• Home
• Project Information
• Fine Rolls
• Style Book
• Commentary
  • Introduction to Reign
  • Introduction to Rolls
  • Originalia Rolls
  • Technical Introduction
  • Heads and Headings
• News
• Help
• Fine of the Month
• Book Publication
• Blog
• Conference
• Podcasts
• Related Papers

1. The Companions of Falkes de Bréauté and the siege of Bedford Castle

This month Michael Ray employs the fine rolls to analyse the make-up of the party led by Falkes de Bréauté in his campaign against the king which culminated in the siege of Bedford in the summer of 1224. He reveals that Falkes could command loyalty from able and powerful men and that, in closing the rebellion, Henry III executed only those holding out against him directly, preferring to pardon and later employ others in his service

⁋1The two month siege of the mighty Bedford castle in the Summer of 1224 lasted from 20 June until 15 August and was one of the longest sieges of the century rivalled only by those of Dover (July–October 1216) and Kenilworth (May to December 1266). ¹ It was of major significance to the course of political history in thirteenth-century England. In one sense it was the last outburst of violence which had begun at the end of King John’s troubled reign but the firm action taken by the sixteen year old Henry III and his government to capture the castle ensured that with the exception of the revolt of Richard Marshal in 1233, England was not riven by civil war for nearly another forty years. The downside was that, whilst all the royal resources were engaged at Bedford, Louis VIII of France wrested Poitou from Henry III’s hands. This loss, which proved to be irreversible, meant that the likelihood of the English kings recapturing their ancestral Norman and Angevin lands was further reduced. In some ways it was also another factor in making the English magnates more insular and less willing to be involved in cross-channel campaigns. It was another milestone in the flowering of a growing sense of Englishness.

⁋2The basic facts about the siege are well known. It began with a move by the government led by Hubert de Burgh to bring back under royal control all the royal castles entrusted to loyal adherents of John during the Civil War and Minority. Those who held the castles were affronted as they felt that their rewards for being loyal were being taken away and this should not happen until the king came of age. Falkes held a whole swathe of castles but Bedford was different. It had been held by William de Beauchamp in hereditary right and was captured by Falkes during the war and then granted to him by a charter of John. As a result Falkes felt he himself had a hereditary title to the castle. But the government was prepared to move against him ² and on 10 June hearings began into a series of cases of novel disseisin which had been brought against him. They were heard at Dunstable by the royal justice Henry de Braybrooke, and Falkes lost every suit. Falkes was probably incensed because Braybrooke was a former rebel against John and an associate of William de Beauchamp. William de Bréauté, Falkes’s brother, took Braybrooke prisoner and carried him off to Bedford castle. Whether Falkes had planned the kidnapping is not clear but he quickly endorsed it. When William refused to free him the army, which was being assembled for a campaign in France, was diverted to Bedford and the long siege began.

⁋3As long ago as 1912, Kate Norgate analysed the nine contemporary descriptions of the siege and its aftermath. ³ Eight were by monastic authors and the ninth appears in Falkes’s own querimonia. The details differ but it is clear that the garrison resisted strenuously and the final surrender only occurred after the royal army had lost a number of knights and several hundred men at arms and labourers engaged in siege work. During the siege the king vowed to hang the garrison. On the rebels’ submission, he carried out his threat. The best contemporary sources indicate that around eighty members of the garrison were hung although around a dozen of these were knights. ⁴ One account states that three were cut down and spared providing they agreed to become Knights Templar. ⁵ The bloody ending of the siege was in marked contrast to the ending of that of Bytham four years earlier when some of the thirteen strong garrison were imprisoned and perhaps outlawed but the holder of the castle, the Count of Aumale, only had to give assurances to behave in future.

⁋4The chronicle sources only give the name of one person hung after the siege, namely William de Bréauté. Who else was in the castle? Who else, outside it, suffered as a result of association with Falkes? These questions have never been asked, and this ‘Fine of the Month’ has the limited aim of trying to answer them on the basis of the information in the fine rolls and other record sources. The fine rolls are particularly informative because they contain both the writs ordering the seizure of the lands of Falkes’s supporters and the fines some of them were allowed to make to recover the king’s grace, although none of the those making such fines seem to have been actually in the castle.

