Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

Duchy of Gascony Licences II 1290 - 1317 Charles Coulson

Château de Villandraut, built c. 1305. The most important of the series of castles built by the de Got family from the proceeds derived from the papacy of Clement V. Built for Clement V himself, the castle bears resemblance to the castles built by Edward I in North Wales in the 1280s onwards, such as Beaumaris and most particularly Harlech, whose overall plan is almost identical. The castle was not finished by the time of the death of the pope, but the ruinous great hall, papal residence and personal chapel still clearly reveal the ambition of Clement.

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16230 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 elements; but specifying a pre-existing resi- dence, however normal it must have been (and Charles Coulson in the English texts it is all but invariable), and This sequel to CSG Journal 28 carries the using manerium instead of domus fortis are examination and analysis down to 1317, when phrases belonging to the kingdom, not the the 4th Volume of the Gascon Rolls/Rôles duchy. After this, the Chancery reverted, with (Yves Renouard, Paris 1962, 1307-17) ends. partial lapses, to the regular Gascon style. The After Edward I’s stay in 1289 and until the enrolment of Arnald de Blanquefort’s licence residence of Edward the Black Prince, under copies the full general address, to all officials Edward III, duchy affairs were again managed and subjects in the duchy, instead of ‘the king locally by the Seneschal or Lieutenant, with to all to whom, etc.’ The emphatic condition intervention from Westminster on request. that Arnald should make (written) securitas for the rendering is also unusual. It is all rather Only pertinacious, or eminent, individuals terse. Putting together a series of similar pat- obtained great seal licences entered on the ents helpfully puts superficially distinctive ele- Gascon Roll: certainly a minority.1 There are ments in due perspective – but it also throws up none between May 1293 and November 1304, idiosyncrasies which may sometimes be signif- the period of French partial fraudulent occupa- icant. What, in retrospect, overshadows the tion and desultory English and native resist- licence for Veyrines, is not so much its proxim- ance under Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln. ity to Bordeaux (the Bordelais was densely Edward I’s restoration was celebrated by no studded with mini-estate capitals) but the mem- fewer than ten licences (Nov. 1304-April ory of a serious fracas in 1244, when Blanque- 1305),2 but the first decade of his son’s reign fort castle itself in an outbreak of class-tension recorded only eighteen, all of them in the peri- was severely damaged in an attack by the citi- od 1312-17, when the modern printed edition zens. Count Bernard of Armagnac gave the of the Roll ceases. then Arnald de Blanquefort strong support, in The nature of the practice of licensing, a letter to Henry III, denouncing the citizens’ previously analysed, is greatly illuminated by arrogance and airing nobles’ general sense of the lengthy and comprehensive petition of grievance.4 c.1310, already examined in Part I. So wide is Attractive as it may seem to connect the its significance for the recognitory and compli- apparently restrictive elements in the Veyrines mentary motivation of applicants and likewise licence with this incident, such linkage is im- of the royal council or Chancery, that it seemed plausible. In particular, some sort of notifica- best to expound it at the start. The king-duke, tion to the citizens might have been expected. it is clear, may have been the source of the Unless a petitioner supplied information, the most prestigious licences for fortifying, but Chancery rarely recalled even what was con- other barons’ subjects would apply elsewhere. tained in its own records. Bureaucratic unfa- Far more work is needed. miliarity, by clerks now back in England, not in 1 Sensitive Lordship in Adversity attendance upon the king in Gascony, suffi- ciently accounts for the English phraseology Edward I’s licence in August 1290 to Arnald (including ‘manor’ for ‘strong-house’, and ‘en- de Blanquefort is in partly English style, name- close’ for fortify, etc).5 The emphasis put on ly, to enclose his manor(-house) of Veyrines Arnald’s guaranteeing to render Veyrines is with a wall of stone or of palisading (vel de countered by the omission of other formulae, palo). The site is only about eight miles WSW covered by the vague allusion to local custom. of Bordeaux. The wording of the grant, dated Although the Occitan ‘angered or appeased’ at Northampton, is hybrid being made ‘so far phrase is put in, it is misused. Some Gascon as we may’, and implying tenure-in-chief, and model was evidently available among the of- also with (terse) rendability clause (under writ- fice-formularies kept in Chancery – but it must ten guarantee) ‘according to the law and cus- 3 have been used conjointly with the standard tom of those parts’. These are Gascon form prevailing at home. The Chancery’s nor-

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16231 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 mal mode was routine, reactive auto-pilot - but violence and injustice (injuria) ….[1270]’ We, not so in this exhortation sent in June 1294 ratifying and accepting the constructing or from Portsmouth to Arnald de Blanquefort, making of that house, confirm it to Arnald, son among numerous others: of the said Aycard, and to his heirs ….[1291].7 You will be well aware of the dispute The wording deserves care, since the 1270 between the king of France and us, and how letter is not strictly a ‘licence’ but an adminis- that king has wickedly deprived (maliciose trative mandate, pursuant to an atavistic oral decepit) us of our possessions, people and land but conditional permission. Edward then was of Gascony; on which account we require you, not acting as duke of Gascony, but technically as warmly (carius) as we may, and ask you that as Henry III’s lieutenant at Aigues Mortes en you help us to recover, keep and defend that route to Palestine. One of the local issues the land of ours, as you and your ancestors did to seneschal would have to check, was whether us and ours in all times past; so acting that we the place was held in-chief. If it was not then and ours may be obliged to you, as we recog- the mesne lordship would be impugned and nize we are for the good services you have Edward’s authority compromised. But if all rendered us hitherto.6 was in order, that authority as direct, legally Loyalty and rendability worked. Places competent overlord, in the form of a grant were taken over entirely locally. Three further (presumably in writing) from the seneschal, illuminating licences were granted before was to be upheld by him at law and otherwise. Philip IV provoked this war, by pretext by The actual place is not named but since Arnald feudal right of a nominal taking possession of was bailiff of Bourg (1283) and appointed for the duchy to symbolize his overlordship. He two years castellan of La Réole in October intended forcible seizure and occupation of the 1291, a site in the north of dép Gironde would chief places to effect a de facto conquest. Such be likely. There had seemingly been no hitch, treachery lay still in the future, a prelude to the so that the fortifying and/or original building Hundred Years War, when in May 1291 the by Aycard had been duly accomplished, and was ratified ex post facto, as usual no question king confirmed a licence he had granted as the 8 Lord Edward at Aigues Mortes, his Mediterra- as to expiry etc. being raised. nean port of embarkation on his way to the The condition of rendability was not (ex- Holy Land on Crusade. The patent is very plicitly) attached to this dwelling, or ‘unit of exceptional in that it recites a mandate from building’ (domus), but it is stipulated in regu- 1270, one of the many lost documents of the lar, perpetual form in the repeated licences for years 1255-72. The Lord Edward’s govern- Roquefort (dép. Gironde), to Gaillard de ment at that time had proceeded with especial- Grésignac (both petitioned for by Rostand De- ly pronounced caution: soler, of the prominent Bordeaux citizen fami- The king to everyone who shall inspect ly) in June 1291, and again in May 1293 these letters, greeting. Whereas we once grant- without allusion to the former grant. Licences ed our dilectus et fidelis Aycard Audoin, repeated after a brief interval raise particular knight, our letters thus – ‘Edward, firstborn questions, especially in England where they son of the illustrious king of England, to his are not uncommon. At first blush, some seneschal of Gascony, greeting. We commis- change of circumstances, or extreme caution sion (mandamus) you that, having seen and on the part of the petitioner, or hitch in imple- diligently inspected the place where our very mentation so that the licence needed affirma- dear (karissmus) Lord Aycard Audoin, knight, tion might be supposed. Expiry can be intends with our agreement (assensus) to make discounted: licences are often perpetual in ex- a strong house, if your inspection shows that it pression (to grantee ‘and heirs’; to corporate can be done without damage or risk to us or to head ‘and successors’), but nothing suggests our heirs, now or in the future, (then) you shall this was anything more than standard land- allow (concedatis) him to make that house, and grant phraseology. As so often, Gascon licenc- you are to defend him regarding it from all es throw more light on the question, thanks to

