The Siege of Nottingham Castle in 1194
by Trevor Foulds
From Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire, Vol. XCV, 1991
The last years of King Henry II's reign were troubled by fierce family
squabbles between him and his sons, Henry, Richard, Geoffrey and John. In
order to try and secure a peaceful succession to the ramshackle edifice
commonly termed the Angevin empire, Henry had proposed that young Henry would
have Anjou, Maine, Touraine, Normandy and England, but in practice he was
given no real power in these lands. Richard received Aquitaine in which he had
real power. Geoffrey was married to Constance, the only daughter of the Duke
of Brittany over whom Henry II claimed lordship; Geoffrey successfully imposed
himself on the somewhat reluctant Bretons. As yet, John had nothing. John was
made lord of Ireland in 1185 but his personal rule was so disastrous that he
ignominiously scuttled back to England a failure six months later having
wasted his resources. Death upset everything. Young Henry died of dysentry in
1183. Henry tried to affect a re-distribution of land to provide John with
something by proposing that Richard release Aquitaine to John. Richard
refused. Henry countered by refusing formally to recognise Richard as his
heir. Richard was aggrieved, felt insecure and prepared for war. The situation
was explosive and ripe for exploitation. The young king of France, Philip II,
Henry II's overlord for his continental possessions, gradually revealed the
ambition which had remained concealed for some years: the ultimate
dismemberment of the Angevin empire. It would take some years but here was the
start. Devious and deceitful, he played one son off against the other and the
sons against their father. Geoffrey was fatally wounded in a tournament and
died in 1186. His son, Arthur, was born posthumously. Richard was keen to go
on crusade but since Henry refused formally to recognise him as his heir he
remained unsure of obtaining the crown of England. So Richard and Philip made
war on Henry II. Henry was ill and they hounded him even to his death-bed. On
seeing his son John's name at the head of a list of his enemies, Henry's will
to live left him and he died almost alone at Chinon on 6th July 1189 at only
56 years of age.(1)
When Richard became king in July 1189 he carried
out Henry II's expressed but unfulfilled intentions regarding John. John was
made Count of Mortain, which placed him amongst the higher ranks of the Norman
barons, but did not provide him with much income. This Richard resolved by
marrying John to the great heiress, Isabella of Gloucester. She brought with
her the Earldom of Gloucester, which made John one of the greatest barons in
England and gave him a substantial income. However, there was to be more. The
Pipe Roll of 1189 reveals that John had been granted the honors of Peveril,
Tickhill and Lancaster, two manors in Suffolk, land in Northamptonshire, the
profits of Sherwood Forest and the Forest of Andover in Wiltshire. The grant
of the honors of Peveril and Lancaster included the honorial castles, whereas
the castles of Tickhill and Gloucester were reserved to the king as was Orford
Castle in one of the Suffolk manors. Further honors were also given:
Marlborough and Ludgershall with the castles, Eye and Wallingford possibly
without the castles. Before the end of the year he received the counties of
Nottingham, Derby, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall with the vill of
Nottingham and its honor, but not Nottingham Castle.(2)
John still held Ireland but after the disastrous earlier episode he no longer
ruled Ireland personally. Richard's grants to John virtually created a kingdom
within a kingdom and it was hoped that this would satisfy John and keep him
quiet when Richard left on crusade. This form of government might have worked
had the personalities involved in the delicate balancing act done their share
of the balancing, but it was not to be.(3) Since
Richard was unmarried when he left on crusade, from which he might not return,
and his subsequent marriage to Berengaria of Navarre failed to produce an
heir, John was the only adult heir of Richard, as Arthur, son of their brother
Geoffrey, was a mere child. Neither the government left behind by Richard nor
Queen Eleanor herself, John's mother, could afford to unduly upset John, a
situation he fully exploited.
Essentially, John wanted the castles which he had
not received with their honors, such as Nottingham. Castles were status
symbols and having an honor without the honorial castle was an impossible
situation for a 12th-century baron to countenance. However much land he held,
the lack of the castles diminished his status amongst other barons. Moreover,
both Nottingham and Tickhill Castles were strategically important. Whoever
controlled them and their respective honors was someone to be reckoned with
and well-placed to commit both mischief and, if necessary, an act of defiance.
