Henry the Young King, 1155-1183

by Matthew Strickland

  The Marshal soon came to occupy a leading place among the Young King’s own household knights, and in all of his lord’s charters which he witnesses, William’s name heads the list of the household, following on from those of barons or clergy.43 In Henry II’s court the chief military officer of the king was the constable, assisted by the marshal. The Young King, however, is not known to have had his own constable, and it is likely that William Marshal performed the role of the magister militum – commander of the knights – within his household. Henry II, who was an astute judge of men, may well have recognized in William a man who was, as the History insists, ‘most brave and true’ (proz et leials), but it may also be that the king viewed an individual drawn from the lesser ranks of the nobility as a more reliable choice than a companion of highest birth.44 Certainly the majority of the knights known to have been in or connected to the Young King’s household were men of comparatively modest status, and not scions of the great Anglo-Norman noble families. When or under what circumstances young Henry first met these knights bachelor is unknown, but the core group of his household (or mesnie privée) appears to have been established at least by early 1173, when Roger of Howden could list many of those who later attest his acta as being among the rebels who first left the Angevin territories for France with him in April of that year.45 Several were Normans, including Adam d’Yquebeuf, who enjoyed prominence in the household and appears as William Marshal’s main rival,46 Robert de Tresgoz, from a family holding lands in the Cotentin and who served as one of the Young King’s stewards, Thomas de Coulonces, also from the Cotentin, and Gerard Talbot, while William de Tinténiac was a Breton.47 Others, such as Simon Marsh and probably Robert de Londres, were English.48 That William Marshal’s detractors in the household made play of the fact that he was English by birth provides a glimpse of competing identities and regional rivalries at work among the young men jockeying for position around the Young King. Nevertheless, the predominance of Normans and Anglo-Normans in young Henry’s household reflected a similar pattern in the court of Henry II, and it is striking that the Young King had few if any companions from Anjou, Poitou or Aquitaine in his permanent household.49

  Tellingly, however, these companions attest none of the Young King’s acta during his period as regent from July 1170 up to November 1172. These were only witnessed by the tutores appointed by King Henry II, a clear indication that young Henry enjoyed little or no independent power.50 Moreover, even though England now had a second king, much of the direction of the government still came directly from Henry II, via writs ‘from across the sea (de ultra mare)’ and by mandates carried by the royal familiares who regularly travelled to and from the king in his continental lands.51 In reality, there was little difference from the situation before 1170, when the justiciars Robert, earl of Leicester, and Richard de Lucy had acted as vice-regents in the king’s absence but were in constant receipt of his instructions.52

  The Young King and Becket’s Return to England

  Of the numerous missives that must have been received by the Young King and his counsellors, only one, a writ issued by Henry II from Chinon around 30 September 1170, survives, preserved because of its place in the tragic final months of Thomas Becket’s life.

  Henry, king of England, to his son Henry, the king, greeting. Be it known to you that Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, has made peace with me according to my will. I therefore command that he and his men shall have peace. You are to ensure that the archbishop and all his men, who left England for his sake, shall enjoy their possessions in peace and honour, as they held them three months before the archbishop withdrew from England. Moreover, you shall cause the senior and more important knights of the honour of Saltwood to appear before you, and by their oath you shall cause recognition to be made of what is there held in fee from the archbishop of Canterbury, and what this recognition shall declare to be within the fief of the archbishop you shall cause him to have.

  – Witnessed by Rotrou, archbishop of Rouen, at Chinon53

  Brief though this writ was, its context and content were highly significant. Since the agreement of peace between the archbishop and the king at Fréteval in July 1170, Becket had remained on the continent. He had refused Henry’s offer to join the court immediately after the reconciliation and to return with the king, choosing instead to make his farewells and settle his affairs in France – a serious mistake, for the moment to seal a lasting peace was lost.54 The lands of the archbishopric, moreover, which had been taken into royal control following his flight from England in 1164, still remained in the hands of a hostile group of men with a vested interest in delaying his return for as long as possible while they enjoyed the revenues from the archiepiscopal estates.55 Though Henry II had sent writs to the justiciars and bishops, announcing the peace and commanding the restoration of the property of the archbishop and his men,56 Ranulf de Broc, the custodian of the archbishopric and a long-standing enemy of Becket’s, had, with others, merely intensified their exploitation of the estates, selling off the autumn harvest and livestock, and denuding the forests.57 Henry II was rendered incapable of further intervention by his severe illness, while the Young King’s advisors had evidently been in no hurry to enforce the restoration, for the archiepiscopal lands were still being accounted for at the Michaelmas session of the Exchequer.58