⁋5Those fining for the king’s grace included Falkes’s former under-sheriffs when he was sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Cambridge and Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire, and Oxfordshire. These were Hugh of Bath, Richard de Brackley, Ralph de Bray, Vivian FitzRalph and John of Hulcote. ⁶ It looks as if most of these men suffered no long term harm. None of them probably were actually in Bedford castle.

⁋6 Hugh of Bath regained lands in Buckinghamshire, ⁷ and rebuilt his career as a royal clerk and as Justice at the Exchequer of the Jews, before dying in 1236. ⁸ Similarly Ralph de Bray, who had served Falkes in six counties, ⁹ recovered the king’s grace and benevolence and had his lands returned for the large fine of £200 on 28 September. ¹⁰ He remained, however, out of favour with the government and became the steward of one of Falkes’s closest friends, Ranulf earl of Chester. ¹¹ Richard de Brackley was back as under sheriff in Oxfordshire in 1225. ¹² John of Hulcote was later to be a sheriff in his own right. ¹³ He seems also (as John de Hacot’) to have acted as a pledge for Ralph de Bray’s fine. ¹⁴ Nothing more is heard of Vivian FitzRalph.

⁋7One of Falkes’s closest associates was Walter de Goderville ¹⁵ who must have come from Goderville only three kilometres from Bréauté. He was certainly a supporter of Falkes at the time of the siege. He was imprisoned at Hertford, ¹⁶ and his lands were taken from him. ¹⁷ However, a fortnight after the fall of Bedford he agreed to pay £100 for having the king’s grace; one his pledges was another associate of Falkes, Hugh Graundin. ¹⁸ Walter lived until 1248 serving Henry III for many years in the Welsh Marches. ¹⁹ Another soldier was William Martel ²⁰ who had received lands in England. ²¹ He was amongst those who were hanged ²² although his brother, Ralph eventually regained some of his lands. ²³ Another of those hanged was Ralph Brid. ²⁴ He was a holder of a small amount of land in Bedfordshire and in his case, the king showed mercy to his widow by allowing her to have half of three virgates to sustain her. A fourth known casualty was Richard Carpenter. ²⁵ A carucate of land, which he held in Harlow (Essex), was given to Robert de Turville. ²⁶ An ally of Falkes who disappeared after the end of the siege was Geoffrey de Wroxall. ²⁷ In 1225 Richard de Hecham was given lands at Wroxall? (Bedfordshire) which were held by Geoffrey ‘who was against the king at Bedford’. ²⁸ This suggests that he might have come from Roxhill in Bedfordshire and that he too may have been hanged. ²⁹

⁋8Another knight associate of Falkes, Ralph Tyrel, ³⁰ lost his wardships during the siege ³¹ but had his Bedfordshire lands returned as early as November 1224. ³² He regained his lands, ³³ witnessed royal charters ³⁴ and in 1232 was given a fee in Bedfordshire which was Terra Normannorum. ³⁵ Another well endowed knight supporter was Robert de Beaumeis ³⁶ who held lands in Huntingdonshire. ³⁷ Twelve days before the end of the siege, it was announced that the had remitted all his anger and rancour towards Robert ³⁸ and he recovered his lands. ³⁹ As early as 1227 he was one of those used to perambulate the forest of Huntingdonshire. ⁴⁰ William de Teyll’ who held lands in Surrey was received back in the king’s grace earlier than Tirel and for a modest ten marks. ⁴¹ Ernald Marshal, who had his Hertfordshire lands taken into the king’s hands, was permitted to come before the king on 26 August, and had the lands restored early in the new year. ⁴² In the following month, Berner de Rouen ⁴³ was received back into the king’s grace. ⁴⁴ Robert de Marsh (Marisco) also had his lands confiscated but as he was listed with Falkes and Gilbert de Bréauté, it is not clear where these where. ⁴⁵ A Robert de Marisco witnessed a charter re Oxfordshire before 1231. ⁴⁶ But the lands of Matthew of Bigstrup were clearly in Oxfordshire and he, like Walter de Teyll’, paid ten marks for the king’s grace and benevolence, having been of the familia of Falkes de Bréauté, enemy of the king. ⁴⁷ In the case of Matthew the reconciliation took place during the siege. Bigstrup, ‘the most experienced attorney of his day’, was another of the very able men Falkes had attracted to his service. ⁴⁸