John seized the castles of Nottingham and Tickhill in 1191, and held them more
or less continuously for the next three years, despite the protests of the
Council and his mother and attempts to dislodge him. The news of Richard's
capture and detention whilst returning from the Holy Land, which reached
England at the very end of 1192, induced John to plot with Philip II, king of
France, to displace Richard. The castles were still held for John, who was in
France, when Richard eventually landed in England on 13th March 1194.
Richard's siege of Nottingham Castle, from the
25th to the 28th of March 1194, has received scant attention from secondary
writers on the period in contrast to the Council which followed its successful
conclusion.(4) The brevity of the siege, lasting only
three days, has led to the idea that it was an unimportant event. Its brevity
was largely because of two factors: Richard's military reputation and the
immediacy and ferociousness of his initial attack, and the uncertainty of the
besieged regarding their position. If they were in fact being besieged by the
King himself they could expect little mercy for their act of defiance, but
until they had ascertained that it was really Richard in person they were
quite prepared to hold out for as long as possible; the Castle was well
provisioned for an indefinite but prolonged period of time.(5)
However once they had determined that they were besieged by the king rather
than the agents of the Council, resistance collapsed.
Nottingham
Castle stands on a narrow ridge of sandstone to the west of the medieval
borough of Nottingham. At its highest point, some 200 feet (61 metres) above
sea level, on the southern end of this ridge, was situated the motte and keep
in what was known as the upper bailey enclosed in the late 12th century by a
stone curtain wall. Below this to the north was the middle bailey also
enclosed by a stone curtain wall at this time. To the north and east,
following the rock towards the south, was the outer enclosure. This outer
enclosure was defended by an earth and timber palisade. There appears to have
been only one gate in this palisade which stood where the present 13th-century
stone gate is now.(6) To the west of the defended area
of the castle was the park, to the north what was known as the northern
bailey, and an area possibly largely uninhabited in the late 12th century. To
the east of the outer enclosure was the French Borough of Nottingham, and
beyond that the English Borough set on its own sandstone eminence.
There are two detailed accounts of the siege of
1194: the chronicle of Roger of Howden and the panegyric poem Histoire de
Guillaume le Mareschal.(7) It seems clear from the
text of Howden that the chronicler himself was present during the siege. He
was aware of events removed from the army but is less clear on the military
operations, unlike the source of the Histoire. His presence seems
detectable in the episode of the interchange between the Archbishops of
Canterbury and York(8) and especially in the detail of
the arrival of the Bishop of Durham from the siege of Tickhill Castle. It is
probable that the person from whom the account of the siege in the Histoire
was derived was also present. Although this unknown person was seemingly
unaware of certain occurrences involving the king removed from the scene of
battle beyond the siege lines, he took more interest in the military
operations against the castle, especially the king's own part in the fighting.
Details may differ between the two accounts, and the Histoire has the
siege lasting only two days instead of Howden's three days, yet many of the
details appear to be eye-witness accounts, for example the Histoire's
account of the king greeting with a kiss the leaders of the besieging army
sent by the Council before his arrival; how Richard was armoured for the
siege; the positions of the crossbowmen and the advance behind shields towards
the castle gate; and the references to ‘our people’ and ‘our men’.
On 4th February 1194, Richard had been set free
from Germany by the Emperor Henry VI and letters were despatched from the
Emperor to Philip II and John requiring them to restore to Richard all that
was his.(9) Before the news may have reached England
John, who was in France, sent over a clerk, Adam of St Edmund, who carried
secret letters ordering all castles held by John's men to be defended against
the king. Adam dined with Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, and rashly
disclosed certain plans and the thinking of his master. Hubert, alarmed,
remained composed and allowed Adam to leave on his mission but he was arrested
by the Mayor of London and all his papers were taken and given to the
Archbishop. The following day these papers were shown to the bishops, earls
and barons of the Council and by common assent they disseised John of all his
lands and proceeded to reduce his castles.(10) John and
all his adherents were anathematised by the clergy. The Bishop of Durham, Hugh
de Puiset, was to besiege Tickhill Castle with the armies of Yorkshire and
Northumberland, the Archbishop of Canterbury besieged Marlborough Castle which
was speedily reduced, and similarly so was Lancaster Castle besieged by the
Archbishop's brother, Theobald. There was little problem with Mont St Michel
since the commander, Henry de Pumerai, who had ejected the monks of the abbey,
died of fright on receiving the news of Richard's release. To reduce
Nottingham Castle were sent David, Earl of Huntingdon and brother of the King
of Scots, Ranulph, Earl of Chester, and William, Earl Ferrers.(11)
The sending of three earls to Nottingham may have been dictated by the
knowledge that because of its position and reputed impregnability, a siege of
Nottingham Castle could be difficult, absorbing time and money in its
reduction. The Earl Ferrers, and to a certain extent the Earl of Chester,
would have possessed invaluable local knowledge and could have called on the
assistance of their tenants in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire.
