Abstract
On 28 October 1216, nine days after the death of his father, nineyear-old Henry III was hastily crowned king of England in Gloucester Cathedral by the bishop of Winchester, assisted by a papal legate. As England had not experienced a royal minority since the tenth-century Aethelred “the Unready,” the nobles loyal to the Plantagenet succession had to create procedures and practices that were for the most part entirely new. Legal customs had established procedures regarding the minorities of noble heirs, in terms of wardship and guardianship of property. But the extent to which these guidelines could be applied to the minority of a king was unknown and probably extremely limited. Moreover, there was very little time or opportunity for the careful consideration of constitutional problems. There was not even any assurance in 1216 that Henry III would remain king of England, since his father, King John, had died at Newark on the night of 18–19 October while losing a civil war against some of his own magnates, who sought not merely to sweep away John but his dynasty with him.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
D. Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery: Britain, 1066–1284 (New York, 2003), 300.
Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, 7 vols. ed. H. R. Luard (Rolls Series, 1884–89), 3:3–5, cited in D. Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III (London, 1990), 12 n. 14. As the notes below indicate, this massive and thorough study has been invaluable to the preparation of this chapter.
Foedera, conventiones, litterae, et cujuscunguegeneris acta publica, ed. T. Rymer (London: Record Commission ed., 1816–69), 1:145, cited in Carpenter, Minority, 22.
Regesta Honorii III, 2 vols. ed. P. Pressutti, (Rome, 1888–95), no. 131, cited in J. Sayers, Papal Government and England During the Pontificate of Honorius III, 1216–1227 (Cambridge, 1984), 167.
S. Painter, The Reiym of Kinyt John (Baltimore, 1949), 297.
History of William the Marshal, in English Historical Documents, III, 1189–1327, ed. H. Rothwell (London, 1975), 3:82 (hereafter cited as EHD III).
Sidney Painter observes that the theory of the king’s “two bodies” and the undying nature of the king’s “body politic” had not yet developed. Consequently the death of John on 27–28 October had effectively left the English throne vacant, making the coronation of his son imperative. Richard I and John had both been styled dominus Anglie in the interval between succession and coronation. See Painter, William Marshal (Baltimore, 1933), 192 n. 2.
It is unclear which of the two men actually placed the gold circlet that served as a crown on Henry’s head; N. Vincent, Peter des Roches (Cambridge, 1996), 134, asserts that it was the bishop of Winchester, whereas D. Crouch, William Marshal, 2nd ed.(London, 2003), 125, claims that it was Guala.
Painter, William Marshal, 193; Crouch, William Marshal, 125; History of William the Marshal, in EHD, III, 3: 82–83.
History of William the Marshal, in EHD, III, 3: 83–84. All of the major players in the decision (Guala, Peter des Roches, the Marshal, and the earl of Chester) had been named by John as executors of his will. The list of executors may therefore be taken as a reasonably reliable guide to the personnel at the core of the royalist party. See the text of the will in W. L. Warren, KingJohn, rev. ed. (New Haven, 1997), 255.
This occurs in several places, such as in letters patent of 2 November at Gloucester, in which the Marshal was styled iusticiarius noster Anglie (Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1216–1225, p. 2). This was also the case in a document announcing the reissue of Magna Carta, probably early in November 1216. The document was phrased as though directly from the king, but it was clearly the idea of others, and it may have been the work of Guala. See Select Charters, ed. W. Stubbs, 9th ed. ( Oxford, 1913), 333.
F. J. West, The Justiciarship in England, 1066–1232 (Cambridge, 1966), 229.
For the office of justiciar generally, see West, Justiciarship. According to Matthew Paris, Hubert seems to have held a lasting resentment against the Marshal for serving Henry III in a manner which Hubert apparently assumed ought to be reserved to him.
Chester seems to have appealed to the legate in the spring of 1217 for approval to be recognized as coadjutor with the Marshal, on the grounds of the regent’s age; but Honorius III advised Guala to reject Chester’s plea. See Royal and Other Historical Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry III, ed. W. Shirley, 2 vols. (Rolls Series, 1862–66), 1:532, cited in Crouch, William Marshal, 126 n. 56.
Select Charters, ed. W. Stubbs, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1913), 336–39, wherein the Marshal is described as rector nostri et regni nostri; translation in EHD, III, 22:327–32.
