¹ of Newburgh, William, Historia Rerum Anglicarum, in Chronicles and Memorials of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry 11, and Richard I, ed. Howlett, Richard, Rolls Series, 4 vols. (London, 1884–1889), I:112–114Google Scholar. Geoffrey the Younger came into immediate possession of at least three strategic Angevin castles (Chinon, Loudun, and Mirabeau). There is no reason to suppose that these castles were at this time the traditional apanage of a younger Angevin heir (as Warren suggests). Count Fulk V of Anjou did not award the castles to his second son, Elias (Chinon and Mirabeau were part of the comital domain under Geoffrey Plantagenet). See Warren, W. L., Henry II (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1973), p. 46.Google Scholar

² of Newburgh, William, Historia, I:112–114.Google Scholar

³ See Hollister, C. Warren and Keefe, Thomas K.. “The Making of the Angevin Empire,” Journal of British Studies, XII (May, 1973): 17–21.Google Scholar

⁴ Warren, W. L, Henry II, p. 46Google Scholar: “Many historians have accepted the story on Newburgh's authority, but it is improbable.” Included among the scholars who have accepted Newburgh's testimony are: Norgale, Kate, England under the Angevin Kings, 2 vols. (London, 1887). I:444Google Scholar; Chartrou, Josèphe, L' Anjou de 1109 à 1151 (Paris, 1928), pp. 85–86 and note 6Google Scholar; Boussard, Jacques, Le Comté d'Anjou sous Henri Plantegenet et ses fils (Paris, 1938), p. 68Google Scholar, and Le gouvernement d'Henri II, Plantegenêt (Paris, 1956), pp. 8Google Scholar, et passim; Poole, A. L., Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1955). p. 324Google Scholar; Holt, J. C., “Politics and Property in Medieval England.” Past and Present, No. 57 (1972): 18 n. 87Google Scholar; Hollister, and Keefe, , “The Making of the Angevin Empire.” pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

⁵ Warren, , Henry II, pp. 46, 47, 64.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Holt, J. C., “Politics and Property in Medieval England,” pp. 9–13.Google Scholar

⁸ Leyes Henrici Primi, ed. Downer, L. J. (Oxford, 1972), p. 224, Cap. 70, 21.Google Scholar

⁹ of Newburgh, William, Historia, I: 23Google Scholar: Robertus primogenitus in ducatu Normanniae, et Guittemus,…, in regno Angliae, patri defuncto successere; ordine quidem praepostero, sed per ultimam, ut dictum est patris voluntatem commutato.

¹⁰ Tardif, E. J., ed., Très ancien Coutumier de Normandie (Rouen, 1881), p. 8, Cap. 8, 2, 3.Google Scholar

¹¹ Whether, in fact, Robert of Neubourg was awarded Neubourg as his inheritance is open to discussion. I am inclined to agree with J. C. Holt that Neubourg was part of Earl Henry's paternal inheritance, and thus formed his patrimony: “Politics and Property in Medieval England,” p. 16 and appendix II, C: 49-51. The authors of the Complete Peerage have argued that Neubourg was a member of the honour of Beaumont, and therefore would have descended to Henry's older brother. Count Robert of Meulan. Consequently, Robert of Neubourg must have received his lands as a gift from his uncle: Complete Peerage, VII:522–524Google Scholar; XII:358-361 and appendix A: 4-5. Orderic Vitalis does place Robert of Neubourg in apparent possession of his honour in late 1118 prior to his father's death: Le Prévost, IV:327–328Google Scholar. Nevertheless, this is not conclusive proof that the Earl of Warwick had not inherited Neubourg directly and passed it on to a younger heir. It is not unusual for a second son to be given part of the family patrimony to be held of the older brother in parage nor for an heir to have complete or limited possession of his inheritance while his father was still living. And, it is unlikely that the Count of Meulan would alienate so valuable an honour as Neubourg by endowing a nephew when his own son, Hugh, appropriately surnamed “the Poor,” was left unprovided for with any landed estate.

¹² See Pétigny, M. J., Histoire archéologique de Vendômois (Vendôme, 1849), pp. 154-157, 208-209, 221, 223, 237, 240-241, 244, 260.Google Scholar

¹³ of Torigny, Robert, Chronica Roberti de Torigneio, in Howlett, Richard, ed., Chronicles and Memorials of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, Rolls Series, 4 vols. (London, 1884–1889), IV: 164Google Scholar; de Jubainville, H. d'Arbois, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne, 8 vols. (Paris, 1859–1869), II:403.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Count Hugh ceded Troyes-Meaux to Theobald IV, his nephew, before joining the order of the Knights Tempars and departing on a crusade from which he never returned. Eudes II, Count of Blois, was the first member of his house to gain possession of Troyes-Meaux (c. 1019), later known as the county of Champagne. On Eudes' death Troyes-Meaux was the inheritance of a younger heir and this practice was followed when the county reverted to Theobald III of Blois. Thus, Theobald IV's disposition of his estates was a dramatic departure from family tradition: de Jubainville, H. d'Arbois, Histoire, II:140-141, 275 note C, 420Google Scholar; Longnon, Auguste, “Champagne,” in the Encyclopedia Britannica, eleventh ed. (1910–1911), V:827–828Google Scholar. The counts of Blois continued to practice reversed succession in the thirteenth century. About 1246, Hugh of Châtillon, Count of Blois (from his wife) willed Blois to his eldest son, while his patrimony of Châtillon and Saint-Pol, along with other lands, were divided between two other sons: de Saint-Allais, M., L'art de verifier les dates des faits historiques, 18 vols. (Paris, 1818–1819), XI: 393Google Scholar; XII: 391; Duchense, A., Historie de la maison de Chastillon-sur-Marne, Preuves, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

¹⁵ This, in part, is the view of de Jubainville, H. d'Arbois, Histoire, II: 420–421.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Warren, , Henry II, p. 47 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Boussard, Jacques, Le gouvernement d'Henri II, Plantegenêt, p. 8Google Scholar; Hollister, and Keefe, , “The Making of the Angevin Empire,” p. 20.Google Scholar

¹⁸ of Hoveden, Roger, Chronica Rogeri de Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, William, Rolls Series, 2 vols. (London, 1868–1871), II: 282Google Scholar; Stubbs, William, ed., Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, 2 vols. (London, 1867), I: 308Google Scholar. Richard refused to honor his father's request, but the request itself is significant.

