<<

. 16
( 55 .)



>>

Á
identify, all were either tenants of the barony of Fougeres or local
Á
knights. Ralph de Fougeres' younger brother, William, and his eldest
son, Juhel, were present. Amongst his tenants were Leones, Oliver de
‚ ‚
Roche (Ralph's seneschal), Harvey de Vitre, Hamelin d'Ine, William
de Saint-Brice, William de Chatellier and William de `Orenga'.116 A
Á
thorough analysis of the tenants of the barony of Fougeres at this time
would probably lead to the identi®cation of more of the knights named
Ã
in the list. A possible exception is Giro de Chateaugiron, a younger son
117
Ã
of Conan de Chateaugiron, although as a younger son, he might
Á
have taken service with Ralph de Fougeres.
As to the local knights, the fact of the military activity in the Dol area
in August 1173 meant that they could not avoid the con¯ict and were
obliged to declare themselves for one side or the other. Additionally,
men who had been tenants of John de Dol may have been aggrieved by
the events of 1164.118 Further light is shed on the identity of the rebels
by an inquest conducted in 1181, on the orders of Henry II, into the
temporal rights of the archbishop of Dol in the marshes around Dol.119
The inquest was primarily intended to reveal usurpations of the
archbishop's lands and rights in the area. Since some of the rebels named
by Howden, or at least their families, are also named in the inquest as
possessing lands or rights which had been usurped from the archiepis-
copal domain, they clearly had a motive for resisting Henry II's
intervention in the area on behalf of the archbishop.
Apart from those involved in the siege of Dol, and Eudo de Porhoet, È
the only Bretons named as having joined in the 1173 revolt are
Gesta, p. 46.
115

E.g., named as witnesses to Ralph's charters for the abbey of Savigny (AN mss L970, L972,
116

L973).
Preuves, col. 602.
117

Geoffrey `Farsi' was a tenant of Combour (BN ms latin 5476, pp. 57, 88; BN ms fr. 22325,
118

p. 593; Preuves, col. 726, but see below, pp. 84, 211±12), John `Pincerna' was an of®cer of
Combour (BN ms latin 5476, p. 92; BN ms fr.22325, pp. 519, 591), Geoffrey `Vicarius de
Ã
Dolo' was an of®cer of the archbishop of Dol (Enquete, pp. 64±5; BN ms latin 5476, pp. 60±1,
91; BN ms fr.22325, p. 524). Hamo Spina, Guegon Goion (`Gwigain Gwiun') and Gelduin
Goion (`Jeldewinus Gwiun') were prominent landholders in the north-west of the Dol area.
These, and other members of the Spina and Goion families, appear frequently in the documents
of the abbeys of Mont Saint-Michel and La Vieuville (e.g., BN ms fr. 22325, pp. 524, 526,
Ã
666±7). Jordan de la Massue (`Maszua') held his fee of the archbishop of Dol (Enquete, pp. 58,
note 120b, 74, note 186) .
Ã
Enquete, especially pp. 10±12.
119


60
Henry II and Brittany

Guethenoc d'Ancenis, Geoffrey de Pouance, lord of La Guerche, and
120
‚ ‚
Bonabbe de Rouge. All were barons of the Angevin-Breton march,
and the con¯ict here was the playing-out of ancient disputes between
these barons and the count of Anjou.121 Again, their rebellion turned
out to be short-lived. Although Henry II took the barony of Ancenis
into his own hand in June 1174, by 1177, he had restored it to its
hereditary lord, Guethenoc.122 Geoffrey de Pouance-La Guerche sub-