  Becket still had not received the kiss of peace from Henry II and, perhaps with justification, felt alarmed at returning to England without it unless he was accompanied by the king. At Chaumont-sur-Loire, in what would prove their final meeting, amicable relations were seemingly resumed and Henry promised to meet Thomas later at Rouen, where he would either give him the kiss of peace or send Becket with Archbishop Rotrou to England, where he would receive it from the Young King.59 It was shortly thereafter that Henry II had sent his son the writ ordering the restoration of the property of Thomas and his clerks, and commanding a jury of recognition to establish the extent of the archiepiscopal lands at Saltwood.60 This manor was of particular significance, both because Thomas had not actually been in possession of Saltwood three months before his flight from England, and because its castle was the base of operations of Ranulf de Broc and his kinsmen, the Brokeis. The king’s sealed writ had been carried to England by some of Thomas’ most trusted clerks, led by Herbert of Bosham, who presented it and other letters to the Young King at Westminster on 5 October.61 Herbert later wrote to Becket with a detailed report of their reception, which gives a rare glimpse into the workings of the Young King’s court.62 Initially, the lay officials of the see, William of Eynsford and William FitzNigel, whom the clerks had brought with them, had not dared to enter young Henry’s presence – an indication of the fear generally felt at being associated with Thomas at this time. But Herbert, having taken counsel with William FitzAldelin and Ralph FitzStephen, two of the Young King’s advisors more sympathetic to Thomas, ‘boldly and diligently approached the king in his chamber (in camera sua)’, bringing with him only Robert, sacrist of Canterbury.63 Here he found young Henry attended by the two archdeacons Geoffrey Ridel and Richard of Ilchester, as well as by William de St John and many others, including Henry II’s uncle Earl Reginald of Cornwall, who had played a notable role as an intermediary between Henry II and Thomas at the tempestuous council of Northampton.64 The letters brought by the clerks were read out, then they withdrew while the Young King took counsel, particularly with the royal official Walter de Lisle.65 The clerks were then readmitted, and Geoffrey Ridel, answering for the Young King, informed them that in order to have reliable knowledge of the state of the archbishop’s manors, it would be necessary first to summon Ranulf de Broc and the other officials entrusted by the king with the archbishopric’s lands, goods and incomes, and that, accordingly, the Young King had assigned the date of 15 October for a full execution of his father’s mandate.66 Troubled by this delay, Herbert and some of his companions approached the Young King as he was travelling from London to Windsor and greeted him in Thomas’ name ‘wi
th all care and humility’. It was evident that his initial response at Westminster had been dictated by the dominating presence of his tutores. For now, as Herbert noted, ‘he in fact replied graciously to us, and showed us a very much more lively countenance on the road than he had previously shown us in the presence of his justices’.67

  It was eventually agreed that restoration of the archiepiscopal estates should take place at Martinmas, 11 November, but when shortly thereafter John of Salisbury arrived in England on Thomas’ orders to assess the situation, he found that, although Becket’s proctors had reoccupied some of the estates they had been driven out almost immediately by Ranulf de Broc and his men, while the lands had already been stripped bare and even the Christmas rents collected in advance.68 John went to see the Young King, ‘and was received with tolerable courtesy (satis humane receptus)’, although his custodes made some threats, not believing Becket to be sincere in his desire for peace. Henry II had been drawn south to Berry by a renewed offensive by Louis VII, and had been unable to meet with Thomas at Rouen. Nevertheless, to Henry II’s men in England, Thomas’ long delay in France seemed suspicious, his grant of a papal legation ominous, and many, not least the prelates involved in the coronation but even the monks of Canterbury cathedral priory, feared that his return would bring reprisals.69

