<<

. 47
( 55 .)



>>

Eudo ®tzErneis (1185)
There is only one record of Eudo ®tzErneis in the capacity of seneschal of
Nantes. Eudo was a curialis of Henry II. He was with the king in Brittany and
Normandy in mid-1171 (Itinerary, pp. 158±9) and attested several of the
king's charters in Normandy before 1173 (Actes d'Henri II, nos. ccxcvi,
ccccxxxiii, cccccxlvii). He held lands in Normandy (at Croixmare and
`Tubervilla') by marriage to the daughter of Nicholas de Londa (Actes d'Henri
II, `Introduction', p. 367). Although he joined the rebels in 1173, Eudo was
reconciled with the king and witnessed the treaty of Falaise in October 1174
(Actes d'Henri II, no.cccclxviii). There does not seem to be any record of
Eudo between 1174 and 1185.
Roger of Howden's list of the rebels of 1173 contains several ®tzErneis',
possibly Eudo's brothers. He was probably the brother of Oliver ®tzErneis, a
tenant-in-chief at Maldon (Essex). Oliver died in 1183, having the same year

208
Angevin of®cers in Brittany
been attacked by Duke Geoffrey's men at Limoges, possibly in the context of
Geoffrey's claims to the county of Nantes (see above, pp. 135±6)


royal seneschals of rennes

William de Lanvallay (1166±c. 1172)
One of the numerous descendants of Aimeric, an illegitimate son of Geoffrey
Á
Boterel I, lord of Penthievre (K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, `Two studies in North
French prosopography', Journal of Medieval History, 20 (1994), 3±37 at 35).
William's forebears had assumed the toponym from their landholdings at
Lanvallay, near Dinan, and William was probably a younger son who sought
to make his fortune in royal service, his elder brother Ralph succeeding to
the family's Breton lands (see Preuves, col. 845). The only lands William
possessed (other than by royal grant) were one knight's fee in Abington
(Cambs.) held of Aubrey de Vere and possibly other land in Abington held
of the honour of Richmond (W. Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire, Cambridge,
1920, p. 54; R. Ransford (ed.), The early charters of the Augustinian canons of
Waltham Abbey, Essex, 1062±1230, Woodbridge, Suffolk 1989, pp. lxxiv,
lxxv, nos. 165, 169±74).
The Pipe Rolls and numerous attestations of royal charters show that
William was active in Henry II's service from 1154. William participated in
Henry II's campaign in Brittany in 1166 and was appointed seneschal of
Rennes when Henry II assumed control of the duchy. William remained in
this of®ce until 1172, when he returned to England as castellan of
Winchester. From then until his death, William served as a royal justice in
England. Apart from the pro®ts of his of®ce, William received royal grants of
land in England, but his greatest reward was marriage to Gunnora, the
heiress of Hubert de Saint-Clair, with her lands in Essex, Hertfordshire and
Northamptonshire ( J. H. Round (ed.), Rotuli de dominabus et pueris et puellis
de xii comitatibus (1185), Pipe Roll Society, xxxv, London, 1913, pp. 47,
notes 1, 66, 70, 80; see also S. A. Moore (ed.), Cartularium monasterii Sancti
Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria, 2 vols., London, 1897, pp. 153±63, 197±9).
William was dead by 1185, probably dying in early 1182, leaving his eldest
son William still an infant (Pipe Roll, 28 Henry II, p. 108; Rotuli de dominabus,
p. 80, where presumably the ®gure `.lx.' for William junior's age is a
mistake).


Reginald Boterel (1181)
A single reference to Reginald Boterel as seneschal of Rennes in 1181 is the
only record of him serving Henry II. He was much more prominent as a
tenant of the honour of Richmond and courtier of Geoffrey and Constance,
hence biographical details have been published in Charters, `Biographical
Notes', p. 185±6.



209
Appendix 3

other royal agents in brittany, 1158 ± 1175

Hamo Boterel (1158, 1162)
Hamo was probably a younger brother of William Boterel, the constable of
Wallingford under the Empress Matilda, and the Richmond tenant Peter
Boterel, and hence the uncle of Reginald (see Charters, pp. 185±6; cf. EYC,
iv, p. 53). Farmer of the royal manor of Hurstbourne Tarrant (Hants.), from
before 1155 until 1165 or 1166, and forester of Doiley wood in the same
parish until 1156 (Pipe Rolls 2±12 Henry II, 1155/56±1165/66; VCH: Hamp-
shire, iv, pp. 319±20). He probably joined Conan's household in England in
1156 (EYC, iv, pp. 37±9). Hamo attested a charter of Henry II at Salisbury,
probably in February/March 1158, with William ®tzHamo (Itinerary, p. 35).
Shortly afterwards he appears with Conan IV at Rennes, where he attested
three of Conan's charters made 22 April ± 29 September 1158 (EYC, iv, pp.
45±8).
Á
One of these states that Ralph de Fougeres, Rolland de Dinan and Hamo
Boterel `dapifer', all gave counsel (EYC, iv, p. 45). In the other two charters,
Hamo's name appears in association with the same two barons, who were
the young duke's most important supporters. Further evidence of this
Á
association is Ralph de Fougeres' grant to Hamo of his property in
Winchester (N. Vincent, `Twyford under the Bretons 1066±1250', Not-
tingham Medieval Studies 41 (1997), 80±99 at 83). It is unlikely that one so
comparatively humble should rise so high in the duke's counsels in such a
short time, and the explanation may be that Hamo was the king's agent at
Conan's court. The title `dapifer' probably applied to Hamo as the king's
agent, rather than as a member of the ducal household. It would seem to be

in this capacity that he attested Henry II's charter at Vitre (BL ms Lansdowne
229, f.114). Hamo's disappearance from the Pipe Rolls suggests he died
before Michaelmas 1166.


