Chapter Five The Earls and Royal Government: General There are two angles from which the subject of the earls and royal government should be approached. The earls were in- volved at every level of government, from the highest offices of household and administration to the hanging of a thief on their own lands. They were also subject to the actions of government in its many forms. While it is useful to consider the activity of the earls in government separate from the impact of government upon them, there is no clear division between these two aspects. An earl that lost a legal dispute in the king's court was, as a major vassal of the king, a potential member of that same court. An earl that paid the danegeld due from his fief and vassals was both tax-collector and tax-payer. The obvious place to start an examination of the earls' role in government is the royal household, the central govern- ment institution of western kings since before Charlemagne. In Henry II's reign, several of the chief offices of the house- hold were held by earls. Two earls were recognised by Henry II as stewards in the years on either side of his succession to the throne. At some time between June 1153 and December 1154, Henry II recognised Robert earl of Leicester (d. 1168) as steward of England and Normandy (1). The earl had not been a steward under .(1) Re esta, iii, no.439. Shortly before this, the same grant had been made by Henry to Earl Robert's son, probably to avoid a too early contradiction in Earl Robert's allegiance to King Stephen: Ibid., no.438. either Henry I or Stephen, but claimed the office through his marriage to Amice, great-granddaughter of William fitz Osbern, earl of Hereford (d. 1071). William fitz Osbern had been steward to King William I, before and after the conquest of England (2). Robert earl of Leicester was succeeded in the office by his son and heir, Robert earl of Leicester (d.1190)(3). In 1155, Hugh earl of Norfolk was recognised as steward by Henry II. Hugh had been a steward of King Stephen and Henry I, and had succeeded his brother and father in the office (4). Hugh was succeeded in the office by his eldest son, Roger, even though the earldom was withheld until Richard I's reign (5). William earl of Arundel (d. 1176) inherited the office of master-butler from his father, William d'Aubigny 'pincerna.' (6) The earl's son and heir, William earl of Arundel (d. 1193), succeeded him in the office (7). In 1154-5, Aubrey earl of Oxford (d. 1194) accounted for 500 marks 'pro habenda cameraria quam pater suus habuit.' Aubrey's father had held the office of master-chamberlain under Henry I and Stephen. When Aubrey (d. 1194) joined the Empress in 1141, she confirmed to him his (2) CP, vii, pp.529-30; D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact on England (London, 1964), pp.61, 86. The marriage had already been used by Earl Robert to claim from King Stephen the I comitatus l of Hereford, though the charter concerning this makes no mention of the stewardshipt Regesta, iii, no.437. (3) This fulfilled the promise made in 1153; see above note I. Earl Robert performed the duties of the office at the king's table in 1186: Gesta Henrici, ii, p.3. (4) Appendix I (d); CP, ix, pp.577,579. (5) Roger Bigod performed the duties of the office at the king's table in 1186: Gesta Henrici, ii, p.3. When he regained the earldom, the grant by Richard I included a confirmation of his stewardship: Cartae Anticuae Rolls 11-20, ed. J. Conway Davies, Pipe Roll Soc., New Ser., xxxiii (London, 1960), no.554. (6) J.H. Round, The King's Serleants and Offices of State (London, 1911), pp.141-2; Regesta, iii, p.xviii. For the performance of the duties of the office, see Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum, pp.245-6. (7) He performed the duties of the office in 1186: Gesta Henrici, ii, p.3. -257- father's office. It is not known whether Stephen ever recog- nised this, though Aubrey is subsequently found in attendance on the king (8). Roger earl of Hereford probably succeeded his father and grandfather as a royal constable, though the earldom came to an end with his death in 1155 (9). Of the major household divisions in Henry II's reign, only the chancery, the chapel and the marshalsea did not have earls among their ranks. This had not, in general, been achieved by granting the offices to earls, but through families holding or claiming household office later acquiring comital status. Even in the case of the earl of Leicester's stewardship, the claim stretched back to William fitz Osbern's stewardship in Normandy before 1066. The position of household officials at the centre of the royal court must have been a positive factor in the acquisition of comital status, if only through the additional access to the king a household office provided. The extent of the possession of household offices by men of comital status in Henry II's reign contrasts with the situation under the first three Norman kings of England, when the only man of comital status to hold a household office was William fitz Osbern (d. 1071) (10). This reflects the proliferation of comital status in King Stephen's reign, but also reflects the growth in status of the offices of the household and the men close to the (8) RBE, ii, p.651; Regesta, ii, no.1777; iii, p.xix, nos.634, 460. (9) Round, The King's Serjeants, p.79. The constableship did pass later through Roger's sister to the Bohun family: Ibid., pp.79-80. (10) Regesta, I, p.xxiii. The only exception to this was possibly Roger earl of Hereford, the son of William fitz Osbern, who may have possessed the office briefly between 1071, when he succeeded his father, and his rebellion and forfeiture in 1075. king who held those offices. The performance of the regular duties of the household offices necessitated continuous attendance on the king. For men of wealth and status, with lands and other interests of their awn to care for, as well as more important duties on behalf of the king to perform, this was impossible and un- desirable. Less elevated deputies carried out the day-to-day duties, apparently without reference to their titled superiors. However, the tenure of a household office by men of wealth and status was not merely a matter of a nominal title. The right to perform the actual duties of household office was jealously guarded. William earl of Arundel (d. 1176), Henry II's master_ butler, insisted on his right to serve personally at the kingls table (11). At Henry II's Christmas court at Guildford in 1186, the earls of Leicester and Arundel and Roger Bigot served at the royal table: I .... de servitio quod ad illos pertinebat in coronationibus et sollemnibus festis regum Angliae. r (12) The insistence of men of comital status on the actual performance of the duties of a household office, especially at the main feast-days and crown-wearings of the year, had advantages for both the earl and the king. The lord's hall and table were powerful symbols of the fellowship between lord and vassal. The (11) Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum, pp.245-6. This story was cited in a similar dispute at Henry II's Christmas court of 1182, where William de Tancarville, in spite of his lack of favour with the king, successfully defended his right to perform his table duties as chamberlain of Normandy. (12) Gesta Henrici, ii, p.3. king's prestige was enhanced by the high status of those serving him at table. For the household officer, service at the royal table guaranteed personal access to the king, while the very humility of the servant's position placed the king under an obligation of good treatment which would have been difficult to ignore without damaging the image of a great and good lord. The household offices were only the most formalised aspect of a much larger, more amorphous body - the royal court. The king was usually accompanied by many men of all classes, who were there for many different purposes. Earls, like others, had their own reasons for attending the king, such as seeking a favour or pursuing a legal claim. However, earls who were not household officers were also involved in various aspects of government at the royal court. The role of the earls in the formal occasions of the court was not limited to those with household offices. The presence of earls in the general entourage of the king increased his status. When the king travelled around the country, the impact of the arrival of his own household would be magnified by the presence of his great subjects, all with their own entourages. If a dispute was brought before the king, it could be settled, not only before the king himself, but before the king and his great vassals. Important royal grants could be made even greater occasions when witnessed by the king's greatest subjects. This helped the beneficiary in that he could call on the memory of powerful men to secure the permanence of the grant. For the king, it was another public occasion where he could be seen surrounded by great men.