CONSTANCE'S AUTHORITY TO RULE IN HER OWN RIGHT WAS COMPROMISED NO...

1186.Constance's authority to rule in her own right was compromised notonly by the existence of a son and heir but also by the fact that for mostof the period from 1187 until her death in 1201 Constance was amarried woman. The almost complete absence of Constance's secondhusband, Ranulf, earl of Chester, from the documentary evidence, evenin form, let alone in substance, is remarkable considering that he wasduke of Brittany,jure uxoris, for ten years from 1189 to 1199. There isonly one known act of Ranulf's made in the capacity of duke ofBrittany and earl of Richmond, a letter to the bishop of Londonrequesting him to enforce grants made by dukes of Brittany to theabbey of Saint-Pierre de Rille (near FougeÁres) in the church ofCheshunt (Herts.), written between 1190 and 1195. Although Ranulfseems normally to have used the title, `Dux Britannie, comes Cestrie etRichemondie', in this document, inexplicably, he is styled simply`comes Cestrie'. Constance issued a letter in similar terms, withouteither document acknowledging the existence of the other.

¹⁴

In contrast, some of Constance's acts during her brief third marriagewere made in joint-names with Guy de Thouars. The absence ofArthur is more explicable, in terms of his extreme youth and the factthat from 1196 to 1199 he was at the Capetian court. Constance's actsmade from early 1199 do record Arthur's assent. It seems reasonable toanalyse the period 1186 to 1201 as the regime of Duchess Constanceherself. The reign of Duke Arthur from 1201 to 1202 will be discussedseparately below.Like Duke Geoffrey, Constance patronised a wide variety ofchurches; old Benedictine abbeys associated with the ducal dynasty,such as Saint-Melaine and Saint-Georges de Rennes and Saint-Gildas deRhuys, as well as the Knights Templar, the fashionable nunnery ofSaint-Sulpice-la-ForeÃt near Rennes, and the hospital of Saint-Jeand'Angers. Constance especially patronised Cistercian abbeys; Savigny,

14

Charters, nos. C25 and R6, for Ranulf's title, see

ibid., p. 99.

Begard, Boquen, Langonnet, Melleray, CarnoeÈt and Buzay, ®nallyfounding Villeneuve as a daughter-house of the latter. Also likeGeoffrey, Constance avoided benefactions that involved alienation ofthe ducal patrimony, granting revenues from ducal lands, mills andcustomary dues rather than these assets themselves. On at least twooccasions, Constance granted the right to hold a fair, evidence foreconomic growth, and also for the exercise of a ducal monopoly in thisregard. Grants of property tended to be small: a hermit's cell, a meadowor a town-house.

¹⁵

Even the foundation of an abbey, Villeneuve,involved the minimum alienation of land. The mother-house, theabbey of Buzay, agreed to give one of its granges back to the ducaldomains, and to use another as the site of the new abbey, in exchangefor some ducal land but primarily for large cash revenues from otherducal properties.

¹⁶

Perhaps the most signi®cant feature of Constance's patronage of theChurch is that many of her acts involve con®rmations of previous ducalgrants, indicating that Constance's ducal authority was widely acknowl-edged. This is also demonstrated by attestations to Constance's chartersby barons from all parts of the duchy. Like Duke Geoffrey's, Con-stance's authority was recognised outside the ducal domains.

¹⁷

On the other hand, Constance was obliged to sacri®ce the baroniesacquired by Henry II and Geoffrey to maintain her position. At somepoint after 1187, Constance restored the barony of LeÂon to its heir andformally withdrew ducal claims in respect of the barony of VitreÂ.