⁋9At first sight, it is odd to find a William Crassus listed in the Fine Rolls as one of those against the king at Bedford ⁴⁹ since a man of that name was a leading follower of William Marshal II, Earl of Pembroke, an enemy of Falkes. ⁵⁰ In fact these were clearly two different men. The Somerset lands of Falkes’s William were taken into the king’s hands but in March 1225, he was received back into the king’s benevolence ⁵¹ and, in 1225, he went on to serve with Richard of Cornwall in Gascony. ⁵² But, if so, he was lucky as an entry in the Fine Rolls states that he was captured acting against the king in Bedford castle.

⁋10Knights of Falkes who were clearly not at Bedford include Henry de Franchesney. ⁵³ On 22 July 1224, he was granted safe conduct but on 19 August he was still holding out for Falkes, commanding the garrison at Plympton castle, which Falkes held as the guardian of his wife’s son, the Earl of Devon. ⁵⁴ His lands were transferred to his brother, Milo. ⁵⁵ Another of Falkes’s castles, Stogursey, which he held as his wife’s inheritance, was defended against another siege by its constable, Hugh de Vernay. ⁵⁶ He was given letters of protection on going to Gascony with Richard of Cornwall in 1225. ⁵⁷

⁋11 Hugh Graundin, ⁵⁸ who mainperned for Walter de Goderville, was received into the king’s grace by 30 July ⁵⁹ and was being paid wages by the Exchequer in February 1225. ⁶⁰ His landed base was in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. ⁶¹ Another of Falkes’s men, Robert de Mare, ⁶² survived the time of the siege and was also soon back in the king’s circle. ⁶³ As early as October 1224 his wife was given lands in Hertfordshire to sustain her and, by the following July, William was in receipt of a gift of trees for building. ⁶⁴ His brother, John, survived to be involved in a court case in 1225. ⁶⁵ He held lands in Essex and Hertfordshire in 1235-6. ⁶⁶ William de Caen should also be added to the list of survivors of the Bedford siege. ⁶⁷ Four days after the siege, he was granted a safe conduct ⁶⁸ but by October his will was being discussed, so perhaps he died as a result of military action. It is possible that the safe conduct was issued without knowing that he was dead either from wounds or by execution. ⁶⁹ He held lands in Hampshire. ⁷⁰

⁋12Turning to Falkes’s family, he is known to have had at least five brothers or half-brothers including William, Gilbert, Nicholas (Colin), John and Henry. Of William de Bréauté no more need be said than he was the most prominent casualty of the execution of the garrison and his lands were forfeit. It is probable that Gilbert de Bréauté was not in the garrison as three days after Walter de Goderville made his fine, he agreed to pay a lower amount (120 marks) for having the king’s grace and benevolence. ⁷¹ Gilbert was still alive in 1244. ⁷² The Dunstable chronicler reported that a chaplain was spared execution and was handed over to the Archbishop. ⁷³ Perhaps he was the clerk, Nicholas, who was received back into the king’s grace on 2 August, during the siege. ⁷⁴ However, the Fine Rolls make it clear that he had to pay eighty marks for this offence. The Bishops of Norwich and Lincoln mainperned for him. ⁷⁵ He also promised not to journey abroad without the permission of the king. Perhaps this was to stop him joining Falkes in exile. Nicholas’s clerical career continued although he was dead by 1237. ⁷⁶

⁋13In November 1224 the holdings of John de Bréauté in Kent were granted to the king’s tailor, ⁷⁷ and his Oxfordshire lands were seized. ⁷⁸ He had been alive at the end of April, ⁷⁹ so he might have suffered his brother, William’s, fate. Henry de Bréauté is only mentioned once, in a writ patent where he is named as one of Falkes’s brothers given safe conduct prior to absolution from excommunication. ⁸⁰ No more is heard of him.

