By September 1189, the monks’ situation was starting to look better. The siege of the convent was over, the incumbent pope looked favourably on their cause, and the death of Henry II meant that Baldwin had lost one of his chief supporters. The new king, Richard I, appeared more interested in his crusade than helping the archbishop in his conflict with his cathedral chapter. Yet Baldwin's position was not as weak as the monks may have hoped. His own crusading vows meant that Richard was more likely to side with the archbishop than the monks, especially as he came to see the Canterbury dispute as an obstacle to the crusade's departure. Furthermore, the monks were to discover that the papal legate – specifically appointed to settle the conflict – was forbidden by the king from entering the kingdom. The convent understood their struggle was not over.

On 3 September 1189, eight Canterbury monks were standing in Westminster Abbey, witnesses to the coronation of King Richard I. Roger of Howden provides us with the first detailed account of an English coronation. According to this report, the ceremony began with a procession into the church: ‘First came the clergy in their robes, carrying holy water, and the cross, tapers, and censers. Next came the priors, then the abbots, and then the bishops.’ This procession included Archbishop Baldwin, who presided over the coronation. It is unclear if the Canterbury monks were also included in the procession although as the archbishop was representing Canterbury, it is likely that the monks were included in the ‘great number of earls, barons, knights, and others, both clergy and laity’ who followed the king into the church and took up positions in the choir. Apart from Richard himself, Baldwin was the key figure at the coronation. The right to crown the king of England was a jealously guarded right of the archbishops of Canterbury. Indeed, it was the coronation of Henry the Young King in June 1170 by the archbishop of York that precipitated Becket's capitulation to Henry II, with the agreement that the Young King would be recrowned by Becket to prevent the archbishop of York's coronation from setting a precedent.

The Canterbury dispute was a complex affair. The main point of conflict concerned the erection of a new church first at Hackington and later at Lambeth, but intermixed with this conflict were also the long running disputes waged between monks and archbishops concerning lands, rights, and privileges. While it is the proposed new church that has always been given the centre ground in accounts of the quarrel, the other issues were arguably of greater importance to the monks. Although the church was a symbol of the discord between archbishop and chapter, as well as being a trigger to the prolonged period of litigation observed in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it was the issues such as control of the exennia (the Christmas and Easter altar offerings from the cathedral estates) and the convent's ability to appoint its own officials, which had a greater impact on the day-to-day affairs of the monks. Yet without Baldwin's plan for Hackington, it is possible that these other problems would have merely simmered beneath the surface and would not have erupted in the twelfth century. If that had been the case, Baldwin's archiepiscopacy could have been remembered very differently.

Baldwin of Forde

Baldwin and the monks of Christ Church were at odds with each other from the beginning. He was not the monks’ choice as archbishop; they wanted either Theobald of Cluny or Odo of Battle. However, Henry II favoured Baldwin and imposed his choice on the chapter. Although not the monastic choice, Baldwin was by no means a bad person to have as a prelate. According to William of Newburgh, Henry often complained about churchmen who embraced the world with both arms. Baldwin was certainly not one of those. He was a hardworking and pious man who abandoned a promising career as a secular clerk to enter the Cistercian monastery at Forde in 1170, rising through the ranks to become abbot within a few years. In 1180, he was appointed bishop of Worcester, and four years later was translated to Canterbury. It was his actions against the Canterbury monks which gave him a poor reputation both then and now. Pope Urban III for example described him as ‘the most fervent monk, the warm abbot, the tepid bishop and the remiss archbishop’. This assessment has often been accepted by historians.

With the settlement of 1200 it appeared as though the dispute over a collegiate church was at an end. The last five years of Hubert's archiepiscopate were quiet. He never tried to build the house of Premonstratensians allowed under the agreement, nor did he try to revive the idea of a secular collegiate church. This suggests that Hubert never wanted to move the rights of the cathedral chapter to a new body. Both Sees and Whithorn had regular canons as the cathedral chapter. Whithorn in fact was a Premonstratensian chapter. If, as the monks insisted, the establishment of a new cathedral chapter was the plan, Hubert could easily have fulfilled this desire by building the permitted Premonstratensian house and transferring the episcopal see there.

Instead, Hubert repaired his relationship with the monks, who became very affectionate towards their archbishop. According to Gervase, there was so much affection that ‘by the grace of God it was as if they were of one heart and one soul’. Upon Hubert's death, Gervase even wrote a glowing encomium of the archbishop:

He was so bountiful, so liberal, and open-handed in entertaining guests and poor people, that what he possessed seemed to be the property of all. He was wonderful in erecting large and noble buildings. He was devout in the performance of divine service… But it was one great proof of his trust that he employed about him those whom he found faithful in service and truthful in words. Like Solomon he hated flattering lips, a lying tongue, and a forward mouth [Psalm 11.4, Proverbs 6.17, 8.13].

