An examination into the political life of Reginald Earl of Cornwall

This dissertation will examine the political life of one of Henry I’s illegitimate sons,

Reginald Earl of Cornwall. Very little research has gone into this man. Kathleen Thompson

has examined the origins of his family on his mother’s side, as she has done with Henry’s

other bastard children. He is mentioned in passing in many biographies of King Stephen and

Matilda, as well as those of Henry II, but there is little detail on him. The secondary

literature on him does not focus on him as the primary point of study. Barlow’s English

Episcopal Acta of Exeter provides useful insight as does P. L. Hull’s The Cartulary of

Luanceston Priory. They both examine his role in terms of the Bishopric of Exeter and the

Priory at Launceston. The primary sources used in this study are charters from the two

books previously mentioned as well as the Regesta and the Angevin Acta Project. Looking at

the charters Reginald witnessed and the charters he made provides insights into his rule and

his personal relationship with the king. No pipe rolls have been used as Reginald ruled his

lands as an apanage, meaning he did not pay anything to the exchequer. Chronicles have

been used as well but due to their limited information and views on Reginald it is the

charters that have taken precedence. This study examines one of the most powerful earls of

Stephen and Henry II’s reign. In addition to Reginald’s life this study will shed light, in part,

on how illegitimate children could gain power and how they acted to achieve it. It shows in

detail how Cornwall may have been seen by the king, as well as analysing why certain earls

had their lands and titles taken away during the reign of King Henry and why others did not.

Reginald Earl of Cornwall was one of the most powerful earls during the reigns of

Stephen and Henry II. This dissertation will begin by discussing the origins of the man,

studying his family and his position as earl. The conclusion will be drawn that Henry created

a close bond between his illegitimate and legitimate children and therefore was able, for

himself and his daughter Matilda, to have a large group of ambitious vassals around him

who were loyal. Their loyalty came from having the blood of a king, giving them high

prestige, but, as they were illegitimate, they could not challenge for power. There will also

be an examination into Reginald’s family on his mother’s side which will show how they

gained in power as Reginald established himself. It will also show how the members of

Reginald’s family were involved in his politics in Cornwall. Finally this section will examine

1

how becoming an earl affected Reginald. Matilda made him earl so he would remain loyal to

her and Henry II, as he knew he could gain through his family connections. If Stephen had

won, his title could have been revoked.

The next topic in this dissertation will examine the lands he held, particularly in

Cornwall. It will show that Reginald was able to hold a substantial amount of power there,

ruling it as an apanage without royal influence. It will also show how the county of Cornwall

offered little, in terms of finance, to the king as it was one of the poorest counties in

England. However, the political value it offered is ambiguous. Reginald’s lands may have a

greater political value during the reign of King Stephen and the Anarchy as any land that

Stephen lost would have indicated to his supporters that he could not keep control of his

kingdom. Power in Cornwall threatened Devon and the other counties in the southwest of

England. But in Henry’s reign these issue did not present themselves as the country was

generally at peace. There is the possibility that lands in Cornwall were held for cadet

members of the royal family. Its purpose may have been to give royalty the lands necessary

to maintain their wealth but not allow them to be rich and powerful enough to challenge

the reigning monarch. One unknown is whether Henry II may have wanted these lands,

during Reginald's latter years, to give to his son John, who at the time of Reginald’s death in

1175, was fourth in line to the throne.

The final topic that will be examined is how Reginald managed to maintain his lands,

title and privileges when so many others had theirs taken away. Henry II was known for

suppressing earls who had become excessively powerful during the reign of King Stephen.

The reason Reginald managed to survive seems to be in part due to his lands. As Cornwall

offered little financially to Henry he may have seen no need to acquire any of it. Reginald

had done an effective job in entrenching himself in the county as well making alliances with

the lords and earls around him. Trying to remove him may have proved too risky. Reginald

may have remained loyal to Henry as he had no reason to rebel as long as his lands were

safe.

2

Chapter 1: Reginald’s antecedents and his role as an earl

Reginald was an illegitimate son of Henry I, as were his brothers Richard, Robert Earl

of Gloucester, and Robert fitz Roy. Reginald was also the brother of Matilda. Reginald and

Matilda both depended upon each other in the political uncertainty of the “Anarchy” of

twelfth century England. Family was critical both for survival and power and the nature of

their brother sister relationship was a crucial element in the political lives of both Reginald

and Matilda. He was also his mother's son and his mother’s side of the family played an

important role in his life. These family connections will show the extent of his power and

shed insight into his political actions. Finally, his appointment as earl will be examined and

an analysis made of what this meant for his political life. During this period parents and

ancestors played a large role in determining a person's life. Family decided one's standing in

society, from a person's social or political class to how one should act in society. Reginald’s

case is unique in so far as he was both an illegitimate son of a king and from a relatively

powerful maternal family. He also had a sister who was Empress and tentatively Queen of

England. Power was secured through relatives. Reginald used his position as a son of a king,

and brother to Matilda, to establish himself.

William of Malmesbury stated that the most remarkable thing about Henry was his

ability to keep rebellion in check through fear of his name.1 Henry ran a government that

rewarded those whom he trusted and marginalised those whom he could not. This was

demonstrated in the treaty of Alton, 1101, when he removed land from those he could not

trust and gave land generously to others in order to gain their loyalty.2 Henry went further

in securing his kingdom from rebellion. As Orderic Vitalis put it, he raised people from “the

dust”.3 This is probably an exaggeration though. Turner points out that Orderic Vitalis and

many other medieval writers comment on their disdain for the movement of people outside

their own social status.4 In their opinion people should be content to remain in their

“natural” position in society. This was due to the belief that the hierarchy on earth matched

the fixed hierarchy in heaven.5 But movement through the layers of social hierarchy during

1 R. A. B. Mynors, R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta regnum Anglorum, vol 1, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2006), p. 741. 2 C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, (London, Yale University Press, 2003), p. 145.3 Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 139.4 Ralph V. Turner, Men raised form the dust, (Philadelphia, University of Philadelphia Press, 1988), p. 1.5 Ralph V. Turner, Men raised form the dust, p. 2.

3

the medieval period was more common than many contemporaries would admit.6 The men

Henry raised to higher positions may not have been from the lowest positions in society that

Orderic’s rhetoric depicts but Henry does seemed to have created new men. These were

men who were not entitled to any granted land but rather relied on the king's generosity. As

a result men such as Rainer of Bath and Hugh of Buckland became exceedingly wealthy

whilst nobles of superior birth were disinherited.7 These men were talented individuals who

would have had much to offer Henry. They had possessed nothing before Henry and owed

everything to him. In addition Henry had the support of those from noble families but who

had little chance of gaining power from their fathers or more distant relatives. Many of

these were the most powerful members of Henry I’s household or were his more obscure

family relations. Henry’s brother-in-law, King David of Scotland, is a good example of this.

Before he became king, David was the sixth son of his father and seemed to have no hope of

gaining the throne.8 It was during this time that he joined Henry I’s household and was given

the honour of Huntingdon. Another example of raising a person to power, who seemed to

have little chance of otherwise gaining land, was Brian fitz Count. A bastard son of Duke

Alan Fergant of Brittany, he became one of Henry’s most loyal vassals, to the extent that

Henry gave him lands in Wales in 1119. This was part of Henry’s solution of the Welsh

problem. By giving Welsh lands to his most trusted friends Henry hoped to secure the

border.9

Many relatives of Henry, such as his nephews, Theobold and Stephen, as well as

illegitimate children such as Robert Earl of Gloucester, gained large amounts of power from

the king. This may have been due to Henry’s possible opinion that family would remain

more loyal than those whose were not related to him, but without the problems that kings

normally faced of legitimate sons betraying their father and of siblings fighting in order to

become kings themselves. Indeed Robert Earl of Gloucester, was betrayed by his own

legitimate son Phillip, when he joined Stephen’s side and went as far as capturing Reginald

as he returned from peace talks with Stephen in the summer of 1146. Although it may be

too great a generalisation to say illegitimate children were more loyal than legitimate

children, it did seem to be the case.

6 Ibid., p. 2.7 Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, p. 139.8 Marjorie Chibnall, The Empress Matilda, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell ltd, 1992), p. 12.9 C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, p. 236.

4

Illegitimate sons made effective magnates, being both family and desperate for land,

yet with no rights to their father’s inheritance. Henry could therefore secure his kingdom by

using his illegitimate sons to manage areas that were in particular danger of rebellion or

invasion. Robert of Gloucester was given the city of Bristol and the earldom of Gloucester.

This was through his marriage in 1107, by the command of Henry, to Mabel, who was the

heiress to Robert, son of Hamon.10 He was given the earldom of Gloucester in 1122 and of

Glamorgan in 1121. England was frequently attacked by the Welsh and Wales was very hard

to control due to its terrain and a population that was unwilling to be subdued. Henry gave

lands to already powerful nobles so they had the resources to fight the unruly Welsh. Robert

was part of this tactic. Hollister points out that Brian fitz Count received Abergavenny in

1119 and Robert of Gloucester received Glamorgan in 1121. Along with this, Henry tried to

administratively integrate the earldoms of Pembroke and Shropshire into a kingdom-wide

administrative system.11 Matilda and Robert seemed to have copied this tactic with their

half-brothers Reginald and Robert fitz Roy. Reginald was given Cornwall to secure the

southwest of England and Robert was given the barony of Okehampton for the same

purpose. As a result Devon and Cornwall were largely protected from Stephen’s influence.

Not only were these men valuable as loyal vassals but they were clearly competent

in providing military and administrative assistance as well. During Henry’s reign this can be

seen particularly with Richard and Robert. They were trained by Henry with the intention of

them becoming educated and well trained knights. During this period it became increasingly

embarrassing for kings not to have knowledge of letters. It is therefore telling that Henry

took care to give his illegitimate sons an excellent education. Richard, for example, was

placed in the household of Robert Bloet, the Bishop of Lincoln. In this sense both these

children were treated as if they were legitimate sons.12 Thompson believes that Robert

additionally must have had this sort of education.13 There is a possibility that Reginald may

have received this treatment as well.

10 John T. Appleby, The troubled reign of King Stephen, (London, G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1969), p. 15.11 C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, p. 236.12 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, Journal of Medieval History 29 (2003) 129–151, p. 137.13 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, Journal of Medieval History 29 (2003) 129–151, p. 137.

5

Richard and Robert showed their knightly abilities at the Battle of Bremule in 1119.

This encounter probably only lasted one hour with Henry’s forces defeating and humiliating

the French king’s army. Henry of Huntingdon and the Hyde Chronicle refer to the

appearance of both men during the battle, albeit with differing accounts.14 Their position in

the battle is not that important, what is however, is that they are both mentioned by name,

which seems to show they held high command or were of high importance in the battle.

Orderic Vitalis describes Richard and Robert of Gloucester as “distinguished knights” at the

Battle of Bremule.15 This shows that their status as bastards had no effect on their status on

the battlefield.

Robert was clearly a competent administrator as well. In 1129 Robert, with Brian fitz

Count, carried out a special audit of the treasury.16 Reginald seems to have held similar

abilities and held similar importance to both Matilda and Henry II. Although Reginald was

not present for the Battle of Lincoln, the Angevin forces most famous victory, he did seem to

play important military roles for Matilda. This can be seen with her retreat from Winchester

on the 14th September 1141. Matilda was in the vanguard of the retreating column, with

Reginald escorting her as they feared an attack on the flank.17 The fact that Reginald was

given the responsibility of escorting Matilda shows that he must have been trusted by the

vast majority of the Angevin elite. The trust was that he would not abandon her, and that

his ability as a knight and commander would ensure her safety. Furthermore Henry II must

have had a strong faith in Reginald’s administrative ability otherwise he would not have let

him govern England in 1154 when he went back to Normandy. Although there is not the

same evidence that Reginald was as educated as Richard he was clearly brought up to be a

competent knight and statesman.

Reginald’s use of the fact that his father was a king can be seen from the title he

used when issuing charters. When Reginald granted a charter he sometimes referred to

himself as Reginald, son of the king, Earl of Cornwall.18 He was emphasising his rights to this

14 Judith A. Green, Henry I King of England and Duke of Normandy, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 151.15 Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol 6, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 237.16 Marjorie Chibnall, The Empress Matilda, p. 54.17 Edmund King, King Stephen, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2010), p. 170.18 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, vol 30, (Torquay, The Devonshire Press Ltd, 1987), charters 11, 12 and 13.

