John and the Barons

1. John and the Barons • Seen as one of the major failings of his reign. • John was to lose the support of the leading barons in England. • This was due to • His personality. • Johns ruthlessness. • Extortion of the barons. • The cumulative effect of Angevin attempts to curb the barons power. • The desire to regain the Norman lands from Phillip.

2. John and the Barons 4. The cumulative effect of Angevin attempts to curb the barons power. • The issue of the Barons and the amount of power that they had could be traced back to Stephen and Matilda. • They had had their powers enhanced during the civil wars and the Angevin Kings had since been trying to wrestle that power back. • HIIdealt with the barons and curbed their power through the developing machinery and the royal courts. Eg Novel disseisin 1176 (writs allowing people to reclaim land that had been taken from them) and Mort d’ancestor 1176 (legalised the issue of possession and inheritance of land). • This system was whilst fair open to corruption depending upon the Kings will or needs. • These writs were paid for and the outcome was determined by the Kings court, this left them open to bribery or at the very least a determination to carry favour with the King. • “it could be harder for a rich man to have his right than a poor man who tendered but half a mark for a writ of Novel disseisin or Mort d’Ancestor” WL Warren

3. 4. The cumulative effect of Angevin attempts to curb the barons power. • “The great contradiction of Henry II’s reign was that he, the man who made good laws and carried the benefit of royal justice to the most insignificant of freemen, was also in the words of Gerald of Wales, ‘a seller and delayer of justice.’” WL Warren • As a consequence of this often the barons would seek the to pay for the Kings benevolence. This was often sought when some misdemeanour had occurred. They appear frequently in the pipe rolls • “Adam of Port offers £200 that the king should remit his indignation and receive his homage.” • “Ralph Clare renders account of £60 marks for having the kings good will.” • “Ralph of Betterville renders account of 75 shillings for being freed of the king’s ill will.” • Other phrases include “to put aside his anger”, “to abate his ‘ill will’”. • The sources of such anger vary from- taking a wife without the kings permission, failure to render service, allowing a prisoner to escape. • These may seem minor, yet they are vastly important as they allow the king to have some power over inheritance and the power accumulated through marriage , loyalty and the establishment of law and order. • How these relate to John are simple. These are tactics he will also use, but without the astute tactical know how of HII

4. 4. The cumulative effect of Angevin attempts to curb the barons power. • “It is the voice of organised authority. But what he firmly denies the his vassal he freely practises himself- and gets away with because he is too strong to be resisted. When the barons sought from the king in Magna Carta that he could henceforth proceed only upon the judgement of a court and by the law of the land they were turning the tables, obliging him to behave as he insisted they behave.” WL Warren • The origins of Magna Carta and the disputes with the barons could be therefore traced back to HII and how he dealt with the barons and a legal system that promoted a royal schizophrenia. • In about 1175 Roger Asterby, a Lincolnshire knight conveyed a warning to HII and his governance, • Henry should maintain the position of the Church. • Observe the laws of the kingdom. • Not to condemn people to death without trial. • Restore justice in inheritance. • Render justice freely without cost. • Concerned services rendered by his ministers. • Expulsion of Jews from the kingdom. • HII did not act upon these suggestions, but their demands are not too dissimilar to those faced by John in the Magna Carta 40 years later.

5. 1. The personality of John One of Johns greatest flaws in his personality was his fear and paranoia. Unable to trust, John sought to punish those who were talented rather than promote as he often saw this as a threat. He took the title of Earl of Gloucester from William the Marshall, he was suspisious of him and his potential power despite William declaring his loyalty. The conflict with the barons occurred when John could probably have been better seeking during the time of Pope Innocent III’s interdict. At a time when John could have utilised the support of his barons it was as Warren describes it “symptomatic of his temperament that he chose instead to keep his barons in line by fear not affection.” He sought maximum security for the crown via greatest possible insecurity for his subjects. Such was his paranoia he even sought to take hostages from his mercenaries. John's tendency to favour aliens also upset the barons, these people were unfamiliar with English ways and had little concerns, they were often brutal oppressors. John nature was to kick people when down, he also prowled the kingdom looking for scandal and misdemeanour which would allow him the opportunity to exploit his royal ill will. John’s lustfulness must also be considered as a contributory factor, it seems that he went out after the wives and daughters of the barons. “He was generous to those who could not harm him, and merciless to anyone who could.” WL Warren

6. 2. Johns ruthlessness. • It is too simplistic to believe the barons were simple upset by extortionate rates of taxation or the heavy fines and price of writs. • “There can be few of the hundred or so tennants in chief who had not some personal grievance about royal tyranny.” WL Warren • Examples would be; disposal of manors, pillaging of an estate whilst in wardship (under the control of the king until the inheritor became old enough to control the property), the indignity of a forced marriage, the taking of a son as a hostage. • Many hostages were not always treated badly. However those that were became more prominent. In July 1212 John hanged 28 sons of Welsh chieftains because there fathers had broken faith. • William de Braose- a once trusted ally treated with severity that shook the barons. All chroniclers report it which shows its magnitude though the details are uncertain. John on demanding a hostage as a sign of loyalty was met with defiance from Williams wife Matlida, who refused to hand over her son following the disappearance/ death of Arthur. A huge debt was placed upon William. William allegedly offered 40,000 marks for the kings good will which he refused. His pursuit of the family would eventually see the capturing of Matilda and her son where it was reported they were starved to death, William died in exile in France.