Josce de Dinan
Probably to be identi®ed with Joscelin, a younger son of Geoffrey I de
Dinan (AE, iv, p. 390; Preuves, cols. 513±4), Josce de Dinan ®rst appears in
England in the 1140s attesting charters of the Empress Matilda (U. Rees
(ed.), Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, Aberystwyth, 1975, nos. 40, 50; J. H.
Round (ed.), Ancient Charters, royal and private, prior to A.D. 1200, Pipe Roll
Society, London, 1888, x, no. 46). Josce is best known for his defence of
Ludlow castle for the Empress during the civil war, described in the `Legend
of Fulk ®tzWarin', which also con®rms the Pipe Roll evidence that a grateful
Henry II rewarded Josce with the manor of (Chipping) Lambourn, Berks.,
upon his accession (E.J. Hathaway et al., ed., Fouke le FitzWaryn, Oxford
1975, pp. xii-xiii, 21; Actes de Henri II, no. lii (1153); VCH, Berks., iv,
p. 253). Josce continued to serve Henry II; in 1158/9 he received payment
for corrody of the king's son (Pipe Roll 5 Henry II, p. 43). Despite his Breton
origins, Josce only appears in Brittany in connection with ducal/royal
210
Angevin of®cers in Brittany

politics. He attested Henry II's charter at Vitre (October 1158 x early 1162)
(BL ms Lansdowne 229, f.114) and a charter of Conan IV at Quimper in

1162 (Hist. Quimperle, p. 600; EYC, iv, p. 65). Nevertheless, Josce was
closely associated with fellow-Bretons in royal service in England; one of
Josce's daughters and co-heiresses, Sybil, was married to Hugh de Plukenet,

a cadet of the family of Ploigonoit (?Pleugueneuc, cant. Tinteniac, arrond.

Saint-Malo, dep. Ille-et-Vilaine) (Preuves, col. 647; Complete peerage, x, p.
552), who like Josce came to England in support of the Empress Matilda and
continued in the service of Henry II, with the manor of Headington (Oxon.)
as his reward (S.R. Wigram (ed.), Cartulary of the monastery of St Frideswide of
Oxford, 2 vols. Oxford, 1895±6, ii, p. 20; Pipe Rolls, 2±34 Henry II). Further,
Josce's neighbour, the tenant of the manor of Eastbury in Lambourn by royal
grant, was a Ralph de Lanvallay (VCH, Berks., iv, p. 259). Josce died in 1162
(Pipe Roll, 9 Henry II, p. 51).


John de Subligny (lord of Combour, 1164±c. 1173)
John was a cadet of an aristocratic family of the Avranchin, the son of
Robert de Suligneio (M. Dubosc (ed.), Cartulaires de la Manche: Abbaye de
Ã
Montmorel, Saint-Lo, 1878, no. cxlv). The toponym derives from Subligny

(cant. La Haye-Pesnel, arr. Avranches, dep. Manche). The senior branch of
the family in the mid-twelfth century was represented by Hasculf de
Subligny, who was John's paternal uncle (Bibl. mun. de Rouen, collection
Leber, ms 5636, no. 16). Hasculf 's grant to the abbey of La Vieuville, attested
by John (BN ms latin 5476, p. 101), raises the possibility that the family had a
prior interest in the barony of Combour, before Henry II gave it to John,
but it is equally possible that Hasculf made his donation after 1164. Before
1164, John possessed substantial estates in Normandy, in the dioceses of
Avranches and Bayeux, and in Cornwall. These were suf®cient for John,
with his wife Alice and son Hasculf, to found the abbey of Montmorel (Cart.
Montmorel, p. 1, nos. ii, iv, ix, xii).
Despite his aristocratic background, John was a curialis of Henry II (Actes
d'Henri II, `Introduction' p. 399, nos. xx, ccccxi, dcxxxviii; Pipe Roll 22
Henry II, p. 200). I do not share Delisle's theory that there were two
individuals of the same or similar name (Actes d'Henri II, `Introduction', p.
399). The John de Subligny in question simply enjoyed a long career, and
was still alive c. 1183 (BN ms latin 5476, p. 87).
As noted at p. 84 above, John to some extent colonised the barony of
Combour with his Norman kin. This can be traced through grants to John's
brother Adam and to the families of two of John's sisters. Adam had a formal
role in John's administration of the barony of Combour as John's deputy and
custodian of the young Hasculf and Isolde. In return, he was granted lands in
the barony, including land at Travel (BN ms latin 5476, pp. 92±3; BN ms fr.
22325, pp. 519±20).
One sister, Matilda, was married before 1160 to Hugo Farsi, another sister
married a de Flacheio (Cart. Montmorel, nos. cxlv, ccliii). The Farsi family
held lands in Guilberville and Capella (dioc. Bayeux), but after 1164 also held