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16232 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 the circumstantial detail (superfluous in Eng- strong house for ever’, as ‘his heirs by birth or land) which they incorporate. Initiative as al- by baptism’. He may have tried to divert the ways was with the grantee. Roquefort (1291, succession to an adopted (presumably close) 1293) is such a case, although this repetition is relative. His fortified dwelling, whose antiqui- almost unique.9 It may be significant that Gail- ty he was at pains to assert in the second peti- lard de Grésignac (Gresinaco) took the step tion, and whose legitimacy he had sought to (rare in Gascony) of having his petition put buttress by getting the first licence (whether or forward by an agent at court. But the place, not work was, in fact, then done), had subse- Roquefort-en-Bazardais, is not so close to Bor- quently been severely damaged. Evidently this deaux (about 30 miles SE); so the reason may extended to its gardens, fish-ponds etc. (ipsius be that Edward I’s court was in the far north at pertinencias). Having an influential citizen of the time, at Berwick-on-Tweed, to which Bordeaux act for him, in both cases, would be much-travelling and rich wine merchants and a natural precaution; and the inclination of financiers would go.10 Certainly, there is very Edward I’s council would be to stand by the little exceptional in the wording of the first first licence, demonstratively even extending it licence: Gaillard was to fortify his domus ‘at – but having it vetted by a highly-trusted Gas- his discretion’, holding it ‘so made forever to con lawyer. This seems to have settled the himself and his heirs’, subject to rendering it matter. on demand, as often as requested, ‘according In 1294 such little local difficulties were to the customs of Gascony’.11 It is the second overwhelmed, to Edward’s evident surprise, by licence, dated at Westminster but reiterating his breach with Philip IV. Embarrassed in the agency of Rostand Desoler and qualifying Scotland, impoverished by castle-building in Gaillard with the title domicellus, which dis- Wales, with friction with the wool-towns of closes abnormalities. The ‘address’ (opening Flanders, Philip the Fair seized upon their rou- phrase ‘the king to …’, etc.) is fuller (i.e. less tine negotiations over piracy in the Channel to contracted by the enrolling clerk), but the next allege disobedience. It was prepared - by his clause differs only in the spelling of names, cousin Charles of Valois, the military organiz- implying that one clerk read out the start of the er. Forfeiture of Gascony was put forcibly into 1291 licence for another to copy (names are effect with skirmishing at sea in 1293.13 phonetic). After that point, the text differs completely – instead of ‘he may make a certain French quasi-legal equivocation is in a house strong’, it proceeds: ‘he may rebuild microcosm seen to be reflected in the licensing (refficere) the strong house which his prede- of Budos (see above). The November 1301 cessors held there and its appurtenances, re- session, adjourned to March 1302, of the parle- storing it to the state the house was in before it ment of Paris, the royal supreme court for the was destroyed, or to better (vel meliorem sta- kingdom of France which had become special- tus)’. Perpetual tenure of the house ‘so made or ized in judicial (and quasi-judicial) business, rebuilt’, then follows, and a very full rendabil- had some back-tracking to do. It was recorded ity clause with irati et pacati, but qualifying in a terse and enigmatic entry: ‘the finding not the king, his heirs or officials but, aberrant- (aprisia) in favour (pro) of Raymond-William ly, Gaillard and his heirs. Correctly, the phrase de Bodos that he may construct a strong house referred to the repossessing lord’s motivation. was cancelled by the court on account of de- The impression that there had been trouble fects discovered in it.’14 There is nothing fur- over implementing the 1291 licence is rein- ther; nor is it clear when the original ruling was forced by the very exceptional final note: ‘Ex- made, or by what agency, although the revoca- amined by Master Raymund de Fferrar’ – that tion was effected by the lawyer (Magister) is, the patent was specially checked before it Aymo (i.e. Aymer). The date appended is 27 was collected.12 March 1302 – by which time negotiations due to the military stalemate in Gascony were mov- A peculiar phrase in the 1291 patent, oth- ing towards Edward I’s restitution as duke. The erwise conventional, offers a clue: it describes region of the Bordelais, lucrative heartland of the heirs of Gaillard, who are ‘to hold the

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16233 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 the duchy, had been quite securely in ‘French’ crenellate (kernellare) his house of Budos, in hands, with a garrison under the alien Consta- the provostry of Barsac’, repeating his request ble in Bordeaux itself.15 If the ‘inquests and ‘that he may in Gascon style make that house proceedings adjudged’ by the parlement are strong with walls, (mural-)towers (turellis), considered generally, the reference to ‘defects’ ditches and in such other ways as shall seem indicates that the information behind the origi- most expedient to him’. The abbreviated calen- nal judicial declaration had been found to be dar version (itself derived from the succinct incorrect. But, technicalities apart, French pow- enrolled form17) entirely, and misleadingly, er and territory after the absorption in 1249 of omits this explanatory preamble, reducing it to the vast dominions of Toulouse, had altered the a bare ‘Licence to … to crenellate …’ etc. – balance, and was to transform it, however dis- which, as so often, makes it seem like a central- guised by the successes of Edward III. Edward ly-derived and motivated mandate; the reverse I could only renounce his homage and resort to of the reality. After King John this is the norm. force. The facts of unanswerable power lay The full versions as printed (by French schol- behind the lawyers’ niceties. Thus the word ars entirely) in the Rôles Gascon provide an appisia suggests that Raymond-William had invaluable corrective. In particular, they show appealed to Paris to get some local alien French clearly how much of the detail and also of the officials’ obstruction removed. His uncle’s ele- formularies of licences to fortify or crenellate vation as Pope Clement V (1305-14) from arch- was ‘private’ in derivation and how much was bishop of Bordeaux was to promote the whole ‘governmental’. family of de Got and correspondingly their The view insisted upon in this paper is castles (e.g. Villandraut and Budos) – but Ray- essential: that the petitioner’s contribution was mond’s success was brief. dominant, over-riding and often exclusive. Whatever the explanation, the same Ray- How the public interest ‘salvation of the realm’ mond-William of Budos, four years later, in theme, which lends itself to militaristic inter- March 1306, judged it expedient to apply to pretations, should be reconciled with the less Edward I pleading the fact that he was the overt harping on ‘the saving of privilege’, nephew of Pope Clement V. Clement was Ber- which accords with the realities of a hierarchi- trand de Got, an unwonted success for a minor fied aristocratic society, is a question of cardi- Gascon prelate. The resultant licence to fortify nal importance. Almost nothing can be taken Budos is not on the Gascon Roll, but on the literally. In the Budos licence of March 1306, Patent Roll for England, and its form is almost privilege and protection are neatly combined – wholly English16 - lacking the rendability ‘now, out of reverence for the said high Pon- clause, but incorporating the ‘public benefit’ tiff, no less than that we esteem such fortifying and ‘security’ element which was becoming a to be for the security of us and our lands in regular feature of licences in England. Despite those parts, and also of the members of the said being regularly addressed to the king’s officials Pope’s family,18 we do grant ….’ etc. This and subjects in the duchy, the Chancery clerks requires the usual unpicking – the warlike em- carelessly put it on the wrong Roll, and conse- bellishment (it was little more) of Budos may quently used the English style. They had be- have reacted to the recent hostilities, but Wil- come unfamiliar with Gascon forms. It is liam-Raymond had apparently gone ahead curious that both the English and the French with it already in 1301-2, at which time the bureaucrats should have mishandled the same Capetian annexation of the duchy must have licence - but their mistakes fortunately show seemed an irreversible fait accompli, especial- the perfunctory nature of the formulae em- ly in view of Edward I’s embroilment in Scot- ployed. Budos was, or became, a substantial land, exacerbated by virtual bankruptcy, and a castle, in the event. serious constitutional crisis. The king’s securi- After copying in Raymond-William’s fam- ty, and the restoration of orderly government in ily relationship to Clement V, the text recites large parts of Gascony, after nearly ten years of his plea ‘that we should grant that he may truly alien occupation and of limp but dogged

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16234 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

Anglo-Gascon resistance, called primarily for to make formally sure that no infringement of the reaffirmation of formal liens of loyalty ducal or other rights would result. All eight between the king-duke and his subjects. Li- (one ‘castle or fortification’, the others ‘strong- censing was one of the regular instruments to houses’) were made rendable on demand. that end, just as paying pensions (or giving promissory notes) in compensation for lost The gratified applicants are quite typ- lands had sustained loyalties during the occu- ical. William bishop of Bazas, renewed his pation. Given his circumstances, moreover, homage on the day of his licence whose form Raymond-William must have been anxious to was used for two others (as noted). Crenels are purge suspicion that he had collaborated included (as in English licences) but also ar- 19 chery loops - for strong houses at Loubens, unduly. His uncle’s election as Pope was 24 providential both to him and to Edward, who Coimères and within the honor of Saint could expect psychological benefits from a Macaire (all dép. Gironde, Nov. 1304). An- Gascon pontiff. cient castellaries were always respected. Next April (1305), Bernard lord of Gréciette (Gar- The reconstitution of allegiances un- ro), styled ‘esquire’, is described as having doubtedly explains why so many licences fol- asked to be allowed ‘to rebuild his house of that lowed Edward’s restoration - four in place in such manner as to be to his utility and November 1304; five in April 1305. Their to our honour’, reflecting the doctrine that the coming in two closely dated and textually sim- vassal’s stateliness also dignified his lord. In ilar batches, all but one, its site being in the 1289, his tenure of another lordship and seat heartlands (déps. Gironde, 6; Basses Pyrénées, had been cautiously ratified. Caution is again 1; Landes, 1), is suggestive. In only one is a apparent, despite Bernard’s cloaking his ambi- petitioning-agent named, but prior cooperation tion in terms of public benefit, the seneschal’s (even ‘copycat’ behaviour), and joint use of instruction, citing Bernard’s ‘laudable service’ only two or more travellers to the Court in (for which he was paid), namely ‘to permit that England, may be indicated.20 The total of nine house, to be rebuilt and made strong, insofar as 1304-5 licences (plus Budos, March 1306) is this can be done without much prejudice to us’. exceeded only by the dozen in January-July The ducal aegis must be seen to be present. 1289. The comparison dismisses any possibili- Those who had been loyal were claiming their ty that ‘enforcement’ was involved: in 1289, reward which, in this form, cost the king noth- Edward’s presence stimulated favour-seekers; ing (but yielded no revenue) since the recipient in 1304-5, many had served in the recent resist- paid fees to cover petition-costs, then parch- ance or had lost lands. As always, it was they, ment, seal, profit, and clerks’ time. In England not the Crown, who took the initiative. They bishops with house and means were preferred came, moreover, from the most loyal regions as Chancellor self-funding. Always the precar- with only one exception – a lord from the ious state of the royal finances25 did not justify outlying Agenais, Peter de Biron.21 Far from exciting the jealousy of neighbouring squires. obstructing his fortifying, Edward’s govern- Arrogation of judicial and other profitable ment forbade ‘malefactors’ from interfering rights of lordship, whether the duke’s or anoth- with it (below). The judgement and discretion er lord’s, was the chief risk, especially with the of the seneschal were more heavily relied on ambitious vicomtes e.g. of Béarn, Benauges than ever, to ensure that a licensee’s self-ag- and Turenne.26 Exactly what works of fortifica- grandisement was not provocative. As before it tion were involved was a matter for the peti- is a question of inference from the tweaked tioner to specify. The king-duke was only format – in five cases (three verbatim)22 the concerned to avoid any local resentment – as in seneschal is instructed to allow works to pro- England. Nobles (and others) built according to ceed, as part of general notification of their rank and means. Licences could not over- licence.23 In two the seneschal is to exercise his ride this. Simon de Montégut at Villeneuve discretion; and in one he is expressly told to (noted) and Arnald de Caupenne, in Parem- conduct an inquisition or local public enquiry, puyre parish (April 1305), obtained the scope