Carpenter, Minority, 30–31; “between the end of May and the middle of August, there were over 150 submissions” (Carpenter 42). 18. History of Willaam the Marshal,
in EHD, I1I, 3:89–90; Carpenter, Manority, 39.
History of William the Marshal, in EHD, III, 3:93.
R. C. Stacey, Politics, Policy, and Finance Under Henry III, 1216–1245 (Oxford, 1987), 4.
All reterences to manuscript sources on Henry 111 reter to documents held in the National Archives, Kew (TNA). TNA C 47/34/8 preserves nearly thirty of these charters, from men such as William de Arundel (no. 2), William de Kinellworth (no. 18), and a man named Ivo Pantolf (no. 20). A document of Ranulf of Chester was also included in the file as no. 24 in June 1928, apparently in error.
C. E. Blunt and J. D. Brand, “Mint Output of Henry III,” British Numismcztic Journal 39 (1970): 63.
The London mint figures, the only ones available from such an early period in the minority, are recorded in (oddly enough) the final pipe roll of John’s reign. See Pipe Roll I7John, ed. R. A. Brown (London, 1964), 20–22.
For this important point, see J. L. Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge, 1996), 115.
Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronzcon Anglzcanum, ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series, 1875), 187; Paris, Chronica Majora, 3: 43.
Patent Rolls, 177; Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati afterward referred to as RLC, ed. T. D. Hardy, 2 vols. (London, 1833–44), II, 75b.
On this seal see G. G. Simpson, “Kingship in Miniature: A Seal of Minority of Alexander III, 1249–1257,” in Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community, ed. A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993), 131–39.
See Carpenter, Minority, 18, for an insightful discussion of this point.
Humphrey duke of Gloucester, the uncle of Henry VI, mentioned the Marshal’s office specifically in his appeal of that year to the lords of Henry V’s council for a similar form of authority, which he felt Henry V had intended for him: C 49/53/12, published in S. B. Chrimes, “The Pretensions of the Duke of Gloucester in 1422,” English Historical Review 45 (1930): 101–3.
For this see Vincent, Peter des Roches, 177–80.
In this respect, the “triumvirate” bears resemblance not only to the original triumvirate in the last century of the Roman Republic, but also to the governing arrangement during the early minority of Henry VI, when the infant king’s three uncles of Beaufort, Bedford, and Gloucester jointly—and very uneasily at times—controlled the royal administration.
C 60/11, m. 6, now available online in C,’alendar ofl+2ne Rolls, tienry III, 1218–1219, no. 238 (http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk). Carpenter (Minority, 130) suggests that “this was almost certainly a measure to prevent Pandulf drawing directly on the king’s revenues for his own and papal purposes.”
F. A. Cazel, “The Legates Guala and Pandulf,” in Thirteenth Century England II, ed. P. R. Coss and S. D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, 1988), 19–21; see also F. M. Powicke, “The Chancery During the Minority of Henry III,” EHR 23 (1908): 220–35, esp. 229, where Powicke asserts that Pandulf “captured” the administration for himself.
SC 1/6, no. 37; translation in Carpenter, Minority, 131.
Carpenter, Minority, 131; Vincent, Peter des Roches, 183 and n. 252, citing RLC, I, 391b-448.
K. Norgate, The Minority of Henry III (London, 1912), 121–23; and see also the detailed study of R. V. Turner, “William de Forz, Count of Aumale: An Early Thirteenth-Century English Baron,” in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 115, no. 3 (1971): 221–49, esp. 236–38.
Stacey, Politics, 15; Norgate, Minority, 155–56.
For much of what follows on the various crises of castle custodies I am indebted to the very useful study of R. Eales, “Castles and Politics in England, 1215–1224,” in Thirteenth Century England II, 23–43.
Patent Rolls, 201; Stacey, Politics, 14–15.
RLC, I, 398b; Carpenter, Minority, 159–60.
Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, 5 vols. (Rolls Series, 1864–69), 3:57.
Carpenter, Minority, 199. It is notable that she played no role in the minority government, not even being granted custody or guardianship of her son. Given the priority she placed on her interests in France, which at times placed her and her husband at odds with her son’s government, this was probably a good thing.