¹⁹ of Wales, Gerald, Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, eds. Brewer, J. S., Dimock, J. F., and Warner, G. F., Rolls Series. 8 vols. (London, 1861–1891), VIII: 232.Google Scholar

²⁰ Warren, , Henry II, 47, 64.Google Scholar

²¹ of Hoveden, Roger, Chronica, I: 215Google Scholar; of Torigny, Robert, Chronica, p. 186Google Scholar. For a more detailed discussion of these events, see Hollister, and Keefe, , “The Making of the Angevin Empire,” pp. 22–25.Google Scholar

²² Boussard, Jacques, Le gouvernement d'Henri II, Plantegenêt, p. 408.Google Scholar

²³ Louis already had been resoundingly defeated in 1152 when he attempted to confiscate all of Henry's territorial possesssions in response to Henry's breach of feudal law in marrying the ex-French queen, Eleanor, without royal permission. Now that Henry was king of England, the Capetian's chances of forcing him to relinquish one of his possessions were even less: of Torigny, Robert, Chronica, pp. 165ff, 180Google Scholar. Dr. Warren has offered the opinion that Geoffrey the Younger's participation on the French side in the 1152 war would have been against his own interests if the will were valid “since he should have been helping Henry to conquer England, not hindering him”: Henry II, p. 46. Alternatively, Geoffrey may well have judged that his immediate interests were best served by joining rather than opposing the French king. As the expressed purpose of the coalition arrayed against his brother was the complete confiscation of all the duke/count's estates, Geoffrey chanced his own disinheritance if the coalition prevailed without his participation in the victory. Moreover, since it was not yet certain whether Henry ever would be able to conquer England, or if he did whether he would then abide by his father's will, Geoffrey's activity can be seen as a gamble to effectuate his inheritance.

²⁴ Knowledge of the recent papal absolution of Henry's 1151 oath to uphold the will may have been an additional influence on Louis' decision: Hollister, and Keefe, , “The Making of the Angevin Empire,” pp. 22–24 and note 99.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Warren, , Henry II, p. 46 and note 2Google Scholar, where the author mistakenly attributes the chronicler of Tours as providing the full provisions of Count Geoffrey's will. Josèphe Chartrou found a passage in an Angevin chronicle which she believed confirmed William of Newburgh's story, but the passage is not entirely convincing: Halphen, L. and Poupardin, R., eds., Chroniques des Comtes d'Anjou et des Seigneurs d'Amboise (Paris, 1913), p. 251Google Scholar, cited by Chartrou, , L'Anjou, p. 85, n. 6Google Scholar. A perplexing fragment from a Poitevin chronicle reads: Henricus vero Rex Angliae, Dux Normanniae et Aquitaniae, Cornes Pictavensis, Andecavensis et Cenomanensis, fratrem Gaufridum in-stituit Comitem Andecavorum atque Cenomanensium: Bouquet, M., et al., eds., Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France; Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores, 24 vols. (Paris, 1738–1904), XII: 410.Google Scholar

²⁶ Norgate, Kate, “William of Newburgh,” Dictionary of National Biography (repr., 1967), XXI: 360–363Google Scholar; and Douglas, David C. and Greenaway, George W., eds., English Historical Documents, (New York, 1953), II:322Google Scholar. William was born c. 1136 and was educated at the priory of Newburgh. Between 1161 and 1166 he married Emma ‘de Peri'; some twenty years later William re-entered Newburgh where he spent his remaining days. Though he wrote his history in the late twelfth century, William was contemporary with most of the events which he describes.

²⁷ Where other authorities merely record the fact of Geoffrey the Younger's rebellion, Newburgh purposely relates its underlying cause. The chapter in which the story of Geoffrey Plantagenet's will appears is entitled, “For what reason Geoffrey, the king's brother, rebelled against him and how he was reconciled”: Historia, I: 112.Google Scholar

²⁸ of Torigny, Robert, Chronica, p. 249 and note 5Google Scholar. See also, Howlett's preface, ibid., xiii ff.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 186, where Torigny mentions a conference between Henry and Geoffrey at the outset of the rebellion at which time “certain offers” were made by the king to Geoffrey which were refused; but no clue is given to the nature of the offers or the reason why Henry was willing to compromise with his brother.

A famous letter written by John of Salisbury to the bishop of Norwich speaks of a deep rent between the two brothers over Geoffrey's refusal to give up the whole of his inheritance to Henry. Internal evidence contained in the letter suggests that John is referring to Geoffrey's reluctance to foreswear the estates originally awarded him as part of his inheritance, and may indicate thai the letter was written in the summer of 1156. when as the result of negotiations following his defeat, Geoffrey was forced to release these lands in return for an annual pension: Millor, W. J. and Butler, H. E., eds., The Letters of John of Salisbury, revised by Brooke, C.N.L.. (London, 1951), Epistola 13:21Google Scholar. There is no reason to suppose thai a letter written seven months after the beginning of the rebellion would contain the background of its origins: this was already known. See Warren, W. L.. Henry II, p. 47 note 1.Google Scholar