before. Henry II no doubt wished to be seen to act decisively against
Guihomar for fear of being identi®ed with him. In the spring of 1171,

Henry II personally led a campaign into Leon, destroying all of
Guihomar's castles and taking three into the king's hand. Guihomar
himself came to Pontorson in May and surrendered to the king.105

The role of Guihomar de Leon during the 1173 revolt is not
recorded. After 1175, any support he received even from his most
powerful ally, Eudo de Porhoet, can have been only tacit, but he
continued to rebel. In 1177, Geoffrey campaigned against Guihomar,
who later that year submitted his lands to Henry II. Not surprisingly,

when Henry II was obliged to send Geoffrey into Leon again in April
1179, Geoffrey acted harshly, taking the whole barony into his own
hand. Guihomar agreed to go to Jerusalem and was permitted to receive
the revenues of two parishes until the next Christmas, but he died in the
meantime.106 Guihomar's sons were disinherited, but rebelled again
soon after Geoffrey's death in 1186.107

Hubert Guillotel has argued that, since the lords of Leon had not
been under effective ducal authority at all during the twelfth century,
their grievance was not with Angevin rule in particular, but with being
subjected to any authority in general.108 I do not think this is the
complete explanation for their resistance to Henry II. The family also
had a history of opposing the Anglo-Normans and Angevins. Harvey de

Leon had ignored a summons of Henry I, and had then actively
supported King Stephen in England during the civil war. Harvey's
marriage to Stephen's illegitimate daughter, who presumably returned
to Brittany with him in 1141, meant that Harvey and his descendants
were permanently reminded of their hostility to the Angevins.
In terms of opposition to the exercise of royal authority, the lords of

Leon may have been particularly anxious about their customary right of
wreck. Guihomar liked to boast that he possessed `the most valuable of
precious stones', a rock which was worth one hundred thousand solidi
each year in ship-wrecks. The con¯ict of interests between the lords of

Leon in exercising their right of wreck and Henry II in curbing them,
and ultimately receiving the proceeds of wreck himself, may have been
a signi®cant factor in the hostilities.109

The lords of Leon are certainly distinguished from the other Breton

RT, ii, p. 26. 106 RT, ii, p. 81. 107 Guillotel, `Leon', MSHAB 51 (1971), p. 33.

Guillotel, `Leon', p. 34. 109 `Communes petitiones Britonum', p. 102. See Appendix 4.

Henry II and Brittany
barons in their persistent and unrepentant resistance to Angevin rule.
The other barons discussed above made their displeasure at Henry II's
policies felt at some stage, then settled with him on the most favourable
terms possible and even pro®ted from his lordship. The distinction must
be that the other barons had close ties with ducal government; they or
their fathers had rendered homage to the duke, or at least attended his
court. In contrast, the involvement of Conan IV in a neighbourly

skirmish between the lords of Leon and of Faou represented an extreme
novelty. If Harvey and Guihomar joined the protest over Conan's
deposition in 1167, it was because they saw, in Conan's passing, the end
of the long period in which the native duke of Brittany had been their
remote sovereign lord but had refrained from actually exercising any
authority over them. To a much greater extent than for the other
barons, the replacement of Conan IV with Henry II meant not so much
a change of masters, but the change from no master at all to a very
strong one.
Other Breton barons are named in contemporary sources as resisting
Henry II, but their actions and motivations remain more obscure.
Geoffrey de Montfort held the castle of Hede against Henry II in 1168
and his barony was attacked by royal forces. At that time, he was allied
with Eudo de Porhoet, who was his maternal uncle.110 The lords of
Montfort had supported Eudo as duke of Brittany even, it seems, after
Conan IV crossed to Brittany in 1156.111 Geoffrey de Montfort is not
recorded as having rebelled again, and his loyalty was presumably
assured by his marriage to the daughter of a Norman baron, Rualen de
Say,112 and the capitulation of Rolland de Dinan. In 1177, Geoffrey
obligingly assisted Rolland, now Henry II's principal agent in Brittany,

to execute royal orders against the abbey of Saint-Meen, of which
Geoffrey was lay-advocate.
In the 1168 rebellion, William de Saint-Gilles is linked with the
barony of Montfort. The Saint-Gilles family were tenants of both
Montfort and Vitre.114 Alan de Tinteniac, whose castle was destroyed
‚ ‚
in the 1168 campaign, was probably a member of the same alliance. He
Eudo's sister Amicia had married William de Montfort (1142±1157) (Preuves, cols. 615,

821±2). It is possible that Geoffrey, their second son, was named after his maternal grandfather.
Geoffrey himself named a younger son Eudo and a daughter Amicia (Actes d'Henri II, no. dli).
A charter of Ralph de Montfort (1157±62), recorded an agreement made in the presence of

Eudo `dux Britannie' (Actes inedits, no. xlvi). Geoffrey, who was Ralph's younger brother and
heir, was among Eudo's `itineris socios' in 1164 (Preuves, cols. 653±4; Cart. Morb., no. 227).
RT, ii, p. 97; Actes d'Henri II, no. dli; BN ms fr. 22337, f. 121. Since Geoffrey had at least six

children by Gervasia before 1180 (Actes d'Henri II, no. dli), and the eldest was of age in 1181,
the marriage must have taken place before 1168.
DRF, p. 184.

‚ ‚
Bertrand de Brousillon, `Charte d'Andre de Vitre', p. 52; Charters, Ge24, Gu15.

Brittany and the Angevins
was with the exiled Eudo de Porhoet at Tours in 1164. Not surprisingly,

a William de Tinteniac was one of the ®rst to join the young King
Henry's revolt in 1173.115
Numerous Bretons are named by Roger of Howden in his lists of the
rebels taken prisoner at Dol in 1173, but of those I have been able to


. 15
( 55 .)