6

land. It may have other meanings as well. Being the son of a king would have commanded a

great deal of prestige and respect. To include it in his title may have been to justify his

holding of Cornwall as an apanage as well as giving him greater status. It is probably similar

to the way Henry had charters written referring to himself as Henry, King of England, Duke

of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou. These titles showed the extent of his

domain, just as Reginald wanted to show the extent of his heritage. Both were attempting

to inspire awe. It seems to show that Reginald saw himself, and wanted others to see him,

as royalty.

When Reginald died on 1st July 1175 it is telling that he was buried in St. Mary’s

Abbey in Reading.19 This was where Henry I had been buried. Henry had founded this abbey

in the hope that it would act as a future resting place for his heirs, as St. Denis Abbey did for

the Capetian kings in France. William, the eldest son of Henry II, was buried there.20 Reading

Abbey was seen as the burial place for those with royal blood during the reigns of Henry I

and Henry II. This seems to show that Reginald had a regal persona. He may have requested

to be buried with his father but ultimately the dead do not decide when and where they are

buried. This can be seen in respect to Henry I, who according to Roger of Howden, lay

unburied in Normandy in 1136 until the stench was unbearable. As a result the body was

sewed into bull hides and the man dealing with the brain died even though he had wrapped

the dead king's head with clothes.21 Henry would have certainly wanted better treatment of

his body. But the dead do not have a voice amongst the living. The fact that people were

willing to take Reginald’s body to Reading shows that others saw Reginald as a royal son,

accepted by his father, sister and nephew as a member of the royal family. This may have

been because of the affection and trust he received from Henry I, Matilda and Henry II or

simply because he was the son of the king.

Thompson states that there was solidarity among the siblings based on their

connection to Henry and that this support continued after Henry’s reign.22 This can be seen

with Reginald. At the beginning of Stephen’s reign he was, with others, conducting a

19 John T. Appleby, Henry II The Vanquished King, (London, G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1962), p. 236.20 Elizabeth M. C. Van Houts, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, vol 2, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 741.21 Henry T. Riley, The Annals of Roger of Hoveden, vol I, (London, H.G. Bohn, 1853), p. 227.22 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, p. 138.

7

campaign of banditry in the Contentin and the Avranchin against the duke’s peace.23 William

of Malmesbury states that Reginald committed banditry in the Contentin as he favoured his

sister’s cause.24 It seems then that Reginald fought for his sister out of loyalty, an obligation

to his blood and possibly for opportunity as well. These relationships were mutually

beneficial as not only did Reginald help Matilda and Robert Earl of Gloucester, in their

political endeavours but they helped Reginald gain wealth, land and influence. It was in

1138 that Reginald sailed to England probably in hope, or at the promise, of gaining land.25

This unity can be seen among other siblings as well. Julianna an illegitimate daughter of

Henry provides a good example of this. Julianna was married to Eustace of Bretuil in order

to secure the border regions around Normandy. Henry did this with many of his illegitimate

daughters but on this occasion the strategy was particularly disastrous. Not only did Eustace

and Julianna betray Henry, but rejected his offer of peace by blinding the son of one of his

castellans, Ralph Harenc. Henry in turn allowed Ralph to blind both the daughters of

Julianna. Things quickly escalated even more when Julianna asked for an interview with

Henry but when he turned up she shot at him with a crossbow bolt and narrowly missed.26

Richard’s intercession on behalf of his sister shows how these siblings still remained close. It

was this, according to Orderic Vitalis, which softened the king’s heart and led to her and her

husband to be forgiven although it was with a much diminished status and without any of

their previous lands27. It is therefore evident that although there are some exceptions

illegitimate children generally supported each other.

Robert’s actions during the start of Stephen’s reign may challenge this view. The

historiography is extensive on this subject. Hollister takes William of Malmesbury’s word on

Robert’s motives, emphasising family loyalty. Paterson takes a different stance arguing that

Robert was motivated by self-gain rather than having any loyalty to his sister. Crouch takes

the opinion that Robert acted with a degree of self-interest but believes that Paterson went

too far with his criticism. William of Malmesbury claims that Robert of Gloucester did not

know what to do in regard of the succession upon hearing of the death of Henry.28 Appleby

agrees with this statement. He quotes William of Malmesbury stating that Robert only went 23 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, (Harlow, Pearson education ltd, 2000), p. 67.24 Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol 6, p. 511.25 John T. Appleby, The troubled reign of King Stephen, p. 115.26 Judith A. Green, Henry I King of England and Duke of Normandy, p. 148.27 Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol 6, p. 279.28 C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, pp. 481-2.

8

to England to gather support for Matilda’s cause, believing the reason he did not rebel

earlier was because it would have been too dangerous.29 Patterson takes the other extreme.

He shows the reasons William of Malmesbury would have supported Robert’s cause and

why both Geoffrey of Monmouth and William were seeking favours from Robert. In

exchange Robert wanted a history from William that showed his point of view as to why he

rebelled.30 Patterson shows that William was fond of Henry I and was keen to obtain favours

for his monastery, St. Aldhelm’s.31 It seems then that William’s account of Robert’s motives

and actions in not fighting for Matilda immediately are open to doubt. It is very plausible

that Robert did not want to fight for Matilda’s cause immediately but Patterson’s claim that

Robert had less of an intention for fighting for Matilda, and instead fought more for himself,

is unconvincing.

When talking about Robert’s motivation for war Patterson quotes chroniclers who

associate Robert with 22 military actions of varying importance in 10 shires. Those shires

contained 68 per cent of the earl’s geldable land, with 14 of these engagements taking place

in only 3 shires, which contained 47 per cent of Robert’s geldable land.32 He then implies

that Robert’s actions were based on protecting his own lands rather than attacking the

enemy and trying to win. This seems like a very unfair criticism. It is the mark of a good

commander to attack from where one is stronger than from a position where one is weak. It

would make sense for Robert to campaign where he was strong because he relied on the

support and supplies of his local allies. Furthermore it is clear that the few times he did

campaign outside his core area it often ended up in disaster. Firstly, on Matilda’s march on

London where the citizens refused them entry, and then at Winchester, where in securing

the safe escape of his sister Matilda, he ended up getting captured. Patterson is convincing

when he says that at the start of Stephen’s reign Robert supported Theobold more than he

supported Matilda. This can be seen by the fact that Robert surrendered the royal treasury

at Falaise to Theobold after hearing of Stephen’s ascension. He was additionally one of the

Anglo-Norman leaders who elected Theobold as king on 20th December 1135.33 Crouch

29 John T. Appleby, The troubled reign of King Stephen, p. 31.30 Robert B. Patterson, ‘William of Malmesbury's Robert of Gloucester: A Re-evaluation of the Historia Novella’, The American Historical Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Jul., 1965), pp. 983-997, Oxford University Press, p. 985.31 Ibid., p. 984.32 Ibid., p. 994.33 Robert B. Patterson, ‘William of Malmesbury's Robert of Gloucester: A Re-evaluation of the Historia Novella’, p. 986.

9

points out that Geoffrey of Anjou and Matilda had been at war with Henry up until 1135 and

as a result feelings were very bitter towards the pair in Normandy.34 It seems clear that for

the first three years of Stephen’s reign Robert had no intention of joining Matilda’s court. It

was only after Stephen’s lack of action during the Welsh insurgencies, which would have

resulted in Robert losing wealth and influence, that Robert turned to Matilda.35 On top of

this Robert was losing his position of power in the king’s court at the expense of the

Beaumont faction. This is what probably led him to leave the royal court in Normandy in

1137.36 This was probably due to the fact that Robert had too much to lose in supporting

Matilda immediately. It is my opinion that Robert’s actions in the aftermath of Henry’s

death was a mixture of all these, with Robert being, to some extent, selfish, feeling betrayed

by Matilda and sensing that there was little chance of success by taking up her cause in

1135, especially as Theobold was an option for king and duke.

Reginald’s family on his mother’s side sheds further light on Henry I’s political

thinking when it came to illegitimate children. It also shows how her family operated for

Reginald especially in those whom Reginald picked for his household. Thompson is the best

starting place when researching Reginald’s family on his mother’s side. She comes to the

conclusion that Sybil Corbet was most probably Reginald’s mother. Reginald refers to an

aunt of his called Alice Corbet in one of his charters.37 But the question does remain as to

why Reginald was referred to as de Dunstanville by Orderic Vitalis. Thompson says this was

probably due to the fact that Alice and Sybil were half-sisters, related to the same mother,

Adeliza de Dunstanville.38 Sybil’s father was called Reginald. This is probably the family tie

that gave Reginald his name. This is different to many of his illegitimate siblings who were

commonly given Norman ducal names, such as Robert, Richard and Matilda. This may not be

particularly significant. It is interesting however as to whom had the right to name their

children in this period. Sybil may have named him as she wanted him to be known as part of

her family with Henry seemingly not as worried about it. Alternatively this may have been

an intentional action by Henry, wanting to honour Sybil’s family by naming the child after

her brother and father. This may have been a form of an apology on Henry’s part after 34 D. Crouch, ‘Robert, earl of Gloucester, and the daughter of Zelophehad’, Journal of Medieval History, 11 (1985), pp. 227- 43, p. 228.35 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 75.36 Patterson in Crouch, David, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 67. 37 See Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, pp. 143-4 for more detail.38 Ibid., p. 145.

10

impregnating their unmarried daughter. He may have felt it necessary to repair the

relationship with that side of the family. A different conclusion can be drawn from this

though. It is possible that Henry’s liaison with this woman had a political motive. It was not

uncommon for rulers to have sons born from sexual partnerships that had predated a

marriage that had been contracted for political and social reasons.39 Before analysing this it

is important to assess the de Dunstanville family, was as well as their standing in the

country.

The de Dunstanvilles were a landholding family with interests in Wiltshire,

Shropshire, Sussex, Cornwall, and Oxfordshire.40 They were, before marriage bound to

Reginald Earl of Cornwall, a relatively powerful family and members of the gentry. Reginald

de Dunstanville and his sister Gundreda, Earl Reginald’s uncle and aunt, appear in the

Wiltshire section of the pipe roll in 1130.41 Their standing seems to have increased when

Reginald came of age and became an important earl to Matilda. With this Thompson points

out how they started to become closer to the royal members of English society. She says

that Reginald introduced them into the royal circle, with an Alan de Dunstanville witnessing

a charter for Matilda in 1141.42 Furthermore a Robert de Dunstanville witnessed charters for

both Matilda and her son Henry and was referred to as Henry’s dapifer. He would later be

rewarded for this by being given the revenues of Heytesbury, Wiltshire worth £40 annually,

and from about 1160 received the revenues of Colyton in Devon worth £20 annually.43 It

seems that the de Dunstanvilles were on the up. The fact that the liaison probably

happened in the late 1110 or early 1120s is telling as well.44 Henry was generous to the

family during this period. This may have been an attempt on his part to secure parts of

England by creating an alliance with the Dunstanville family. But it seems more probable

that it would have been Sybil or her family that took the initiative. If Sybil were a particularly

attractive or charming woman then she or her family may have tried to seduce the lustful

39 Kathleen Thompson, Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I, p. 135.40 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Dunstanville, de, family (per. c.1090–c.1292)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, May 2014) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/54504> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].41 Ibid.42 Ibid.43 Ibid.44 See Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, p. 143. Robert of Torigni states that Reginald was a young man in the in the 1130s. Means that he was probably born in the period stated above.

11

Henry for their own gain. At the time of Reginald’s conception it would have been clear to

many in England how Henry I treated his illegitimate children and their mother’s families.

Richard and his mother Ansfride are a good example of this. She had become homeless after

the death of her husband, Anskil.45 She gave birth to Henry's child, Richard, and was given a

manor. There seems to have been little political gain for Henry through this relationship,

whilst Ansfride seems to have gained a great deal. Reginald’s mother was similarly rewarded

after the birth of Reginald and was married to Henry I’s chamberlain.46 The Dunstanville’s

involvement in Reginald’s life can be seen by the series of charters they witnessed for him.

In a grant to the Priory of St. Stephen’s at Launceston which granted the priory full liberty

and freedom as well as freedom from suits in the shire courts, hundred pleas and

castleguard, two Dunstanvilles are mentioned, Robert and Hugh.47 The cartulary of

Launceston provides a vital source for Reginald’s life. This is because the priory played an

important role for Reginald’s control over Cornwall.

Reginald’s charters to this priory provide some insight into Reginald’s rule over

Cornwall. Robert de Dunstanville witnesses six charters including the one just mentioned.

This seems to show that the Dunstanvilles had gained a higher standing in Cornwall thanks

to their alliance with Reginald and that Robert was very much part of Reginald's entourage.