This bad feeling was expressed in two letters to Hubert de Burgh, one from Salisbury and the other from Pembroke, detailing the war of words between the two men over John’s custody of the wood at Norton in Northamptonshire. According to Salisbury, Falkes imprisoned John Marshal’s bailiff at Norton and called “all native men of England” (omnes naturales homines Angliae) traitors, accusing them of desiring war against the foreign-born magnates. Clearly such an explosive outburst over a relatively small matter indicates genuine animosity, which was mutual, given that Salisbury in his letter also proudly claimed for himself the label of an English native. See Royal Letters, I, nos. 196 and 197.
Blunt and Brand, “Mint Output,” Table I. For the broader economic picture, see P.D A. Harvey, “The English Inflation of 1180–1220,” Past and Present 61 (1973), 3–30, and J. L Bolton, “The English Economy in the Early Thirteenth Century,” in King John: New Interpretations, ed. S. D. Church (Woodbridge, 1999), 27–40.70. Blunt and Brand, “Mint Output,” Table II.
See Carpenter, Minority, 301–6, for a thorough discussion of the papal letters and a convincing revelation of the people behind them. The “bomb” metaphor is also Carpenter’s (p. 289), but fits the circumstances perfectly.
The letters, copied into the Red Book of the Exchequer (E 164/2, fol. 171v.) are printed in various places; that to the earls and barons can be found in Foedera, I, 190, while the letter to Neville is in Royal Letters, I, no. 358. The quotation above is from Carpenter, Minority, 301.
Quotation in Carpenter, Minority, 301.
See the discussion of this point in F. M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward. 2 vols. (Oxford, 1947), 1:17, 171 n.1 and J. Beverley Smith, “The Treaty of Lambeth, 1217,” EHR 94 (1979): 570 n. 4. No such clause appears in the text of the treaty, and Louis’s pledge is mentioned only by Wendover (Chronica Majora, 4:31).
Powicke, King Henry III, 1:171.
Henry’s officials had enlisted papal aid the year before, when Honorius III had issued letters demanding that Hugh return the dowry: SC 7/18/28, 25 June 1222.
C 54/30, m. 16, printed in RLC, I, 578. The writ of liberate the king attested was probably intended to further block the plans of the justiciar’s opponents, who were intending to gather at Northampton, by releasing 100 marks in preparation for holding his own Christmas court there.
Powicke, King Henry III, 1:59, where he states that the enactment of the papal letters “brought the minority to an end.”
Carpenter (Minority, 322 and n. 6) discusses this point, observing that the restriction was probably put in place only in December 1223. The letters patent of November 1218, however, make clear that the principle was already established; it may be that Hubert and Langton actively decided to reinforce or renew the restriction at this time, when it would have been appropriate to reconsider the situation.
Carpenter, Minority, 322; T. F. Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England. 6 vols. (Manchester, 1920–33 ), 1:191.
Carpenter, Minority, 326–27; Powicke, Henry III, 1:59–60.
Coggeshall, 204; Patent Rolls, 425.
RLC, I, 630b.
Carpenter, Minority, 331, who goes on to point out the irony that, invoking John’s memory, this would have perpetuated a political situation “which John, in the circumstances of 1223, would not have tolerated for a moment” (332).
Patent Rolls, 426–27.
RLC, II, 72–73.
Carpenter, Minority, 358, citing RLC, I, 603, where Hugh was described as “the king’s enemy.”
Royal Letters, I, no. 199, cited in Carpenter, Minority, 357.
See TNA KB 26/85, mm. 3–2d., described on the inside cover as “Martin de Pateshull’s Roll” for the Michaelmas term of 8/9 Henry III, which records several complaints against Falkes. These are also printed in Curia Regis Rolls, XI, 7–9 Henry III, 383–88.
Carpenter, Minority, 361.
See above, n. 91.
Royal Letters, I, pp. 543–545.
Norgate, Minority, 296–98, provides extracts of all the primary accounts of the execution of the Bedford garrison.
Coggeshall, 208.
See N. Denholm-Young, Richard of Cornwctll (Oxford, 1947), 4.
Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, 307.
Carpenter, Minority, 379.
N. Barratt, “Finance on a Shoestring: The Exchequer in the Thirteenth Century,” in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge and London, 2004), 73; Blunt and Brand, “Mint Output,” Table I. The mint situation continued to improve: By 1234–35, the two mints struck a combined total of £38,077, while by 1249 they produced £121,251.