‚ ‚
mitted to the jurisdiction of Duke Geoffrey, and Bonabbe de Rouge
123
attested ducal acta.
Another rebellious baron was Jarnogon de Rochefort, who surren-
dered his castle to Henry II in 1177.124 So little is known of this incident
that it would be unsafe to speculate as to Jarnogon's motives for
rebelling.
It is easy to exaggerate the extent of baronial rebellion against Henry
II because more barons are known by name as rebels than as royal
supporters. Ironically, among the few Breton barons who attested any
royal charters were the most prominent `rebels', Eudo de Porhoet and È
125
Á
Ralph de Fougeres, the latter, admittedly, in his capacity as a tenant
in Normandy. Barons who certainly did support Henry II, and are not

known to have rebelled at any stage are comes Henry of Treguier,

Robert and Andrew de Vitre and Alan de Rohan.
Á
Henry was the youngest son of Stephen, lord of Penthievre and
Richmond, born around 1100. During his lifetime, Stephen had
divided his lands between his three sons.126 Before 1123, he gave his
Breton lands to the eldest, Geoffrey Boterel II, and his English lands to
the second son, Alan, the father of Duke Conan IV. Stephen kept
Henry with him and gave him the soke of Waltham (Lincs.) from his
English lands.127 Later, Stephen seems to have altered the disposition, so

Gesta, p. 71; RT, ii, pp. 45±6.
120

See J.-C. Meuret, `Le poids des familles seigneuriales aux con®ns de l'Anjou et de la Bretagne:
121

‚ ‚
Martigne-Pouance-La Guerche', MSHAB 70 (1993), 89±129 and Meuret, Marche Anjou-
Bretagne.
BN ms fr. 22319, p. 197. 123 Charters, Ge7, 18, 23.
122

RT, ii, p. 71. Jarnogon has been identi®ed as lord of La Roche-Bernard (RT, ii, p. 71, note 3,
124



also Chedeville and Tonnerre, Bretagne feodale, p. 93). The name of the lord of La Roche-
Bernard in the third quarter of the twelfth century is not known, but no members of the
seignorial family were named Jarnogon. (See P. de Berthou, `Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de
‚‚
‚ Á
Montonac, prieure Augustin en la paroisse de Nivillac, diocese de Nantes', Bulletin de la Societe
Polymathique du Morbihan (1957±58), 3±64 and (1961±62), 65±144.) A more probable
identi®cation is with one of the Jarnogons, lords of Rochefort-en-Terre (Cart. Morb., nos. 236
and 237).
BM mss Lansdowne 229, f. 114r and 259, f. 70r; Actes d'Henri II, nos. cclvii, cclxxi, dxci,
125

dccxlv.
`Inquisitio . . . Avaugour', pp. 116 and 119±20.
126

BM mss Lansdowne 229, f. 114r and 259, f. 70r.
127


61
Brittany and the Angevins
that the Breton lands were divided between his eldest and youngest
sons. Geoffrey received the eastern half, with its caput at Lamballe,

Henry the western half, the barony of Treguier, whose caput was
128

Guingamp. Subsequently, Alan claimed lordship of Treguier and
returned to Brittany not long before his death in 1146 to pursue his
interests there.129 Alan's campaign against Henry was perpetuated by his

son, Conan IV, who ejected his uncle from Treguier and kept it as
130
ducal domain.
It is against this background of hostility from his brother and his
nephew, as earls of Richmond, that Henry sought the king's con®rma-
tion of his rights in the soke of Waltham, at some time between 1158
and early 1162. Furthermore, Henry's marriage to the daughter of John,
Ã
count of Vendome, in 1151, demonstrates that he had supported the
Angevins before the advent of Henry II in Brittany.131
Alan II de Rohan was a ®rst-cousin of Eudo de Porhoet, and the fact
È
that the barony of Rohan was a recent subdivision of Porhoet meant
È
that they had some common tenurial interests. Between 1156 and 1166,
Alan seems to have been a loyal supporter of Duke Conan IV. He is said

to have aided Conan in ejecting comes Henry from Treguier, around
132
1160. In March 1168, both Alan and Conan were present at the court
of Henry II at Angers.133 Between 1160 and 1167, Alan was married to
Conan's sister, Constance, and received as her maritagium lands in the
honour of Richmond.134 This marriage was almost certainly arranged
by Henry II to reward Alan and to subdue Constance, who had
personally requested King Louis VII to arrange her marriage, or even to
marry her himself (plausible if Constance's request was made following
the death of Louis' second wife in 1160).135

