THE ANGEVINS CEASED TO EXERCISE ANY AUTHORITY IN BRITTANY, AS IS...

1203, the Angevins ceased to exercise any authority in Brittany, as isdemonstrated by John's desperate attack on Dol in September 1203.Brittany was lost to the Angevin empire well before Normandy;indeed the Breton incursion into southern Normandy was animportant factor in the success of Philip Augustus' invasion of theduchy in 1204.

³⁶

The intensity of the con¯ict between Arthur and John in thesuccession dispute of 1199, and its revival in 1202, naturally left its markon the documentary sources, which are relatively abundant and detailedfor these events. This in turn has in¯uenced modern historians toexaggerate the extent of con¯ict between Breton and Angevin interestsin this period. I would argue, though, that apart from the two particularepisodes of Constance's captivity in 1196 and Arthur's reign as count ofAnjou (April to September 1199), in general terms there was noinherent con¯ict for the Bretons between loyalty to their native rulersand loyalty to the Angevin kings in the years between 1186 and 1203.Brittany had been subject to more or less direct Angevin rule for ageneration, since 1158, and the dukes acknowledged they held Brittanyof the Angevin king as duke of Normandy. In the meantime even moreBretons had acquired lands in Normandy and England, either throughdirect royal patronage, or through marriage into the family of the earlsof Richmond/dukes of Brittany, which enhanced relations between theBretons and their neighbours.The chronology of the events of 1186±1202, and especially of thetwo episodes just noted, is not at all clear. The remainder of this chapter

36

Preuves, col. 107; WB, p. 220±1.

will constitute a narrative account of the period 1186±1202, with aview to establishing the chronology more precisely.

³⁷

The signi®cance for the future of the `Angevin empire' of the birth ofGeoffrey's posthumous son needs no elaboration. Arthur was born atNantes on 29 March 1187, the only legitimate son of a legitimate son ofHenry II, and arguably next in line to succeed after Richard. William ofNewburgh records Henry II's wish that the infant should be namedafter him. According to Le Baud, Henry II visited Nantes especially tosee his grandson, and there obliged the assembled magnates to swearfealty to Arthur, with Constance agreeing that, in return for havingcustody of her son, she would rule Brittany `par le conseil' of theking.

³⁸

The assembly at Nantes is not recorded elsewhere, but Henry IIvisited Brittany in September 1187, and arriving from the south, heprobably passed through Nantes. According to Roger of Howden, thereason for this visit was a military campaign against the rebellious lordsof LeÂon. This action in itself provided a concrete demonstration ofHenry II's continued authority in Brittany, the next summer Guihomarand Harvey de LeÂon campaigned with him against Philip Augustus.

³⁹

As mentioned above, Constance was not remarried for some timeafter Geoffrey's death and Arthur's birth. A simple explanation for thedelay is that Henry II had identi®ed Ranulf III, earl of Chester, as theideal husband, but Ranulf had not yet attained his majority, havingbeen born in 1170. The king allowed Ranulf to enter his inheritance atthe end of 1188, and the marriage to Constance occurred a few monthslater.

⁴⁰

It is possible, therefore, that Henry II was simply waiting forRanulf to attain an age and degree of maturity that would enable him toassume the responsibility of being stepfather of the potential heir to theAngevin empire. Ranulf's suitability derived partially from his land-holdings. As hereditary viscount of the Avranchin, Ranulf's landsmarched with the problematical north-eastern border of Brittany. InEngland, Ranulf's lands in Lincolnshire were interspersed with those ofthe honour of Richmond.

37

See also Hillion, `La duchesse Constance', for an account of this period from the point-of-view

of Duchess Constance, although marred by some anachronisms.

38

WN,

i, 235; Le Baud,

Histoire de Bretagne, p. 199.

39

GC,

i, p. 382; Eyton,

Itinerary, pp. 280±1; RH, p. 318;

Gesta,

ii, p. 9; `Philippidos', lines

223±30.