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16235 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 they asked for, that is to build ‘as they deemed celled and the site given back, unless he was suitable’. Arnald was especially deserving as legally bound to go ahead. Peter’s discontents the king’s seneschal of frontier Périgord, erupted again: on 30 March, 1305, he obtained among other offices. He chose to establish an order that the terms of his coparceny pact himself close to Bordeaux in land held in right for Monpazier should be strictly observed. of his wife. Like Bernard de Vignoles licensed Then, on 12 April, this remarkable mandate for his name-place (dép. Landes), Arnald re- following was sent to Edward’s seneschal of ceived compensation for lands lost to, and for the Agenais: war-service against, the French in 1299 and 1304-5. In England local under-currents of We order you not to allow any violence to licences require research and imagination.27 be offered to Peter de Gontaud, donzel, who The pattern of these 1304-5 licences is strik- wishes to increase the height of the house ingly consistent, having come favourably to which he is said to have at Lauzun, and to the king-duke’s attention during the French fortify (inforsare) it with towers, and in others occupation, or desiring his recognition and the ways; or to permit him to be wrongly (indeb- renewal of their reciprocal bonds of national ite) hindered in any way from doing this, as loyalty and patronage, their ambitions were other nobles of the Agenais have been accus- gratified honourably, architecturally sanc- tomed; but you are firmly (viriliter) to restrain tioned, and victory celebrated, by the arcane any such undue obstructors (perturbatores), ceremony of the licence to fortify. meting out justice (1305). Not all parts of the duchy were like this, Perhaps Peter de Gramont, knight, whose especially not the border regions of Périgord bastide project had apparently been aborted, and the Agenais, where Capetian and Planta- was among those who objected to the enhance- genet ties interpenetrated, and where higher ment of the fortifications of Lauzun (dép Lot- lordship was often obscure or merely ineffec- et-Garonne). De Gontaud is not styled ‘dear tive, and lawlessness or self-help were com- and faithful’, so his feudal relationship may mon. Ireland and the north of England offer have been unclear, but he had cooperated over some analogy, including their preferred lordly Montpazier. Rights of higher seigneurie (forti- architecture, predominantly featuring the fying, capital justice, enforcement of the arms chamber-block tower or tower-house. Small ban, etc.) did extend well down the hierarchy forts especially drew their sustenance from of nobility in the Agenais and in neighbouring their popular environment. Settlement, eco- Périgord, but they were little more than those nomic exploitation and popular ‘reach’ in the rights stated as appurtenant to baronies in the region (lying within the modern départements great remonstrance sent to Philip IV in c.1310, of Dordogne, Lot-et-Garonne, and Gers) was relating to ‘the regions of Bordeaux, Bazas, Bayonne, Dax and elsewhere’ in the duchy of actively pursued by planting new towns or 30 bastides in partnership with local lords.28 The Gascony. De Gontaud’s pattern of behaviour founding of Montpazier by the seneschal, the seems to have differed from the norm for his endowed Gascon magnate Jean de Greilly, rank, and for one of his assertive drive, only in caused friction between the settlers and Peter having the overt cover of ducal approval – but, de Gontaud, lord of Biron the king’s partner in even at the height of his power and renown the enterprise, which the English seneschal of (much declined by 1305) Edward I was careful Périgord was instructed in 1293 to settle.29 despite the personal rivalry with Philip IV to Peter was busy asserting himself: his coparce- respect others rights. How qualified sovereign- ny for Montpazier defined his limited contribu- ty (e.g. to John Baliol in Scotland) and inter- tion, and promised to be profitable; but mediate conciliatory powers (Gascony) required vigilance. In 1289, he had seized an- affected rulership is a constitutional issue of other site offered for building a bastide nearby, great delicacy. which might weaken his own venture. Edward Philip IV’s unprincipled and cynical land- personally (June, 1289) responded by ordering grab of 1294-1304 did lasting and widespread the contract for the second bastide to be can- damage. Capetian-Valois (1328-) duplicity

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16236 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 poisoned relations and led to war in 1337. elevation to the papacy of their relative, the Edward II’s authority in the duchy would have former archbishop of Bordeaux founder of the been weaker than his father’s even without his Palais d’Avignon. Baronial Villandraut is serious problems in England, and eventual their chief monument. Otherwise, the same deposition in 1326.31 French political compli- chronological bunching of grants is observa- cations and steadfast intent to seize the duchy ble, though it is less marked. Edward II’s are constants. Licensing, like castellated archi- interest in Piers Gaveston (de Gabastens) did tecture, with few exceptions, remained the not extend to his country of origin – not until sphere of tenurial formality – a sub-baronial 1312, not long before Gaveston’s quasi-judi- aristocratic grass-roots affair, whose politics cial murder, were Edward II’s first licences were strictly local, even parochial. The bastide issued, a closely-similar trio all dated 15 Feb- of Saint Sardos and Sarlat Abbey were the ruary, at York. Their phraseology incorporates catspaws.32 Barons’ and bishops were rather the English-style security of tenure clause, but aloof, unlike in England. But Edward I was a leaves out rendability - not complementary stickler for the feudal niceties. Building was a features, since rendering might interrupt occu- act of ‘conspicuous consumption’; but with an pation (usually momentarily but also militari- eye to posterity as well as on the present, ly) but crucially, it did not impugn possessory unlike most forms of seignorial display. The right in any way.34 In war it was certainly used monuments and memorials of ecclesiastical and the fief-holder acquired strength thereby. aesthetic, of personal ambition, and of piety, Here, these elements indicate mere reversion linger in almshouses, chantries, cathedrals and to the English pattern by the scribe. All three in innumerable parish churches, and physical cite powerful ecclesiastical interest: John de vestiges – a partial but imposing autobiogra- Burgh of Salleboeuf (‘a strong house or for- phy. How the squirearchy set its mark for tress in that parish’) had the support of Ber- future generations upon little and greater dy- nard of Sauviac, the Pope’s nephew and nastic seats has survived even less completely Comes Campanie; Guy Fleming of Artigues – and yet, the great majority of licensees to (in that parish) apparently had the same; and crenellate or fortify are named from the man- Lawrence de Cantilupe (‘a strong-house or or-seat which they chose to dignify in this way. fortress in his manse of Camarsac’, again dép. Some, doubtless, were one-manor-men; but Gironde) had the backing of his uncle, the for many, the selection of a principal seat was cardinal Arnald de Cantilupe, now archbishop associated with the adoption of a family sur- of Bordeaux. All three places are very close to name. All these elements continued, in Eng- the city.35 The texts employ the special phrase land, regardless of changing large-scale politi- ‘insofar as we may’ (quantum in nobis est). cal circumstances in the rapidly worsening They instruct ‘all seneschals, castellans, prov- balance of advantage in the growing tussle osts, ministers, officers, bailiffs and subjects’ between Capetian and Plantagenet for the ad- not to hinder the implementation of the grant. herence of the duchy of Gascony, during the Both John de Burgh and Guy Fleming took the reign of Edward of Caernarfon. opportunity, next year, to present to the king, 2 Personalities and Political Vicissitudes when at Pontoise near Paris (perhaps his mak- 1307-17 ing homage to Philip IV for Gascony) individ- ual requests to be paid debts due to them from The same tendency to regional concentration the 1294-1304 conflict and occupation. John’s of licences on the duchy ‘home counties’ claim was for damages when he was in garri- (déps. Gironde, Landes, Basses Pyrénées) op- son in Bourg-sur-Mer. Guy said that his father erated down to 1317 and beyond.33 The Agen- had defended Rions town and had died there, ais, as another case in 1316 demonstrated, lay all his lands being laid waste. Both claims outside their range. There was, however, a new were to be honoured by the duchy chief-ac- element of almost-coordinated lordly ambition countant, the Constable of Bordeaux, if found in the de Got family, who, like Raymond-Wil- correct (29 June, 1313).36 liam of Budos in 1306, took advantage of the