Tickhill Castle held out manfully, according to Howden, until the besieged
heard of King Richard’s arrival in England. They obtained permission from
the Bishop of Durham, who was besieging the castle, to send two knights to
ascertain if Richard had really returned. This being so, they offered to
return the castle to Richard who refused to accept it unless they made an
unconditional surrender and threw themselves on his mercy. They returned to
Tickhill and informed Robert de la Mare, the constable, of Richard's
conditions. They further parleyed with the Bishop of Durham who promised them
their lives, and so handed over the Castle.(12)
On 13th March 1194 Richard had landed in England
at Sandwich. Howden is silent on the king's movements during the next twelve
days until he arrived at Nottingham. The Histoire states that Richard
left Marlborough with a large army and retinue and made straight for
Nottingham.(13) Other chroniclers give an itinerary:
Richard proceeded to London via Canterbury and Rochester, and left London
arriving at Nottingham by way of Bury St Edmunds and Huntingdon.(14)
He was met at Huntingdon by William Marshall.(15)
Meanwhile the
siege of Nottingham Castle continued. Both Howden and the Histoire
heavily imply that there had been little or no communication between the
besiegers and the besieged. From both accounts the besieged were genuinely
ignorant of Richard's return and were under the impression that they were
being attacked by John's enemies so as to trick him out of the castle. Richard
had expected a repetition of the surrender of Tickhill Castle but the besieged
at Nottingham, unlike the garrison at Tickhill, did not send anyone out to
ascertain if the rumours of the king's return were true. If they had any
information or had heard any rumours they simply refused to believe it or
ignored it. It is possible that they were so heavily invested that men could
neither get out to obtain information nor get in to tell them, or were
deliberately prevented from gaining entrance by the besieging army. The
apparent refusal of the Nottingham Castle garrison to seek out Richard to
treat with him and obtain his terms angered the king: “But those who were in
the castle of Nottingham did not send anyone to meet the king. Whereof, the
king, angry, came to Nottingham on 25th March with so great a multitude of men
and the sound of horns and trumpets, that those who were in the castle,
hearing and seeing this, were astonished, perturbed [and] upset; fear overcame
them and yet they were unable to believe that the king had come but hoped that
all this [noise] was being made by the leaders (principibus) of the
army to have sport with them (ad illudendum eis)”.(16)
From Howden's account then, there was a genuine
conviction on the part of the besieged that Richard had not returned to
England and that the siege was a noisy deception by the enemies of John and
the whole process thus treated as a game. At this stage, the Histoire knew
nothing, or did not care, of the state of mind of the besieged, nor of the
great display attendant on Richard's arrival in Nottingham on 25th March:
"the king left Marlborough with a large army and retinue and rode, as is
well known, straight to Nottingham, which had been besieged by the
northerners. They had not been conducting the siege for very long when they
heard news of the king, at which they were very pleased. Joyfully they went to
meet the king and when he met them he kissed them all one by one. His coming
made them very happy."(17)
The size of the army in knights and men, and the
number of men in the Castle, are difficult to estimate. In medieval terms,
Richard's forces were quite substantial, for Howden and the Histoire both tell
of a large force. Not only had Richard his own men with him, but in addition
probably those forces of William Marshall who had joined the king at
Huntingdon. Also those other dignitaries who are mentioned later by Howden as
attending the Council which followed the termination of the siege cannot have
come empty-handed: Queen Eleanor, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the
Bishops of Lincoln, Ely, Hereford Worcester, Exeter and Whithorn, and the
Earls Warenne and Salisbury, and Roger Bigod.(18) The
only figures available are payments on the Pipe Rolls for sixty-six knights at
Derby, sixty-seven knights at Nottingham, and an unknown number of horses,
three of which were subsequently slain.(19)
On his arrival Richard commandeered a lodging near
the Castle “so that the archers of the castle shot the king's men before his
feet”.(20) This is partially echoed by the Histoire:
“The king, who did not want to delay there any longer, ordered his lodgings
to be prepared in the house closest to the castle, and for good reason. Why?