Furthermore the charters from the Angevin acta Project show that at least six of the

charters that Reginald witnessed for Henry were additionally witnessed by Robert de

Dunstanville and an additional one witnessed by Walter de Dunstanville and Reginald.48 It

has to be mentioned though that there are at least 34 charters witnessed by Robert de

Dunstanville for Henry II.49 Furthermore Walter witnesses at least 14.50 The dates of the

charters may lead to the conclusion that Reginald managed to give the Dunstanvilles access

to royalty. The charters that Reginald and Robert both witnessed, excluding the spurious

ones, were made between 1154 and 1158, the time Reginald was closest to the king. When

45 David Crouch, ‘Robert of Gloucester’s mother and sexual politics in Norman Oxfordshire’, Historical Research, (October 1 1999), p. 329.46 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, p. 134.47 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. 10, charter 11.48 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters: 229, 436, 314, 1806, 1934, 2480, with Walter: 1693.49 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters: 118, 524, 592, 593, 757, 777, 909, 910, 1166, 1257, 1473, 1584, 1585, 1606, 1727, 1829, 1939, 1943, 2009, 2097, 2302, 2412, 2445, 2477, 2496, 2507, 2510, 2524, 2579, 2739, 2828, 2839, 2887.50 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters: 251, 430, 963, 982, 1247, 1248, 1380, 1424, 1821, 1882, 2256, 2544, 2545, 2794, 2828.

12

removing the charters which have their authenticity in doubt only five of the charters

Robert witnessed may have been witnessed before 1155. The vast majority were witnessed

afterwards. This may point to the conclusion that Reginald brought Robert closer to Henry.

This can be seen by the fact that Robert was a member of Reginald’s entourage and was

present with Reginald at the king’s court. An introduction may have been made which

proved invaluable for Robert as not only did he go on to witness several other charters and

therefore seemingly held some closeness to the monarch, but Walter his nephew and heir

went on to do the same thing. The charters found in the Regesta additionally support this

theory with Robert and Reginald together witnessing seven charters for Matilda and then

for Henry II between 1141 and 1154.51 Five were witnessed between 1153-4 where Reginald

was particularly close to the king.52 The majority of these charters are Robert's witnesses

and seem to have happened in the 1150s and 60s (his death occurring in 1166/7) whilst

Walter went on to witness in the later 60s and 70s. It could be that Reginald managed to

increase the power and prestige of two generations of Dunstanvilles. Reginald increased the

Dunstanville’s influence at Matilda’s court as well. With an Alan de Dunstanville witnessing a

charter given by her in 1141.53

It seems that everyone gained from these sorts of alliances. Reginald gained as he

was related to royalty and he had a relatively powerful family from his mother's side, whose

loyalty he could rely on as their proximity to royalty depended on Reginald’s good graces.

Reginald’s mother was given a good marriage and her family became closer to the royal

family. Conversely Henry, and then in turn his daughter Matilda, made an alliance with a

land holding family in England and gained a possible vassal who would be respected as a son

of a king but could not challenge either Henry or Matilda as he was illegitimate.

The children that Henry recognised and their extended families would go on to be

invaluable to Matilda during the Anarchy. The loyalty shown by the extended families of

Henry’s illegitimate children can be seen in their aid to Matilda. Robert fitz Edith’s (Robert

fitz Roy) family supported both Henry and Matilda. Ann William’s points out that Henry’s

51 H. W. C. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum 1066- 1154, vol 3 (1135- 54), (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1918), charters: 126, 128, 259, 309, 438, 709 and 821.52 Ibid, charters: 126, 128, 309, 438 and 709.53 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Dunstanville, de, family (per. c.1090–c.1292)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, May 2014) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/54504> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

13

liaison with this woman connected him with Cumbria, a region that had not been firmly

under the control of the Norman kings of England. Edith’s grandfather, Sigulf Forne, had

been a magnate in the area. Furthermore Sigulf’s son received land in Thornton-le-Moor.54

Edith ultimately married Robert of Oilli who was lord of Hook Norton. Both her husband and

her son Robert fought for the Empress during the war with Stephen. Robert was present at

the Battle of Winchester and attested charters made by the Empress between 1141 and

1147, usually in the company of Reginald Earl of Cornwall, and Robert Earl of Gloucester.

And Robert of Oilli was killed in the service of Matilda in 1142.55 It seems that both Edith and

Henry used each other, as Reginald’s mother and Henry had.

The third key factor in determining Reginald’s life and status was his creation as an

earl. Reginald gained power through his marriage into the family of William fitz Richard, who

was at the time the most powerful secular man in Cornwall. Soon after Reginald was made

earl. William of Malmesbury claims that it was Robert Earl of Gloucester, who made

Reginald an earl.56 This seem improbable for two reasons. First, William of Malmesbury

clearly supported Robert. Patterson points out that William of Malmesbury was keen to

obtain favours for his monastery at St. Aldhelm’s. In addition to this William makes a

suggestive reference of Robert’s generosity to St Mary’s Tewkesbury in his 1120s Regnum

Anglorum. Both Geoffrey of Monmouth and William were seeking favours from Robert and

in exchange he wanted a favourable history written about him.57 It seems possible that

William stated that Robert was granted the title to exaggerate and boast about the power of

Robert even though he was only a minor Angevin. Second, there are concerns about the

nature of the title "earl".

The title of earl gave the bearer a huge amount of power and an even greater

amount of wealth. During this period the title of earl could not be inherited but was only

given by royal authority, although the aspiration to the title was inherited by the sons of

earls. The title additionally gave the bearer a new range of responsibilities and rights. An

earl was entitled to the third penny from the justices of the shire, increasing their wealth

54 Ann Williams, Henry I and the English, in Donald F. Fleming and Janet M. Pope, Henry I and the Anglo Norman World, (The Haskins Society Journal, Special volume 17, The Boydell Press, 2007), pp. 33-6.55 Ibid., p. 36.56 Edmund King, King Stephen, p. 134.57 Robert B. Patterson, ‘William of Malmesbury's Robert of Gloucester: A Re-evaluation of the Historia Novella’, pp. 984-6.

14

greatly. The duties of earls involved keeping the peace and organising the king’s military

retinues. This gave them power as they effectively had control over who would become the

king’s men. An earl was effectively given the ability to exercise royal power. The fact that

the title of earl could only be granted by royalty is what is telling here. Matilda was the rival

to Stephen, as Lady of England. It seems probable that it would have been Matilda who then

granted Reginald the title of earl as she was the only person in the Angevin party who had

any royal authority. Robert needed Matilda to give legitimacy to his position as "earl".

Reginald's first years as earl can, to a large extent, be seen as a failure. After being

granted the earldom and receiving some of the most powerful lands in the region in 1140,

through his marriage to the daughter of William fitz Richard, he seemed to be in an

incredibly strong position. Yet in 1141 he was confined to his castle at Launceston unable to

rule his county, with Alan Earl of Richmond, who was made Earl of Cornwall by Stephen as a

challenge to Matilda’s authority, controlling the majority of the county. This was the

consequence of Reginald and his father in law alienating the church in the area, and in their

resulting excommunication. The reason they were excommunicated has largely been

overlooked by historians. Crouch claims that Reginald alienated the church by issuing new

taxes.58 King believes that Reginald’s excommunication was the result of the church trying to

exert its power during the Anarchy.59 But these points are made very generally and lack any

detail. It may be that the destruction of Church property played a key role rather than the

imposition of new taxes. Hull has created the most convincing argument for this. He points

out that the Launceston Priory of St. Stephen’s may have played a more important role than

originally thought. St. Stephen’s had received a gift from King Stephen in 1136 for the

permission to create of a new tower for the priory.60 Reginald, probably trying to quash any

connection or relationship with Stephen, attacked the priory and destroyed the tower that

had already been built.61 It was this destruction that eventually led to his excommunication

by the Bishop of Exeter. This church seems to have been part of the bishop’s diocese. A

charter made during the reign of Henry I confirms that the churches in Bodmin, Launceston,

Probus as well as some in Devon shall be given to the Bishop of Exeter now and forever.62 58 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 115.59 Edmund King, King Stephen, p. 321.60 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xvii.61 Ibid., p. xvii.62 H. W. C. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum 1066- 1154, vol 2 (1100- 1135), (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1916), charter 841.

15

Reginald as a result lost the majority of his power, with Earl Alan taking the ascendency.

Reginald only managed to regain his position when Alan was captured by Ranulf Earl of

Chester after the Battle of Lincoln in 1141. Alan’s power collapsed and Reginald filled the

void that was left. He subsequently repented to the church in order to win back the church's

support.

Reginald’s chances of inheriting his father’s titles and challenging for the throne

would have played an important factor in Matilda’s decision to make Reginald an earl. Times

and morality were indeed changing in Western Europe and it was becoming more

unacceptable for illegitimate children to inherit titles, especially those as holy as that of

king. Robert Earl of Gloucester shows this to be the case in England. Robert, as had been

shown, was clearly a competent and well respected administrator, leader and military

tactician. His leadership qualities are made clear in the early years of the Anarchy when the

likes of Miles of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count rebelled in 1139. Crouch goes as far to say

that it was Robert who convinced them to rebel following his entry into England.63 Robert

was a man who had the ability, the power and the bloodline to become a king but it seems

the fact that he was born out of wedlock held him back. This was probably the same

situation facing Reginald. Clearly he was a man of ability who held power and had the right

father. But as with Robert increasingly people would not have seen him as a viable option

for kingship.

The creation of new earldoms offered Matilda an opportunity to secure the loyalty of

her men. As only monarchs could grant earldoms many of these new earls would have

known that their new found status was depended on the success of Matilda. Although the

majority of the new earls went on to make peace with Stephen, or earls from his faction,

they still ultimately remained loyal to Matilda. This can be seen with the likes of Roger Earl

of Hereford and William Earl of Gloucester, who through marriages and deals made peace

treaties with Robert Earl of Leicester, a powerful magnate in Stephen’s faction although

they still ultimately remained on Matilda’s side. This can be seen in 1149 when both Roger

and William, as well as others, met Henry at Devizes to give him support and council.64

Roger additionally helped in putting down rebellious troops in Devon.65 These men were

aware that they needed Matilda’s cause to succeed in order to keep their earldoms but 63 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 111.64 Edmund King, King Stephen, page 253.

16

were equally aware that the cost of constant military action in a civil war could prove too

costly for the gains they had made. This was the same situation for Reginald. He remained

very close to Henry and supported his cause as he was aware that with Stephen’s success he

could have his earldom revoked. This may speak for Reginald’s action early in Henry’s reign

when he was constantly at the king’s side. As Henry could revoke Reginald's title as and

when he desired Reginald may have thought that it was the best cause of action to ally

himself with the king to assure his position remained unchallenged.

65 David Crouch, ‘Roger, earl of Hereford (d. 1155)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47203> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

17

Chapter 2: An examination of his lands

This part of the dissertation will show the extent of Reginald’s power by analysing

the land he held. It will begin by looking at Cornwall, where Reginald held most land, in

order to analyse the wealth and power it provided to him. This part of the study will also

help answer the question as to how he managed to keep the land and power he had

established in the "Anarchy" when the majority of the earls lost theirs. First, the dissertation

needs to identify the lands Reginald held during his life. Domesday Book will provide the

best guest as to how powerful the region of Cornwall was and how much wealth and power

it offered Reginald. There will additionally be an examination of the stannaries in Cornwall

and Devon. The stannaries were courts that took place in both Devon and Cornwall whose

purpose was to settle disputes between those involved in the tin mining industry. Examining

these may shed light on how much additional wealth Reginald could earn. Observing

Reginald’s lands outside Cornwall and the influence he held beyond that may help answer

how powerful he was. It may similarly begin to answer how he managed to keep hold of his

lands and titles when so many other earls lost theirs.

The first part of Reginald’s lands under analysis are those where he held his greatest

amount of power and influence, his Cornish lands. Reginald held his lands here as a royal

apanage under Henry II. This meant that his lands were excluded from payments to the

exchequer. It also meant he effectively ruled these lands as a 'king', albeit subject to Henry.

Reginald held lands in Cornwall from 1140 until his death. He gained these lands by

marrying Beatrice, the daughter of William fitz Richard, a powerful baron in Cornwall, and

was made the Earl of Cornwall soon afterwards. Through this marriage he became the lord

of Cardinham and probably the lord of Bodardle too.66 In addition to this Reginald had a

barony of 215 1/3 knights fees in Cornwall and Devon in 1166.67 Although the Devon figures

cited by Hull may be accurate Reginald did not answer to the exchequer for Cornwall so the

precise number is not known. The knights fees of Cornwall are therefore an estimation. But

if these figures are correct than Reginald would have been a very wealthy and powerful man

and one of the most powerful earls in Henry’s reign. He was not as powerful as the super

66 Judith A. Green, Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress’s Party in South- West England, in Ed K.S.B. Keats- Rohan, Family Trees and the Roots of the Politics, The Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 1997), p. 161.67 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xx.