Patent Rolls, 540.
By the last year of the reign of Edward I, the province paid £6,267 in customs revenues into the king’s treasury: Carpenter, Minority, 378.
Patent Rolls, 560–67. The Latin text of the reissue of Magna Carta of 1225 is found in J. C. Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1992), 501–11.
Translation in EHD, III, 26: 346.
See below, and also the discussion in J. Richard, Saint Louis (Cambridge, 1992), 11.
RLC, 11, 207.
D. Carpenter, “King, Magnates and Society: The Personal Rule of King Henry III, 1234–1258,” Speculum 60 (1985), 39–70, reprinted in idem, The Reign of Henry III (London, 1996), 75–106.
Jacques Le Goff, Ludwig der Heilige (Stuttgart, 2000), 76.
Regine Pernoud, La Reine Blanche (Paris, 1972), 141.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 64–65 and 80.
For the question whether Blanche was designated as a regent or not see Thomas Vogtherr, “Weh dir, Land, dessen Konig ein Kind ist. ‘Minderjahrige Konige urn 1200 im europaischen Vergleich,”’ MST 37 (2003), S. 291–314, p. 307.
Pernoud, La Reine Blanche, 145.
Goff, Ludwag der Heilige, 91.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 84.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 84 and 91 and Pernoud, La Reine Blanche, 145.
See Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 81–82 and Pernoud, La Reine Blanche, 155–56.
Jean de Joinville, Das Leben des heiligen Ludwig, 2.16, ed. Erich Kock, trans. Eugen Mayser (Diisseldorf, 1969), 84 explicitly states that Blanche coming from Spain did not have any relatives or friends in the kingdom. See also Recrits d’un Mensestrel de reims au Treizieme Siecle, 32.336, ed. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1876), 174 [ … ] et si enfant estoient petit, et elle esoit un seule famme d’estrange contrée.
Rolf, Pflücke, Beitrkge zur Theorie von Patronage und Klientel. Eine vergleichende Soziologie der Gefolgschaft (Augsburg, 1972), S. 71: “Im Milieu ethnisch oder rassisch fremder Patronage kann das Ressentiment gegen die Patrone durch das Motiv ihrer Andersartigkeit verstarkt werden.”
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 84–86; Pernoud, La Reine Blanche, 159. For references to Henry IV see I. S. Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106 (Cambridge, 1999), 31.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 92–100.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 98–101, especially 100.
Hans Hattenhauer, Geschichte des deutschen Beamtentums, Handbuch des offentlichen Dienstes 1 (Koln, 1993), 37. For Marion F. Facinger, “A Study in Medieval Queenship: Capetian France 987–1237,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 5 (1968), 1–48, 31 “the initial steps leading to a bureaucratization of the government” were taken under Philip I.
William Chester Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade. A Study in Rulership (Princeton, 1979), 35 refers this statement only to the time of Louis’s reign but their origin is under Philip II, in particular the financial service and the later so-called Tresor de charter, see Joachim Ehlers, Die Kapetinger (Stuttgart, 2000), 131–32.
Ehlers, Die Kapetinger, 133. See also Annie Renoux, “Pfalzen und konigliche Staatsbildung. 25 Jahre Pfalzenforschung in Frankreich,” Orte der Herrschaft. Mittelalterliche Konigspfalzen, ed. Caspar Ehlers (Gottingen, 2002), 55–83, 71–73.
See Hattenhauer, Geschichte des deutschen Beamtentums, 39 and Ehlers, Die Kapetinger, 133.
Hattenhauer, Geschichte des deutschen Beamtentums, 39–40.
Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, 46 and 47.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 108.
Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, 7.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 108.
Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, 7. According to Jordan, this decision created “the most public tension between the king and his mother and played the most symbolic role.”
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 171. Blanche did not rule completely by herself, though. She was supported by a council and Louis himself still tried to deal with French matters, although not very effectively, from overseas.
Goff, Ludwig der Heilige, 171.
Andrew W. Lewis, “Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familial Order and the State,” Harvard Historical Studies 100 (Cambridge, MA, 1981), 179.