So that the people in the castle would be more afraid.”(21)
This information reinforces the view that the besieged refused to believe that
Richard had returned and so Richard placed himself where he could be readily
seen to obtain, hopefully, the maximum psychological effect. Richard was angry
and armed himself(22) with only a light coat of mail (gazigan)
"because that was what he was used to and no more than an iron hat on his
head".(23) This is an interesting observation on
the part of the Histoire and suggests an eye-witness account. Although
the implied emphasis is on the personal bravery of Richard to be so lightly
armoured, the phrase `because that was what he was used to' denotes he was
unused to wearing any heavier mail and preferred the lighter mail more
suitable to a warmer climate such as the Holy Land; Richard had been
imprisoned but it was not that long ago he had returned from the Holy Land.
Immediately an assault was made on the Castle. According to Howden, there was
a great conflict between the besiegers and the besieged and "many were
killed [and] on either side wounded and dead. The king killed a knight with an
arrow. Thus the king prevailed and having forced them back into the castle, he
took certain preparations (praeparationes) which had been made before
the gates and he burnt the outer gates".(24) On
the taking of the gates and the first bailey (outer enclosure) the Histoire
is much more detailed. After arming himself, Richard "had his men take
strong, thick and broad shields; many a man carried these in front of him
until he came up to the gateway. When the king came there, all those who were
with the king and who loved him the most and wanted to fulfil his purposes,
raced to arm themselves. They advanced
Both Howden
and the Histoire relate that a great battle and some fierce close
fighting took place, even if Howden lacks the details of the operation. The
king himself was in the thick of the fighting. Neither account gives any
information as to the disposition of the army nor where it was camped. Nor is
it known where the lodging of the king's house was. Neither archaeological nor
documentary evidence indicate how close to the castle walls the French Borough
was built up in the late 12th century. The king's prime objective was to take
the outer gate, probably the weakest point, but how it was approached and from
what direction is unknown. Since there was only one gate, then and now,
according to Drage, the bulk of the army would have been concentrated in front
of it. It is therefore pure speculation to even suggest the disposition of the
army, where it was camped, or where Richard's lodging was. Nevertheless, the
general outline of the first day is clear enough. The first gate encountered
by the army, which was of wood, was easily taken and the army with Richard
moved into the bailey (outer enclosure). Here stiff opposition was encountered
and some close fighting took place. Howden implies that there was a sortie
from the stone-built castle since he stated that Richard forced the besieged
back into the castle. Against fierce opposition the king and his men moved
inexorably across the bailey (outer enclosure) towards the next gate of the
castle. Howden and the Histoire state that the barbican before the gate
was only taken with much bloodshed. Only nightfall (Histoire) brought
the day's fighting to a close and Richard and his army retired burning the
wooden first gate on the way (Howden). According to the Histoire, this
gate was burnt by the besieged as they retired behind stone walls and set fire
to the barbican before the second gate. Thus at the end of the first day
Richard had gained entrance into the first bailey (outer enclosure) and was in
possession of it with the besieged penned in the rest of the castle. Richard
now had a real problem on his hands: he was confronted by the stone walls of
the middle and upper baileys which stood on higher ground than the first
bailey.