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16237 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

That claims for cash-compensation (and and to share out fairly the perquisites of office; lucrative grants) should be carefully verified, but his tenure apparently lasted from 1308, while licences to fortify, including Gascony, when he was already in possession of lordship, issued virtually on demand, remains striking. being styled ‘of La Libarde’, until 1316. It fits Whereas almost all other fiscal opportunities all these facts that, in April 1312, styled were taken this was not. The Chancery was ‘knight’ (miles) he obtained licence (in the self-funding, with some profit-surplus, out of same form as the trio of February) for a domus fees paid by the recipients of chargeable patents fortis seu fortalicium in castellaria castri nos- – so licences to fortify, along with imparking, tri de Burgo super Mare in parochia de la diverting roads, and other noble residential Lyvarde – that is, the place was within the amenities, yielded the chancery a small profit. castellary or administrative district of the cas- both financially and in the affirmation of loyal tle-town of Bourg, on the Gironde; in fact, ambition. In England, the Crown subsidized the close to it – whence the special mention.38 Chancellor with an annual fee. Stimulating po- Office-holders frequently occur among tentially disruptive emulation was a small the English licensees to crenellate, as also do countervailing risk; and it could be minimized wealthy bourgeois establishing themselves to vanishing point, even in Gascony. Many among the landed aristocracy. As has been licensees, in any case (especially in England), noted, many citizens of Bordeaux, as well as of had proved records of loyalty in the king’s London, in this way crossed a social divide service. In Gascony Edward II’s next licence which in France proper was an especially con- (April 1312) went to one such. Arnold Ed- scious gulf.39 In the case of foreign naturalized munds (Edmundi) was a royal servant in the merchants, this act must have been especially deeper sense of being a paid official, not merely deliberate. An Italian family from Lucca had a tenant who did his duty as such (even in the become so much denizens of the city of Bay- dire circumstances of 1294-1304). In 1308, he onne as to obtain peacetime possession of two was appointed to the (chiefly administrative) of the towers in the town wall, with a plot of office of ‘castellan’ of Montendre, near the land there, and an oven. In 1310, Arnald-Saux northern ‘frontier’, in southern Saintonge. The of Lucca (perhaps the third or later generation) seneschal was duly notified and the constable claimed to have them by inheritance from Pe- of Bordeaux was told his daily fee, and to settle ter-Arnald of Lucca, and had petitioned that the rent (‘farm’) he was to pay, having regard Edward I had given one of the towers away (in to the revenues ‘of the castle and castellary’.36 1289) ‘owing to a misunderstanding’. Jean de No particular favour, this: as normal, he was to Bielle still resented him in 1292 and 1305. pay as much as anyone else would offer. Also, town-wall towers made a dignified residence, his position was revocable at will. In fact, he but Arnald-Saux also possessed a remote lord- was removed without royal order and protested, ship, beyond the extramural land usual for rich obtaining an order (Feb. 1311) for his reinstate- citizens. In May 1313, his status was effective- ment, when a formal enquiry by the English ly recognized by obtaining a licence ‘to make bishop of Norwich with the seneschal showed in his land of Bourriot’ (dép. Landes, but about that he had ‘behaved faithfully to the king and 70 miles NE of Bayonne), ‘and hold to himself to his subjects of the lordship of Montendre’ and his heirs, a house strong with stones, tim- (Nov. 1311). He is again mentioned as ‘consta- bers and earthworks (domum fortem de Petris, ble’ (alias ‘castellan’) in March 1314, when the lignis et fossatis)’. The phrases from the peti- constable of Bordeaux was to pay him ‘his tion show Arnald’s vagueness and scope. Ad- wages and stipends’, alleged by him to be in dressed to ducal officials, the formal text arrear after due allowance for disbursements. closely resembles those of the previous year in He apparently continued in office until October Anglo-Gascon stule.40 Although the final attes- 1316, when his successor was appointed. This tation clause notes that the Chancery warrant sequence conforms to a pattern – an assiduous for the great seal patent was a writ of privy seal petitioner who knew ‘the right people’. It was ‘witnessed’ by the king (at Windsor), there is usual to rotate posts, to discourage corruption

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16238 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 less reason than with Edward of Caernarfon’s The English-style licence to the de Cagesio industrious father to suppose that the grant was brothers represents a gesture to the Gascon not perfunctorily nodded through. Certainly, gentry, one as much of ready cash as renown. any notion of personal topographical knowl- The sites, being within or near the lordship of edge, (still less of ‘strategic’ consultation, es- Villandraut, might well have been licensed as pecially of any sort of map) must be dismissed of right by Pope Clement himself - but he left altogether. Special knowledge, if any, came it to his nephew and namesake to do them from local officials such as Arnald de Cailhau honour by proxy. Bertrand de Got, similarly, (1311 protestation) for this or other cognate either sent or took the petition to Eltham Pal- honorific patent. The king’s bureaucrats, from ace, or allowed his protégé to cite his name, the Chancellor downwards, relied on represen- for the second licence of 1314 (also 17 Janu- tations made to them (with the minor, mostly ary). Had this not been done, the council in automatic exceptions already noted) in England might have hesitated for fear of in- processing the great multitude of wholly rou- fringing de Got lordship. They acquired archi- tine business. tectural seignoralia to flaunt as well as the 45 January 1314 brought two licences, both document. Another de Got licence on the attributable to the papal family ‘interest’. same day (Jan 17, 1314) is another of the same Clement V (1305-14) moved the papal court to sort. Exceptionally, the gloss-heading to the the new seat at quasi-imperial (but ‘French’) entry on the Roll: pro Reymundo Guillelmi de Avignon on the Rhône, but he still awarded Gutto de fortalicio faciendo identifies the gist Italian titles (from Romagna) to members of as well as the recipient. It also makes clear his Gascon clan.41 And it was in Gascony that from the text that fortalicium and domus fortis they sought to perpetuate the inevitably were synonymous. Recipients’ names were ephemeral renown of their family with castles, always the purpose not some bureaucratic lordships and other durable monuments of analysis. This document is notable in that it greatness. So it was that Bertrand de Got, uses the standard Anglo-Gascon form used by ‘marquis of Ancona’ (but merely ‘our dear and the Chancery since Budos, in March 1306, faithful’, as a Gascon subject, in the text) was until April 1315. Edward’s council had con- named as intercessor in the double licence to sidered, but decided against, acquiring Castets-en-Dorte with 7 parishes in exchange the brothers Bernard and Gaillard de Cagesio. 44 They were granted ‘that they may jointly or for Reymund’s manor of Lagruère in 1316-7. separately make two strong-houses, or two The great castle at Pope Clement’s home- fortresses (fortalicia) at the places or appurte- village, with the castles-in-miniature around nances’ of Illon and of Langon, the former Villandraut, elevated the whole de Got clan – being near and the latter about ten miles NE of but the self-promotion of the ambitious, suc- the very imposing round-towered, high cessful and fortunate gentry depressed the sta- walled, double-tower gatehoused, but quite tus of others. While Edward II was at Pontoise, compact, quadrangular de Got castle-palace of near Paris, in the summer of 1313, envoys came Villandraut (dép. Gironde). Now gaunt, stark to him from the castellary of Mauléon and from and roofless but remarkably intact despite ru- Labourd bailiwick, in the Biscay region of Bay- ined apartments and the loss of its battlements. onne. Their complaint was that certain malefac- Built by Pope Clement V at his natal village, it tors in those parts have had fortresses built for has been compared (debatably) to Harlech. In themselves in various places, not having ob- south-west France, it is wholly exceptional in tained our licence for this. From these fortresses magnificence: Jacques Gardelles has remarked they frequently go out and come to the (peti- that ‘neither the great feudatories, like the vi- tioners’) houses, without their leave, and there comte de Béarn or the count of Armagnac, nor usurp (rights of) entertainment, commonly the king-duke himself, could have built in one known as albergades, at their mere pleasure, campaign (d’un seul jet) in early fourteenth- and do not fear to commit various other deeds century Gascony, such an imposing castle’.42 prejudicial to us and to themselves …45

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16239 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