See Regesta Imperii 5.2, No. 3836, 3844, and ibid. 5.4 Nachtrage, No. 551–552A. See also Peter Thorau, Konig Heinrich (VII), das Reich und die Territorien. Untersuchungen zur Phase der Minderjahrigkeit und der “Regentschaften Erzbischofs Engelberts I. von Koln und Herzog Ludwigs I. von Bayern (1211) 1220–1228, Jahrbucher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich (VII), Teil 1 (Berlin, 1998), 26–31.
For the problem of the exact date, see Thorau, Konig Heinrich ( VII), 36–37, who considers February 1217 the probable date of Henry’s enfeoffment with the Swabian duchy.
For this date also see Thorau, König Heinrich ( VII), 48.
Frederick II was to take over the rule in Sicily himself again; see Gerhard Baaken, Ins Imperii Ad Regnum. Konigreich Sizilien, Imperium Romanum und Ro’misches Papsttum vom Tode Kaiser Heinrichs VI. bis zu den Verzichtserklarungen Rudolfs von Habsburg, Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters, Beihefte zu J. F. Bohmer, Regesta Imperii 11 (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna, 1993), 226–27.
Regesta Imperii 5.2, No 1114. This election had long been prepared by Frederick and therefore could not have been an accident; see Gerhard Baaken, “Die Erhebung Heinrichs, Herzog von Schwaben, zum Rex Romanorum (1220/1222),” Aus Sudwestdeutscher Geschichte. Festschrift fur Hans-Martin Maurer. Dem Archivar und Historiker zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Schmierer, G. Cordes, R. Kieß, G. Taddey (Stuttgart, 1994), 105–20.
In 1196, Henry VI’s so-called “Erbreichsplan”—a plan to make the monarchy hereditary—had failed and since then the princes had gained even more rights and privileges. In fact Frederick II himself as well as Henry (VII) granted extensive rights to the magnates: See Erich Klingelhofer, Die Reichsgesetze von 1220, 1231/32 und 1235: Ihr Werden und ihre Wirkung im deutschen Staat Friedrichs II (Weimar, 1955). For the “Erbreichsplan” see Peter Csendes, Heinrich VI (Darmstadt, 1993), 171–78.
Christian Hillen, “Engelbert, Erzbischof von Köln, als Gubernator fiir Heinrich (VII.),” Geschichte in Koln 46 (1999), 35–49.
For the relevance of the coronation, see Heinrich Mitteis, Die deutsche Konigswrxhl. Ihre Rechtsgrundlagen bis zur Goldenen Bulle, 2nd ed. (1944; repr. Darmstadt, 1987), 48, who states that “die ganze Herrschererhebung als ein einheitlicher, sich stufenweise verwirklichender Akt gesehen werden muß,” in which “die Akte, die wir heute als Wahlakte charkterisieren konnen [ … ] teilweise zeitlich nach der Kronung liegen konnen” (p. 54). Brühl considers the coronation to be the “wichtigste staatssymbolische Vorgang beim Herrschaftsantritt eines neuen Konigs” next to the unction; see Carlrichard Bruhl, “Krönung,” Handworterbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, 2 (Berlin, 1978), 1235–36. The coronation was in any case necessary for legitimate rule. For the coronation of the Roman King see Percy Ernst Schramm, “Die Kronung in Deutschland bis zum Begiim des salischen Hauses,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte—Kanonistische Abteilung 55 (1935), 184–332. The importance of the coronation can be seen in Henry (VII)’s case as well, because he was only crowned when, during a quarrel about the investiture of bishop Konrad of Hildesheim, it became clear that peace and stability in Germany were in danger. The coronation apparently strengthened his authority; see Josef Lothmann, Erzbischof Engelbert I von Köln (1216–1225): Graf von Berg, Erzbischof und Herzog, Reichsverweser (Cologne, 1993), 304. For a more detailed description of the quarrels surrounding the bishop of Hildesheim see Irene Crusius, “Bischof Konrad II. von Hildesheim: Herkunft und Wahl,” Institutionen, Kultur und Gesellschaft im Mittelalten Festschriftf’zirJosefFleckenstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. L. Fenske, W. Rösener, T. Zotz (Sigmaringen, 1964), 431–68.
Christian Hillen, “`iustum est, ut eum sequar, quocunque ierit.’ Der kolnische und der staufische Hof im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Geschichte in Koln 50 (2003), 37–54, 52.