At some time
during the first day of the siege, Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury,
arrived at Nottingham with his archiepiscopal cross carried before him. As was
often the case, this seemingly innocuous act, to modern eyes, caused friction
and tempers to flare. The Archbishop of York, Geoffrey, the illegitimate son
of Henry II and therefore half-brother of King Richard and John, was already
at Nottingham and took exception to the Archbishop of Canterbury having his
cross carried before him outside his own province, Nottingham being in the
province of York, and on this matter complained to the king. Geoffrey,
although in his own province, apparently had not had his cross borne before
him, for reasons not related. On hearing of Geoffrey's complaint, Hubert saw
an opportunity to make mischief on the vexed question, often conducted in a
highly vitriolic manner, of the primacy of Canterbury over York. The
archbishops appear to have met with one another and Hubert loftily regaled
Geoffrey with: "I carry, and ought to carry, my cross throughout England
as primate of all England. But you may not carry your cross and perhaps you
ought not to carry it; and these things being so, I appeal to the lord pope".(26)
The immediate outcome of this incident was not recorded. Geoffrey
remained uncharacteristically silent. He may have been commanded to do so by
the king who would not have welcomed the raising of such a
On the second
day of the siege, 26th March, Richard pondered the problem before him: the
stone walls of the middle and upper baileys of the castle. "The king of
England caused to be made his petraries [siege-engines], having proposed not
to make a further assault on the castle whilst his war-machines were being
made ready".(29) Payment is recorded on the Pipe
Rolls to Master Roger the carpenter and his fellows for their machines and
their other necessaries, and for at least one petrary and one mangonel.(30)
Whilst the siege-engines were assembled and positioned, Richard
entertained his troops and to intimidate the besieged in the castle: "he
caused gallows to be erected near the castle on which he hanged certain
serjeants of Count John taken outside the castle."(31)
Apart from the information that the gallows were erected near the castle,
Howden provided no evidence as to where exactly they were or where the siege-engines
were located. The ground on the south-east side of the castle would probably
have been unsuitable for heavy siege-engines. They may have been placed in the
quasi extra-mural northern bailey on the hill to the north overlooking the
castle itself, or, possibly, in the recently captured outer enclosure. Here,
however, they would have come under fire from the castle garrison's weapons
and would have had to be heavily protected as would the men building them.
Howden does not state if the siege-engines were used but it is probable that
they were. The Pipe Rolls disclose payments for work on the stable and small
chamber, the gutter of the high chamber, the louvres and windows of the hall,
a postern on the motte(32) and repairs to the chapels
and houses on the motte,(33) damage which may have been
caused by air-borne missiles. Also, it is noteworthy that the Pipe Rolls
record no further expenditure of any significance for the castle for some
years, apart from small sums for routine maintenance.
The following
day, 27th March, Hugh de Puiset, Bishop of Durham, and those with him at the
siege of Tickhill Castle, arrived at Nottingham bringing with them their
prisoners. "The king went out to meet them. On seeing the king, the
bishop dismounted, and the king likewise on seeing him, and he kissed him.
Thereafter, mounting their horses, they went to the siege".(34)
The hanging of Count John's serjeants, the probable bombardment of the
castle by the siege-machines, and possibly the sight of the arrival of the
Bishop of Durham with his reinforcements from Yorkshire and Northumberland,
produced a reaction from the castle garrison. According to Howden, "on
the same day [27th March] whilst the king was seated at his dinner, Ralph
Murdac and William de Wenneval, constables of Nottingham castle, sent two of
their fellows to see the king. Who, on seeing [the king] returned to the
castle announcing to those who had sent them that which they had heard and
seen concerning the king and his condition (statu ejus). Which, when
William de Wenneval and Roger de Montbegon heard [this], left the castle with
twelve others and placed themselves on the king's mercy and no more returned
to the castle".(35)
The Histoire's
account of this episode differs somewhat. The incident of the king at dinner
was placed on the first day of the siege after Richard had commandeered his
lodging and before he put on his armour. The Histoire suggests that an
informal and unofficial colloquy took place between the king's men and the
besieged. "Next day our people from outside went to talk with those
inside and said that they must be mad to hold the castle against the king of
England who was lord of the land. Then those inside replied immediately to our
people that they were handing them a pack of lies, for they could not believe
that the king was free, nor that he had arrived in these parts".(36)
Contrary to Howden who implied that the first move in negotiation came
from the besieged, the Histoire has the first move on the part of the
attackers and seemingly no important person was involved. The Histoire
confirms Howden in that the besieged were totally ignorant of Richard's
arrival and could not believe in it
"To cut
a long story short, the king was so well-disposed and so mild and so merciful
that he put them to fair ransom without further dispute",(38)
and others might have interceded on their behalf. Otherwise Richard would have
had every right to arbitrarily dispose of them as he saw fit and no one, not
even the church, would have blamed him for acting according to the understood
rules governing sieges and war in general in the late 12th century. However,
what does seem odd on the garrison's part is the sending out of two
nonentities, Fulcher de Grendon and Henry Russell. Henry appears in no other
evidence. Fulcher de Grendon was a local man but of little consequence, a
younger son of Serlo I de Grendon, lord of Bradley and Sturston in Derbyshire.(39)
His father, and brother William, had extensive connections locally but
it is difficult to understand how Fulcher would have personally recognised
King Richard. Nevertheless their report was accepted by the besieged and there
is no reason to doubt the veracity of the Histoire as to their names. Indeed,
as two named nonentities its accuracy is vindicated.
