102±103 AND 151, CFPREUVES, COL. 775).59PREUVES, COLS. 622±4 (RENN...

36, 102±103 and 151, cf

Preuves, col. 775).

59

Preuves, cols. 622±4 (Rennes); RT,

ii, 6 (eastern Cornouaille).

60

Preuves, col. 103.

61

Le Band,

Histoire de Bretagne, p. 103. E.g., de la Borderie,

Histoire de Bretagne, pp. 42, and

269±72. The strength of the tradition is indicated by its repetition in CheÂdeville and Tonnerre,

Bretagne feÂodale, p. 72.

In 1908, le vicomte Charles de la Lande de Calan reviewed theevidence and suggested that HoeÈl was Conan's illegitimate son.

⁶²

Thistheory has some appeal. It may be argued, for instance, that Conanintended to provide for his illegitimate son by giving him the county ofNantes. This is supported by the choice of the name HoeÈl, which isassociated both with illegitimate sons of Breton dukes and also with thecounts of Nantes. The name was used by the counts of Nantes from thetenth century, beginning with an illegitimate son of Alan `Barbetorte'.

⁶³

The name was given to Duke HoeÈl I (whose mother was the grand-daughter of the ®rst HoeÈl), instead of a name from the stock used by hispaternal ancestors, the counts of Cornouaille, no doubt to reinforce histitle to the county of Nantes. Additionally, there was a precedent forsevering Nantes from the rest of the duchy for the sake of providing fora son (albeit a cadet, rather than an illegitimate or disinherited son) inthe case of Conan III's uncle Matthew, the younger son of HoeÈl I. It isarguable that Conan III named his son HoeÈl both because he wasillegitimate (recalling his ancestor, the illegitimate son of Alan `Barbe-torte') and to add weight to his plan to install him as count of Nantes.La Lande de Calan's article was a welcome exercise in reviewing theevidence for the succession crisis, but a more satisfactory explanation isthat advanced by Katharine Keats-Rohan, that Conan III disinheritedhis (legitimate) son in the interests of unifying the duchy through themarriage of his daughter, Bertha, to Alan, earl of Richmond.

⁶⁴

On thisinterpretation, HoeÈl's legitimacy or otherwise is not in issue, and indeedthe original annal-record does not comment on HoeÈl's parentage,merely that Conan disowned him, which was tantamount to disinher-iting him.The most cogent evidence for this theory is an obituary notice forAlan, earl of Richmond, which commemorates his attempt to reuniteBrittany. Other evidence is an 1138 charter of Conan III, concerningproperty in Nantes, recording the consent of Alan `gener meus', butmaking no mention of HoeÈl.

⁶⁵

Contrary to the traditional death-beddisinheritance, this arrangement was certainly made some years beforeConan's death, perhaps even before HoeÈl was born. Extraordinary as itmay seem, in view of the strength of the custom of male succession, asimilar arrangement occurred almost contemporaneously in the county

62

C. de la Lande de Calan, `MeÂlanges historiques,

xix. Le duc HoeÈl II',

Revue de Bretagne

40

(1908), 180±3.

63

CheÂdeville and Tonnerre,

Bretagne feÂodale, pp. 29±31.

64

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, `Le roÃle des Bretons dans la politique de colonisation normande de

l'Angleterre (vers 1042±1135)',

MSHAB

74 (1996), 181±215 at 205, note 98.

65

Preuves, cols. 5, and 576±7.

of Namur. In the 1130s, Godfrey, count of Namur, disinherited his sonHenry the Blind, and gave Namur in marriage with his daughter toBaldwin IV, count of Hainault, thus uniting the two counties, whileHenry was given a life-interest in Namur.

⁶⁶

Such an ambitious policy required sacri®ces. HoeÈl was obliged tosacri®ce his claim to the ducal title in favour of his sister. He is notknown to have married, and his only known child became a nun atSaint-Sulpice-la-ForeÃt.