¹⁸

These two acts were justi®ed in political terms. LeÂon was remote fromthe centres of ducal administration, and its previously rebellious lordsbecame enthusiastic supporters of Constance and Arthur thereafter. Inthe case of VitreÂ, the ducal claims had become anachronistic andimpossible to prosecute in any case, and again, the support of the VitreÂfamily was essential to Constance and Arthur's political survival.More problematic is the barony of PenthieÁvre, since the 1120sconsisting of the two baronies of TreÂguier (or Guingamp) andPenthieÁvre (or Lamballe). As discussed in Chapter 4, Duke Geoffreyseized the former around 1182. There is also evidence that Geoffrey andConstance possessed at least portions of the latter; they were able todispose of property in the forest of Lanmeur, and Constance at somestage exercised wardship of the prepositus of Lamballe.

¹⁹

According to

15

Charters, nos. C15, 20, 45; Y. Hillion, `La Bretagne et la rivalite CapeÂtiens-PlantageneÃts: Un

exemple ± la duchesse Constance (1186±1202)',

AB

92 (1985), 111±44 at 115±6.

16

A. Du®ef,

Les Cisterciens en Bretagne,

xii

e±

xiii

e sieÁcles, Rennes, 1997, pp. 130±1.

17

Cf. Hillion, `La duchesse Constance', 122.

¹⁸

Charters, nos. C33 and 46.

19

Charters, nos. C15, C39, C55, Ae4, Ae6; `Communes petitiones Britonum', p. 101.

the 1235 inquest concerning the reunited barony of PenthieÁvre, Con-stance had controlled the castles of PenthieÁvre (Lamballe), while thethen lords had continued to possess the forests, but this contradicts theevidence just mentioned regarding the forest of Lanmeur.According to the same source, when Duke Geoffrey died, thedisinherited Alan, son of Henry of PenthieÁvre, and his brothers rebelledagainst Constance and took Cesson, a strategic castle of the lords ofPenthieÁvre near Saint-Brieuc, and many other castles.

²⁰

There is noother evidence for this con¯ict, or how it was resolved. By 1189, Alanwas in possession of the eastern portion of the barony of TreÂguier, theGoeÈllo, and he had recovered the whole of TreÂguier by 1203.

²¹

Whenever there was con¯ict between the Angevin king and theducal regime before 1203, Alan supported the former, with the excep-tion of the con¯ict with Richard in 1196, when Alan is recorded asacting with the other Breton barons. King John may well havecultivated Alan as an important political in¯uence in Brittany inopposition to the ducal regime.

²²

I would suggest, then, that Alanrecovered all of his inheritance through the of®ces of John, as part ofthe 1199 settlement between John and the Bretons. In any event,Constance was unable to maintain possession of TreÂguier, and in thisinstance, the cession of this important barony, claimed by Constance asher patrimony, did not involve any evident advantage to the ducalregime.Although Constance lost the lands in the north-west of the duchyacquired by Duke Geoffrey, ducal authority in other parts of the duchywas consolidated. Inquests into ducal rights in Rennes, Quimper andQuimperle suggest that ducal rights were being more effectivelyexercised, leading to con¯ict with rival (ecclesiastical) authorities.

²³

As to administration of those parts of the duchy under ducalauthority, the evidence for this period is discussed in Chapter 4, on theassumption that there was continuity in institutions, if not in personnel,after 1186. As noted in Chapter 4, the hereditary seneschal of Rennes,William, was restored by 1192. Under Duke Geoffrey, the seneschal ofRennes had been eclipsed by Ralph de FougeÁres, seneschal of Brittany,at least in respect of acts leaving written records. Under Constance, theof®ce of seneschal of Rennes was restored to the preeminence it had

20

`Inquisitio . . . de Avaugour', pp. 114±5, 117.

21

Preuves,

i, cols. 732±4, 796, 843±4 and

iii, cols. 1768±9; `Inquisitio . . . de Avaugour', p. 120.

22

Rot. Chart., p. 4; T.D. Hardy (ed.),

Rotuli de liberate ac de misis et de praestitis regnante Johanne,

London, 1844, p. 5; T. Hardy (ed.),

Rotuli Normanniae in Turri Londinensi asservati,

i, London,