Although for
the Histoire the surrender of the castle was complete and the siege
over, it was not so in Howden's account. William de Wenneval, Roger de
Montbegon and twelve others had surrendered but there remained a hard-core
element of resistance in the castle after their departure on 27th March.
Howden provides no details, but further negotiation took place conducted this
time by an important figure, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Only his mediation
induced Ralph Murdac, his brothers Philip of Worcester and Ralph of Worcester,
and others (unnamed) to surrender the castle and place themselves on the
king's mercy on 28th March 1194.(40) Thus the siege of
Nottingham Castle was over. It had been short and to a certain extent bloody,
especially on the first day. On King Richard's part an example had been made.
His prestige and fame as a soldier of skill and renown was intact and there
could be no mistaking that the king was back and in full command of the
kingdom he had left four years before. He had swiftly and decisively destroyed
a very powerful threat to the security of his throne. The concentration of the
extensive royal demesne and honors and lands in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
in the hands of one man, such as John, Count of Mortain, had made that man
very influential, but without the castles of Nottingham and Tickhill he would
be relatively harmless. John's acquisition and retention of these
strategically important castles, although resisted by the Council, a council
largely ineffectual until Richard was released, had allowed him to become
highly dangerous. This concentration of castles and lands in Nottinghamshire
and Derbyshire was recognised as a serious mistake and one which was not
repeated for some time.
Following the
siege Richard decided that some recreation was in order whilst the castle was
tidied-up and before the Council, which he had summoned, began. So on 29th
March "Richard, king of England, professed a desire to see Clipstone and
Sherwood Forest which he had never seen before and it pleased him much. On the
same day he returned to Nottingham".(41)
The first day's business of the Council consisted of putting up for sale several shrievalties to the highest bidder; the second day he heard accusations against Count John and his devoted supporter, Hugh de Nonant, Bishop of Coventry. On the third day, Richard levied a tax known as a carucage, and on the fourth day (2nd April) he heard complaints against Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, which were dismissed, and against others.(42) The king left Nottingham on the same day and went again to Clipstone to await the arrival of William the Lion, King of Scots. Whilst at Clipstone he commanded that all the men who had been taken in the castles of Nottingham, Tickhill, Marlborough and Lancaster, and in Mont St Michel, to be brought to him at Winchester on the day after the close of Easter. On Palm Sunday (3rd April) Richard was still at Clipstone, whilst the king of Scots stayed at Worksop "because of the solemnity of the day".(43) Both kings went to Southwell, though the purpose was unmentioned, on 4th April, and the following day went to Melton.(44) Thus Richard, in the company of the King of Scots, left Nottinghamshire never to return. As promised, he dealt with the prisoners from Nottingham, Tickhill and the other castles at Winchester on 20th April: "the king of England separated the wealthier men from the others who were taken in the castles of Nottingham and Tickhill and the other castles of Count John and put [them] in prison for ransom; the others he allowed to go away to find pledges . . . and each one of them brought pledges of 100 marks if they should not return to the king's court".(45) Under the titles of "Fines made for the knights and men of Count John" and "Chattels and lands of the king's enemies seised in the king's hand by the sheriff", the Pipe Rolls record the names of some of the men from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire so fined at Winchester on 20th April.(46) These fines were slowly paid during the rest of Richard's reign. There were a few remaining on the Pipe Roll when John became king in 1199. Thereafter they disappear; they were quietly dropped. Whatever faults King John had he rarely forgot service loyally given.
1. W.L.Warren, Henry II(1972), 594-630.
2. K. Norgate, John Lackland (1902), 24-9.
3. Norgate, op. cit., 24-55; J. T. Appleby, England without Richard 1189-1199 (1965), 1-169.
4. Norgate, op. cit., 50; Appleby, op. cit., 126-7, the
longest account; J. Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart (1978), 241-2; W.