⁶⁷

In view of the signi®cance of the name HoeÈloutlined above, and the Namur precedent, it may be that Conanintended to compensate his son with the county of Nantes for his life.Indeed, the subsequent con¯ict between HoeÈl and Bertha may havebeen limited to a dispute about the degree of HoeÈl's independence ascount of Nantes.Similarly, for Alan to succeed to the lordship of PenthieÁvre meantthat one or both of Alan's brothers would have to designate him as theirheir. In the 1120s, Stephen of PenthieÁvre had divided his lands betweenhis three sons; the eldest, Geoffrey Boterel II, received the easternportion (henceforth known as PenthieÁvre or Lamballe), the youngest,Henry, received the western portion (TreÂguier or Guingamp), andAlan, the middle son, received the English lands, the honour ofRichmond. On this basis, Alan had no hereditary right to any of thePenthieÁvre lands in Brittany. Geoffrey Boterel evidently was notcompliant, as is indicated by his active support for the Empress Matildain the English civil war, while Alan fought on the side of King Stephen.The youngest brother, Henry, on the other hand, seems to have beenpersuaded to sacri®ce his independent and potentially hereditary posses-sion of TreÂguier in favour of Alan, and to remain unmarried.

⁶⁸

In 1145,both Alan and Henry were at Conan III's court at Quimper, when Alancon®rmed their father's grants to a priory in Guingamp, indicatingAlan's lordship of TreÂguier.

⁶⁹

In fact, Alan predeceased his father-in-law by two years, bringingConan's scheme of reuni®cation to nought. Alan's death in 1146 meantthat both HoeÈl's and Henry's sacri®ces were unnecessary. Henry, atleast, must have decided that the deal was off. Aged nearly ®fty, hemarried for the ®rst time and henceforth regarded TreÂguier as his son's

66

L. Vanderkindere (ed.),

La chronique de Gislebert de Mons, Brussels, 1904, pp. 60±2; J. Falmagne,

Baudouin V, comte de Hainaut 1150±1195, Montreal, 1966, pp. 75, 78; L. Vanderkindere,

La

formation territoriale des principauteÂs Belges au moyen aÃge,

i, Brussels, 1902, p. 308. I am very grateful

to Laura Napran for this information.

67

Cart. St-Sulpice, no.

lviii.

68

Preuves, col. 681.

69

Preuves, col. 595.

inheritance.

⁷⁰

HoeÈl, in contrast, does not seem to have seriouslyattempted to claim the duchy. The situation was complicated by the factthat Alan and Bertha had an infant son, the future Duke Conan IV,who inherited his father's claims to the duchy of Brittany (includingTreÂguier) and the honour of Richmond. Bertha promptly remarried, toEudo de PorhoeÈt, apparently on the basis that he was well suited to®ght for her son's cause.By 1155 the balance of power was clearly in favour of Bertha andEudo, and HoeÈl acknowledged that he held the county of Nantes of hissister.

⁷¹

The peace did not last. For reasons which are not clear, but mayhave to do with his capitulation to Bertha, in 1156 HoeÈl was deposed ascount of Nantes. He was immediately replaced as count by Geoffrey,the younger brother of Henry II. Several chronicles independentlyrecord that the citizens of Nantes chose Geoffrey to be their count.

⁷²

This should not be surprising. In view of the circumstances outlinedabove, Nantes was culturally more akin to Anjou than to ArmoricanBrittany. At the same time, the county of Nantes was extremelyattractive to the counts of Anjou, for both strategic and ®nancialreasons. From the point-of-view of the Angevin heartland, the fact thatNantes controlled the mouth of the Loire made it important that itshould be under the political control of the count of Anjou,

⁷³

whetherdirectly or indirectly. It is not so remarkable, then, that in 1156 a cadetof the comital family of Anjou became count of Nantes and wasaccepted by the populace.Eudo de PorhoeÈt failed to respond to the events occurring in Nantesin 1156, no doubt because he was by then engaged in a struggle with hisstepson, the young Conan. Conan had grown up in England, where, asearly as 1153, Henry II recognised him as heir to the honour ofRichmond.

⁷⁴

Conan was anxious to enter into his maternal inheritancein Brittany, and must have demanded that Eudo deliver the duchy tohim. Presumably Eudo refused, because in the summer of 1156 Conan

70

See below, p. 54.

71

In 1155, HoeÈl made a grant of land in the county of Nantes to the abbey of Buzay, with Bertha's

consent (`Actes de Buzay', no. 9). Similarly, Fontevraud obtained con®rmations of a grant by

Conan III of an island in the Loire from both HoeÈl (1153) and Bertha (undated) (Preuves, cols.