One man’s lordship was, obviously, anoth- been constructed by those evil-doers without er man’s subjugation. Ducal licences, accord- our licence, contrary to the custom of the coun- ingly, often expressly ruled out anything more try, according as you shall decide ought rea- than architectural exhibitionism - but gratifying sonably to be done by local custom; all and ambition to affirm loyalties always risked local singular being forbidden, on penalty of forfeit- resentment. In this case, no blatant arrogation ing to us all that they may, to dare to take any of justice rights (e.g. by the arrest, trying and such commestiones sive albergades of any sort conspicuous punishment of delinquents) had in future; and punishing in exemplary and occurred; but it was an ancient lordly right (the deterrent fashion anyone attempting to do so droit de gîte) to require hospitality. Some after that prohibition has been made – At Pon- degree of overt fortifying might, as in this toise, under our privy seal, our great seal being instance, constitute the first step on an ascend- in England for the governance (regimen) of our ing scale of legally-enshrined domination; then kingdom; 30 June (1313), by the king himself. be asserted by acts damaging both to the duke’s On the face of it, this is ‘enforcement’: in direct lordship and correspondingly to the sta- fact there was no contradiction. Edward II was tus of his tenant-in-chief. In effect, such usur- consistent. Until February 1317, nine licences pation was intruding a new intermediate were issued – all but three being for the general (‘mesne’) lordship by prescription – if allowed area in question (dép. Basses Pyrénées, and without protest, precedent rapidly established south of dép. Landes).47 This concentration, by new de facto lordship which soon might be- comparison with the previously prevailing fo- come de jure dominion. No breach of the peace cus on the region centered on Bordeaux, is or flagrant infringement of customary law was undoubtedly significant. The complainants alleged. The king-duke, moreover, had no ‘con- were rural proprietors, not the citizens of Bay- trol’ over magnates’ fortifying. Such influence onne, and were confined to the small patria as he possessed over lesser tenants-in-chief comprising the castellary of Mauléon and the depended partly on their initiative - but as his Basque region of Labourd, in the far south. ancient regalian right to license had been in- Moreover, the ‘local law and custom’ so em- voked, some response, however cautious, was phatically appealed to regarding seignorial dis- required. Had Edward II not been in the coun- play and exactions were applied generally to try, albeit ‘in France’ near Paris, it is unlikely the central Atlantic provinces of the duchy that the incident would have surfaced and have (and, north of the Gironde, to Saintonge), rath- been preserved on the Gascon Roll. It would er than to the Agenais and Périgord in the east. have been locally handled and either not re- The king-duke’s council was evidently con- corded at all, or be buried in the mass of the cerned not to weaken his licensing prerogative Bordeaux Constabulary archives which once by over-asserting it - the prohibition to be existed, but has mostly been lost. However proclaimed was directed against unaccustomed superficially complete the sources, History is exactions, not against fortifying as such, al- 46 always working from incomplete records. though some greater incentive to apply for a The gist (for once) of the royal reply in licence may have resulted. It was an ‘off the latinized French, a mandate to the seneschal, cuff’ response. The dilemma was to be re- present and future, is conveyed by the gloss- solved by tact, conciliation and consultation on head – ‘on destroying fortifications built with- the part of his local officials, using negotiation out ducal licence’. Having recited the facts backed by threat of demolition of the offensive represented to the king at Pontoise, the letter fortifications – the atmosphere is a world away continues: from the vindictive action taken by Henry II in England in the mid-twelfth century, and spite- Wishing to afford them a suitable remedy fully by King John, to demean their opponents in the foregoing, we order you to convoke those by damaging or seizing their castles. Magna of our council in those parts who should be Carta, after the 1217 reissue by the Regency consulted, and by their advice and counsel to for Henry III, marked a watershed in England.48 have destroyed all the fortresses found to have

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16240 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

Apart from stipulating, or leaving it to the mayor and officials, jurisdictional quasi-mo- seneschal and officials to ensure, that a licence nopoly outside as well as within the walls, a should not cause local ructions beyond the (weekly) market, (annual) fair, and other com- capacity of local procedures to pacify (cf. Pre- mercial citizen-privileges, including fund-rais- issac, 1305, above), formal enquiry was rarely ing tolls for common purposes. A bell for needed beforehand - and was quite unknown in sounding the evening curfew (couvre-feu), or England,49 though freely used for other pur- the tocsin to call the townspeople to arms was poses. The contrast is (perhaps surprisingly) often among these rights, as well as control of almost insignificant, in this as in other ways, the defence-apparatus and the town fortifica- between the duchy and the kingdom regarding tions – cherished attributes of lordship at all licensing, a fact accidentally emphasized in the levels. For all these reasons, official sanction run of eight licences in hybrid Anglo-Gascon for town-walling, though it might do no more style, issued between February 1312 and May than facilitate the necessary fund-raising (‘mu- 1314. The last of these, to Raymond de Gres- rage’), was eagerly sought, and called for cor- inak (Gresignac) for Moulon (dép, Gironde, responding caution in the granting. In about 20 miles east of Bordeaux) not only December 1314, it was the small port-town of omits the rendability and tenure-in-chief claus- Biarritz, close to Bayonne, which took this step es but, apart from the address (‘to all officials and persuaded a citizen (presumably) of remot- and faithful in the duchy’), might have issued er Bordeaux to present their petition. A letter for any contemporary English site.50 close to the seneschal, Amaury de Craon (Cre- ‘Know that of our especial (sic) grace, we donio), applied the conditions attached to the have granted and given licence, for us and our royal acceptance: heirs, to our dear R. de G. that he may fortify Since, at the request (requisitio) of our with a wall of stone and lime (de petra et dear valettus, Leu (Lupus) Burgunt of Bor- calce) and crenellate his manse (mansum su- deaux, we have granted to our men and inhab- um) of Moulon, and may hold that manse thus itants of the port of Biarritz, in Labourd, that fortified and crenellated to himself and his they may fortify (munire) that port with ditch heirs in perpetuity, without disturbance or hin- and palisade (fossato et pelo) for its greater drance (sine occasione vel impedimento) of safety (salvacio), provided that it is not turned our’s or of our heirs’ … whosoever … to our damage or prejudice – we instruct you, How and why the Chancery then abruptly should you find by properly convened inquest dropped the English and went back to the to be held by you, by reputable and legally Gascon form of licence (and the perfunctori- competent men of those parts through whom ness of both) is revealed by the accident that the truth of the matter may best be ascertained, they being on oath, that the … said fortifying Bernard de Vignoles, licensed for his name- 53 place near Dax in April 1305, applied for a would not be to our damage or prejudice – renewal, in April 1315, clearly submitting Ed- then, you are to grant to them licence in the ward I’s patent which was in the traditional above terms (in forma predicta) to fortify the Gascon style. But first, in December 1314, port in the stated manner. there is an exceptional urban licence to fortify These are not precautions called for by (in England quite numerous) which called for licensing some manorial seat, but are of an a distinct procedure because of its wider im- entirely different order. ‘Security’ was the pact and legal implications.51 Biarritz was al- standard justification put forward for walling ready a port but an upstart rival to nearby towns, whether reiterated in licences or embed- Bayonne city. A settlement acquired higher ded in the prefatory verbiage of English mur- rank and identity when it was demarcated (‘en- age grants, authorizing the levying of tolls on closed’) by a ditch and entered by gateways. merchandise for the building fund. It became a Stone walls propelled it further towards bor- fashionable adjunct for ordinary licences wher- ough status which, by degrees, potentially cul- ever remotely plausible, together with ‘de- minated in possession of a guild-hall, ‘elected’ fence’. Certainly, Biarritz on the Biscay coast

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16241 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

