From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Wm the Conqueror, Membership necessities
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:58:03 GMT
Followup-To: jtn@vtopus.cs.vt.edu
Organization: SCA

Unto the good gentles of the Rialto does Lord Hossein Ali Qomi send 
greetings and prayers for the blessings of Allah.

Lord William de Corbie recently posted:

>  I am unable to find any reference to any fealty from William to
>  the crown of France. This does not prove that such a fealty did
>  not exist, but it indicates that such a fealty would have been
>  a pure fiction. In fact, king Henry of France invaded Normandy
>  a number of times and his successor Philip also made war on
>  William at least on one occasion.

In 1060 William the Bastard met Philip I near Dreux on the Franco-
Norman frontier and agreed to a "firm peace and serene amity" with
the French King.  Many scholars believe that William made an 
_hommage de paix_ to Philip at this time.  Certainly William made no
_hommage vassalique_ (note that no extant act of Philip I relates in any
way to Norman lands or customs, while many bear on Anjou, the
Auvergne, Flanders, Poitou and the other greater vassal principalities;
this is powerful additional evidence against _hommage vassalique_).
When Robert Curthose, William's eldest son, was invested with Normany
at the time of the Conquest, the sources suggest that he made an 
_hommage de paix_ to Philip I (the extent to which Curthose was fully
vested with Normandy by William is a matter of debate, but by 1067 he
appears on charters as _comes normannorum_).  

Robert Curthose very likely made an _hommage vassalique_ to the
French king for his Norman possessions during his war with Henry I
(e.g., he wrote in 1105 to Philip I, calling him "_dominus suus rex
Francorum_"), but Henry I made it very clear that he did not regard this
act of his brother as binding.  

Henry I and Stephen clearly regarded _hommage de paix_ for their
continental possessions as a diplomatic bargaining chip, not an
acknowledgement of feudal vassalage.  France's Louis VI received no
_hommage_ from Henry I in the truce of the Epte in 1109 or nor did he
even demand it in the Treaty of Gisors in 1113 (indeed, Louis VI
unilaterally granted Henry the right to receive the _hommage_ of the
count of Anjou for Maine and the count of Brittany with no mention of
any obligation on Henry to France for his continental holdings).  In
1120 Henry permitted his son, William Adelin, to be invested with
Normandy by Louis VI and to make an _hommage de paix_ to him, but
then permitted his son no powers of governance in Normandy and
continued to rule it directly from the English throne (no charter
identifying William Adelin as _comes_ or _dux normannorum_, nor any
numismatic evidence has ever been found).  In 1137 Stephen permitted
his son, Eustace, to be invested with Normandy by Louis VI as part of a
treaty modeled on the agreement with Henry I; however, Eustace was
permitted to exercise no governmental jurisdiction in either Normandy
or England and was never accorded the title of _comes_ or _dux
normannorum_, nor even that of _comes_ or _dux designatus_.

Henry II clearly made an _hommage vassalique_ to Louis VII in 1151,
but only for his continental holdings, and this was clearly tied to the
traditional claim of the counts of Anjou to be the hereditary seneschals
of France.  The _hommages vassalique_ made by Geoffrey for Brittany
in 1186 and by Richard for the Aquitaine in 1188 were manifestly
against their father's wishes and it was only a defeated and dying Henry
II who was coerced into making _hommage vassalique_ again for his
continental lands by Philip Augustus in 1189.  John, while regent for
the imprisoned Richard I, did make _hommage vassalique_ to Philip
Augustus for all Richard's lands, including, according to some sources,
England, but Richard I on his return to England repudiated this
_hommage_, as he did the _hommage_ he was forced to make to
Barbarossa's son and heir as a condition of his release, on the grounds
that they had been illicitly coerced and that the regent of a king in his
majority had no right to give _hommage_ to another suzerain.

I hope this makes the matter a little clearer.

In Service to the Society,

Hossein Ali Qomi
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca