Henry III’s Fine Rolls Blog Monday 22 January to Saturday 27 January 1257

Perspicacious readers will already have appreciated  why this week’s blog needs to run  from Monday not Sunday. Last week’s blog mistakenly followed the calendar for 2012 not 1257 and so ran from Sunday 15 January to Saturday 21 January instead of Sunday 14 January to Saturday 20 January. In this blog we are now back on the true 1257 course.

Henry III began this week at Westminster and then, between 24 and 27 January  moved to Windsor.  Once there, he took steps to see the five chaplains  serving the castle’s chapels and the four serjeants in the garrison received their pay.

The fine rolls show the raising of the gold treasure in full swing. In these six days no less than eleven men offered the king half a mark of gold apiece for exemption from knighthood.  How effectively the sheriffs were putting pressure throughout the country on men to assume the title  or (which was preferable)  pay not to do so, is shown by the fact that these fines came from a wide sweep of counties:  Devon, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire,   Hampshire, Sussex,  Cambridgeshire,   Suffolk, Leicestershire,  Rutland, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.  The gold was intended to  finance an expedition to Sicily, and this week Henry, the brother of the king of Castile, who was being mooted as the possible commander of the army, was allowed to hunt at the royal manor of Havering in Essex.

Other fines of gold came from Robert of Canterbury for a die in the king’s mint at Canterbury and from  Walter de la More of Buckinghamshire to  have a pardon for a homicide. This second concession (no.383 in the Calendar)  was made at the instance of Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester.  (For the entry see twenty items down in the image of the membrane: http://frh3.org.uk/content/fimages/C60_54/m08.html.).  Montfort also secured in this week a charter from the king allowing him to set up a new park at his manor of Shipley in Northumberland.  Since there is no reference to a fine for this on the fine rolls, he got the concession free of charge. These favours are useful reminders of how far Montfort was back on good terms with the king before the revolution of 1258.  He was not at court this week,  but his close associate (although no relation),  Peter de Montfort,  a member of the king’s council, witnesses the Shipley charter  and it was probably  through Peter that the concessions were obtained. Other witnesses were Peter of Savoy, Guy de Lusignan and William de Valence which shows how very prominent the king’s foreign relatives were at court. In 1258 that court was to break apart.

One small point of chancery practice or mispractice. No 380 in the Calendar (seventeen items down in the image) is an interesting example of an  entry being enrolled late and out of sequence.  It is a concession to Philip Basset, witnessed at Windsor on 7 November 1256. Note also the smaller hand and lighter ink from the entries before and after.  This hand and ink, however, is not found in the marginal annotation to the entry, which looks the same as those to the other entries,  a  sure sign these marginalia were done later all at the same time.  I  assume, incidentally,  that when the immediately following entry (no.381) is said to be ‘witnessed as above’, that refers back to the 27 January of entry no.375 not 7 November of  380.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Henry III’s Fine Rolls Blog Monday 22 January to Saturday 27 January 1257”

  1. Olga Méndez-González says:

    Meanwhile, in Castile, Alfonso X did not approve of Henry III harboring his estranged brother, Henry (Enrique), who had plotted against him and with the noble Diego López de Haro had led an insurrection. As the rebellion was crushed, Henry fled to France and then to England (by August 1256). He remained in England until 1259, when he sailed to Bayonne and then to Tunisia, where he acted as mercenary. By the mid 1260s, Henry was in Rome where he had joined Charles of Anjou’s fight against Manfred.

  2. Julie Carpenter Kaufman says:

    I am doing a genealogy for my family, Carpenter, with linkage to Adeline de Beaumont who married Hugh IV de Montfort, and had Peter de Montfort. Would it not follow that all montforts who descend from Robert de Beaumont I (Adeline)are related? Simon de Montfort II married Amicia, daughter of Robert De Beaumont III. Aren’t Peter’s and Simon de Montfort related?

  3. Richard Cassidy says:

    The Peter de Montfort referred to here, the supporter of Simon de Montfort, who died with him at the battle of Evesham, was the son of Thurstin de Montfort (d. 1216) and his wife, a daughter of William de Cantilupe. Peter and Simon were not related – see the biography by David Carpenter in the ODNB.

Leave a Reply