7. The extortion of the barons As already seen this wasn’t a particularly new way in which to keep the barons in check. Saddling the barons with debt had been used by both HII and Richard as a way of securing a sense of servitude and loyalty. The problem with John was that he had to cope with the cumulative effect of this and also he took this extortion to outrageous extremes. It seems that John looked to deliberately burden the barons with debt which he could then use to expropriate them. It was clever in that it gave the barons a constant sense of insecurity. Examples of Johns extortions are numerous.

8. The extortion of the barons Roger de Cressi married an heiress without Johns permission. The lands of both were seized until Roger came to make his peace. It cost him 1200 marks to secure the kings benevolence. Price of marriage or a fallen fiefdom varied and was high. Thomas of Erdington promised 5000 marks for the custody of the FitzAlony barony. William de Briouze wanted was keen to secure heiresses for his sons, this was secured at a cost of 1000 marks each. Isabelle, the countess of Gloucester and Johns ex wife would set somebody back 20,000 marks for her to remarry. William Mowbray offered the king 2000 marks for justice in his case against William de Stuteville (nothing more than a bribe). John accepted and duly ruled against William!!! Succession dues increased on average by six fold from £100 under HI to £600 under John. Someone who was out of favour such as John Lacy would expect to pay more. In Lacy’s case this was to the tune of 7000 marks. This was at a time when the average baronial annual income was around £200. This meant that many of the leading nobles would appear in Johns debtor books for many years to come. Nicholas Stuteville was £9998 in arrears from debts accumulated under John and this was in 1230!!

9. The extortion of the barons Many barons were therefore forced to turn to the much despised (due to the large interest rates) Jewish money lenders. This was like a double win for John. He would often raid the Jewish money lenders for tallages as the Jews were under royal protection. Also the King was every Jews heir. When a money lender died, the king inherrited his wealth, his chattels and his credit notes (the debts of the barons). So the debt to the king, once paid was now back in the hands of the king only this time with an additional sum of interest.

10. 5. The desire to regain the Norman lands from Phillip. John only ever really saw the loss of his Norman inheritance as being temporary, unable to muster the resources to put up a sufficient fight in 1204 it seems that John intended to accept defeat of battle to win the war. This would lead to a 10 year campaign to regain the inheritance. All coming at a cost be it in taxations, service or scutage. All bore by the barons, who especially in the north saw it as being of little relevance to them. John however, became obsessed. Poitou 1206 In 1205, John planned a naval attack on Normandy and a land attack on Poitou. Many barons refused to serve John overseas and complained bitterly at the high levels of taxation imposed. Consequently the mission was abandoned and John turned to employing Poitevin mercenaries and barons. He used these to secure Gascony and parts of Anjou. With the use of foreign barons and mercenaries secured using English funds he managed to gain a two year truce with Phillip. It had also given John the renewed sense that he could push even further and recover the lost empire.

11. 5. The desire to regain the Norman lands from Phillip. Defeat at Bouvines 1214 John encouraged by the victory at Poitou now looked to retake the rest of the empire. He devised an ambitious plan to defeat Phillip. John wanted to attack Philip on two fronts. He had the support of Otto of Brunswick an ambitious German prince, and the counts of Boulogne and Flanders. Attempts to attack Phillip from Poitou were thwarted due to the English barons again refusing to fight overseas. In 1214 John landed at La Rochelle and began to reassert his authority in Aquitaine. Phillips son Louis however managed to force John back to La Rochelle. In the North, the counts of Flanders and Boulogne waited for Otto of Brunswick and the German princes. Now that John had retreated, Louis was able to rejoin his father Phillip at Bouvines. In the battle that ensued, Phillip was victorious. It was a crushing defeat for John who had been let down by the Poitevin barons in their battle with Louis and Otto of Brunswicks failure to support the counts. Had he been lucky enough to defeat Phillip at Bouvins then it is possible he would have proceeded to retrieve the empire. As it was he was forced to sign a truce with Phillip. A decade of planning was wasted. John had gambled with high stakes he would never be able to secure such resources for another campaign again. His extortionate taxes couldn’t be repeated, his barons were no longer willing to fight for the now very distant empire.