The dispute over the election of the new archbishop of York after the resignation and death of Archbishop Thurstan in 1140 has come to be seen as one of the episodes exemplifying the power of the twelfth-century monastic reform movement and its influence on the far-flung corners of Latin Europe. The case was first analysed by David Knowles in the 1950s and 60s and then further by Derek Baker in the 1970s. More recently Christopher Norton's study of William Fitzherbert has reopened and extended the issues under debate. These studies not only established the complex details of various stages of the conflicts, but also explained the reasons behind the different stands taken by those supporting and opposing William's election in 1141. While Knowles's conclusions rested largely on his assessment of the personal characters of the key players, Baker took issue with the idea that the dispute can be seen as ‘part of a European struggle for freedom of election and for reform’. His study concentrated, however, on a re-examination of the details of the dispute within the immediate context of Yorkshire and English politics of King Stephen's reign. In his recent study of William of York, Norton once again posed the question of the reasons for the involvement of Cistercians in the conflict. He concentrated on the complex Yorkshire context of the affairs in far greater detail and in a more nuanced fashion than previous scholars. Yet, although the specific English background was undoubtedly a very important factor in the Cistercian involvement, the personal and local political background does not give a full answer, especially to the question of Eugenius's own involvement.