See Christian Hillen, Curia Regis. Untersuchungen zur Hofstruktur Heinrichs (VIL) 1220–1235 nach den Zeugen seiner Urkunden (Frankfurt a. M., Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Vienna, 1999), 224–26.
Regesta Imperii 5.2, No. 4358–60.
Regesta Imperii 5.2, No. 4348.
The reason why Frederick II acted in such an unforgiving way and why Henry appeard so “stubborn” was conflict about their honor; see Theo Broekmann, Rigor iustitiae. Herrschaft, Recht und Terror im normannischstaufischen Suden (1050–1250) (Darmstadt, 2005).
Z. J. Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, East European Monographs (New York, 1996), 30. We know nothing about this illness.
Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS 9, p. 590.
Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS 9, p. 590.
Potthast, August, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum inde ab a. post christum natum MCXCVIII ab a. MCCCIV, vol. 1, Berlin 1874, No. 2016.
Patrologia Latina sive bibliotheca universalis, ed. Jacques Paul Migne (Paris: 1855), I, 215, p. 595, No. XXXVI: “ex regis ipsius [Emery] dispositione, ob teneram filii ejus regis Ladislai aetatem, pueri curam et regimen regni susceperis.” See also Pal Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526, trans. Tamas Palosfalvi (London, New York, 2001), 89.
Kosztolnyik, Hungary, 29–30.
Kosztolnyik, Hungary, 31 offers as an explanation that Emery had doubts about the legality of Ladislas’s coronation. Concluding from the other European cases of minority governments in those years it seems highly unlikely that this was the case. In no other European country did doubts about the legality of the coronation of a minor arise.
The exact date of his death seems not to be clear. In the literature dates range from September (Pal Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526, trans. Tamas Pálosfalvi [London, New York, 2001], 89) to December (Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS 9, p. 590, n. 80). Th. v. Bogyay, Emmerich, LexMA 3, c. 1889–1890 has September as well as November. The most probable seems to be 30 November; see Gyula Kristó, Die Arpaden-Dynastie. Die Geschichte Ungarns von 895 bis 1301 (Szekszárd, 1993), 174 who refers to the Hungarian sources which he seems to consider to be the most reliable.
Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS 9, p. 590.
Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis Secunda, MGH SS 9, p. 620.
If a queen, besides being a woman, was from a different country this seems to have provided a very good argument for the “native” magnates to dispose of her. It had already happened to Richeza, the polish queen, in about 200 years earlier, just to name one example; see Hedwig Rockelein, Heiraten—ein Instrument hochmittelalterlicher Politik’, Der Hoftag in Quedlinburg 973. Von den historischen Wurzeln zum Neuen Europa, ed. Andreas Ranft (Berlin, 2006), 99–135, 106.
Kosztolnyik, Hungary, 32.
PL 215, c. 597.
Kosztolnyik, Hungary, 31.
PL 215, c. 598, no. XLII.
Kosztolnyik, Hungary, 29.
Z. J. Kosztolnyik, Hungary, 32.
Continuatio Claustroneoburgensis Tertia, MGH SS 9, p. 634. The Continuatio Admuntensis, MGH SS 9, p. 591 adds the detail that Constance took a large treasure with her: “per vim occupatis portis et custodiis terminorum Ungarici regni, versus Wien ducens secum filium suum cum thesauris et diviciis magnis et comitatu copioso egrassa est, et a Luipoldo duce, de quo propter affinitatem plurimum presumebat, magnifice suscepta. Paucis igitur transactis diebus. Ladezlaus infans moritur.” See also Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 89.
Gyula Kristó, Die Arpaden-Dynastie. Die Geschichte Ungarns von 895 bis 1301 (Szekszárd, 1993), 174.
Damian J. Smith, Innocent and the Crown ofAragon. The Limits of Papal Authority, Church, Faith and Culture in the Medieval West (Burlington (VT), 2004), 21. Already in 1068, Sancho Ramirez had handed his kingdom over to the Holy See; see Michael Borgolte, Europa entdeckt seine Vielfalt 1050–1250. Handbuch der Geschichte Europas, vol. 3 (Stuttgart, 2002), 85.
Smith, Innocent and the Crown of Aragon, 43–44.
Thomas Vogtherr, “‘Weh dir, Land, dessen Konig ein Kind ist.’ Minderjahrige Konige um 1200 im europaischen Vergleich,” FMST 37 (2003): 291–314, 304.