18

magnates under Henry I’s reign such as Robert Earl of Gloucester, Stephen of Blois and

Roger of Salisbury who held over 300 knights fees each.68 But Reginald's fees seem to be

typical of an earl of Henry II’s reign. These were men of power but not enough to effectively

challenge the king's authority.

More can be discovered about his wealth by an in-depth focus on Cornwall itself.

This can be determined by examining Domesday Book. Although things may have changed

in the decades after Domesday Book, Cornwall was at that time, and still probably during

the time of Reginald’s rule, one of the poorer counties in England. Of all the counties of

Domesday Book, with the exception of Rutland, Cornwall occupies the least space, at five

and a half leaves.69 Cornwall was probably a poor county with very small estates. Bearing in

mind that those who wrote Domesday Book may have been prone to human error, it is

likely that out of the total 401 hides in Cornwall only 124 were geldable.70 The population in

Cornwall seems to have been very sparse. When the number of velleins, bordars and serfs

are added together, along with other groups of rent payers, the adult male population of

Cornwall comes to about 5298, which points to a low population. Cornwall’s sparsity in

population can further be seen as they had about two men to the plough land, which was

smaller than most other counties.71 Due to its sparse population, and little amount of

geldable land, it is safe to assume that Cornwall was a poor county with little to offer the

King of England in terms of wealth. The diocese of Exeter shows the nature of Cornwall as

well. The diocese of Exeter was created by royal and papal permission to unite the dioceses

of Cornwall and Devon.72 The issues the bishops faced in this area were that many parishes

were large and isolated. Along with this there were stretches of rough indented coastline

and vast areas of moorland making access to some of these districts very difficult.73 This

seems to show that Cornwall was very hard to administer with its land unlikely to yield

much profit. There is additionally the possibility that this land was easier to defend than

others. Due to its rough terrain it may have been a very defendable position for an earl.

Cornwall may have then offered further military strategic value to its holder but this point

will be discussed later on. 68 C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, p. 336.69 William Paige, The History of the County of Cornwall, part 8, (London, St. Catherine Press, 1924), p. 45.70 Ibid., p. 48.71 Ibid., p. 53.72 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184, vol 1, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996), p. xxix.73 Ibid., p. xxx.

19

The financial power of Cornwall determined the amount of influence and power

Reginald could muster. Cornwall seems to have been a very poor part of England. Paige goes

onto to say that this county was a conspicuous example of a low assessment in terms of

value of land. Domesday shows a heavy drop in value of Cornish lands between the time it

was granted to the Count of Mortain and when Domesday Book was created.74 This may

mean that the Cornish lands may have been worth more than previously thought through a

simple examination of the Domesday Book. On the other hand the lands may have

devalued. But it is more probable that these lands were just not valuable at all. The King

may have rewarded the Count of Mortain with lower taxes in order that the Count would

have more of an incentive to remain loyal to the King, as he was a powerful land holder in

Normandy and England. But it is even more probable that he was given this “beneficial

hidation”, as the loss in money would not have amounted to much for the king. It may have,

moreover, given the Count of Mortain more money to govern this newly conquered

territory and defend it against possible invasions from Harold’s heirs. This will be explained

further in a later part of the dissertation.

Cornwall may also have held economic value through the number of markets that

were there. According to Domesday there were six markets in Cornwall. Devon only has one

market recorded, meaning the only county that could rival Cornwall, in this regard, was

Shropshire which had 7 markets.75 This may have acted as another piece of income for

Reginald and made Cornwall a more valuable county. But the fact that it did not hold any

large towns again shows how poverty stricken the county was. Although Launceston was the

administrative capital of Cornwall, Exeter would have held greater importance in wealth and

power in both Devon and Cornwall. Reginald’s wealth and power would have been

particularly strong after 1162 due to his control over his grandsons' land in Devon. He would

have gained great amounts of wealth controlling these lands and taking their revenues but it

was not the same amount of power that Baldwin de Redvers, the first Earl of Devon, would

have had. Baldwin de Redvers during the Anarchy had accomplished the same as Reginald.

He effectively ruled Devon as a 'king', on the behalf of Matilda. When Henry II became king

the perpetuation of his autonomy would be at Henry’s expense.76 This is the most probable

74 William Paige, The History of the County of Cornwall, part 8, p. 50.75 Ibid., p. 58.76 Robert Bearman, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090- 1217, (Exeter, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, 1994), p. 11.

20

reason as to why Henry II took the control of Exeter away from Baldwin’s successor, Richard.

Not only this but when Richard died in 1162 he was referred to as the Lord of the Isle of

Wight, rather than the Earl of Devon.77 Therefore, although Reginald would have gained

revenue from his grandchildren’s lands in Devon, he was not all powerful in the way he was

in Cornwall. Henry II’s control of Exeter kept Reginald’s power in Devon in check.

This may be why Reginald was able to keep the land and power he had created for

himself during the Anarchy whilst so many other earls had their power chipped away or

taken away. Not only did Henry keep Reginald’s power in check through the control of the

major city in the area but the Bishop of Exeter could also be influenced into undermining

Reginald’s power. Although Reginald was the greatest secular power in Cornwall, the Bishop

of Exeter was the greatest ecclesiastical power. The Bishop would have still been able to

hold a considerable amount of power and influence over both the counties of Cornwall and

Devon. Although lands may have been moved around after Domesday Book was formulated

Domesday shows the Bishop held a considerable amount of land in Cornwall. In all he was

said to have had 102 hides of land, 78 of which were geldable.78 The Bishop’s influence in

Cornwall can be shown further in 1140 when Reginald and his father-in-law, William fitz

Richard, sacked the priory of St. Stephen’s in Launceston and caused a vast amount of havoc

in the county. The Bishop excommunicated them both.79 This gave Alan Earl of Richmond,

who had additionally been made Earl of Cornwall by Stephen in order to challenge Matilda’s

choice of earl, the ascendency in the county. The Bishop reduced Reginald from the

dominant power in Cornwall and then confined him to the castle at Launceston. Reginald

may have re-gained more power in the region later in his life but this incident shows his

power was to at least some extent rivalled.

The power the Bishop had in this area can be seen by Reginald’s’ actions after his

excommunication. After being excommunicated Reginald knew to regain power he would

need to repair this problematic situation. The Bishop of Exeter clearly held a huge amount of

power in this area. Until 1137 Bishops in Exeter were typically royal clerks nominated by the

king.80 After William de Warelwast died in 1137 his nephew Robert took over. This sort of

77 Ibid., p. 12.78 William Paige, The History of the County of Cornwall, part 8, p. 49.79 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xix.80 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184, vol 1, p. xxxii.

21

nepotism seems to show the growing power and influence in the bishopric as they were

able to nominate without royal influence. The Warelwast bishops seem to have had a hold

on the bishopric and a large amount of power in the area which was broken when Robert II

was nominated and elected in 1155.81 The power Robert I Bishop of Exeter had can be seen

further by some of his vassals. Among those who owed knights fees to the Bishop were four

of the tenants-in-chiefs of Devon and Cornwall. These include Robert fitz Edith (Robert fitz

Roy), William de Tracy, Henry de la Pommeraye and William fitz Robert.82 In ecclesiastical

circles no one could rival the Bishop of Exeter in this region especially after Crediton had

been subdued.83 It is telling that after the Bishop recognised Baldwin as the Earl of Devon in

1146, in regards of St. James’ Priory, Baldwin felt secure enough to go on crusade in 1147.

The Bishop clearly held a huge amount of power in Cornwall and Devon.

Reginald seems to have underestimated the bishop’s influence when attacking the

Priory at Launceston, which was connected to the Bishopric. William Warelwast converted

the priory into a regular Augustinian one in the 1120s.84 Reginald made several grants to the

priory in order to repent for his sins. In fact Reginald made over ten grants to the church to

this end. Reginald had to provide a new site for the priory to build upon and gave gifts to

other churches such as Liskeard and Linkinhorne.85 Reginald managed to rebuild his power

in Cornwall by creating a better rapport with the church and the Bishop of Exeter. This may

again be another reason as to why Reginald was not persecuted by Henry as many other

barons were. The fact that the Bishop held enough power to undermine secular authorities

in this region, and as Henry often nominated bishops from royal clerks, meant that he would

not have been as fearful of Reginald’s power. He had the ability to challenge any possible

disobedience from Reginald. It is possible that Reginald realised this as well which in turn

kept him loyal.

Reginald’s involvements and the amount of revenue coming out from the stannaries

and tin mines in Cornwall may help further explain the wealth of Reginald. Tin was

Cornwall’s greatest, and most famous, mineral export for the majority of the medieval and

early modern period. Three contemporary studies have been used for this examination on

81 Ibid., p. xxxvi.82 Ibid., charter 110 in the footnotes.83 Ibid., p. xxxi.84 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xi.85 Ibid., p. xix.

22

how financially beneficial the stannaries were to Reginald. The first, an article by Powell, has

been used to see the relationship between the royal administration and the stannaries.

William de Wrotham’s position as warden, and the reforms he made, and the income it

created, may shed light on the amount of money at stake. The second study, written by

Hambling, offers a detailed look into the Dartmoor mines, a region that is predominantly in

Devon. He claims that Devon’s tin mining eclipsed Cornwall’s for the majority of Reginald’s

reign. As the most modern study, written in 1995, this is very helpful in understanding the

profits that could have been made by tin mining. But it is equally limited as it is focused on

Dartmoor. The third study is Lewis’ extensive book on the stannaries which will help give a

greater understanding of mining outside of Dartmoor. It is impossible to judge exactly the

amount of revenue Reginald would have gained from tin since there are no records. A brief

study of the stannaries and knowledge of tin mining in general may lead to a sensible

estimate to how much Reginald could have earned through the mining industry and

whether it would have increased his wealth exponentially or not at all. The fact that tin

mining was not mentioned in Domesday Book may indicate that tin mining had a unique

way of being taxed.86 The stannaries, rather than acting as a revenue for local lords, may

have acted as a revenue for the king. If this is the case then it may tell us two things. One, is

that the lands under Reginald’s control may have contributed very little to his wealth. Two,

that the reason Reginald ruled as a royal apanage was because the main asset, Cornish tin,

was generating revenue directly for the king.

Before 1189 the tin mines of Cornwall and Devon had acted as a steady but small

source of royal revenue.87 The value of the mines were quickly realised by the Norman kings

with the Assize of Mines being introduced in the 12th century. Not only this but Devon was

classified as a royal forest with forest officials. The forest officials were there not just to up

hold forest laws but mining law as well.88 Royal intentions are even more telling as Jews

played a large role in the mining community, especially in Dartmoor. The expulsion of the

Jews in 1291 was blamed for the downturn in production for 10 years afterwards and as late

as the 19th century the buildings in Dartmoor were commonly called Jews’ houses.89 Records

86 William Paige, The History of the County of Cornwall, part 8, p. 59.87 W. R. Powell, ‘The Administration of the Navy and the Stannaries, 1189-1216’, The English Historical Review Vol. 71, No. 279 (Apr., 1956), pp. 177-189, p. 178.88 Paul Hambling, The Dartmoor Stannaries, (Dawlish, Orchard Publications, 1995), p. 24.89 Ibid., p. 16.

23

in the 12th and 13th century certainly show they were involved with early tin mining in

Devon. What is not clear is the role they played in these mining ventures, whether it was as

traders, financiers, or as miners themselves.90 Clear royal involvement is illustrated due to

the status of Jews in medieval England. They were the property of the king, protected by his

influence and under his control. When they died, rather than having their personal wealth

inherited by their successors, it was given to the king. This may have been the way William

the Conqueror implemented a tax on the tin mines. This may be why there was not a serious

change in the tax and administration of the tin miners until 1198. Whether the Jews acted as

financiers, traders or miners in Dartmoor the king would be able to gain revenue from their

savings upon their deaths. Nevertheless, although it does seem that tin mining was a royal

asset, there are possibilities that Reginald may have still gained great wealth from it.

Before 1198 it is possible that the stannaries of Devon and Cornwall were not taxed

or controlled to a great extent by the royal administration. In 1198 William de Wrotham,

who was warden of the stannaries, implemented a new code of regulation and a tax three

times the size of the old one.91 Royal revenue increased drastically after these changes. In

fact William’s implements to the administration yielded more for King Richard than the rest

of the entire revenue of Cornwall.92 From 1156 to 1160 the tax output was 30d per thousand

weight in Devon and 5s for the same weight in Cornwall. This was farmed by the sheriff of

Devon for the annual sum of £16 13s 4d.93 This increased year to year as production

increased but is still very shy of the amount of money made by William through his

administrative reform in 1214, when stannary revenue was £599 1s 3 1/2d. This could be

due to the fact that royal officials were reacting to increasing tin production in the late

1190s. Other evidence points to the fact that royal officials were slow to exploit the growing

amount of wealth that could be gained from the stannaries and tin mining. This means that

there would have been a great deal of wealth from the stannaries not going to the king

before William de Wrotham. Some of this may have gone to Reginald, although this is still

speculation.