Although the settlement of 1200 was in the monks’ favour, the community was still unhappy with the result. While no new church was built, they had still lost revenues and estates, particularly the churches previously assigned to the almonry (Monkton, Meopham, Eynsford, and Eastry) and the exennia. In both cases the monks had a right to be dissatisfied with the settlement. The churches were to be held by the incumbents until their death, at which point they were to be divided equally between the monks and the archbishop. This division, however, did not take place, and during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the monks repeatedly tried to regain the churches.

With the death of Baldwin in November 1190, the building works at Lambeth stalled. It seemed that no grand new church would be erected. The monks had removed the archbishop's obedientiaries from their positions in the convent and replaced them with their own men, including the replacement of Prior Osbert with Subprior Geoffrey – one of the staunchest and most active defenders of the monastery's rights. The pope had issued mandates, ordering the demolition of all the buildings at Hackington and the confirmation of all his predecessors’ mandates which were favourable to the convent. The monks, it appeared, had achieved victory. Yet the dispute was not just about the building of a church. It was about the monks’ rights vis-a-vis their archbishop. The convent's abilities to appoint their own officers and manage their estates were wrapped up in the controversy over the new church. For the monks only the first stage of the conflict had ended; they now had to fight for their right to elect the new archbishop.

On 10 October 1191, Walter de Coutances, archbishop of Rouen and the king's justiciar, summoned the monks to London for 22 October, to elect a new archbishop. If a free election had been held, the monks would have chosen the bishop of Ely, William Longchamp. William had several points in his favour. As bishop, he was the head of a monastic cathedral chapter and, more importantly, one he was on good terms with. There is no sign that there was any friction between the bishop and his chapter. The monks for example did not object to William installing his brother as prior of the community in 1190. Similarly, upon his death in 1197, the Winchester chronicler felt able to describe Longchamp as the ‘father of monks’. In 1191, Longchamp was also the most powerful man in the realm. As chancellor and justiciar, Longchamp was entrusted with the care of the realm while King Richard was on crusade. Similarly, at the king's request, the pope had made Longchamp papal legate in 1190. Being favoured by both king and pope would certainly have been beneficial to the monks in ensuring the protection of the rights and status of Canterbury. It could also have been a big risk if the archbishop chose to pursue projects opposed by the monks as Baldwin had.

The most dramatic period of the Canterbury dispute took place between 1187 and 1189. There was a significant heightening of animosities between Baldwin and the monks, with greater royal and papal involvement. It was during this period that the main legal battles at the curia took place, as well as open hostilities in England with Baldwin placing the cathedral under siege. It is also in this period that we are introduced to one of the most colourful of the participants in the conflict: the monk Roger Norreys. A supporter of the archbishop, Roger was so reviled by the convent that they imprisoned him for several months before he escaped, only to be imposed by Baldwin as the new prior. Gervase's description of Roger shows just how much he was hated. From youth he was:

Roger's involvement in the dispute reveals an important theme often overlooked in conflicts of this type. The monastery was not united in their opposition to the archiepiscopal plans, but rather a small group of monks (often holding important positions in the convent) was supportive of the archbishop. This, combined with greater royal and papal involvement in support of each side, led to a hardening of positions between the two parties, resulting in a turbulent time for the community at Canterbury.

Negotiating with King and Pope, August–December 1187

In early August 1187, Baldwin returned from his tour of Wales and once more seized the conventual estates in the face of the monks’ continued disobedience, and appealed to the pope against the mandates they had secured from the curia. The archbishop then summoned the cellarer and chamberlain to him, and ordered them to be responsible only to him instead of the conventual chapter as was the norm. This was the first step in Baldwin's plan to overhaul the management of the conventual estates. He proposed to divide the revenues into three: one part would go to the cellarer for the feeding of the monks; another would go to the chamberlain for their clothing, while a third part would be assigned to the sacrist for maintaining the church.

The start of Hubert's archiepiscopate was a peaceful period for the Canterbury monks. With no further mention of the planned church at Lambeth and the community left to tend to their own affairs, it appeared as though the archbishop did not plan to pursue his predecessor's dream. Yet Hubert had the same problem as Baldwin: how to provide for the clerks of his household. This was the same problem bishops at other sees were facing. Hugh of Coventry solved this by expelling the cathedral monks and installing canons (albeit temporarily). The bishops of Bath, rather than reforming their cathedral chapters, tried to gain control of Glastonbury abbey, thereby increasing their income. At Canterbury, a collegiate church was still a sensible answer, being less contentious than evicting the cathedral monks or trying to take over another local monastery. As Baldwin's friend and executor of his will, Hubert had a personal interest in seeing the plan fulfilled. The reason Lambeth was not mentioned immediately after his election was that Hubert was busy dealing with the problems arising from Richard's imprisonment and ransom. Only once these had been settled could he revive Baldwin's plan.