211
Appendix 3
lands in the parishes of Ros-sur-Couesnon and Palvel of the honour of
Combour (Cart. Montmorel, nos. xiii, cxxxiii, ccvi, ccvii). In a charter of
1196, Hasculf, son of John de Subligny, con®rmed a grant to La Vieuville by
Geoffrey Farsi `homo meus de Palvel', so that Geoffrey's younger son might
be educated at the abbey and later become a monk there (Preuves, col. 726).
Evidently this (cadet) branch of the Farsi family had settled in Combour.
The details of the marriage alliance with the de Flacheio family are not
recorded, but William de Flacheio made a grant to Montmorel for the soul of
John de Subligny `avunculus meus' (Cart. Montmorel, no. cclii). The de
Flacheio patrimony, inherited by William, was just on the Norman side of the
border, in the parishes of Saint-Senier and Saint-Aubin-de-Terregate, and it
appears that it was his younger brother, Ruallen, who bene®tted from John's
patronage. Ruallen de Flacheio, described in a charter of Hasculf, son of John
de Subligny, as `miles meus et cognatus', held land in the parish of Saint-
Broladre. William and Ruallen's sister also married into a local family,
marrying John de Lanvallay, a tenant of the archbishop of Dol (BN ms latin
5476, pp. 9, 64, 81±2, 84) and brother or nephew of the oft-mentioned
William de Lanvallay (Ransford (ed.), Charters of Waltham Abbey, pp
lxxiv-v, nos. 165, 169±74).
I am especially grateful to Dr Daniel Power for his advice on the Subligny
family.




212
Appendix 4

THE RIGHT OF WRECK AND DUCAL
BREFS DE MER




In view of how little contemporary sources disclose of ducal or seignorial
administration in twelfth-century Brittany, there is a comparatively large
amount of evidence concerning the customary right of wreck. This is
re¯ected in the variety of terms, Latin and vernacular, employed by the
clerks (naufragium, fractura navium, varech, lagan[us], bris). Although common
throughout the pays de coutume, wreck must have had a special signi®cance in
Brittany with its extensive coastline, much of it rocky and treacherous, and
its position on a shipping route dominated by the wine-trade.1 The use and
abuse of wreck was a such a signi®cant phenomenon in Breton society that it
was one of the matters raised at an ecclesiastical council convened at Nantes
by Hildebert, archbishop of Tours, with the co-operation of Duke Conan
III, and was consequently condemned by Pope Honorius II.2
Evidence of the exercise of the right of wreck from the late twelfth
century suggests this ecclesiastical censure had little effect.3 Even the clergy,
both secular and regular, continued to exercise it. In the inquest conducted
on behalf of the archbishop of Dol in 1181, wreck is repeatedly mentioned in
the same context as the seignorial right to `great ®sh' from the sea.4 In the
1190s, the ducal seneschal of the Broerec determined a dispute over a
È
shipwreck on the shores of Belle-Ile (Morbihan) in which the abbey of

Sainte-Croix de Quimperle claimed right of wreck. The seneschal found
that the abbey, `de more principis, naufragium suum in terra sua . . . semper
habuerit et habere deberet'. The grounds for this ®nding are not stated, but
Belle-Ile had been given to the abbey by Alan `Canhiart', count of
Cornouaille, before 1058.5 The monks would have argued that this grant
implicitly included the count's right of wreck on the island. To these two
examples, from the north-eastern and southern coasts respectively, may be
‚ ‚
added evidence from the north-west, that the barons of Leon and Treguier

counted wreck as an important source of revenue. When Guihomar de Leon


See H. Touchard, `Les brefs de Bretagne', Revue d'Histoire Economique et Sociale 34 (1956),
1

116±40 at 116±27.
Preuves, cols. 554±6. 3 Touchard, `Brefs de Bretagne', p. 119.
2

à ‚
Enquete, pp. 35±7, 43±5. 5 Charters, no. C26; Cart. Quimperle, p. 131.
4


213
Appendix 4
boasted of his `precious stone' worth 100 000 s. per annum, one has to suspect
that not all of the wrecks were due to natural causes.6
The right of wreck pertained to the counts/dukes of Brittany wherever
their domains included sea-coast, and these were extensive along the

southern littoral of the peninsula, from the Guerande to Cornouaille. During

the reigns of Geoffrey and Constance, the coastlines of the baronies of Leon

and Treguier also constituted ducal domain (at least to the extent that they
were under the control of the lords of these baronies) and the duke and
duchess exercised the seignorial right of wreck while these baronies were in

<<

. 47
( 55 .)



>>