90 Ibid.91 W. R. Powell, ‘The Administration of the Navy and the Stannaries, 1189-1216’, p. 179.92 G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, (Truro, D. Bradford and Barton ltd, 1965), p. 36.93 Ibid., p. 34.

24

Lewis claims that from 1156 the production of tin was small and for the most part

was confined to west Devon.94 Furthermore Hambling believed that the peak tin production

in Dartmoor was between 1171 to 1189 when it averaged at a production of 343 tons (349

tonnes) a year.95 There may have been increases in production between these periods.

Between 1156 to 1160 there was production of about 133 thousand weight in tin. This

increased to 183 thousand weight in 1163, 533 thousand weight in 1169 and 640 thousand

weight in 1171.96 Lewis bases these estimations on the pipe rolls of Devon. These increases

in production were not subject to the taxes and regulations that William de Wrotham had

put in place. It is therefore possible that Reginald would have gained much wealth from this

tin mining industry. The issue with these figures is that they are speculation. As Cornwall

was absent from the pipe rolls until 1175 it is impossible to state exactly how much tin was

coming out of the county. Furthermore the counting of tonnes coming out of Cornwall is

dubious as well. It is difficult to believe that Hambling or Lewis could work out exactly how

many tonnes of tin were coming out of Dartmoor or Devon due to human error and the

decay of documents. Although these statistics should not be taken at face value the theory

that there was an increasing amount of tin coming out of Devon is not completely flawed.

The new tax system Richard, and then John, wanted to implement may point to their belief

that the increasing profits of tin were not being efficiently taxed.

Even if the amount Reginald gained from tin mining in Cornwall was small he may

still have gained large amounts from the increasing profits in Dartmoor. Reginald’s influence

and power expanded into Devon after the death of Richard de Redvers in 1162. Richard had

married Denise, his daughter, to Richard de Redvers and they had two sons, Baldwin (died

1188) and Richard (died 1193). They must have been very young at the time of their father’s

death as Reginald acted as their guardian, and took the profits from their lands, until his

death in 1175. From 1162 to 1175 Reginald may have made a great deal of money from this

industry.

There are other things to consider when analysing the kind of wealth Reginald would

have gained from the stannaries. The control he had over the counties does not necessarily

mean he held control over the stannaries, or the mines themselves. Ownership of the mines

94 G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, p. 34.95 Paul Hambling, The Dartmoor Stannaries, p. 21.96 G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, p. 34.

25

was spread across a large spectrum of society, from landowners to traders. There does not

seem to be any evidence that Reginald actually held shares in mines around Devon or

Cornwall. Where he may have earned money was whether they mined on his property. The

owners of the land that miners mined on were entitled to a toll of one fifteenth of the

produce. These were ‘ancient customs’ and may have evolved from older Cornish industry

practice and then been adopted by the miners of Devon.97 Reginald may have gained some

wealth from this.

His power was not threatened from the stannary courts either. After William de

Wrotham’s reforms the miners had their own court separate to the manor and hundred

courts. This caused a lot of tension with the landholding populace, as those who lived on

land could build mines where they wanted without having to compensate or face the justice

of the owner of that land. These courts were originally made to just deal with mining issues

but these rights were abused and soon any laws broken, which involved those in the mining

industry, went to the stannary courts. Not only did this remove power and influence from

the landowners in the area, but, as justice came at a price, landowners lost out financially

too. This may not have had a huge impact in Reginald’s life. Although miners could search

for tin regardless of the rights of the landowner, and were linked to the king through tax and

his right to pre-emption,98 they were not yet separate from the manor and hundred court.

This means that landowners in the area, whether they be Reginald or his men, could gain

money through justice.

Hambling points out that smuggling of tin was a common practice in the Dartmoor

mines. Traders would sail around the Channel Islands in order to sell tin without royal

taxation.99 Royal officials tried to stop this practice but their efforts constantly failed.100

Could Reginald have gained from this? Possibly, but again the only evidence is for the

opportunity rather than for the act. This study of the stannaries therefore shows that

although tin mining was under royal control, through Jewish enterprise and taxation,

Reginald still had ample opportunity to gain money through tin mining, whether it was

through the tax they paid through mining on his land, money through the courts he

97 Paul Hambling, The Dartmoor Stannaries, p. 24.98 G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, p. 35.99 Paul Hambling, The Dartmoor Stannaries, p. 13.100 Ibid.

26

controlled, or possibly through illegal enterprise. It will furthermore show that one of the

reasons Reginald was allowed to rule Cornwall as a royal apanage was because Henry II

could still tax the tin coming out of Devon. Tin production in Devon meanwhile had eclipsed

that of Cornwall which may have decreased Henry’s interest in Cornwall.

Now that the financial power the county of Cornwall possessed has been examined

the second step will be to discuss the political significance that these lands held for Reginald

and the king. Cornwall may have been strategically very important to the King of England as

a possible point of invasion. The strategic value of these lands could help us determine how

much leverage Reginald had over Henry II. During the time of Domesday, and therefore

William the Conqueror, this threat came from Ireland where Harold Godwinson’s heirs had

retreated to and were rumoured to be planning an invasion of England. It is telling that the

men picked by William the Conqueror to defend the western counties from possible

invasion were men from west Normandy and Brittany. These men were the likes of Count

Brian of Brittany, William de Vauville, Bishop Geoffrey of Countances and the Count of

Mortain, who were all given land in this area.101 These men could quickly get

reinforcements, due to their family contacts and the close proximity of the western counties

to Brittany and west Normandy.102 The Count of Mortain in particular was the dominant land

holder in Cornwall at the time of William the Conqueror. The Count of Mortain in Domesday

Book, written in 1086, held 48 hides of land with his men holding a total of 145 hides.103

William’s thinking behind giving the Count this amount of land in Cornwall may have been

so the region could be easily and quickly reinforced by the men of Normandy in case one of

Harold’s sons tried to invade England from Ireland. Henry’s reign however was nearly a

century after William’s so it is possible that Cornwall no longer held the same strategic

significance to Henry as to William.

Whether the region was of strategic valued during the reign of Henry remains

ambiguous. But the region may have held a real strategic value to Empress Matilda and her

West Country allies. If Cornwall had remained in Stephen’s hands it could have

compromised Baldwin de Redvers’ lands in Devon which in turn could have had a knock on

101 Judith A. Green, Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress’s Party in South- West England, pp. 148-9.102 Ibid., p. 149.103 William Paige, The History of the County of Cornwall, part 8, p. 49.

27

effect on Somerset and then onto Matilda and Robert Earl of Gloucester’s heartland of

Gloucestershire and south Wales. Reginald’s position during the “Anarchy” was to protect

the rear of the Angevin forces in England so Stephen could not out flank or compromise

Matilda's position in the West Country. Barlow disagrees with this analysis though. He

points to the fact that as the peninsula saw no great disturbance during the period. He

believes the reason the Bishop of Exeter was able to keep out of trouble throughout the civil

war from 1139-49 was due to Cornwall and Devon holding no strategic importance.104 The

lack of devastation in this area may have been due to the intelligent political actions of

Matilda. The only major area in Devon that supported Stephen during this civil war was the

region of Barnstaple, which Stephen had granted to Henry de Tracy on 1139.105 In addition

to this the desire of the nobles to fight each other later on in the civil war began to wane,

which would have resulted in less devastation. Reginald moreover came to terms with

Stephen in 1146,106 which would have protected his lands form being attacked too

vigorously. Cornwall’s important strategic position during the Norman Conquest and the

Anarchy may not have been so prominent during the years of Henry II. Reginald had some

contacts, and possibly land, in western Normandy but these contacts and lands would not

have been as numerous or as powerful as those of the Count of Mortain in William’s reign.

There was additionally not the same threat of invasion either, as the Godwin dynasty was no

longer a credible option for kingship.

The geographical position of Cornwall, however, could have still held some

significance. Brittany had caused many problems for Henry during his reign, fighting against

his overlordship. Henry seems to have been constantly campaigning against the Bretons,

especially during the 1160s.107 Cornwall, if in the wrong hands, could have acted as a viable

landing point for the rebellious Bretons, especially during "the war without love" (1173-4).

Geoffrey, the count of Brittany and the son of Henry II, could have opened a new front in

England if he could have entered England from Normandy. Cornwall, therefore, may have

held strategic significance because of its proximity to the rebellious region of Brittany, and

this may have led to it being seen as a doorway into England. Having said that, this could

also be true for all the counties along the English southern coast. Cornwall may well have

104 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184, p. xxxv.105 Ibid., p. xxxv. 106 Ibid., p. xxxiv.107 W.L. Warren, Henry II, (London, Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 100-1.

28

held no more strategic significance in Henry’s reign as Devon, Hampshire or any county

along the seashore. The significance of Cornwall remains uncertain.

There are other factors that can be examined to determine the value of Cornwall to

the King of England and the amount of power it may have offered to its earl. The fact that

Devon and Cornwall shared one sheriff may show that Cornwall did not produce a great

amount of wealth for the monarch. This can be seen from one of Henry I’s charters where

he gives a notification to Richard fitz Baldwin, sheriff of Devon and Cornwall, that he has

given his portion of the chapel in St. Stephen’s Launceston to the canons there.108 This may

mean that Cornwall was a particularly poor county and was added to Devon for

administrative ease. The inclusion of the stannaries in the lands that the Richard Earl of

Cornwall was given by Henry III may again point to the conclusion that the lands of Cornwall

had little economic value. The land without the stannaries may have been too small an

honour for a son of a king and an earl.

The probability is that Cornwall was on the periphery of England and on the

periphery of the minds of the King of England. This is illustrated by the movements of King

John. For a king who was well known for travelling the width and breadth of the country,

unlike many of his predecessors, it is telling that John never visited Cornwall as king. It

would therefore seem, in John’s mind, that Cornwall had very little use, politically or

economically. Although it must be made clear that ruling did not mean a king had to be

present in that county. It is telling that a king who possibly felt that he had to see, or be

seen throughout his kingdom, did not think Cornwall was a relevant place to visit. This is in

contrast to King Stephen’s and Henry II’s hasty actions to remove Cornwall from Reginald

and, in Henry’s case, from his daughters. Stephen took an active role in Cornwall in 1140

after it had been given to Reginald for two reasons. The first is obvious, he wanted to show

his supporters that he would fight for his kingdom and did not want to lose any more of his

counties no matter how insignificant they may have been as it would have threatened the

image of his ability and authority. The second is that, Cornwall would have held strategic

value during the Anarchy. If Stephen could retain it not only would it threaten the rear of

the Angevin faction’s lands but it would additionally reduce the chance of Henry, or his

108 H. W. C. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum 1066- 1154, vol 2 (1100- 1135), p. 206, charter 1486.

29

father Geoffrey of Anjou, from crossing into England and threatening his position any

further.

As to why Henry disinherited Reginald’s daughters the answer may have been to

show the extent of his power. Reginald died two years after the “war without love.”

Although Reginald had sided with Henry II, Henry may still have felt vulnerable in losing

control of large sections of his lands as well as losing control of his family. He may have

wished to make it clear that he had full control over his entire kingdom. To have Cornwall

act as a royal apanage under Reginald’s daughters, and their husbands, may have been

unacceptable at this period of his reign. He took the land back in order to show that there

were no limits to his power and that he had total control. It is a possibility that Henry II

made his assize of Clarendon in 1176, a year after Reginald’s death, to assert his authority

over the entirety of his kingdom, with justices being sent into Cornwall as well. Conversely

the reason Henry disinherited Reginald may have been simply to give John lands to rule. This

does not necessarily mean that Cornwall was a powerful or equitable piece of land but that

Henry saw an opportunity to show the extent of his power and give his youngest and

favourite son an income. John was embarrassingly referred to as “lackland” so this problem

had to be addressed. Later, the county was given back to Reginald’s illegitimate son, so this

shows it was not a highly value piece of land in the eyes of the Angevin kings.

