WHEN ARTHUR WAS NEARING NINE YEARS OF AGE,45 BUT THE KING ®RSTTO...

1196, when Arthur was nearing nine years of age,

⁴⁵

but the king ®rsttook action regarding Brittany sometime earlier, in March 1195.Constance was at Angers on 15 March, while Richard travelled fromChinon to Saint-James de Beuvron between the 17th and 23th of themonth, and was actually in Brittany, at FougeÁres, on 24 March.

⁴⁶

It iseasy to imagine that a meeting took place between the duchess and theking at Angers, or on the journey north, with Richard proceeding tomeet Ranulf at Saint-James de Beuvron, then entering Brittany fromthe north-east. Ranulf's letter on behalf of the canons of FougeÁres mayhave been made at this time, as the place-date is Martilli, possiblyMarcille (deÂp. Ille-et-Vilaine) and the act must pre-date the death of theaddressee, Richard, bishop of London (1189±98).

⁴⁷

According to Le Baud, Richard's policy in 1195 was to reconcileConstance and Ranulf and to enforce Ranulf's exercise of ducalauthority. To this end, Richard came to Brittany and was honourablyreceived by Constance and Arthur at Rennes. During this visit, theking persuaded Constance, by entreaties and by threats, to marry

44

W. L. Warren,

King John, 2nd ed., New Haven and London, 1997, p. 39; WN,

i, p. 335±6. See

discussion at Landon (ed.),

Itinerary of Richard I, p. 197. Note that another of Arthur's great-

uncles, David, earl of Huntingdon, was also at Richard's court at Tours in June 1190.

45

WN,

ii, p. 463.

46

Charters, no. C31; J. C. Holt and R. Mortimer (eds.),

Acta of Henry II and Richard I: Handlist of

documents surviving in the original in repositories in the United Kingdom, List and Index Society,

Special Series 21, London, 1986,

i, nos. 374, 375;

ii, no. 226; Landon (ed.),

Itinerary of Richard I,

p. 101, no. 444. Cf.

ibid. no. 443, a charter for Montmorel made on 23 March 1195 at `Sanctum

Jacobum', identi®ed by Landon as Saint-Jacques-de-la-Lande (canton Rennes Sud-Ouest,

arrond. Rennes, Ille-et-Vilaine). Another charter of Richard I, for Notre-Dame du Vúu

(Cherbourg), bears the same place-date (BN nouv. acq. latin 1244, p. 409). The place is,

however, Saint-James de Beuvron, where Montmorel had possessions, and which was equally

within a day's journey of FougeÁres.

47

Charters, R6.

Ranulf and to give him her son and her lands.

⁴⁸

In view of thediplomatic evidence just cited, and especially the fact that Richard wasas close as FougeÁres on 24 March, a visit to the ducal court at Rennesis not improbable. Although Le Baud is mistaken about the circum-stances of the marriage, the account is coherent if one substitutes`reconcile' for `marry'. That is, although Constance and Ranulfmarried in 1189, Ranulf had never exercised his rights as duke jureuxoris, and Richard's intervention in March 1195 was intended toenable him to do so in the future.Le Baud continues that the Bretons soon rebelled against Ranulf'sregime and expelled him from the duchy. Ranulf ¯ed to Normandy andthe Angevin royal court. Allowing for Le Baud's partisanship, thisaccount at least provides a context for the bizarre episode of Constance'scaptivity in 1196, which would be inexplicable if we had only Roger ofHowden's account. As reported by Howden, in 1196 Constance wassummoned by Richard to speak with him in Normandy. At Pontorsonshe was met by her husband, Ranulf, earl of Chester, seized andimprisoned at his castle of Saint-James de Beuvron.

⁴⁹

Le Baud gives a more detailed account of Constance's capture, whichcertainly has some elements of veracity. According to Le Baud, Richardreturned to Rennes soon after Easter 1196, to attempt to reconcileRanulf with Constance and the barons. Finding that the Bretons hadassembled a strong force and now offered a hostile reception even to theking, Richard left Rennes for Nantes. He ordered Constance to meethim there, but this was a ruse. At Richard's behest, Ranulf capturedConstance, en route, at Teillay. Ranulf then handed Constance over tohis ally, HarscoeÈt de Rays.

⁵⁰

Le Baud's date (1196) and the capture by Ranulf agree withHowden.

⁵¹

The involvement of HarscoeÈt de Rays is mentioned only byLe Baud, but as a baron whose estates were south of the Loire, HarscoeÈtmay have been in sympathy with Richard. The most glaring incon-sistency is in the place of capture, Teillay as against Pontorson. Teillay(cant. Bain-de-Bretagne, arrond. Redon, deÂp. Ille-et-Vilaine) is locatedbetween Rennes and Nantes, but otherwise it is problematical. In thetwelfth century, Teillay was a forest pertaining to the lords of ChaÃteau-

48

Le Baud,

Histoire de Bretagne, p. 201.

⁴⁹

RH,

iv, 7.

50

Le Baud,

Histoire de Bretagne, pp. 201±2. For HarscoeÈt de Rays, see R. Blanchard (ed.),

Archives

historiques de Poitou.

xxvii,

Cartulaire des sires de Rays (1160±1449), Poitiers, 1898, pp. lxxiii-

lxxvii. Blanchard dismisses Le Baud's account of the involvement of HarscoeÈt, but without

citing any cogent evidence.

51

For independent evidence of Andrew de VitreÂ's daughter being given as hostage, see

A. Bertrand de Brousillon, (ed.),

La Maison de Laval (1020±1605): Etude historique accompagnee du

Cartulaire de Craon, 5 vols., Paris, 1893,

v, no. 3200.

briant. In the second quarter of the century, `the church of St Malo inthe forest of Teillay' became a priory of Saint-Sulpice-la-ForeÃt andthrived under the patronage of the bishops of Rennes and the lords ofChaÃteaubriant.

⁵²

As a patroness of Saint-Sulpice, Constance might havevisited the priory as she travelled from Rennes to Nantes; alternatively,the forest of Teillay may have made a good place for an ambush. LeBaud does not explain how this might have occurred within thedomainal lands of Geoffrey de ChaÃteaubriant, one of the Breton baronswho supported Arthur during Constance's captivity.

⁵³

In the absence of any corroboration for Teillay as the place ofcapture, I suspect Le Baud of invention, inspired by a charter ofConstance's made in the 1190s at Teillolium. Le Baud may haveassociated this charter with Constance's captivity because it is the onlyone of her acts for which there is also an act of Ranulf regarding thesame subject-matter. But Ranulf's charter was made elsewhere, atMartilli, so there is no reason to think that Constance and Ranulf weretogether at the time, and furthermore the latest date for both charters is