‚ ‚
See H. Guillotel, `Les origines de Guingamp: Sa place dans la geographie feodale bretonne',
128

MSHAB 56 (1979), 81±100.
EYC, iv, p. 90.
129

The witnesses testifying in the `Inquest of Avaugour' disagreed as to whether Henry was ousted
130

by Alan or Conan (pp. 111, 117 and 119±20). Their testimony may be reconciled on the basis
that Henry was ousted twice, by father and son in turn. Alan may have defeated his brother in
1145 or 1146 (Preuves, col. 595; EYC, IV, pp. 27 and 31), but Henry took advantage of the
anarchy following the death of Duke Conan III in 1148 and Conan IV's minority to regain
‚ ‚
possession of Treguier. He was lord of Treguier in 1151±2 (Preuves, cols. 610±11), but Conan
had acquired the barony before his abdication in 1166.
Ã


Preuves, cols. 610±11; C. Metais (ed.), Cartulaire De l'abbaye cardinale de La Trinite de Vendome, 4
131

vols., Paris, 1893, ii, p. 371, note 1 and no. dxlv'.
EYC, iv, pp. 59±61. (`Inquisitio . . . Avaugour', p. 117).
132

Actes d'Henri II, nos. cclxvii and cclxviii.
133

EYC, iv, p. 91.
134


RHF, xvi, p. 23. See C.S. Jaeger, `L'amour des rois: Structure sociale d'une forme de sensibilite
135

aristocratique', Annales 46 (1991), 547±71 at 559±61, 570 (note 50) for a French translation of
Constance's letter and further references.

62
Henry II and Brittany

The lords of Vitre, Robert and his son Andrew, were consistently

loyal to Henry II. Henry II made a charter at Vitre between 1158 and
1162, presumably staying there as Robert's guest.136 An agreement

made between Robert and his tenant, Robert de Serigne, between 1156
and 1161, was con®rmed in the king's presence. The agreement

provided that Robert de Serigne should have the right of refuge

(receptacula) in the barony of Vitre against anyone but the king of

England. Robert de Vitre also attested an undated charter of Henry II
137
made at Mortain.

Andrew de Vitre, who succeeded his father in 1173, took part in
military action in Brittany in support of Henry II, probably in the 1168
campaign.138 After 1181, Andrew actively supported the regime of
Duke Geoffrey. In a letter, Andrew addresses the duke, `Dominus suus
karissimus Gaufredus, Deo gracia Britannie dux'.139
This account of three major barons who supported Angevin rule in
Brittany demonstrates that it is not safe to assert that `all the Breton
barons' opposed Henry II, and the preceding account of rebellious
barons establishes that most of them rebelled only for limited periods
and over speci®c grievances.

The support of the Church was an extremely important factor in the
Angevins' success in Brittany. The ®rst instance of Henry II acting in
relation to Brittany is his intervention in the contest over the metropo-
litan status of Dol, in 1155. In spite of this beginning, the king
subsequently played little active role in the church in Brittany, neither
patronising monasteries nor interfering in the elections of abbots and
bishops to any great extent.
The king appears to have been unconcerned with the internal
operations of the Breton church. He was interested only when there
was an `extra-Breton' element, as in the Dol case. This is further
Ã
illustrated by his patronage of the abbey of Saint-Sulpice-la-Foret,
discussed below. This was the only Breton monastery which the king
actually patronised; he made only single grants or con®rmations to a
handful of other Breton monasteries. Henry II patronised Saint-Sulpice,
however, not as lord of Brittany, but as count of Anjou and king of
England. Yet when the relics of Saint Petroc were recovered and shown
BM Lansdowne mss 229, f. 114r and 259, f. 70r.

<<

. 16
( 55 .)



>>