There is the possibility that Cornwall held great political value to the kings of

England. Barlow points out that Cornwall was consistently entrusted as a whole to a near

kinsman of the king.109 There is truth to this statement as kings of England have frequently

given Cornwall to cadet members of their families. This can be seen with William the

Conqueror, where he made his half-brother Robert Count of Mortain, the dominant land

holder in Cornwall. Reginald was given the land by Matilda and was allowed to keep it by

Henry as Reginald was his uncle. It additionally explains why Henry remorselessly took the

land from Reginald’s daughters and gave it to his son John. There would have been as a

terrible act by many unless Cornwall had this image. Examples of Cornwall going to cadet

members of the Angevin family can be seen after Reginald as well. Henry III gave the land to

his brother Richard which was then in turn given to his son Edmund. Cornwall may have

109 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184, p. xxx.

30

been very valuable to the kings of England as land used to appease possible troublesome

family members.

Considering there were traditional dower lands in England, for the king’s daughters,

it does not seem to be too absurd to presume that there may have been traditional lands

that were granted to cadet members of family. The reason Reginald’s illegitimate son,

Henry, was able to gain the title back may have been due to the fact that there were no

other royal family members to be given the land. At the time Henry received the Cornish

title John's closest relative was Arthur who was too much of a threat to be given land. If this

point is true than it may have been that Cornwall was very useful to Henry II and other

kings. With it they could appease ambitious family members whilst simultaneously limiting

the amount of power they could exercise. This may be another reason as to why Reginald in

many of the charters he issued referred to himself as ‘Reginald, son of the king, earl of

Cornwall.’110 He was showing his peers his connection with royalty justifying why he should

hold the earldom of Cornwall when legitimate sons such as John needed land. This may have

been a reason as to why Reginald was able to keep his land whilst so many others could not.

Although Henry may have wanted this land for his son John he probably thought that trying

to take his loyal uncle's land would have faced a fierce backlash.

Although Reginald’s lands may not have been particularly valuable it is important to

acknowledge that he would have still been a wealthy man with a great amount of influence.

He managed this through the wealth he mustered as an aristocrat and through the

numerous alliances he created. The alliances Reginald established and the lands which his

allies held made him particularly dangerous. Reginald, through his relations, managed to

gain a firm authority in the southwest of England. In part this was due to the actions of

Matilda, but it was Reginald who managed to capitalise on this situation. During Stephen’s

reign Matilda, needing support, gave titles and placed trustworthy men in certain areas to

secure their loyalty and create a stronger power base for herself. Reginald and Baldwin de

Redvers gained greatly from this both becoming the earls of Cornwall and Devon

respectively and effectively ruling them as kings by their own right on her behalf. In Devon

the Redvers had been the dominant family, owning the more powerful land in the county,

the barony of Plymouth. It was only the barony of Okehampton that ran them a close

110 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, charters 11, 12 and 13 are examples of this.

31

second.111 To add to this Matilda’s illegitimate brother Robert filius regis (or Robert fitz Roy),

not to be confused with Robert Earl of Gloucester, had held the honour of Okehampton by

1158 through his marriage to Matilda d’Avranches.112 Thompson says that Robert made

these acquisitions during the rule of both Robert Earl of Gloucester and Matilda.113 If this

was the case than both Matilda and Robert Earl of Gloucester had protected their southern

flank ensuring that the three most powerful land blocks there were securely under their

allies' control. What had benefited the Empress would subsequently go on to benefit

Reginald. He ruled Cornwall as a royal apanage: to his east his half-brother and son-in-law,

and then Reginald himself through his grandchildren, held Devon. He had the potential to be

a very powerful enemy or a very powerful ally to Henry II. When Reginald married his

daughter Denise to Richard de Redvers, he sacrificed two of his manors in Cornwall, Rillaton

and Linkinhorne in the east of the county.114 This united the counties of Cornwall and Devon

with Reginald having a leading influence. Reginald’s sister Rohese was married to the local

baron Henry de Pomeray before 1146.115 Henry was one of the tenants-in-chief in Devon.116

This again allowed Reginald to entrench himself in Cornwall and make him the dominant

secular power there.

This can be seen furthermore from before the "war without love". During the first

half of Henry II’s reign, the most influential and powerful earls were Geoffrey Earl of Essex

(died 1166), Robert Earl of Leicester (died 1168), and Reginald Earl of Cornwall (died

1175).117 Warren argues that Henry achieved ascendency over his earls in 1177. William de

Cahanges wanted the honour of Leicester broken up, with him to hold his barony of the

king. Robert Earl of Leicester managed to keep his title despite of this. Stating that he and

his forefathers had always, and only, held their land of the king.118 Warren claims that this

was a public acknowledgement of the earls’ submission to the king. It seems that after

Reginald’s death Henry was in a much more powerful position than he had been in before.

111 Robert Bearman, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090- 1217, p. 1.112 Judith A. Green, Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress’s Party in South- West England, p. 162.113 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, p. 139.114 Robert Bearman, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090- 1217, p. 19.115 David Crouch, ‘Reginald, earl of Cornwall (d. 1175)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, Oct 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23319> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].116 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184, p. 100, charter 110 in notes.117 W.L. Warren, Henry II, p. 366.118 Ibid.

32

The fact that Reginald held his land as an apanage again shows the amount of power he

had. Warren claims that there were other parts of England which did not pay tax towards

the exchequer during the reign of Henry II. In Durham the money went to the Bishop of

Durham and that in Chester it went to the Earl of Chester.119 He suggests this may be due to

the terrain of these areas. They were underpopulated and practically ungovernable parts of

the realm.120 It seems more than a coincidence though that Cornwall paid tax after

Reginald’s death. This again supports the theory that Cornwall was a piece of land reserved

for the cadet members of the royal family. The fact that the king could not be effectively

administered along with its seemingly insignificant financial and political value seems to

make it the perfect land for a possibly troublesome family member to hold.

Reginald may have been one of the most powerful earls in England because many

others were facing increasing royal influence. An example of this is Hugh Bigod. He wanted

to rid himself of the young royal clerks and justiciars that had been set up in East Anglia and

had taken his power away as they were royal officials.121 This shows the privilege Reginald

had in comparison to his peers. Especially when Henry increased the farms from the shires.

This was an incredibly damaging practice for land owners. According to Gladwin no single

act of the king could have caused more widespread suffering.122 This shows Reginald to

clearly be in an advantageous position. It must be additionally noted though that with earls

having their power decreased the notion of Reginald being one of the most powerful earls in

England would not have meant the same as it would have in Stephen’s and Henry I’s reign

when earls held more prominence and power.

In addition to his lands in Cornwall and Devon Reginald may very well have held

lands elsewhere. Bradbury refers to Reginald having lands in the Cotentin region in

Normandy. He comments on their usefulness to Geoffrey of Anjou’s campaign in Normandy,

along with those of Robert of Gloucester.123 There is the possibility that Reginald held some

land in this region as a base for himself to launch a campaign of banditry in the Contentin

and Avranchin with Baldwin de Redvers and Stephen de Mandeville, in 1137. But there is

119 Ibid., p. 372120 Ibid., p. 372121 John T. Appleby, Henry II The Vanquished King, p. 212.122 Irene Gladwin, The Sheriff: The man and his office, (London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1974), p. 65.123 Jim Bradbury, Stephen and Matilda the Civil War of 1139- 53, (Frome, Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd, 1996), p. 151.

33

also the possibility that he only stayed in the Redvers family’s lands as they were well

connected in this region of Normandy. Indeed Bradbury offers no footnote to any source

material that would prove this statement. It therefore cannot be confirmed as to whether

Reginald held any land in Normandy. He may have eventually made connections there

through the marriage of his daughter to the Count of Meulan, but this does not mean he

held land. Reginald moreover held some land in Shropshire. This can be seen from the Pipe

Roll for the Michaelmas of 1175, which show that the earl’s lands in Shropshire, after his

death, were in the king’s hands.124 This land was probably inherited from his mother’s side

of the family. Her father, Robert Corbet, had relations in this region.125 Shropshire would

have probably been on the periphery of Reginald’s vision, and would have given little power

in comparison to his other lands.

Ultimately Cornwall was not a wealthy county. It could have held political and

military strategic significance during the civil war between Matilda and Stephen but during

the reign of Henry this value would have no longer been relevant. Although Reginald held

Cornwall independently from royal administration it probably had little effect on the

crown’s wealth. The lands may have still had some political significance acting as a land

traditionally suited for royal cadets. This may be why Henry gave it to John who, on the 1st

July 1175, was fourth in line to the crown, but without land. There are no records of

Reginald’s wealth, as he did not pay to the exchequer. Therefore one can only speculate

how much he may have made from the tin mines. What is known is that at this stage there

were large amounts of tin coming out of Dartmoor, Devon. Reginald may have had control

over this being the guardian of his grandchildren’s land in Devon, but he did not hold the

same power here as he had in Cornwall. Henry was still able to tax these mines and have a

sheriff there. Much of Reginald’s power came from the alliances he created. As his brother

and son-in-law were in close proximity, and held the major secular titles in the area, it

would have been very difficult for anyone to challenge their authority. Reginald was in a

situation where challenging his authority was not worth the risk. His lands did not offer

much financial reward. Trying to take his land and power, or hinder it, may have caused the

124 David Crouch, ‘Reginald, earl of Cornwall (d. 1175)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, Oct 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23319> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].125 Judith A. Green, Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress’s Party in South- West England, p. 162.

34

southwest of England to rebel, especially as he had been so loyal to his nephew Henry II.

There were plenty of challengers to Henry’s kingship and dukedoms as well. His brothers,

and then his son, may have found a valuable ally there. Henry would have been well aware

of the fact that one of the crucial reasons that he gained the throne was the West Country’s

ability to stubbornly stand against royal power. He did not want to be another Stephen. In

summary Reginald entrenched himself in a position that Henry would be find hard to

challenge and could afford to overlook.

35

Chapter 3: How Reginald kept his lands during Henry II’s reign

This part of the dissertation will show how Reginald managed to maintain his power

long into Henry’s reign and how his relation with the king allowed this to happen. First of all

it will show how the nature of his land holdings allowed him to maintain his power. This will

be followed by an analysis of how the relationship he built with Henry may have allowed to

keep his land and power.

One of the possible reasons Reginald kept his land, when others did not, was

because he did not control a major city. William Earl of Gloucester in contrast, held the city

of Bristol, yet became a political outsider, with a decreasing number of court appearances

precisely because he held the important city of Bristol. William and Reginald were both

blood relations to Henry, uncle and cousin respectively, and they were both loyal to Henry

during the civil war of 1173-4, which makes them a good comparison. Both had been loyal

to Henry during his reign yet William had his power curtailed and Reginald did not. This is

possibly due to William's control of Bristol. Although William’s earldom survived in 1175

William was called to the king’s court and Bristol was taken away from him.126 The fact that

William died in Henry’s custody in 1183 shows the extent of how much influence he had lost

and how Henry distrusted him. The confiscation of Bristol seems to be the first major

acquisition Henry made from William and marked the beginning of the end of their

cooperative relationship. This “end” may have been due to the fact that Henry was not

taking any chances with over mighty subjects. Henry had defeated a very large rebellion in

1173 -1174, and he was not prepared to allow any secular power to be in a position to

challenge his authority again. Especially when one such as William had a claim to a city like

Bristol.

William may have had his lands taken away because his possession of Bristol made

him too powerful. At the beginning of the Anarchy in 1138, only Bristol stood against

Stephen, acting as a rallying point for those against him.127 From Bristol Matilda and her

allies managed to fight off Stephen and secure themselves in the southwest of England. The

importance of Bristol can be seen by the way William Earl of Gloucester, witnessed certain

126 Robert B. Patterson, ‘William, second earl of Gloucester (d. 1183)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, Jan 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47236> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].127 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 80-1.

36

charters. William witnessed at least two charters in that period as William Earl of Bristol.128

Indeed most of the chronicles of this period speak of the wealth of Bristol and the fertility of

Gloucestershire. Orderic Vitalis states that Robert Earl of Gloucester, by the command of his

father, had great power in England, with great wealth, castles and warlike vassals.129 The

author of the Gesta Stephani goes as far as saying that the city of Bristol was not only the

richest in the entire country, receiving merchandise from far and wide, but was the most

fortified as well.130 Having someone else hold this city might have been a worrying prospect

for Henry, not to mention the revenue he would have lost. As early as 1155, William may

have been under pressure to give up the city.

A similar scenario is evident with Baldwin de Redvers who, as the Earl of Devon,

controlled the city of Exeter. The importance of Exeter can be seen through Baldwin de

Redvers actions during the mid to late 1130s. Baldwin made a name for himself by taking

the city in the spring 1136.131 Not only did the capture of the city make him famous but it

also allowed him to dominate the machinery of local government.132 It is telling how secure

Baldwin’s position became that he was able to leave England on the Second Crusade in

1147.133 The cities these nobles controlled allowed them to rule their areas of England

without challenge. This may have threatened Henry, knowing the same issues faced

Stephen. Henry II took Exeter at his first opportunity. Reginald did not pose a problem of

possessing a powerful city. He may have dominated the region of Cornwall but its

administrative capital was small and was not a threat to Henry’s power. Exeter was not only

the dominant city in Devon but probably dominated Cornwall as well. Henry’s control over

Exeter gave Reginald the freedom to act, to a large extent, independently from Henry as he

was not a threat.

