We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
In 1252 Geoffrey de Geneville married Matilda de Lacy, the elder coheiress of Meath and Weobley, thereby becoming lord of Trim in Ireland and Ludlow in the Welsh March. By birth, however, this second son of Simon, lord of Joinville, was the lord of Vaucouleurs in Champagne and was thus an ‘exotic’ figure to find involved in late thirteenth-century Ireland. While Geoffrey was not alone in being a landowner in Ireland with continental origins, since he was part of what Robert Bartlett calls the ‘aristocratic diaspora’ — the movement of western European aristocrats from their homelands into new areas where they settled in order to augment their fortunes — he was exceptional in that he was the most successful figure to emerge in Ireland as a result of Henry III’s tendency to invest foreigners from the court circle with lands in outlying areas. This pattern has been described as a policy by H. W. Ridgeway, who saw an intention to secure potentially troublesome border regions as one reason behind Henry’s distribution of peripheral patronage to ‘aliens’; and, indeed, Geoffrey numbered himself among the upright men of different nationalities placed in Ireland by the descendants of Henry II in order to bring the island to the obedience of the English king and to conserve the peace. The success that Geoffrey made of his grant of Trim related to the ‘secure nature’ of that particular lordship. However, that cannot be the whole story. There is no firm evidence that either William de Valence or Geoffrey de Lusignan, Henry III’s half-brothers, or the Savoyard knight Otto de Grandison, members of the Poitevin and Savoyard entourages of Henry III and the Lord Edward and the recipients of grants in the securely held areas of Wexford, Louth and Tipperary respectively, ever visited the lordship of Ireland in spite of their receipt of valuable lands there.
1 Phillips, J.R.S., ‘The Anglo-Norman nobility’ in Lydon, James (ed.), The English in medieval Ireland: proceedings of the first joint meeting of the Royal Irish Academy and the British Academy (Dublin, 1984), p. 98.Google Scholar
2 Bartlett, Robert, The making of Europe: conquest, colonization and cultural change, 950-1350 (London, 1993), pp 24–59.Google Scholar
3 Ridgeway, H.W., ‘King Henry III and the “aliens”, 1236-1272’ in Coss, P.R. and Lloyd, S.D. (eds), Thirteenth-Century England II (Woodbridge, 1987), p. 85Google Scholar. Frame, Robin, ‘King Henry III and Ireland: the shaping of a peripheral lordship’ in Coss, P.R. and Lloyd, S. D. (eds), Thirteenth-Century England IV (Woodbridge, 1992), p. 194Google Scholar, argues that these grants did not necessarily constitute a policy. For the reaction of the English baronage to this ‘policy’ see Waugh, S. L., ‘Marriage, class and royal lordship in England under Henry III’ in Viator, xvi (1985), pp 202-7.Google Scholar
4 Theiner, Augustine (ed.), Vetera monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum (Rome, 1864), p. 151.Google Scholar
5 Frame, ‘Henry III & Ireland’, p. 201.
6 Ibid., p. 194.
7 See Prestwich, M. C., Edward I (Berkeley, Calif., 1988), p. 108.Google Scholar
8 For an indication of this see P.R.O., SC 1/12/163, 1/16/171. These letters are discussed in Howell, Margaret, Eleanor of Provence: queenship in thirteenth-century England (Oxford, 1998), pp 297-8.Google Scholar
9 Frame, Robin, Colonial Ireland, 1169-1369 (Dublin, 1981), p. 65Google Scholar, discusses the importance of the presence in Ireland of men such as de Geneville ‘whom … [Edward] knew, and could usually trust’.
10 Cox, E.L., The eagles of Savoy: the house of Savoy in thirteenth-century Europe (Princeton, N.J., 1974), pp 47,49.Google Scholar
11 Ridgeway, H. W., ‘The politics of the English royal court, 1247-65, with special reference to the role of the aliens’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of Oxford, 1984), pp 29–30.Google Scholar
12 Ibid., pp 73-4; Cal. close rolls, 1242-7, p. 540; Cal. liberate rolls, 1226-72, p. 144.
13 Cal. close rolls, 1251-3, p. 240.
14 Watson, G. W., ‘The families of Lacy, Geneva, Joinville and La Marche’ in The Genealogist, xxii (1905), p. 4Google Scholar; Cox, Eagles of Savoy, p. 235.