⁋14Some of the Fine Rolls refer to Falkes’s bailiffs in the counties where he had served as sheriff. For instance, in June 1225, the sheriff of Oxfordshire was ordered to summon William de Riston’ and Walter Caperun of Woodstock by good summoners to be before the barons of the Exchequer on the quindene of St. John the Baptist to answer for debts they had incurred when Falkes’s bailiffs. ⁸¹ The following entries record similar writs to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, concerning Hervey Duning’, William Sping and Phillip Estutel, and to the sheriff of Northamptonshire concerning Roger of Brixworth and Walter of Silverstone. ⁸² A similar writ named John of Woodlow in connection with Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. ⁸³ All these men appear to have survived Falkes’s fall and were thus very unlikely to have been at the siege. Caperun gave rents at Woodstock to the Hospital of St John, Oxford. ⁸⁴ Duning lived to endow the Hospital of St John the Evangelist, Cambridge with beds before his death in 1240. ⁸⁵ During October 1224, John Woodlaw gave 60 marks for the king’s grace and benevolence. ⁸⁶

⁋15Apart from those of Falkes’s affinity named in the Fine Rolls, a letter patent of 12 August 1224 lists several more who were granted safe conduct. ⁸⁷ These consisted of Peter de Harseford, Walter de Cnoll (Knoll), Bartholomew Elyon, Adam de Eyford, Richard le Voil, William Lespie, Roger de London, Peter Lovel, Robert Noreis and Colin Marshal. Along with these men of possible knightly status, the writ extended the safe conduct to their garciones (servants) namely Godfrey, Thomas de Insula, Ernald and Robert who were men of Bartholomew Marshal, Robert Scot, Ralph Sumetarius, John Ordegorge Gentilcors, William de Hibernia, Robert Russel, Geoffrey Mustel, Richard de Camera, Perceval, Ferrand Cardeville, William Scot, Simon Stultus, William, the man of Elyon (presumably Bartholomew) and Richard Vigur.

⁋16Little more is known of most of these men but Harseford and others had a safe conduct four days after the end of the siege, which seems to confirm that they were not at the siege. ⁸⁸ A Peter Lovel (Luvel) was involved in a Yorkshire legal dispute a year later. ⁸⁹ Noreis’s (Norris) lands in Norfolk, Kent and Essex were given to the archbishop of Canterbury on 27 August 1224, ⁹⁰ so he too might have been amongst those hanged. But a man of the same name received his wife’s grandfather’s land in 1227. ⁹¹ The Fine Rolls even include an example of a knight who suffered unjustly because of the siege. Reginald de St Valery had his lands at Apsley taken, being disseised during the siege of the castle of Bedford by the king’s order while he was on pilgrimage to Santiago. ⁹²

⁋17Some of the men who agreed to pay for being received back in the king’s grace appear in the 1225 Pipe Roll. Ralph de Bray still owed £125 and was paying off his debt at £50 per annum. William de Teyll (Tilia) had paid the whole of his ten marks as had Gilbert de Bréauté, his sixty marks, but Matthew of Bigstrup still owed 3½ marks. However, William Crassus had still not regained some of his Somerset lands which were in the hands of William de Cantilupe. ⁹³

⁋18Of all Falkes’s circle the most striking was his clever clerk, Robert Passelewe. ⁹⁴ It was he who acted as agent of the 1223-4 dissidents at Rome and, joining Falkes in exile, wrote his querimonia to the pope, an account of the events of these years as plausible as it is tendentious. Being abroad, and holding little secular land which the king could seize, he escaped punishment in 1224 and seems to have returned to England in the late 1220s. ⁹⁵ It was not, however, until the ascendancy of Falkes’s old friend, Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, that he returned to the king’s service, witnessing charters from May 1233 and becoming under-treasurer at the Exchequer. ⁹⁶ Significantly Falkes’s former under-sheriff, Ralph de Bray, returned to the king’s service at the same time, clearly again thanks to des Roches. ⁹⁷ Passelewe survived des Roches’s fall and became a justice of the Forest, archdseacon of Lewes and nearly bishop of Chichester. ⁹⁸ He died in 1252. ⁹⁹