(suburb of Bayonne they said in 1343) was of Mézin (Agenais), continuing until shortly subject to dangers such as opportunistic piracy, before 23 April 1315, when he was referred to or revenge-attacks by other ports-men for the as ‘late bailiff’, in a mandate for the arrears of commercial aggression practised at sea: but damages due to him. This compensation unex- such words as salvatio, deffensio, securitas, plained had been awarded against the men of salvamentum were a habitually employed Mézin to be paid out of the fines they had code. These terms amounted to freedom from agreed to. His second licence to fortify was outside interference, and quiet enjoyment of dated the previous day, but follows this writ to privilege, to the burgesses (and others) who the Constable of Bordeaux on the Roll. It re- made such play with the concept of ‘defence’. lates (from Vignoles’ petition) the good service Borough enclosures are nowadays so fixed in for which Edward I ‘of celebrated memory’ current parlance as ‘town defences’ that all the had granted him licence in 1305, subject to original multiplicity and shades of meaning has rendability and to prejudicing no ducal or other been lost or falsified. rights but giving him the usual silent discretion regarding the sort of domus fortis he might The Chancery procedure (as noted) was to build – all according ‘to our father’s letters date letters patent and personally-addressed patent thereon, which we have inspected’. This letters close (or ‘writs’) according to the time is in standard phraseology.55 Edward II’s ad- not of their enrolment or of issue but using the ministrators then appended the explanation date of the originating order or warrant sent in given by Bernard de Vignoles or his agent as to for processing in chronologically arranged why renewal of the still valid but personal batches (sometimes out of due sequence). This licence was needed. Anything not for a stated explains how it was that the enrolment of Ber- term was deemed permanent. That ‘the house nard de Poyanne’s licence dated 20 April 1315 had not, for certain reasons, so far been built’, should have been partly modelled upon the was less to the point than the opposition of the renewal already mentioned, of Bernard de Vig- citizens of Dax (dép. Landes), ‘about ten miles nole’s father’s original licence. The latter, distant’, which is disclosed by the incorporated though dated two days after (22 April), was mandate to the seneschal. he was told ‘to per- entered on the Roll immediately before the mit the said Bernard to construct the said house Poyanne licence. What evidently happened in the manner stated; and if any damage, or was that the original Vignoles licence of 1305 wrongdoing (injuria) or hindrance should hap- was sent in to be confirmed, in the usual way, pen to be caused to Bernard in building the together with the petition. Having been passed, house, or after it has been built, by the men of the gist of the petition was incorporated in the the city of Dax or by others, then you are to do warrant which, with the 1305 licence was then prompt and due justice to him with favour in sent into the Chancery writing office, the peti- the matter’, i.e. slightly relaxing official impar- tion itself being filed.54 These files will be a tiality. To be ‘the king’s man’ always helped – rich source if transcribed and printed in trans- but to King John it was only reasonable to treat lation. In the same batch was the warrant for ‘one of us’ with marked preference, a stance Bernard de Poyanne’s licence - but de Vig- which his successors maintained. noles’ was dealt with first. There were good reasons to foster his loyalty: he had lost lands The jealous attitude of burgesses to any to the French in 1294-1304 and was compen- sort of overt lordship-intrusion (such as fortify- sated, with an ex gratia pension for five years, ing announced) upon their environs, or formal as a bonus (1304). In 1305 his licence to fortify banlieue, may have operated in England as a strong-house ‘in his land’, was accompanied well. Certain towns (e.g. Oxford, Hull) have by renewal of the payment-order of his pen- suspicious clusters of licences. Once again the sions ‘for good service’. He was also granted role of the seneschal in licensing, whether by the rent (‘farm’) of Brassens near Dax city formal document or by official prior support, is indefinitely, in discharge of sums due to him, evident; whereas the sheriff in England was not the arrears of which were ordered to be paid in apparently involved unless, perhaps, if a li- May 1313. He had served Edward I as bailiff cence was read out in County Court. The sene- THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16242 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 schal’s further duty to receive the licensee’s tions for licence to fortify. Perhaps, local offi- undertaking to deliver the place on demand, cial vigilance dating from 1313 (above) may like receiving his homage on accession, also have played a part. Repercussions of the en- figures often. Before allowing the licence to be demic ‘war’ at sea, between the Channel ports- implemented at Vignoles, he was ‘suitably to men, which so aggravated Capetian- ensure that Bernard would hand over the house Plantagenet relations (as in 1294, very serious- to the seneschal, be he (sic) angered or ap- ly) may also have affected Dominic ‘of peased (irato et pacato) as often as he, or the France’. He had bought and put in order a ship, lord of the house, should be required by the once the property of portsmen of Normandy. seneschal’. The next phrase (‘according as is As it is delicately expressed, this ship had fully contained in our father’s letters patent’) ‘come into the kings hands by the men of seems to have struck the bilingual Chancery Bayonne (per Baion)’, that is they had cap- scribe, copying in abbreviation onto the Roll, tured it. The ‘masters of the ships’ with the since a rendability clause was tagged on to the duchy council had set the price which Dominic end of Bernard de Poyanne’s licence for his had paid – so he had regularly acquired it name-place (dép. Landes), dated 20 April, (compare an 18th century prize court). In 1315. Since the body of this latter licence con- March 1317, he obtained royal backing to keep tains the standard English security-of-tenure it in the event of ‘peace being made between formula, it may be legitimate to speculate that Bayonne and the Normans’. What can be ac- a colleague of the first clerk had copied it out cepted with confidence is that Dominic ‘of so far, following previous style (since 1306: France, lord of Urmendy’ was an opportunistic Budos), before his attention was drawn to the man-on-the-make. The Council of England proper foros et consuetudines parcium was careful not to be manipulated, as some- predictarum.56 This composite formula was times happened. then closely followed for the five licences sued Auger de Poudeux signalized his success out down to February 1317, the end of volume in the same way (licence to fortify at Bailleras, IV of the published Rôles Gascon. Rendability dép. Landes, May 1315), but took advantage of in no way impugned right of tenure, as noted his access to Edward II’s council to inform above; rather, it was a means of affirming it. them that two bailiwicks near Dax were avail- Crenellating never became in Gascony the cru- able. He duly obtained these lucrative positions cial symbol it was in England after c.1258. but, as usual, had to offer to pay a farm as high Some local difficulty explains the repeat- as any competitor would. They had belonged ing of Bernard de Vignoles’ licence (1305, to the late Pope Clement V, who had died in 1315).57 Similarly, the licence for Urmendy 1314, so Auger was not to receive revenues (dép. Basses Pyrénées) in Labourd, of May allocated to others by his will.59 In September 1315, to the non-Gascon Dominic de Francia, 1315, Raymond-Williams of Douzit obtained was apparently renewed (September 1316) ow- another almost verbatim licence for his lord- ing to some dispute over his landed title. Prob- ship of Serreslous (dép. Landes), by a Latin ably these doubts are repercussions of the privy seal warrant dated at Fen Ditton attitude at Pontoise, referred to. The repeat, (Cambs.). Bertram alias Bertrand de la Mote’s dated at York, was procured by Oliver de Bor- licence, in April 1316, differs only in that the deaux and accompanied by an order to the domum fortem seu fortalicium which he was to seneschal that Dominic should be supported in build ‘in the parish of Audignan (dép. Landes) his established possession ‘of a certain pasture was not, as was undoubtedly the usual rule, an in Durmendia’ against those denying his existing manor-house but expressly de novo, right.58 As an alien merchant, probably settled although obviously ‘on his land’ (in solo in Bayonne, but entering the landed local aris- suo).60 Most Gascon licences textually leave tocracy in the habitual fashion, he may well this question open, whereas the habitual Eng- have wanted the recognition of his position lish wording specifies an existing mansum which often (as in England) motivated applica- manerii, that is the actual dwelling and manor-

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16243 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 site in question. A manorial lord, established place of Saint-Martin with a ditch and fortify it with a recognized seat, might proclaim the fact. with a palisade, holding it so enclosed and Subdivision of the mostly quite dense pattern fortified …’ etc.63 As previously, the English- of Anglo-Saxon manors, producing new units style security-of-tenure clause has the Gascon in the hands of cadet branches or of incomers, rendability formula appended. Again as usual, frequently occurred – but, in Gascony, espe- this modest ‘homestead-moat’, to use the apt cially in the Biscay region of the Landes, much term of the early volumes of the Victoria Coun- colonization was in progress in the expansive ty History, could only be inconvenient if open population period of the later-twelfth, the thir- to hostile troops or held equivocally - the stip- teenth century, and the early fourteenth. At all ulation merely affirmed (and, on demand, events, of the relevant Gascon site-licences of might confirm) the house-holder’s status as 1214-1317, e.g. the 16 cases whose wording tenant-in-chief of the king-duke. Peter de definitely indicates an existing site-building, a Saint-Martin had served Edward II in Scotland particular place is given in nineteen cases, in 1313-16, including garrison service in Ber- frequently the grantee’s name-place. Other- wick-on-Tweed. He had lost his home, and wise we find a general location in a named received compensation for it, with the war parish honor or fief, or in lands to be associated wages earned as member (socius) of the small with the grantee’s name, occurring in twenty- contingent led by Lubac de Saint-Martin. His three instances. Additional work on an existing earnings thereby, and the favourable notice he castle or town is clearly implied in a further achieved, along with the status-ambitions four cases. Alternative places, indicating that aroused, even by the cavalry debacle at Stirling one had not yet been chosen, but not necessar- (Bannockburn campaign) were all promptly ily a new seat, number five. De novo construc- reflected in the embellishment of his residence tion is stated in a single case – but the formula, - he might well have called it a domus fortis, almost always employed, of domum fortem but chose not to, perhaps out of modesty.64 facere (and variants) can be translated either as A final snapshot illustrating the relatively ‘to make a specific house strong’, or, equally, free rein holding the more lordly nobles of the ‘to create a strong house (anew)’. Consequent- Agenais in allegiance to the roi-duc, almost on ly, the relevance of a licence to dating a place’s the eve of the Capetian invasion of the prov- origin is as equivocal as it is in England. Too ince (carried out forcibly by sponsoring a new much reliance has been placed on it. Given that bastide by Sarlat Abbey at Saint-Sardos en a licence essentially marked the de facto exist- milieu de tout Agenays) is provided by the ence of a lordship seat, and served to some affair (October 1316) of Amanieu and Arnald- extent to ‘recognize’ it, and to establish its Garsias de Fossat.65 Fortifying, as an act of direct bond of homage, lordship obviously effectual lordly self-assertion, again was at the came first.61 But tenure need not imply a caput heart of it because the possession of, and right where the lord or his steward resided, and to maintain and construct fortresses anciently where the dues of dependants were rendered, denoted legitimate authority. Licensing, at in England styled the situm manerii. whatever level of hierarchy of tenure it was The question of ‘novelty’, innovation ipso exercised, implemented that right. Royal facto wrongful, clearly did not trouble either claims to a monopoly both of licensing and of aspirants or ducal council;62 no special plead- rendability were more ancient still (ultimately ing by petitioners, asserting the antiquity of of Carolingian and sub-Roman origin, mired in their lordship-seats, is anywhere hinted at: and obscurity) but even in England they were mut- when the residence was, in fact, not new, the ed, scarcely touching the great magnates. In point emerges quite incidentally. Thus, in the France, throughout the kingdom, such claims last Gascon licence stricto senso to be consid- plainly belonged to the numinous legal fictions ered, Peter of Saint-Martin-de-Pouillon (dép. of kingship.66 In practice, the facts of power Landes) asked for and received (Feb. 1317) and of long-established legal precedent among licence ‘that he may enclose his (dwelling-) ducal, comital, episcopal, baronial and sub-ba-