15 Evergates, Theodore, Feudal society in medieval France: documents from the county of Champagne (Philadelphia, 1993), pp 58-60.Google Scholar
16 Ridgeway, ‘Politics’, pp 175,356.
17 Ingamells, R. I., ‘The household knights of Edward I’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols, University of Durham, 1992), i, 65-6.Google Scholar
18 Ridgeway, ‘Politics’, p. 218.
19 Prestwich, Edward I, pp 74, 81-2.
20 See Bartlett, Making of Europe, pp 24-5, for Joinville precedents of self-improvement by secular means.
21 Chartularies of St Mary’s Abbey, Dublin …, ed. Gilbert, J. T. (2 vols, London, 1884), ii, 317Google Scholar; Annales de Monte Fernandi (Annals of Multyfarnham), ed. Smith, Aquilla (Dublin, 1842), p. 16Google Scholar; Ann. Conn., p. 161; see also P.R.O., SC 1/29/100.
22 Geoffrey may have left Acre before Edward and rejoined him later in Savoy, since he was summoned to do military service by Philip III of France against the count of Foix as a miles bannerii of the count of Champagne in early 1272. This would explain why Geoffrey was not among those who witnessed either Edward’s will drawn up in Acre in September 1272 or Count Philip of Savoy’s act of homage to Edward on 25 June 1273 (Clifford, E. R., A knight of great renown: the life and times of Othon de Grandson (Chicago, 1961), pp 30–31Google Scholar; Sutton, R. J., Robert de Ufford: tige des seigneurs de Poswick á la croix engrelée (Olne, 1968), p. 44Google Scholar; Prestwich, Edward I, pp 78, 84; Longnon, A. H. (ed.), Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie, 1172-1361 (3 vols, Paris, 1901-4), i, 438).Google Scholar
23 In particular, his capability as a military commander has been questioned (see Lydon, J. F., ‘Land of war’ in Art Cosgrove (ed.), A new history of Ireland, ii: Medieval Ireland, 1169-1534 (Oxford, 1987), p. 257Google Scholar; O’Halloran, J. N., ‘The lordship of Meath, 1172-1307’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University College Dublin, 1984), p. 161Google Scholar). The view that the Irish were able to outwit the English because of the feudal nature of the latter’s forces has been challenged, for the fourteenth century at least, in Frame, Robin, ‘English officials and Irish chiefs in the fourteenth century’ in E.H.R., xc (1975), p. 758CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the campaigns in Glenmalure see P.R.I. rep. D.K. 36, pp 40-41; Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 317; The Annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn and Thady Dowling, ed. Butler, Richard (Dublin, 1849), p. 9Google Scholar; Orpen, G. H., Ireland under the Normans, 1169-1333 (4 vols, Oxford, 1911-20; repr., Oxford, 1968), iv, 15–18Google Scholar; Lydon, ‘Land of war’, pp 258-9.
24 P.R.O. SC 1/18/13; Sayles, G. O. (ed.), Documents on the affairs of Ireland before the king’s council (Dublin, 1979), p. 14Google Scholar; Frame, Robin, ‘The justiciar and the murder of the MacMurroughs in 1282’ in I.H.S., xviii, no. 70 (Sept. 1972), pp 223-4, 227.Google Scholar
25 For Geoffrey’s activities in Connacht see P.R.O., SC 1/18/8,11,15; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 36, pp 40-41; Ann. Conn., p. 35; Cal. pat. rolls, 1272-81, pp 57, 72, 96; Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A history of medieval Ireland (London, 1968), p. 202Google Scholar; Frame, Robin, ‘The Dublin government and Gaelic Ireland, 1272-1361: the making of war and the making of peace in the Irish lordship’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis,Trinity College Dublin, 1971), p. 98.Google Scholar
26 In August 1275 Geoffrey informed the king that the condition of the lordship had worsened even in the time it took for a messenger to travel to him and back (P.R.O., SC 1/18/16, published in Sayles (ed.), Affairs of Ire., p. 8).
27 This possibility was suggested to me by Emmet O’Byrne (cf.Lydon, J. F., ‘Medieval Wicklow — “a land of war”’ in Hannigan, Ken and Nolan, William (eds), Wicklow: history and society: interdisciplinary essays on the history of an Irish county (Dublin, 1994), p. 161)Google Scholar. There was, at least, conflict stemming from the settlement of 1265 between Geoffrey de Prendergast and Peter de Bermingham (P.R.O., SC 1/18/7-8, published in Sayles (ed.), Affairs of Ire., pp 7-8).