⁋19The Fine Rolls are not the only source of information on the fall of Bedford castle but they shed more light on Falkes’s followers and their fate. Despite his controversial reputation, Falkes was able to recruit exceptional men into his service. Robert Passelewe, Ralph de Bray, Walter de Goderville, Hugh of Bath, John of Hulcote, and Matthew of Bigstrup clearly come into that category, all enjoying long and varied careers. ¹⁰⁰ This may have a wider significance, reflecting the development of a fluid ‘non-feudal’ society in which increasing numbers of professional soldiers and administrators (there could of course be a substantial overlap between the two) moved easily between the service of various lords and the king.

⁋20What is impressive is the loyalty that the Bedford garrison gave to Falkes despite the terrible fate that awaited it. Likewise, his constable at Plympton held out against royal demands to surrender. ¹⁰¹ So why did some of Falkes’s supporters submit to and buy the forgiveness of the king before the end of the siege. By 5 July, Matthew of Bigstrup and, on 30 July, Hugh Graundin had made their peace and on 3 August so did Robert de Beaumeis. By then Falkes’s efforts to win support from old allies, such as Ranulf Earl of Chester and Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, had failed. Even those not in the castle would have been aware of the king’s determination to succeed and the backing he had from the magnates and the church. They might have been aware of the king’s oath to hang the garrison and they had lands to lose. Falkes’s cause was lost; no wonder they caved in. Others such as William de Teyll and Walter de Goderville came to terms soon after the castle fell. They were less at risk of losing their lives as they were not in the garrison but they faced losing their landed wealth.

⁋21And yet, the punishments that followed the siege were unusual during the reign of Henry III. Indeed these were the only executions for rebellion in the whole of Henry’s reign, although, of course, Simon de Montfort and his closest associates were in effect executed on the battlefield at Evesham in 1265. Even in 1224, capital punishment was confined to those actually in the castle. Falkes himself was exiled rather than executed. The rest of his family and servants, as the fine rolls show, were allowed to buy their way back into the king’s grace and recover their lands, although it was not till the regime of Peter des Roches that some of them returned to the king’s service. This moderation, which study of the fine rolls has revealed, is tribute to the wisdom, tolerance and pragmatism of the king’s government headed by the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, and the archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton.

1.1. C 60/21, Fine Roll 8 Henry III (28 October 1223–27 October 1224), membrane 5

⁋1Two fines which identify many of the adherents of Falkes de Bréauté are listed below, together with the fine of Colin de Bréauté for the king’s grace and benevolence, a fine typical of many.

1.1.2. 215

⁋1 25 June. Bedford. Concerning taking the lands of Falkes de Bréauté. Order to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire to take into the king’s hand without delay all lands of Falkes de Bréauté, Gilbert de Bréauté, Hugh Graundin, Robert de Beaumeis and Ralph Tyrel in his bailiwick, and to keep them safely with all chattels found therein until the king orders otherwise, saving wainage of the aforesaid lands.

1.1.3. 217

⁋1It is written in the same manner to the sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, concerning taking the lands of Falkes de Bréauté and of William and Gilbert, his brothers, Walter de Goderville, Robert de Mare, William Martel, William de Caen, Hugh Graundin, Geoffrey de Wroxall and John of Woodlow into the king’s hand. ¹⁰² Order to the same sheriffs to inquire diligently where their livestock and chattels are stored in their bailiwicks and in whose custody. When they know this, they are immediately to take them into the king’s hand and keep them safely until the king orders otherwise.

1.2. C 60/21, Fine Roll 8 Henry III (28 October 1223–27 October 1224), membrane 4

1.2.1. 292

⁋1[2 Aug]. Concerning the fine of Colin de Bréauté. Colin de Bréauté gives the king 80 m. for having his grace and benevolence, of which he is to render a moiety to the king at Michaelmas in the eighth year and the other moiety at the Nativity of the Lord in the ninth year. The bishops of Norwich and Lincoln have mainperned for him.