Lambeth Revived

In 1196, the Lambeth proposal was renewed. Knowing that the monks would still oppose him, Hubert decided to begin by offering a compromise. He suggested that the chapel be built at Maidstone on the conventual estates, thereby giving the monks significant control over the foundation. Like Lambeth, Maidstone was within a day's journey of London, making it a convenient site from which the archbishop's business could be conducted. Hubert had also received permission, in 1195, to hold a weekly market and an annual fair at Maidstone, which might have brought added profits for the foundation were it based there. The monks, however, protested against such a plan. After listening to the monks recount the long history of the conflict, Hubert declared that, while sorry to go against the wishes of the church which had elected him as its head, he could not leave the proposed work unfinished. In April 1196, the king confirmed the exchange between the archbishop and the monks of Rochester, by which Lambeth was obtained in return for the manor of Dartford, the chapel of Helles in Darenth, and property in the vill of Cliffe (Kent).

On 25 November 1186, Becket appeared in a vision to Brother Andrew John. In this vision (recorded in detail by Gervase) the martyr bade the monk rise from his bed and follow him into the tower next to the choir. There, Andrew John was shown a large Catherine wheel hurling blue flame. Andrew John asked the name of the man who was leading him. Becket replied, ‘I am Thomas your archbishop, who for this church and in this church suffered martyrdom.’ Withdrawing from the wheel, Andrew John saw Baldwin approaching the phenomenon. Taking three swords and leaning on each in turn to test their strength, the archbishop summoned Prior Honorius. On his arrival, Baldwin said to him ‘I wish to destroy this new work [the recent renovations to the cathedral in honour of Becket], and for this purpose I have made this wheel, but without you I cannot move it.’ The dismayed prior obeyed the archbishop and summoned the other monks to help him. Andrew John begged Becket to intervene. The saint drew his sword, inscribed with letters of gold, and suddenly the archbishop vanished. Becket gave his sword to Andrew John, showing him the inscription ‘Gladius beati Petri apostoli’. He ordered Andrew John to present the sword to Honorius who should use it to destroy the Catherine wheel. Reluctant to disturb the prior, Andrew John had the vision three times before he finally spoke of it. According to Gervase, the Catherine wheel was interpreted by Honorius as symbolic of the new church that Baldwin planned to build as well as a representation of the destruction of the convent if Baldwin's plan was to proceed. The prior interpreted the sword as representing the process of appeal to Rome. Just as St Peter had attempted to protect Christ with his sword, so would the successors of Peter protect the monks with their spiritual weapons.

According to the vision, it was Baldwin's desire to destroy the cathedral convent, and the blessed martyr's wish that the monks resist with all their strength. The depiction of the Hackington church as a Catherine wheel is significant, since the wheel was a device of torture, or execution, to which the victim would be tied so that their bones might be shattered. This was the method by which Emperor Maxentius had hoped to execute St Catherine.

The letters in this calendar all concern the dispute between the monks and Archbishops Baldwin and Hubert Walter. The majority appear in the Canterbury letter collection. I have given the page numbers for these letters in Stubbs’ edition as well as folio references to the Lambeth manuscript. References to additional letters are to the printed versions when applicable or to the originals. Where there are extant duplicates, they have been mentioned in the contents column, although the list is by no means exhaustive.

Below are short biographies of the main individuals involved in the dispute from 1184–1200. Names have been taken from the Canterbury letters and Gervase's Chronica. Individuals not alive at the time of the dispute, such as Thomas Becket, have not been included. When an individual was both a cardinal and a pope during the period, he is to be found under his papal name. At the end of each entry there are references to additional sources about the person which have not been directly referred to in the text.

Aaron, Monk of Canterbury

Aaron's name first occurs in 1187, when he was sent with conventual letters to be delivered to Archbishop Baldwin (Ep. Cant., 67 (no.80)]. He appears several times as an envoy to negotiate with the archbishop or the king (ibid., 67 (no.80), 292 (no.307), 315–17 (no.329)). On at least one occasion, May 1189, Baldwin refused to accept Aaron as a negotiator for the convent, suggesting Aaron was a prominent instigator of the convent's intransigence (ibid., 292 (no.307)). According to Ralph of Coggeshall, Aaron appeared in November 1190, where he was acting as a confessor of the monks, and Baldwin made his confession to one of them shortly before his death. This suggests that Aaron made the trip to the Holy Land as part of Baldwin’ entourage (Coggeshall, Chronica, 1576; Greatrex, Biographical Register, 66).