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16244 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 ronial administrations on the ground were fully (now) trying to re-establish the bastide drawing accepted. Indeed, the antiquity of such regalian away manpower, revenues and authority. These rights, notionally devolved by the Crown facts and the legalities, Edward II’s council though they may have been, was in France as instructed the new seneschal to verify, and to long-established in many cases, and better vin- take action accordingly. The outcome is not dicated by actual practice. So, provided that his disclosed; but, in January 1317, Arnald-Garsias direct lordship over local lords below baronial secured a repeat of his pardon for homicides rank was not flouted, and that his right to be and other offences, originally issued in July petitioned and to respond was duly acknowl- 1315. This stayed all proceedings against him, edged, ‘according to the laws and customs of specifically in order ‘to relieve him from all those parts’, the peers and great magnates of threats, fears and dread of imprisonment’, held France were content. The Gascon protestation over him by the then seneschal, Amaury de of c.1310 says it all. Collision occurred when Craon. Arnald-Garsias had put himself in the royal powers were asserted or extended. wrong by resorting to force – but, in both writs ‘National’ war lay in the (not too distant) of pardon, his position as (joint-) lord of Aigu- future. As thing had been, in 1316, Amanieu illon was recognized. and Arnald-Garsias de Fossat were exemplary: One way of enlisting the king-duke’s indeed they looked to their duke to uphold their support was to offer him a proprietary interest. rights, as the lord of Lauzun had done (1305). On 3 June 1316, the possibility of his acquiring Since Edward I’s time, they had been in long- ‘the castle of Aguillon and its appurtenances’, standing dispute with the joint-lords of Lunac by exchange for revenues elsewhere, was to be over the lordship of the town (i.e. castrum) of examined. In the event, the de Fossats resented Aiguillon (dép. Lot-et-Garonne) and, conse- the intrusion resulting from their gambit. Ar- quently, over their right to build a stone gate- nald-Garsias communicated with his relative at way there, adjacent to the territory of Lunac; Court with the king at York (12 October, and also regarding the founding nearby of a 1316),68 who had an order sent to the seneschal bastide. Initially, the lords of Lunac had pre- to the effect that ‘the pillory set up by certain vailed, with the seemingly partisan support of royal officials in a street(?) of Aguillon town’, the Gascon seneschal, Amaury de Craon. Lat- near to the de Fossats’ own, infringed their terly, by attending Court in England, Amanieu ‘total and undivided lordship’. They and their de Fossat gained the support of Edward II and predecessors, from time out of mind, had en- his council, who put favourable pressure on the joyed their pillorium et alias diversas liber- new seneschal. How inextricably intermixed tates. If proved, the intrusive royal pillory, were issues of jurisdiction, penal instruments, instrument of low or middle justice (cf. furce or and fortification, with over-riding lordship is gallows), was to be taken away. Two days later, very clearly shown – as also is the partisan the de Fossats in concert, ventured to assert information upon which the Crown often acted, themselves still more strongly. Fortifying, they as in England, expecting any wrong, done or had evidently decided, proved their lordship alleged, to be appealed against. According to beyond question. It also allowed an oblique the de Fossats (as recounted to the new sene- refutation of the claims of the lords of Lunac. schal by letter close dated 14 October 1316) They procured another writ to the seneschal, Edward I had acceded to the petition by Boni- dated 14 October 1316, like the other already face de Fossat, whose heir Amanieu was, and summarized, boldly setting out their present of Arnald-Garsias who both denied the legality and retrospective stance that – of a ducal bastide set up ‘next to the walls’ of their town of Aiguillon at the instigation of the although by the liberties and customs hith- lords of Lunac. Edward I had, they said, or- erto observed in the Agenais, each lord of dered its removal, after investigation. Without castles and towns of those parts may prop- naming them, the de Fossats asserted that ‘cer- erly (licite) have their said castles and tain’ officials and servants of ours in those towns enclosed (claudere) and crenellated parts’, again incited by the lords of Lunac, are (sic) with stone and lime(-mortar), and

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16245 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 may make towers and gateways (turres et proper legal form’, would not exclude favour, portalia), not having requested licence biased evidence, or even corruption – but, for- accordingly from us … mally at least, justice should not only be done, The focus of the quarrel between the de but be seen to be done, as the modern judicial Fossats and the lords of Lunac (joint-tenants maxim prescribes. The complexity of Gascon both, as was not unusual), over the latter’s affairs makes English simplicities very inade- attempted procurement of a bastide adjoining quate. Perhaps the chief casualty of comparing Aiguillon ‘castle’, is then disclosed. Arnald- Gascony with England, in the period 1214 Garsias and the late Boniface de Fossat had – 1317 at least, is the idea that England was insular and entirely different. Instead, Gascony constructed a gateway of stone to their (and wider Aquitaine), more than Normandy, wall, (located) between their jurisdiction bridges that quite narrow divide of the Channel (-area) and the jurisdiction of the lords of over an era of three centuries. In castle-policy Lunac, in the town of Aguillon, in accord- and fortification the gap dwindles almost to ance with those aforesaid liberties and vanishing point – but it raises innumerable customs: whereupon, Amaury de Craon, questions, as we have seen. lately seneschal of the duchy, at the insti- gation of Arnald’s and Boniface’s rivals (emulorum) quite unjustly (minus juste) Duchy of Gascony Licences II - 1290-1317 caused that gateway to be thrown down Notes & References and destroyed, not allowing Amanieu and Arnald thenceforth to repair it, to their Ducange, Dissertation 22 (1668) – excepts re- prejudice and in manifest breach of the assembled. said liberty and custom. Les Olim, ou Registres des Arrêts, ed. Beugnot Just how much the importunate Amanieu (1839), iii. at Court had warped the facts now appears: 1. Ducange p.499 (1): Reg. de la Constable putting up the stone portale, even if it was on de Bordeaux, fol 207: Edward I n.d. li- an undisputed boundary line (murus is equivo- cence to Gaillard de Blanhas for a fortali- cal), was a demonstrative act – provocative, in tium rendable to the seneschal at will. this case. Evidently the lordship of the de Fossats over the whole town-castle was not at 2. Officially cancelled French Budos licence all ‘total and undivided’. The undoubted prac- 1301: Les Olim, p.91 no.36, Philip IV; tice of free fortifying in the Agenais was irrel- re-licensed 1306, CPR p.420; Foedera 1, evant – although bias in favour of the lords of ii, p.981 (Latin); erroneous and military Lunac by Amaury de Craon may have been Gardelles p.109, fig 27, Bordelais: resem- involved.69 At all events, his successor as sene- bles other de Got works e.g. Villandraut. schal was instructed to confirm that the custom 3. CRs II, no.1838: muro de petra vel de palo applied and, more importantly, to investigate … includare … iratus et pacatus … the truth, allowing the gateway to be repaired (and the legal position which it represented to 4. CMS, 174-6: indignant interventions by be vindicated) – should he uphold the de Fos- Count Bernard of Armagnac and Fézansac sats’ version of events on enquiry. Without with Henry III quoted in full (translation). such precautions, taken locally but subject, as Resentment of London citizens is rare. a result, to personal influences on the ground, 5. cf. their use of Domesday (Exchequer) and the nature of the Chancery and privy seal pro- Champagne clerks’ use of their fief rolls. cedures was easily abused. The Rolls’ appear- 6. GRs III, no.3374. Edward’s demand was ance of omniscience, especially as calendared, ‘feudal’. Embroiled in Wales and Scotland. is often deceptive. Even stipulating that the Philip is not rex illustris. Portsmouth was seneschal should ‘fully inform’ himself, ‘hav- the embarkation port. In August Arnold et ing called all who should be, as well as our counsel’,71 so that the question be resolved ‘in

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16246 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317 alii was ordered compensation; arrears to 21. GRs III nos. 4642, 4644, 4650, 4661 (Nov. be paid 1305; GRs II, no. 3801. 1304). Peter de Gontaud, lord of Biron (April 1305; GRs III no.4789) had bastide 7. 1st Oct, notified Norham on the Scottish disputes (nos 2136, 4790). See also III nos border: GRs III, app I, no.1888, based on 4684, 4825, 4842, 4843: grantee-details in recipient’s copy 21 years old. Did Aycard the text via Index. accompany Edward on his crusade? 22. Same date: the Bishop of Bazas, Amanieu 8. GRs II, no 769 (III Index); no.1981, Oct de Sescars knight, Amanieu de Ententon 1291. Any open grant was always valid. by plea of Amanieu lord of Albret. Sescars 9. GRs III nos 1940, 2099. ‘Roquefort’ is had lost land compensation in 1299, war- commonplace e.g. Gardelles p.208. wages in 1305. 10. M. Prestwich, Edward I (Yale 1997) fore- 23. 1305: Theobald de Preissac and Arnald- word, 342-5, 401-6 (finances) et passim. Bernard, his nephew, at Preissac. All had war-wages in 1299 and 1305. Simon de 11. If works were meant they would be Montégut licence (a ‘castle or fortifica- spelled out: pro voluntate sua meant tim- tion’) in Bourg-sur-Mer castellary is not to ing. prejudice rights. Bastide-procedure after 12. De la Ferrière: Prestwich p.395 – ‘a Gas- inquisition ad quod damnum before li- con-trained lawyer and a royal clerk of cence if found by the seneschal to be in- considerable seniority’. Conciliation by nocuous. the seneschal was usually enough. 24. Coimères, for A. de Sescars (or Sescas) of 13. Charles Bémont relates events GRS III, the De Got family: Gardelles p.235 n.6. Introd. ch.3, pp.124-82,in detail. 25. The phrase constantly occurs ‘provided 14. Les Olim III, p.91, no.36; Boutaric (calen- that the King’s debts are duly paid’. dar) has Bedos: propter defectus in ea. 26. When the Agenais was put out of direct 15. Bayonne, Bas Adow, Blaye, Bourg were royal lordship (1279) Vicomte Raymond English held c.1303 (Truce May, Paris) had to have Turenne castle repossessed but most (Bordelais, Landes, Agenais, nominally, as due to Louis IX: GRs III Limousin, E.Gascony) were ‘French’. no.255. 16. Gardelles p.109 as ‘1308’; CPR, 1301-7, 27. Vignoles was to be built ‘without preju- 420; Foedera 1, ii, p.981 (in full). dice to us or to another’. Not acted upon (below). 17. Using the universal medieval ‘shorthand’ to save parchment: C.T. Martin q.v. 28. J.P. Trabut-Cussac’s paper, ‘Les bastides de l’Acquitaine anglaise et les intentions 18. (Foedera) necnon et pro ea quod fortalici- de leurs fondateurs’, Le Moyen Âge ser. 49 um hujusmodi ad nostrum et terrarum nos- (1954), 81-135, widened the whole study trarum in partibus illis, necnon et of ‘castles’. Much in the present CSG hominium de progenie predicti summi Pon- volume shows how far it has receded. tificis securitatem sic faciendum reputamus 29. GRS II e.g. nos 1626, III, no.2062 (Li- 19. e.g. in 1308, Edward II asked Philip IV not bourne) etc; II no.1643 (1289), 1652; III, to hold it against Geoffrey Rudel that he had nos 4789; II nos 2136, 1643; III, no.4790; refused to render Blaye ‘in the recent war’, CMS p.198 no.198, p.242; and see Towns, having supported Edward: in the most cere- index. monious and groveling style. A conflict of feudal propriety: Foedera II, I, 32. 30. GRs III no.4789 (see above); for extenso c. 1305 petition see Part I above. 20. Clues to the recipients’ links with (usually) English royal household and familiarity. 31. Compare Gardelles’ Map IV, Gascony at Edward III’s accession, with Maps II and