Smith, Innocent and the Crown of Aragon, 146–47.
Although it is not quite clear when exactly this happened, it is a fact that James was indeed handed over to Guillem de Mont-rodon; see Smith, Innocent and the Crown of Aragon, 150 and 153. The king himself mentions it in his autobiography: “E agren acort, can foren en Catalunya, qui ns nodriri. E acordaren-se tots que ns nodri lo maestre del Temple en Montro. E son nom d’aquel maestre era En Guillem de Montredon, qui era natural d’Osona e maestre del Temple en Arago e en Catalunya,” Jordi Bruguera (ed. ), Llibre dels Fets del Rei en jaume, Els Nostres Classics. Texts en Llengus Catalane, dels Origens al 1800, B 11, vol. 2 (Barcelona, 1991), 14–15. Thomas Vogtherr, “`Weh dir, Land, dessen Konig ein Kind ist.’ Minderjahrige Konige urn 1200 im europaischen Vergleich,” FMST 37 (2003), 291–314, 304 on the other hand states that James was under the protection of Cardinal Peter for the first few months after his return from Narbonne. According to Smith, Innocent and the Crown ofAragon, 150 and 153 and more importantly the king’s autobiography it seems as if James was sent to Monzon right away, then taken to the cort at Lérida and then returned to the Templar’s castle where he was to stay from August 1214 to June 1217; see The Book of Deeds ofJames I ofAragon. A Translation of the Medieval Catalan Llibre dels Fets, Crusade Texts in Translation 10, trans. Damian J. Smith and Helena Buffery (Burlington [VT], Aldershot, 2003), 27, fn. 57 as well as Bruguera, Llibre dels Fets, 14–15.
Thomas Vogtherr, “`Weh dir, Land, dessen Konig ein Kind ist.’ Minderjahrige Konige urn 1200 im europaischen Vergleich,” FMST 37 (2003), 291–314, 305. James remembered also count Sancho to have nurtured hopes to become king (Bruguera, Llibre dels Fets, 15). Smith considers it not to be likely that Sancho aimed at the throne; see Smith and Buffery, The Book ofDeeds ofJames I ofAragon 26, fn. 55.
For the Spanish cortes, which were a form of parliament, and the Aragonese in particular see Luis Gonzalez Anton, Cortes III: Krone Aragón, LexMA 3 c. 289–91 and Joseph F. O’Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain (Ithaca, London, 1975), 435–45.
Vogtherr, FMST 37 (2003), 291–314, 305.
Thomas N. Bisson, “A General Court of Aragon (Daroca, February 1228),” in Medieval France and her Pyrenean Neighbours. Studies in Early Institutional History, ed. Thomas N. Bisson, 31–48, 33 (London, Ronceverte, 1989).
Evelyn S. Procter, Curia and Cortes in Leon and Castile 1071–1295 (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, London, New Rochelle, Sydney, 1980), 256.
Procter, Curia and Cortes, 225.
Aragon was therefore the first of the three Iberian kingdoms to admit towns on a regular basis; see Procter, Curia and Cortes, 256.
Thomas Vogtherr, “`Weh dir, Land, dessen Konig ein Kind ist.’ Minderjahrige Konige urn 1200 im europaischen Vergleich,” FMST 37 (2003): 291–314, 305. F. Darwin Swift, The Life and Times of James the First, the Conqueror, King of Aragon, Valencia, and Majorca, Count of Barcelona and Urgel, Lord ofMontpellier (Oxford, 1894), 16 names Pedro Ahones and Pedro Fernandez de Azagra for Aragon. The name of the deputy responsible for the Catalan part of the kingdom seems to be unknown.
Erich Wohlhaupter, Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte der Gottes- und Landfrieden in Spanien, Deutschrechtliche Beitrage, vol. 14.2 (Heidelberg, 1933), 101–7 mentions four peace treaties which he calls Landfrieden. They were concluded during or shortly after James’s minority, “damit scheinen wir in Katalonien uber das Zeitalter der gro;szen Landfrieden hinaus zu sein,” 107.