28 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 1020,1160; Cal. pat. rolls, 1272-81, p. 104.
29 P.R.O., SC 1/18/13; Cal pat. rolls, 1272-81, p. 57; Hillaby, Joe, ‘Colonisation, crisis-management and debt: Walter de Lacy and the lordship of Meath, 1189-1241’ in Ríwocht na Midhe, viii, no. 4 (1992-3), pp 2, 26Google Scholar. The treasurer’s accounts between 1273 and 1276 contain few references to goods ‘taken’ or purchases of corn. Geoffrey’s ability to take extensive prises within Trim was probably based on the extensive rights to prises formerly held by Lacy, Walter de (Calendar of the Gormanston register, ed. Mills, James and McEnery, M. J. (Dublin, 1916), pp 13–14)Google Scholar. Some prises were taken outside of Trim during de Geneville’s justiciarship, however (N.A.I.,RC8/l,p.23).
30 P.R.O., SC 1/18/12, published in Sayles (ed.), Affairs of Ire., p. 13.
31 Lydon, J. F., ‘The years of crisis, 1254-1315’ in New hist. Ire., ii, 190-91Google Scholar; Cal. close rolls, 1272-9, p. 102.
32 Phillips, J. R. S., ‘David MacCarwell and the proposal to purchase English law, c. 1273 - c. 1280’ in Peritia, x (1996), pp 263-4, 265.Google Scholar
33 For example, see Cal. pat. rolls, 1272-81, pp 28,57,103-4; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 971, 974,1021,1024-5; Cal. close rolls, 1272-9, p. 102; P.R.O., SC 1/18/12, published in Sayles (ed.), Affairs of Ire., p. 13.
34 P.R.O., SC 1/23/104; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 1484-5; Cal. close rolls, 1272-9, pp 476-7; Cal. pat. rolls, 1272-81, p. 277; Sayles (ed.), Affairs of Ire., p. 13.
35 Otway-Ruthven, Med. Ire., p. 202.
36 Salt, M. C. L., ‘List of English embassies to France, 1272-1307’ in E.H.R., xliv (1929), p. 268CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chaplais, Pierre (ed.), English medieval diplomatic practice (2 vols, London, 1975-82), i, 264-5,328-30.Google Scholar
37 Chaplais (ed.), Eng. medieval diplomatic practice, i, 330-32.
38 Cal. close rolls, 1279-88, p. 53. The other possible reason for Geoffrey’s return was the need to report to the chancery the loss of his seal and other jewels.
39 Cal. pat. rolls, 1272-81, p. 372; Watson, ‘Families’, p. 13.
40 Prestwich, M. C., War, politics and finance under Edward I (London, 1972), pp 85, 251-2.Google Scholar
41 Rothwell, Harry (ed.), English historical documents, 1189-1327 (London, 1975), p. 472.Google Scholar
42 Chronica Monasterii S. Albani: Willelmi Rishanger, quondam monachii S. Albani, et quorundam anonymorum, chronica et annales, regantibus Henrico tertio et Edwardo primo, A.D. 1259-1307, ed. Riley, H. T. (London, 1865), p. 173Google Scholar. Edward initially employed both these men as negotiators between himself and the earls of Norfolk and Hereford (Rothwell (ed.), Eng. hist, docs, p. 478).
43 Prestwich, M. C., ‘Geoffrey de Geneville’ in The dictionary of national biography: missing persons, ed. Nicholls, C. S. (Oxford, 1993), p. 247Google Scholar; Calendar of various chancery rolls … 1277-1326 (London, 1912), pp 213,224.
44 Delaborde, Henri-Francois, ‘Un frére de Joinville au service de l’Angleterre: Geoffroy, sire de Vaucouleurs’ in Bibliothéque Nationale de I’École des Chartes, liv (1893), pp 334-43.Google Scholar
45 O’Halloran, ‘Lordship of Meath’, p. 124.
46 Lloyd, Simon, English society and the crusade, 1216-1307 (Oxford, 1988), p. 125.Google Scholar
41 Cal. close rolls, 1259-61, pp 23-4.
48 Eyton, R. W., Antiquities of Shropshire (12 vols, London, 1857), v, 274.Google Scholar
49 Maddicott, J. R., Simon de Montfort (Cambridge, 1994), p. 220.Google Scholar
50 Powicke, F. M., The thirteenth century, 1216-1307 (Oxford, 1962), p. 201.Google Scholar
51 Frame, Robin, ‘Ireland and the Barons’ War’ in Coss, P. R. and Lloyd, S. D. (eds), Thirteenth-Century England I (Woodbridge, 1985), p. 163Google Scholar; Lydon, ‘Years of crisis’, p. 183.