40

Annales cestrienses or the chronicle of the abbey of St Werburg at Chester, Lancs. and Cheshire Record

Society,

xiv, 1887, pp. 25, 29, 41. These annals (p. 41) record that Henry II knighted Ranulf on

1 January, and gave him Constance in marriage on 3 February. This is under the rubric for 1188,

but uncertainty as to the commencement of the year means these events may have taken place

in 1189. See also G. Barraclough (ed. and trans.), `The annals of Dieulacres abbey',

The Cheshire

Sheaf, 3rd ser.,

lii

(1957), 17±27 at 20; J. W. Alexander,

Ranulf of Chester: A Relic of the Conquest,

Athens, Georgia, 1983, p. 12 and

Charters, p. 99.

Whatever Henry II's intentions, Ranulf seems to have had noinvolvement in the government of the duchy of Brittany or the honourof Richmond. It is often asserted, based no doubt on subsequent events,that Ranulf and Constance were temperamentally unsuited and evenhostile to each other. No children were born of a marriage which lastedten years, although the lack of issue from his second marriage must raisethe question of Ranulf's fertility. There is simply no evidence of Ranulfand Constance ever executing ducal business or even being together.

⁴¹

Any argument about Ranulf and Constance's relationship can only reston the evidence of silence.If Ranulf does not appear actively enforcing Angevin interests at theBreton court, it may be because Constance continued to toe theAngevin line. Within months of the marriage Henry II died, andalthough Richard pursued the same general policy as his father inrespect of Brittany, he took more concrete steps to assert his sover-eignty. According to Le Baud, after his coronation in England andformally taking possession of all his father's lands, Richard went toBrittany intending to take over the `regime' of the duchy and custodyof Arthur. Constance and some of the Breton barons opposed him andRichard relented, agreeing that Constance should continue to rule onthe terms she had previously agreed with Henry II in 1186/7. The morereliable evidence of the English Exchequer records indicates that thehonour of Richmond was in the king's hands in 1189±90, perhaps as aconsequence of the dispute described by Le Baud, and that even beforethe end of September 1189 Richard had taken Constance's daughter,Eleanor, into his custody.

⁴²

Richard's custody of Eleanor may havebeen the price of Constance continuing to rule Brittany, and in anyevent it is evidence for Richard asserting sovereignty more actively thanHenry II had in recent years. Constance was present at Richard's courtat Tours in late June 1190.

⁴³

As long as Richard acknowledged Arthur as his heir, or at least heldout the possibility that he might, it was in Constance's interests tomaintain royal favour. The evidence for Richard's policy on thesuccession is ambiguous. The only documentary evidence in favour ofArthur is the agreement for the marriage of Arthur to the daughter of

41

There is one instance of both making separate charters regarding the same matter, at around the

same time, which implies some degree of co-ordination, although this may have come from the

bene®ciary, the canons of Saint-Pierre de Rille (Charters, nos. C25, R6).

42

Le Baud,

Histoire de Bretagne, p. 200; Pipe Rolls, 35 Henry II±1 Richard I, p. 197 and 2 Richard

I, pp. 2, 5, 73, 90, 116, 137.

43

Charters, no. C23. The bishops of Rennes and Nantes also attended Richard's court soon after

his coronation, (L. Landon (ed.),

Itinerary of Richard I, Pipe Roll Society, London, 1935, pp. 24,

30±1).

Tancred, king of Sicily, made by Richard at Messina in October 1190,in which Richard acknowledged Arthur as his heir in default of anylegitimate issue of his own. Around the same time as negotiating themarriage agreement, Richard also took steps to secure the support ofWilliam, king of Scotland, for Arthur, his great-nephew.

⁴⁴

It remainspossible, though, that the acknowledgement of Arthur as heir in themarriage agreement was intended for Tancred's bene®t, and thatRichard preferred to keep the rival claimants to the succession in a stateof uncertainty.Richard's absence on Crusade left Constance with a free hand togovern Brittany from 1190 to 1194, but in 1195 Richard turned hisattention to Brittany and the succession. According to William ofNewburgh, Richard wished to take Arthur into his own custody in