  Even at this stage, however, there might have been a real possibility of a peaceful settlement, had Thomas been able to see the Young King in person and assuage any suspicions his enemies had played upon that he intended to invalidate the coronation or disturb the realm. Yet at this critical and highly sensitive juncture Becket made a fateful decision. Shortly before he embarked for England from Wissant, he sent a messenger, Osbern, to Dover where, around 29 November, he served papal letters on Archbishop Roger, and the bishops of London and Salisbury, commanding their suspension, together with that of Durham, Exeter, Chester, Rochester, St Asaph’s and Llandaff, and renewing the excommunication of London, Salisbury and Geoffrey Ridel.70 He was undoubtedly provoked into this action by receiving news that the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury had been ordered to attend Henry II in Normandy, bringing with them representatives from all the vacant sees in England in order to hold elections, and that those so elected were to be sent directly to the pope for consecration, thereby completely circumventing the role of the archbishop of Canterbury.71 Still worse, it was highly likely that prominent among those who would be elevated to bishoprics in this process would be Becket’s most hated opponents, Geoffrey Ridel, Richard of Ilchester, Reginald of Salisbury and John, archdeacon of Oxford.72 To Becket’s defenders, the issuing of the papal sentences was an understandable reaction to enormous provocation, an act of desperation in an impossible situation; to his critics, it proved Thomas to be vengeful and incapable of compromise. Whatever the case, it was a profoundly misguided move: it seemed like deliberate aggression, flew in the face of the reconciliation brokered at Fréteval,73 and, worse, once more appeared to cast doubt on the very validity of the Young King’s coronation. The prelates were now being punished merely for obeying the king’s orders. It was little wonder that the reaction in England was one of dismay and great anger. Those of the Young King’s tutores who had warned of Becket’s craft and hostile intentions now seemed wholly vindicated.

  When Thomas himself landed on 1 December 1170, at Sandwich, he was immediately confronted by the sheriff of Kent, Gervase of Cornhill, who accused him of bringing fire and sword rather than peace into the kingdom, and of wanting to un-crown young Henry. Becket replied that, though it had been illegal, he was not questioning the coronation but only punishing the bishops for usurping the rights of Canterbury, a punishment, moreover, which he claimed had been authorized by King Henry.74 When on the following day representatives of the archbishop of York and the others met with Becket at Canterbury, he refused to revoke the sentences as they requested, claiming that they had been imposed not by him, but by the pope, who alone could revoke them. As the episcopal clerks pointed out, however, as papal legate, Becket, who was the real author of the sentences, had the power to lift them, and they may have suggested that Becket had only obtained papal authorization for the sentences by falsely alleging that the bishops had made the young Henry swear to observe the Constitutions of Clarendon at his coronation.75 Under pressure from the king’s officials, Thomas offered the bishops conditional absolution, provided they offered satisfaction and took an oath to stand by the pope’s judgement, an action that went contrary to the Constitutions. Though Salisbury and London were minded to accept, the hostile biographers of Becket allege that Archbishop Roger steadied them in their resistance to Thomas, and advised that they should inform young Henry that Becket intended to depose him, and that they themselves should set out to see King Henry II in Normandy.76

  Only months into his co-rule of England, young Henry was thus confronted by a grave and unprecedented crisis to which his response, as Thomas and his enemies alike knew, would be pivotal. Realizing it was crucial to see his former ward face to face, Thomas set out to visit young Henry at Winchester, where he was preparing to hold his Christmas court.77 There too he hoped to see his old ally, the venerable Bishop Henry of Winchester, now very old and blind, but a voice that would certainly urge reconciliation on the young ruler.78 While the archbishop himself made a wary progress via Rochester to Southwark, he dispatched Richard, prior of Dover, as his messenger to the Young King requesting his permission to visit him ‘as his king and his lord’.79 As a sign of his affection and goodwill, Thomas sent with him three fine warhorses, a gift carefully calculated to appeal to the young man’s chivalric enthusiasms. William FitzStephen, who had an eye for good horseflesh, describes with evident appreciation these ‘three valuable destriers, of remarkable speed, elegant stature and beautiful appearance, which walked tall, lifting supple legs, flickering their ears and quivering their limbs, standing restlessly, clothed in flowered and multi-coloured trappers, which he had arranged to give as a new gift to his new lord’.80