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16247 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

III. Absorption, context of incidents to rants, often written on the petition, are 1339, in detail, Coulson, ‘Community very brief; this one identified as PRO and Fortress Politics’, NMS XL (1996); no.8412682, giving great space for ana- by Valois judicial-military encroachment. lytical comparison. 32. Three ‘childless’ sons of Philip IV: Louis 41. Palace 1334-92; Papal residence until X, Charles IV, then Philip IV (les rois 1378: Mollat Popes at Avignon (1949); maudits); after 1328, Philip de Valois, peace-keeper between England and supplanter of Edward III; Cailhau memo- Philip IV (each lent 320,000 florins); randum to Edw. II 1317 and Gascon pow- heavy taxation; gave his nephew for cru- erless resentment: details, ‘Community…’ sade, the vicomte de Lomagne, 300,000 esp. 100-108. florins, 200,000 florins to family mem- bers and friends: Mollat ch.I and p.8. A 33. Foedera, ii, 2 and iii, 1, c.1333-60, prints corrupt court. in full numerous documents on the local and ‘strategic’ acts of the Gascon war, 42. Gardelles pls. 154-7, pp.234-5. Villand- which lies outside our brief. raut is a place d’orgueil unique in Gasco- ny. 34. Reducing the right of mere seisin (Henry II), usually physical possession, is Eng- 43. GRs IV, no.1160: double licence to Ber- lish, where usufruct arose through the trand and Gaillard ad instanciam dilecti ‘use’ chiefly: GRs IV, nos 624, 625, 626. et fidelis nostri Bertrand de Gutto, et de gracia nostra speciali concessimus … 35. The ‘at the instance of’ formula, common in England, may mean personal interces- 44. GRs IV, nos 1161, 1801, 1607, App. sion at Court, or merely a covering note p.577, xiii, p.583. Castets is about 12 with the petition. Consimiles littere ad- miles NNE of Villandraut. The licence mits of scribal variation. In England man- would have confirmed Reymund’s posi- sum manerii is the standard object. GRs tion meanwhile. III, nos 1061, 1064. Edward I’s debts 45. GRs IV, no.1037: oblique wording – et being paid first is a constant proviso. ibidem commestiones que vulgariter al- 36. GRS IV, no.675. Genitives suggest the bergades appellantur; cf. hébergement or clan of Wales. Rickard’s exhaustive Cas- droit de gîte. Deliberately vague. tle Community (2002) assumes castle 46. Thirteenth century deliberations of the posts were ‘military’; also GRs IV, nos Parlement de Paris are full of issues of 57, 1198, 1711. this kind and full of detailed accounts: 37. Edward II was notorious for giving offic- e.g. Les Olim vol. I – ii (Louis IX – Philip es to importunists often badly chosen: III). even the ‘tower’ and church of La Réole 47. Including that mentioned for Arnald were in the frontier per c.1310 petition. Sanz, 1313: he was a citizen of Bayonne. 38. Gardelles’ index puts La Lyvarde or 48. See CMS, Index ‘destruction … puni- Lynarde as about 25 miles SSW of Mon- tive’, and ‘usage of’ as a ‘sign’, et passim. tendre. Bourg was a major northern bas- tion; burgesses helped with walling the 49. Unless Hugh de Fresne’s Moccas (Here- ‘castle’. fords) in 1293 is an example. 39. CMS p.207 no.53, 174-5. Castles and 50. GRs IV, no.1242; Moulon, almost lands were ‘noble fiefs’ (e.g. Montolieu) unique, occurs in Gardelles Catalogue, not sold. p.186; de gracia nostra speciali denotes seignorial liberality. By Latin Privy Seal 40. GRs IV, no.921; Renouard no.1 and warrant. no.919; also n. 354, II no.1039 of 1289. All acts are attributed to the king. War-

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16248 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16 Duchy of Gascony Licences II, 1290-1317

51. GRs IV, no.1286. Urban licences also in 60. GRs IV, no.1446, Latin warrant 92/3450: 1219 (Bordeaux), 1254 (Barsac) for spe- and IV, no.1536, warrant 94/3652; also cial reasons. The lord ‘made the first no.1515. enclosure’ of a bastide and usually vested 61. Instances (in England) of unscrupulous fortification. applicants anticipating possession do oc- 52. Not in Gardelles; homines et habitatores cur. put them below probi homines (e.g. bur- 62. Constantly recurring in documents we of- gesses); portus is descriptive, without ten find the phrase indebite novitates. legal implications; munire is clear. 63. Specified in the editor’s supplied gloss 53. Opposition by Bayonne is expected. In head uniquely as a licence: GRs IV, 1343, they offered to fortify Biarritz if the no.1773. Site apparently 8 miles SSE of place was granted to Bayonne: Foedera II, Dax. Possibly linked with B. de Vignoles’ ii, pp.1240-1. The 1314 letter was both troubles in 1305-15. Privy Seal warrant for licence by the Sene- schal, and order for the enquiry to be held. 64. GRs IV, no.1767; total 102li including wages, all equipment lost etc., for 4 fel- 54. GRs IV, no.1334, cf no.1332 (also lows, 1 hobelar, 5 crossbowmen and l ‘Westminster’). A hole was punched in archer in Berwick. Their loyalty was reli- the (parchment) petition to thread it on able. with the others and kept (e.g. in filiciis eodem anno) 65. Details NMS XL (1996) 80-108. Origins of ‘the War of Saint Sardos’. GRs IV, 55. In England, the petitioner was the source App II (Docs 4, pp.578-9; Doc. 5, p.582. of specified works as a rule. The fiction Paris Parlement summary Olim, iii, of personal royal reading (‘inspecting’) no.LXXV; Boutaric ii no.6498 etc. 1318, of documents and oversight of all busi- 1321, 1322: Arnaud de Cailhau report. ness delegated to specialist councillors is increasingly dubious; a fixed administra- 66. E.g. J-F. Finó, Forteresses de la France tive doctrine. Médiévale, pp.72, 461 (bibliography) on ‘droit de fortification’, collating tradition: 56. Parchment slips (‘membranes’) of vary- review and update see CMS. ing width, numbered in the Calendars, could be separately worked upon before 67. GRs IV, nos 1708-1710 (see above) for stitching together to make up the Roll; so the complexities of the case. dates vary. 68. The Court was in turmoil after 1314. The 57. Edward II’s Council had an enlarged Despensers, father and son, were ascend- role, see e.g. GRs IV, nos 1645-6, 1801; ant. De Cailhau and others were already App. pp.577, 583. anxious about Edward’s lack of consistent policy. 58. GRs IV, nos 1336, 1696, 1783. ‘O. de Burd, nunciante’ a Bordeaux vintner at 69. Use of ‘crenellate’ for ‘fortify’ is entirely Court? The repeat does not refer to the new and ‘English’. Amaury de Craon was original, so not produced nor recited in son of gone-native Maurice; doubtless the petition. The 1313 complaint at Pon- better-informed, despite ‘Westminster’. toise may have had xenophobia as a mo- 70. The lords of Lunac tried to tag on their tive as well. bastide to Aguillon town, it would seem. 59. GRs IV, nos 1361, 1364: verbatim of 71. Curtly but clearly vocatis vocandis et de- some date to Dominic de Francia of Ur- fensore nostro as parties to debate. mendy.

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16249 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 29: 2015-16