L. Warren, King John (1961), 46.
5. P(ipe) R(oll) 6 Richard I, 87. Although the account is
damaged, £ 145 17s. was realised from the sale of provisions after the siege,
which included large quantities of corn, mixed corn, wheat, oats, beans, peas,
bacons, butter and cheeses.
6. C. Drage, "Nottingham Castle: A Place Full Royal",
Trans. Thoroton Soc. xciii (1989), 19, 25, 37-40.
7. W. Stubbs, ed. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedene (Rolls Series, 1870) iii, 328-40 (cited as Howden); M.P. Meyer, ed., L'Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal (3 vols. Paris, 1891-1901), 10177-10234. (Cited as Histoire.)
8. Howden, 239.
9. Ibid., 232, 234.
10. Ibid., 236-7.
11. Ibid., 237-8.
12. Ibid., 238.
13. Histoire, 10177-10183.
14. Appleby, op. cit., 124-5.
15. Histoire, 10081, after attending to his brother's
funeral. Meyer (Histoire iii, 134 note 4) questioned the confusion of the text
concerning the king's movements. It was probably William Marshall who left
Marlborough and not King Richard.
16. Howden, 238.
17. Histoire, 10177-10187. Presumably only the more important men were afforded the kiss of greeting.
18. Howden, 240-1.
19. P.R. 6 Richard I, 95. This part of the roll is damaged.
20. Howden, 238.
21. Histoire, 10189-10194.
22. Howden, 238.
23. Histoire, 10195-10199.
24. Howden, 239.
25. Histoire, 10200-10234. The last two lines are corrupt.
26. Howden, 239.
27. Ibid., 243; Appleby, op. cit., 133-4.
28. Richard refused to arbitrate between Hugh and Geoffrey
over the issue on 23rd April at Bishop's Waltham, Hants. (Howden, 250).
29. Ibid., 239.
30. P.R. 6 Richard I, 87. The account is damaged.
31. Howden, 239.
32. P.R. 6 Richard I, 80.
33. P.R. 7 Richard I, 15.
34. Howden, 239.
35. Ibid., 240.
36. Histoire, 10235-10246.
37. Ibid., 10247-10272.
38. Ibid., 10284-10288.
39. A. Saltman. "The Cartulary of Dale Abbey", Derbyshire Arch. Soc. Record Series ii (1966), 2, 15. Serlo de Grendon had been under-sheriff to William Fitz Ranulph in 1177 (P.R.O. Lists and Indexes: Lists of sheriffs ix (1963), 102).
40. Howden, 240.
41. Ibid., 240.
42. For details see Ibid., 241-2; Appleby, op. cit.,
129-35.
43. Howden, 243, Apud Wirkesope propter diem solemnem.
In other words, William, King of Scots, heard mass probably at Worksop Priory,
whereas Richard stayed firmly put in the royal hunting-lodge. There may have
been a reason for this. On his death-bed Richard confessed to not having
received Holy Communion for seven years (c. 1192) "because in his heart he
bore a mortal hatred for the king of France" (J. Stevenson, ed. Radulphi
de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum (Rolls series, 1875), 96). He did receive
communion at Winchester on 17th April 1194 (Appleby, op. cit., 129 n. 1.).
44. Howden, 243, venerunt ad Maltonam. The editor of
the chronicle did not query this and gave it in his marginal notes as `Malton'.
As the kings passed through Rutland, Melton Mowbray must have been where they
were on 5th April 1194.
45. Howden, 249.
46. P.R. 6 Richard I, 84-5. It is not possible to give
accurate figures since a number of men must have compounded outright and only
those who could only pay by instalments appear in the Pipe Rolls. Only nine men
are named in the Pipe Rolls for the years 1194-5 but it is probable that a
number of others are subsumed in other headings. Others emerge in later Pipe
Rolls. I hope to discuss these men and their relationship to Count John, and the
difficulties of the Pipe Roll evidence in another paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am particularly grateful to Doctors Margaret and Roger Middleton who
translated the relevant passages of the Histoire for me. Charles Young and David
Roffe read through a draft of the paper and I thank them for their useful
comments, as always.
This article was originally published in Transactions of the Thoroton
Society of Nottinghamshire, Vol. XCV, 1991. We thank the
Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire and Professor Foulds for giving us
permission to republish this article.