  Prior Richard was closely questioned by the Young King’s tutores before being finally granted access to the king, to whom he delivered Becket’s greetings and assurance that, whatever his detractors had said, the archbishop had in no way intended to invalidate the young king’s coronation or aim at his disinheritance. His only complaint was that he himself, according to the prerogative of the archbishop of Canterbury, had not placed the diadem on the Young King’s head.81 The Young King thanked the prior, less on account of his current mission than for the hospitality he had shown in the past to Queen Eleanor, and to his sister Matilda, during the preparations for her marriage to Henry, duke of Saxony.82 Uncertain as to whether to grant the archbishop’s request for an audience, however, young Henry sought the advice of Geoffrey Ridel and Richard of Ilchester, who were then at Southampton waiting to cross to Normandy.83 Of the two, Ridel was the most implacably opposed to Becket, and had much to lose from Thomas’ restoration.84 Thomas’ biographers agree that it was Ridel who urged the Young King not to admit Becket to his presence, claiming that the primate was undoubtedly a traitor seeking to invalidate his coronation or even to disinherit and depose him.85

  There was now an intense debate in young Henry’s court about the best way to proceed, and Reginald of Cornwall urged him to admit Becket. But the young man was swayed by other counsel and sent Jocelin of Arundel, Thomas de Tournebu and Hugh de Gundeville to London, where Thomas was residing at the house of the bishop of Winchester in Southwark, to forbid the archbishop from approaching his court.86 Jocelin informed Becket that, at the present time, it was not possible for the archbishop to speak with the Young King. He was to return to Canterbury and remain there, and not to travel through the cities and towns of the realm.87 Becket was evidently surprised and shaken by this response, ‘judging that such a statement was not in the young king’s nature’, and asked if by this he had placed the archbishop ‘outside the communication and security of his peace’.88 ‘His orders are just as I
said,’ replied Jocelin.89 According to William of Canterbury, Becket’s response had been to ask if the Young King had defied him, referring to the act of diffidatio whereby the bond formed by homage between lord and man was formally revoked, and with it the protection of lordship removed from the erstwhile vassal.90 This was not the case, but the embassy showed its hostility by refusing to take back any message from Thomas to young Henry, or to give escort to any of his clerks.

  Returning to London, Becket learned that a ship bearing wine sent to him as a gift from Henry II had been attacked by Ranulf de Broc and some of the sailors killed or imprisoned. Thomas immediately sent Richard of Dover and the abbot of St Albans to the Young King, whom they found at Fordingbridge, hunting in the New Forest.91 This time, he refused to see the messengers in person. He ordered restoration of the ship to Thomas, but his counsellors told the envoys that Thomas’ other grievances, which they had presented, would not be addressed while the archbishop continued in his opposition.92 Matters were not helped when a messenger, bringing venison as a gift from the Young King to his great-uncle Earl Reginald, recognized one of Thomas’ clerks, William of Canterbury, who had been sent there to gather information; although the earl’s men protested a case of mistaken identity, Reginald felt his position compromised sufficiently to dismiss William immediately, with a warning to Thomas and his clerks that they were in grave peril.93

  Meanwhile, de Broc and his kinsmen, based in Saltwood castle, continued to harass the archbishop, poaching deer in his parks, stealing his hunting dogs and seizing a packhorse bearing supplies. On Christmas Day, Thomas retaliated; at the close of the service for the Nativity in the cathedral, he formally excommunicated all violators of the rights of the church of Canterbury and all ‘fomentors of discord’, naming Ranulf and his brother Robert de Broc in person, and pronounced the papal sentences against the bishops involved in the Young King’s coronation. By then, however, these same prelates, Roger of York, Jocelin of Salisbury and Gilbert Foliot, together with Richard of Ilchester, had crossed the Channel and were already at Bur-le-Roi, where Henry II was holding his Christmas court in the company of Eleanor, Richard, Geoffrey and John.94 The bishops were joined by William de Mandeville, who had been sent by the Young King to inform his father of the situation. The bishops made bitter complaint to the king, and according to FitzStephen, they also claimed that Becket ‘was careering about the kingdom at the head of a strong force of armed men’. This twisted the fact that on his return to Canterbury from his abortive journey towards Winchester Becket had an escort of five armed knights to prevent attack.95 But in the circumstances, it was not so impossible to believe that the man who as chancellor had commanded a powerful force of knights on the Toulouse expedition might have raised stipendiaries or drawn on the substantial knight service available from the archiepiscopal lands. Henry II fell into a paroxysm of rage, in which he uttered the fateful words, as reported by Edward Grim, ‘What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk!’96 He is said by William FitzStephen to have laid a series of charges before his barons against Thomas, among which ‘that he had entered the kingdom like a tyrant; that he had suspended the archbishop of York and all his bishops and excommunicated others for their obedience to the king; that he had disturbed the whole realm’ and that he intended to deprive his son of the crown.97