Exeter's importance can again be seen from the stannaries. William de Wrotham

decided to hold his first stannary court at Exeter in 1198.134 William de Wrotham would go

128 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters 2476 and 2480.129 Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol 6, p. 517. 130 K.R. Potter, The Deeds of Stephen Gesta Stephani, (London, Nelson, 1955), p. 57.131 Robert Bearman, Baldwin de Redvers Some Aspects of a Baronial career in the Reign of King Stephen in Ed. Christopher Harper- Bill, Anglo Norman Studies, Xviii Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1995, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 1996), p. 20.132 Ibid., p. 39.133 Ibid., p. 45.134 Paul Hambling, The Dartmoor Stannaries, p. 27.

37

on to hold two juries of miners, one at Exeter for Devon and one at Launceston for

Cornwall.135 This seem to show that William de Wrotham chose the two biggest cities in the

two counties to administer his new system. The fact that Launceston was the biggest city in

Cornwall shows how poor and rural the county was. Launceston had very little influence

over the county, which can be seen from Reginald’s early years as earl. Alan Earl of

Richmond managed to control Cornwall even though Reginald still held Launceston. Matilda,

on the other hand, was still able to fight off Stephen when only controlling Bristol. This again

shows the power of Bristol and the insignificance of Launceston. This point is still largely

speculative though it is interesting how cities were targeted by Henry, seemingly showing he

was worried about over-powerful earls holding financially valuable areas. There still is no

direct evidence that shows Reginald kept his land because he did not hold a city but

hopefully this has added to the other theories as to why Reginald kept his lands and others

did not.

The nature and position of Reginald’s lands can further be seen as an advantage

when comparing them to the lands of other earls. One reason the earls may have lost their

lands and the title of earl was because their lands and titles put Henry under a financial

disadvantage. Earls were first citizens, comparable to bishops; they would take the third

penny of justices in their shire.136 Henry would consequently lose the third penny of the

shire and from the wealthy counties this amounted to a considerable sum. Henry’s

intentions towards these earldoms were clear; ten of them created during the reign of

Stephen were either destroyed or deliberately suppressed.137

The other reason earls may have faced some oppression whilst Reginald did not was

the position of their land. The reason Hugh Earl of Chester, William Earl of Gloucester and

Roger Earl of Hereford all faced persecution and in some cases rebelled against Henry may

have been, in part, due to their lands bordering Wales. Whilst Reginald’s lands may have

had little military or political value during the reign of Henry II, the border earls had the

potential to cause many issues for Henry. All of these earls would have had contact with the

Welsh princes and kings. The damage the Welsh kings could cause to the security of Henry’s

135 Ibid., p. 85.136 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 87.137 Vincent, The Court of Henry II, in Nicholas Vincent Christopher Harper- Bill, Henry II New Interpretations, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 2007), p. 294.

38

kingship was great. The Earl of Chester and the Welsh kings created havoc leading up to the

Battle of Lincoln in 1141. At this battle Ranulf, Hugh’s father, bought a terrible Welsh host

with him, led by three Welsh kings.138 The Welsh part of the force were supposedly the key

factor in the Angevin forces’ victory at Lincoln.

The fact that Hugh Earl of Chester was called Hugh of Cyfeiliog may point to his

Welsh connection. Just as Ranulf had these contacts it is probable that the other earls along

the Welsh border would have had them too. Henry I had used his son Robert Earl of

Gloucester and Miles, sheriff of Herefordshire, who would become Earl of Hereford, to deal

with the Welsh along the border.139 During the early years of Stephen’s reign when the Earl

of Gloucester’s lands were attacked it was Robert himself who had to make peace with the

Welsh although at great personal cost.140 This shows that these earls had relations with the

Welsh aristocracy and may have had the opportunity to call on their support especially as

some had sworn homage to Robert after the peace treaty. The border families were strongly

established with these Welsh kings and lords whereas Reginald was not. Reginald may have

kept his lands and honours whilst so many others did not was because he was one of the

few whose power emerged during the Anarchy and had managed to survive into the reign of

Henry II. The earls who lost their land were very powerful but may not have had the same

influence as that of their fathers.

Perhaps the main reason Reginald managed to keep his land and influence when

others could not was because he survived long into Henry’s reign. If Roger of Hereford,

Robert Earl of Gloucester and Baldwin de Redvers had managed to survive past 1155 than it

is possible that Reginald would not have been the only earl ruling as a royal apanage or

ruling without much royal influence. Robert of Gloucester became the most powerful

member of the Angevin party during the Anarchy. His lands in Wales and Gloucestershire, as

well as his control over Bristol, gave him power and influence. After his death in 1147 these

lands and titles were inherited by his son William. William however did not have the same

influence and power as his father. Robert had married into his lands, and when he died his

wife continued to hold her lands in Wales. She made grants in her own right and proved to

138 Edmund King, King Stephen, p. 149.139 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 57.140 Ibid., p. 59.

39

be less interested in Matilda’s plight than her husband had been.141 William was outranked

by his peers whilst his father had led them. Roger Earl of Hereford held more power than

him and Reginald would eventually lead the Angevin party travelling to see Henry in

Normandy to discuss his invasion of England.

Roger Earl of Hereford was one of the most powerful earls at the beginning of

Henry’s reign. His father’s death in 1143 had given plenty of time to consolidate his position

and control Hereford as his father had done. But after his death the earldom was allowed to

lapse.142 Many historians have viewed the end of Roger’s career as an embarrassing failure.

Amt claims that Roger rebelled in 1155 due to the fear of losing Gloucester and that Gilbert

Foliot had to talk him out of rebellion. This was followed by Roger being disgraced and

taking the life of monk, dying a few months later.143 This line of thinking has recently been

challenged and in my opinion disproven by Crouch. He states that Roger had agreed to give

up some land to Gilbert de Lacy in order that Henry might be seen as an impartial and

powerful king. When Roger did rebel, after an argument as to who should hold Gloucester

castle, it was Henry’s willingness to compromise and the intervention of the Bishop of

Hereford, Gilbert Foliot, that quenched the rebellion.144 The treaty that followed confirmed

that Roger should hold all the royal demesne between the Severn and the Wye in

Gloucestershire. Not only this but Gloucester and its shrievalty were conceded to the earl in

perpetuity. This seems to clearly show that it was the king who had been forced to back

down rather than Roger. Roger retired to a monastery only when he became ill in the

autumn of 1155 not because his power had waned. Crouch goes on to say that although

Henry was remorseless in the way he dealt with barons in his first year of reign some were

too powerful to overthrow, and like Roger, could not be dealt with directly. The Gesta

Normannorum Ducum states that after Roger died Henry seized the city of Gloucester and

took the earldom, a sign of the power that Henry now held.145 Reginald may not have been

unique if it were not for the deaths of other earls, like Baldwin de Redvers. Baldwin Earl of

Devon died in 1155 with his son Richard inheriting his titles. His son would quickly lose the 141 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 236.142 Emilie Amt, The Accession of Henry II in England Royal government restored 1149-59, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 1993), p. 25.143 Ibid., page 34-5.144 David Crouch, ‘Roger, earl of Hereford (d. 1155)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47203> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].145 Elizabeth M. C. Van Houts, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, vol 2, p. 739.

40

city of Exeter and died being only known as the Lord of the Isle of Wight rather than the Earl

of Devon. The Gesta Normannorum Ducum states that Reginald ruled after him with

Richard’s son Baldwin.146

Baldwin seems to have held more power than his son. This can be seen, in part from

the exchequer accounts. Bearman points out that the county payment from Devon for the

exchequer was very low during 1155. It was only £98 when afterwards the county

consistently paid £300 a year.147 This could mean that Baldwin had enjoyed the same

privileges as Reginald, not having to pay any money to the exchequer. The heirs of Earl

Baldwin were not however able to enjoy the same privileges. This was probably due to two

reasons. The first that they would not have held as much influence as their father. The

second that Henry would not have felt obliged to allow them to hold their land as a reward

for fighting on his side during the Anarchy.

The personal relationship Reginald managed to create with Henry was critical to

Reginald's success. He was a loyal uncle as well as a willing mentor. Reginald’s movements

and Henry’s charters show a close and supportive relationship. Reginald clearly took the

initiative in the Angevin party after the death of Robert Earl of Gloucester. This can be seen

when Reginald travelled to Normandy in 1152 to discuss the invasion of England. This

discussion took place on the 6th April at Lisieux. Reginald stayed with Henry in Normandy

and in 1153 Henry II left matters in the duchy to his recently reconciled brother and went

with Reginald to England.148 Whilst in England Reginald was present at the King's side at the

siege of Wallingford. The charters that Reginald witnessed on Henry’s behalf testify to the

closeness of the relationship. I have found twenty eight charters in the Angevin Acta Project

in which Reginald appears to be the only witness.149 Although some of these are suspected

as being spurious, the majority can be trusted. What is telling is that these charters were

made between 1153 to 1156 when Henry relied upon Reginald. Scribes and clerks writing

these charters may have felt that Reginald was the most important person there at the time.

It shows that Reginald was in very close proximity to Henry as well.

146 Elizabeth M. C. Van Houts, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, vol 2, p. 757.147 Robert Bearman, Baldwin de Redvers Some Aspects of a Baronial career in the Reign of King Stephen, p. 39.148 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 253.149 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters 446, 605, 1128, 1129, 1294, 1303, 1308, 1401, 1703, 1808, 1942, 2087, 2119, 2136, 2214, 2481, 2512, 2573, 2606, 2612, 2616, 2627, 2629, 2641, 2802, 2921 and 2938.

41

His place in the witness list roughly suggests Reginald and Henry developed a close

bond during this period. Although this is speculation it does seem that Reginald may have

taken a close supportive, or advisory, role especially when it came to discussing matters in

England. This trust can be seen when Henry left for Normandy in 1154 and took Richard du

Hommet with him leaving Reginald to control things in England and to handle his affairs.150

Reginald effectively acted as a justiciar in this sense. The justiciar was the king’s alter ego in

many ways and an extension of the king’s person and power.151 He was needed as the king

himself personally ruled as the centre of government. When he was abroad he needed

someone to act in his place.152 The fact that he was the only witness for charters and was

left to control England shows both the trust in, and the power of, Reginald. Care has to be

taken when analysing charter witnesses. Sometimes the witnesses may just be those who

were closest to the king at the time. But it does not necessarily mean that a particular

witness had anything to do with the act being made. Having said this there is a possibility

that the acts Reginald witnessed may show how the rest of the country viewed him. After all

to be deemed worthy to partake in a charter meant you were a man of importance.153 The

fact that those who wrote the charters continually mentioned Reginald as a witness shows

the man’s power.

His closeness to the king can be seen by the number of times he witnessed Henry’s

charters. Vincent did a study on this and although he surveyed only three quarters of

Henry’s charters it gives a clear idea as to whom among Henry’s men were closest to him. In

all Reginald witnessed 247 charters for Henry. The only men to witness more were Thomas

Becket, Henry's chancellor and right hand man; Richard du Hommet, his constable; and

Manasser Biset, his dapifer (steward).154 These men were also very important members of

Henry’s household and would have been very close to him. The fact that Reginald witnessed

more charters than Henry's justiciars, Richard de Lacy, who witnessed 206, and Robert Earl

of Leicester, who witnessed 105, shows the closeness he had to the king.155 It seems to

show, as well, that Reginald may have been an exception to Henry’s treatment of earls.

150 Edmund King, The Accession of Henry II, Nicholas Vincent Christopher Harper- Bill, Henry II New Interpretations, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 2007), p. 46.151 Francis West, The Justiciarship in England 1066- 1232, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 1.152 Ibid., p. 1.153 Nicholas Vincent, The Court of Henry II, p. 291.154 Nicholas Vincent, The Court of Henry II, p. 289.155 Ibid., p. 289.

42

Many earls did not appear in Henry’s court, knowing they would gain little from being in his

presence. Reginald seems to have thought that being close to the king would maintain his

power and relative independence.

Reginald developed a strong alliance with members of Henry’s household as well.