Although the king notes that neither Ferdinand nor count Sancho had attended the meeting, there seems to be evidence that both in fact did come to Lerida; see Smith and Buffery, The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon, 26, fn. 53. Unfortunately there is only a very incomplete edition of James’s charters, that in addition only starts in the year 1216, which makes it hard to check the attendance of the cort by going through the witness lists of the charters; see Ambrosio Huici Miranda, Maria Desamparados Cabanes Pecourt, eds., Documentos de jaime I de Aragon, vol. 1: 1216–36 (Valencia, 1976). James seems to have been wrong in another point: Count Sancho very likely had no aspirations to the throne.
Smith, Innocent and the Crown of Aragon, 168. Thomas Vogtherr, “‘Weh dir, Land, dessen Konig ein Kind ist.’ Minderjahrige Konige um 1200 im europaischen Vergleich,” FMST 37 (2003), 291–314, 305, only knows of the two clergy men and one worldly magnate, who he does not name. This gives the impression of James being a “rex clericorum” and even more under the control of the Holy See than he actually was. In fact the lay nobility constituted the majority of the administrafive council.
Thomas N. Bisson, The Medieval Crown of Aragon. A Short History (Oxford, 1986), 60.
Swift, The Life and Times ofJames the First, 20: “Of the young king’s fortunes during the next two years little is known, and his movements are difficult to trace. He had now shaken off the regent, and the government was carried on by a council.” That is about all Swift has to report about the two years after Sancho’s resignation.
Smith and Buffery, The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon 29, n. 70.
According to Swift, The Life and Times of James the First, 20, James was just taken under papal protection with only a passing mention of the advisors of the king, which is in fact the wording of the document; see La Documentetion pontifica de Honoria III (1216–1227), ed. Demetrio Mansilla (Rome, 1965), 177–78, no. 234. For the list of the advisers see Salvador Sanpere Y Miquel, “Minoria de Jaime I. Vindicacion del Procurador Conde Sancho. Anos 1214–1219,” in Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragon dedicado al Rey D. Jaime I y a su Epoca, vol. 2, (Barcelona, 1909), 580–694, 692, n. 1 (cont.): “Spargumpraterea Tarraconensem Antistem, Simonem Cornelium, Guilielmum Cerveram, et Petrum Ahonensium Consilio Regis primarios administros, propter pueri aetatem, praeficit.” See also ibid., 685–94.
Thomas N. Bisson, “The Finances of the young James I (1213–1228),” in Medieval France and her Pyrenean Neighbours. Studies in Early Institutional History, ed. Thomas N. Bisson (London, Ronceverte, 1989), 351–92, 361–62. The source for the procurator title seems a bit obscure: See ibid., n. 52.
Swift, The Life and Times of James the First, 32–33 suggests roughly the same phase.
Smith and Buffery, The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon, 30, 32, 34; Bruguera, Llibre dels Fets, 18, 20, 22.
Swift, The Life and Times of James the First, 24.
Swift, The Life and Times of James the First, 32; see also Odilo Engels, Jakob I. “der Eroberer,” LexMA 5, c. 281–82.
Bisson, The Medieval Crown of Aragon, 65.
Swift, The Life and Times of James the First, 18.
Smith and Buffery, The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon, 27. Bruguera, Llibre dels Fets, 15.
For an overview of the royal administration, see Swift, The Life and Times of James the First,149–83. There were no court ordinances before the year 1276/77, but some of the offices date back to the time of James’s rule. It is possible to identify a few like the majordomus and one can also sketch his responsibilities, but the overall picture remains rather blurry; see Karl Schwarz, Aragonische Hofordnungen im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Geschichte der Hofamter und Zentralbeho’rden des Konigreichs Aragon (Berlin, Leipzig, 1914), 4–19.
Bisson, The Medieval Crown of Aragon, 80.
Bisson, The Medieval Crown of Aragon, 81.
Swift, The Life and Times of James the First, 154.
See C. Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1986).
Even Walter Map, one of the most experienced administrators at the court of Henry II, said of the curia regis that “what the court is God alone knows, I do not”: Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, ed. M. R. James (Oxford, 1914), 1:248, cited in W. L. Warren, Henry II (London, 1973), 301.
The most recent biography is J. R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort (Cambridge, 1994).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2008 Charles Beem
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hillen, C., Wiswall, F. (2008). The Minority of Henry III in the Context of Europe. In: Beem, C. (eds) The Royal Minorities of Medieval and Early Modern England. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230616189_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230616189_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-37561-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-61618-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)