Alan, Third Prior of Canterbury

Alan appears as the third prior in 1189. At the beginning of August, Archbishop Baldwin summoned Alan and the other conventual obedientiaries to demand the deposition of Subprior Geoffrey and John of Bremble (Ep. Cant., 298–300 (no.314)). He was left in charge of the community at Canterbury in August 1189 (after the death of Prior Honorius), when Subprior Geoffrey went abroad to continue the monks’ appeal against the archbishop. In September, Alan received a letter from the subprior exhorting him to stand firm in the face of the archbishop's schemes at Lambeth (ibid., 307–8 (no.323); Greatrex, Biographical Register, 70).

Alexander of Dover, Monk of Canterbury

Occurs 1187–9. In September 1187, Alexander was one of several monks who appeared before the king in Normandy to explain the convent's case against Baldwin, returning early to Canterbury due to illness (Ep. Cant., 94–6 (no.121)).

In the conclusion to his introduction of the Canterbury letters, Stubbs condemned the monks for their resistance to the archbishop, stating that the ‘Hackington and Lambeth foundations may be regarded as the last attempt to utilise the property of the monasteries before the Reformation’. For him, the case was never tried on its merits and the monks are condemned for wasting the church's resources on appeals to Rome. In his opinion, the archbishop's plan was a good one. It would have:

This disparaging and anti-papal viewpoint is primarily due to Stubbs's Protestant faith rather than an objective assessment of the conflict. Irrespective of whether the proposed foundation was the last attempt to utilise monastic property, the monks were not wrong to resist the archbishops’ plans. They were not fighting for themselves, but to preserve the convent's rights and privileges for future generations; appealing to Rome was the only method they had. Endowing a new collegiate church was unlikely to free up parochial endowments for their ‘natural purpose’ but would simply have created a new source of patronage for the archbishops. Clearly, the metropolitans felt they needed this extra resource to have persisted in their efforts for almost fifteen years. However, after the final settlement in 1200, Hubert dropped the scheme. He never built a Premonstratensian house at Lambeth, nor did he get permission to build a secular college.

Stubbs is correct in claiming that the Canterbury case was never tried on its merits, if he considers the merits to be what the new church could achieve, such as a regular source of income for scholars and secular clergy who engaged in archiepiscopal administration. But this is not what the dispute was about; rather it concerned the impact the new church would have on the community at Canterbury. The monks feared it would ruin them, and they were probably right. Baldwin was clearly building his new church in honour of Becket and believed his plan was a continuation of the martyr's proposal, left unfinished due to his murder.

On 13 January 1188, two monks of Christ Church were at the small Kentish village of Wingham, awaiting the arrival of their archbishop, Baldwin of Forde. The archiepiscopal manor at Wingham was a customary stop for prelates returning to Canterbury from the continent. Two days before, Baldwin had landed at Dover, and the monks were tasked by their subprior to welcome the archbishop home, offering him the customary procession for a returning archbishop. Baldwin, however, rejected their overtures and instead confiscated the monks’ horses, forced them to return to the convent on foot, and placed them under excommunication. That same evening, the archbishop's men tried to seize the convent. The monks closed the gate to prevent their entry and so Baldwin's men smashed their way through the precinct wall, occupying the gate and outer offices. Subprior Geoffrey (in charge of the convent as the prior was in Rome) suspended divine offices and stripped the altars. The next day, William Fitz Neal, formerly Thomas Becket's steward and now in Baldwin's service, forced the monastic servants to swear they would prevent the monks from leaving the convent. The monastery was under siege.

This was just one episode of the bitter dispute which occupied the archbishops and monks of Canterbury throughout the 1180s and 1190s. The conflict was the result of a plan by Archbishop Baldwin to build a collegiate church for secular canons, dedicated to Thomas Becket. The aim was to provide the archbishop with a source of patronage for the clerks of his administration, thereby decoupling the archbishops from their dependence upon a monastic cathedral chapter, in effect undoing 600 years of the work of Augustine, Dunstan, and Lanfranc. The initial site selected for the foundation lay at Hackington, just outside Canterbury, with Lambeth quickly emerging as an alternative. The monks of Christ Church believed that the archbishop's plan would not only weaken their status (or remove them) as the cathedral chapter but, in short order, threatened to deprive them of the relics of their recently acquired but most beloved saint, Thomas Becket. To stop the plan, the monks sought the pope's aid by appealing to Rome.

Wrapped up in the conflict about the church were arguments over other aspects of monastic life at Canterbury, which were also issues at other monastic cathedrals. The first of these was the role of the bishop.