This can be seen with Richard de Lacy and du Hommet. Together these men were joined

together by a treaty of friendship.156 This would have helped secure Henry’s reign as de Lacy

had been a supporter of Stephen. It gave a message of reconciliation and showed that Henry

was not seeking revenge. It may have been the reason why Reginald kept his land as not

only was he close to the king but he remained close to many of those who were key

members of Henry’s household. Amt believes this bond was made after the death of

Stephen and that it was made during Richard’s eneoffment as Reginald’s vassal. She claims

he did this as he was starting to feel isolated from the royal court.157 The chronicle of Battle

Abbey shows how Reginald supported Richard de Lacy’s family. Walter, Richard’s brother

was the Abbot of Battle Abbey. For years the abbey had had a dispute with the Archbishop

of Canterbury as it held a unique position of power. William the Conqueror had made a

charter stating that it should not be subjugated to any bishop. This came into dispute and it

was Richard de Lacy, Reginald and du Hommet who convinced the king, for the time being,

to allow the abbey to act independently.158 Not only does this show how Reginald could

influence the king, with his council being well respected, but it shows how du Hommet, Lacy

and he were allied. Their ability to influence the king is made even clearer as the Bishop of

Chichester and the Archbishop of Canterbury had both managed to convince Henry to

subjugate the abbey under them before Reginald, Lacy and du Hommet had convinced the

king otherwise.159

Reginald increased his influence even further by marrying his daughter into the de

Beaumont family. His daughter Matilda married Waleran’s son Robert in c.1165.160 Waleran,

who died in 1166, was the twin brother of Robert Earl of Leicester. Robert had remained

loyal to his twin brother. During the Anarchy Robert had acted as Waleran’s agent in

156 Nicholas Vincent, The Court of Henry II, p. 317.157 Emilie Amt, The Accession of Henry II in England Royal government restored 1149-59, p. 22.158 Eleanor Searle, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980), p. 161.159 Eleanor Searle, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 155.160 P.L. Hull, The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xx.

43

England, where he held the earldom of Worcestershire.161 This may have increased his

standing with the king as Robert Earl of Leicester had been a justiciar of Henry’s. It

additionally gave Reginald more influence in Normandy as Meulan, held by the Waleran

family, was a strategically very important piece of land. Through the control of Meulan

Waleran, and then Robert, was able to claim a large stake in the control of Mantes which

allowed him to control much of the river traffic across the Seine.162 Not only did this ally

Reginald to a powerful and influential family in England, that had become close to the king,

it additionally strengthened Reginald’s position. If Henry tried to cross Reginald not only

would he risk his control of the southwest of England but through this marriage he could

risk his control of Normandy by weakening his hold on the Vexin. The alliance this

connection made with Robert of Leicester may not have lasted long as he died in 1168,

three years after the marriage, but it still shows how Reginald could create alliances with

powerful families and those who were close to the king.

Both Reginald and Robert of Leicester were close to the king. Robert of Leicester was

made his justiciar and although he eventually resigned from the role his position of loyalty

to his king never changed. This can be seen at the Council of Clarendon in 1164. At this

Council, Thomas Becket refused to meet the king, fearing the king would have imprisoned

him. The two men Henry sent to demand that Becket be brought before him were Robert

and Reginald even though Becket told them that he was too ill to meet the king.163 Not only

does this show that Henry trusted these two men but it additionally shows that they must

have had a very high standing in England too. Henry would have had to send two of the

most prestigious earls in order to get the Archbishop of Canterbury to appear before him.

Men like William Earl of Gloucester and to a lesser extent Roger Earl of Hereford did

not receive the same rewards. Whilst Robert had joined Henry’s side and remained loyal to

the king Roger’s loyalty had been more dubious. Roger had not supported Matilda’s and

then Henry’s cause as steadfastly as his father Miles had. Roger was more interested in his

own lands than Matilda’s victory.164 Roger could have been a tougher leader for the Angevin

161 David Crouch, ‘Roger, earl of Hereford (d. 1155)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47203> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].162 David Crouch, The Beaumont Twins The Roots and Branches of Power in the Twelfth Century, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 59.163 John T. Appleby, Henry II The Vanquished King, (London, G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1962), p. 103.164 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 213.

44

cause as well. He was more formidable than William and was politically and militarily

astute.165 The alliance he made with Robert Earl of Leicester during the Anarchy shows his

desire to help himself rather than challenge King Stephen’s supporters. Although it is true

that Reginald came to terms with Stephen in 1146 the support and companionship he

showed to Henry afterwards probably made up for this fact. Henry’s motive behind

returning lands in Normandy back to men such as Robert, and not too William and Roger,

may be because he saw no reason to conciliate vassals who were too eager to treat with the

enemy.166

William had similarly created an alliance with Robert Earl of Leicester by marrying his

daughter Hawise.167 This may have been a reason as to why William and Henry had a

troublesome relationship. William may not have shown unflinching loyalty to Henry during

the reign of Stephen but during the Henry’s reign he seem to have been relatively loyal. He

sided with him during the civil war of 1173-4 and fought against Countess Hawise's brother,

Leicester, at the Battle of Fornham. Henry II was still suspicious of William though and when

there was a threat of rebellion in 1183 he had William arrested and held him in confinement

until his death later that year.168 Henry was clearly very distrustful of William and it seems

that he did not like him as a person either. William had a reputation of being a poor military

leader. In 1142 he was entrusted in the defence of Wareham Castle which he then lost to

Stephen. Furthermore in 1158 William and his wife were taken prisoner by their own

garrison at Cardiff.169 This incompetence may have led to Henry disliking the man especially

when he controlled a region so important in subduing and fighting off Welsh uprisings and

rebellions.

Ultimately the reason Reginald kept his land whilst men such as William lost theirs

were his actions just before Henry’s reign and during the early years of it. The fact that he

remained by his side offering constant support and advice may have made Henry very fond 165 Ibid., p. 236.166 David Crouch, ‘Earl William of Gloucester and the End of the Anarchy: New Evidence Relating to the Honor of Eudo Dapifer’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 103, No. 406 (Jan., 1988), pp. 69-75, p. 71.167 Robert B. Patterson, ‘William, second earl of Gloucester (d. 1183)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, Jan 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47236> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].168 Ibid.169 Robert B. Patterson, ‘William, second earl of Gloucester (d. 1183)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, Jan 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47236> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

45

of, and grateful to, his uncle. Although Roger and William did join Henry on certain

campaigns they did not stay with the king to the extent that Reginald and Robert Earl of

Leicester had. These two men were able to maintain the power they had made for

themselves in Henry’s reign whilst many others could not.

Conclusion

Reginald was one of the most powerful earls of his generation. He was allowed to

achieve so much initially due to his family connections. His father’s policy of creating a close

bond between his children legitimate and illegitimate, which was then mirrored by Matilda,

proved incredibly valuable to Reginald. Reginald gained his earldom and marriage through

his half-sister whilst she gained a loyal vassal who could fight for her cause and undermine

Stephen’s power. His status as earl and the fact that he ruled his lands as an apanage gave

him a huge amount of influence and power. His lands did not have a particularly high

financial value though. Cornwall was one of the poorest counties in England which may have

offered little political value for Henry II either. It may have been a part of the country that

46

had been reserved for the cadet members of the royal family due to its little financial value.

Family members that threatened the king’s power could then be appeased but still not be

threatening. The value of his land may have been the reason he was allowed to keep his

land when so many others during this period had theirs confiscated or to some extent

removed. Reginald’s lands were not powerful or rich enough for Henry to take notice of

whilst at the same time Reginald was powerful enough, through alliances made, to threaten

Henry’s position if he were challenged. Other reasons for him being able to maintain his

lands when others could not was his relationship with Henry. There is enough evidence to

suggest that they both experienced a beneficial relationship. Reginald was allowed to keep

what he had gained during the Anarchy whilst Henry was aided by a powerful earl during his

accession.

47

Bib liography

Primary

Barlow Frank, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996).

Bearman Robert, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090- 1217, (Exeter, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, 1994).

Chibnall Marjorie, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol 6, (Oxford University Press, 1978).

Davis H. W. C., Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum 1066- 1154, vol 1 (1066-1100), vol 2 (1100- 1135) and vol 3 (1135- 54) (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913, 1916 and 1918 respectively).

Forester Thomas, The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, (London, H.G. Bohn, 1853). Giles J.A., Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History, vol 1 and vol 2, (London, Henry G.

Bohn, 1849). Hull P.L., The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, vol 30, (Torquay, Devon and Cornwall

Record Society, The Devonshire Press Ltd, 1987). James M. R., Walter Map De Nugis Curialium Courtier’s Trifles, (Oxford, Clarendon

Press, 2002). Johnston R.C., Jordan Fantosme’s Chronicle, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981). Ed. Mynors R.A.B., Thompson R.M. and Winterbottom M., William of Malmesbury,

Gesta Regum Anglorum, vol 1, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2006). Paige William, The History of the County of Cornwall, part 8, (London, St. Catherine

Press, 1924). Potter K.R., The Deeds of Stephen Gesta Stephani, (London, Nelson, 1955). Riley Henry T., The Annals of Roger of Hoveden, vol I, (London, H.G. Bohn, London,

1853). Searle Eleanor, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980). Van Houts Elizabeth M. C., The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges,

Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, vol 1 and vol 2, (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992 and 1995 respectively).

Vincent Nicholas, The Angevin Acta Project.

Secondary

Amt Emilie, The Accession of Henry II in England Royal government restored 1149-59, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 1993).

Appleby John T., Henry II The Vanquished King, (London, G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1962). Barber Richard, Henry Plantagenet, (London, Barrie and Rockliff, 1964). Bradbury Jim, Stephen and Matilda the Civil War of 1139- 53, (Frome, Alan Sutton

Publishing Ltd, 1996). Chibnall Marjorie, The Empress Matilda, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell ltd, 1992). Crouch David, The Reign of King Stephen, (Harlow, Pearson Education Ltd, 2000).

Crouch David, ‘Roger , earl of Hereford (d. 1155)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47203> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

48

Crouch David, ‘Reginald, earl of Cornwall (d. 1175)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, Oct 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23319> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

Crouch David, ‘Earl William of Gloucester and the End of the Anarchy: New Evidence Relating to the Honor of Eudo Dapifer’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 103, No. 406 (Jan., 1988), pp. 69-75.

Crouch David, ‘Waleran , count of Meulan and earl of Worcester (1104–1166)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1887> [accessed 13 Aug 2015]

Crouch David, The Beaumont Twins The Roots and Branches of Power in the Twelfth Century, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986).

Crouch David, ‘Robert of Gloucester’s mother and sexual politics in Norman Oxfordshire’, Historical Research, (October 1, 1999).

Crouch D., “Robert, earl of Gloucester, and the daughter of Zelophehad”, Journal of Medieval History, 11 (1985), pp. 227- 43.

Fleming Donald F. and Pope Janet M., Henry I and the Anglo Norman World, (The Haskins Society Journal, Special volume 17, The Boydell Press, 2007).

Gladwin Irene, The Sheriff: The man and his office, (London, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1974).

Green Judith A., The Government of England under Henry I, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986).

Green Judith A., Henry I King of England and Duke of Normandy, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009).

Greenway D. E., ‘Henry (c.1088–c.1157)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12970> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

Hambling Paul, The Dartmoor Stannaries, (Dawlish, Orchard Publications, 1995). Ed. Harper- Bill Christopher, Anglo Norman Studies, Xviii Proceedings of the Battle

Conference 1995, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 1996). Hollister C. Warren, Henry I, (London, Yale University Press, 2003). Ed Keats- Rohan K.S.B., Family Trees and the Roots of the Politics, The Prosopography

of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 1997).

King Edmund, King Stephen, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2010). Lewis G.R., The Stannaries, (Truro, D. Bradford and Barton ltd, 1965). Patterson Robert B., ‘William of Malmesbury's Robert of Gloucester: A Re-evaluation

of the Historia Novella’, The American Historical Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 Oxford University Press (Jul., 1965), pp. 983-997.

Patterson Robert B., ‘William, second earl of Gloucester (d. 1183)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, Jan 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47236> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

Powell W. R., ‘The Administration of the Navy and the Stannaries, 1189-1216’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 71, (No. 279 (Apr., 1956), pp. 177-188.

Thompson Kathleen, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I’, Journal of Medieval History, 29 (2003) 129–151.

49

Thompson Kathleen, ‘Dunstanville, de, family (per. c.1090–c.1292)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, (2004; online edn, May 2014) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/54504> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

Turner Ralph V., Men raised form the dust, (Philadelphia, University of Philadelphia Press, 1988).

Vincent Nicholas and Harper- Bill Christopher, Henry II New Interpretations, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 2007).

Warren W.L., Henry II, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2000). Warren W. L., The Governance of Norman and Angevin England 1086- 1272,

(London, Edward Arnold, 1987). West Francis, The Justiciarship in England 1066- 1232, (Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press, 1966).

50