52 Prestwich, Edward I, p. 52.
53 Frame, ‘Barons’ War’, p. 163; Gilbert, J.T. (ed.), Historic and municipal documents of Ireland, 1172-1320 (London, 1870), pp 141-3Google Scholar. For the importance of the escheator see Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The administration of Ireland, 1172-1377 (Dublin, 1963), p. 27.Google Scholar
54 Richardson & Sayles, Admin. Ire., p. 79.
55 Geoffrey’s loyalty to Edward was evident to Montfort from September 1264 (Cal. close rolls, 1261-4, pp 359-61).
56 Frame, ‘Barons’ War’, pp 162-3; Howell, Eleanor of Provence, p. 224.
57 Lloyd, Eng. society & the crusade, pp 155-9.
58 Cogan, Anthony, The diocese of Meath ancient and modern (3 vols, Dublin, 1862-70), i, 305Google Scholar; Costello, Con, ‘Ireland and the crusades’ in Ir. Sword, ix (1970), p. 271.Google Scholar
59 Henri-Frangois Delaborde, Jean de Joinville et les seigneurs de Joinville, suivi d’un catalogue de leur actes (Paris, 1894), pp 342,350-51.Google Scholar
60 Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, v, 277-8. The association with Aconbury continued with Geoffrey’s daughter Catherine becoming prioress and the entrance of Peter de Geneville’s two younger daughters, Beatrice and Maud, into the foundation as nuns to ensure the integrity of the de Lacy inheritance (Delaborde, Joinville, pp 226-7). At some time between 1292 and 1302 Geoffrey requested of Edward I that Catherine, the prioress of Aconbury, be excused payment of a tax levied at a tenth of the value of moveable goods (P.R.O., SC 1/26/197).
61 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, nos 137,217,407-8,1142,1151; ibid., 1293-1301, no. 849; ibid., 1302-7, no. 46; Richardson & Sayles, Admin. Ire., p. 14; idem, Ir. pad. in middle ages, p. 27; Cal. pat. rolls, 1301-7, p. 21; Cal. close rolls, 1296-1302, pp 518, 576-7; Calendar of chancery warrants … 1244-1326 (London, 1927), p. 160.
62 Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1305-7, p. 73.
63 Cal. pat, rolls, 1292-1301, p. 589.
64 Hand, G. J., English law in Ireland, 1290-1324 (Cambridge, 1967), pp 126-8.Google Scholar
65 The rights of Jean, seigneur de Joinville, probably included the right of peage, tonlieu or market as well as those of justice (Evergates, Theodore, ‘The aristocracy of Champagne in the mid-thirteenth century: a quantitative description’ in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, v (1974-5), p. 13).Google Scholar
66 Evergates, Feudal society, pp xxvi-xxvii, 82,95. In contrast, neither Joinville nor Vaucouleurs seem to have been subject to the jurisdiction of the count of Champagne in 1249-50, since the rolls compiled during the ‘Great Feudal Inquest’ of these years contain no information on the Joinville family. These rolls are published as Longnon, Auguste (ed.), Rôles des fiefs du comte du Champagne sous la regne de Thibaud de Chansonnier (1249-1252) (Paris, 1877)Google Scholar. The Joinvilles would have counted among the ‘great families’ in the upper tier of Champagnois society (Evergates, ‘Aristocracy of Champagne’, pp 17-18).
67 Watson, ‘Families’, p. 13.
68 R. R. Davies, ‘The law of the March’ in Welsh Hist. Rev.,w (1970-71), p. 12.
69 Wightman, W. E., The Lacy family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194 (Oxford, 1966), pp 117,120,140.Google Scholar
70 Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘The partition of the de Verdon lands in 1332’ in R.I.A. Proc, lxvi (1968), sect. C, p. 417Google Scholar; eadem, Med. Ire., pp 185-6; eadem, ‘The constitutional position of the great lordships of south Wales’ in R. Hist. Soc. Trans., 5th ser., viii (1957), pp 1,6; O’Halloran, ‘Lordship of Meath’, p. 202.
71 Hand, Eng. law in Ire., p. 11.
72 Hagger, Mark, ‘The de Verdun family in England, Ireland and Wales, 1066-1316: a study’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of St Andrews, 1998), p. 209.Google Scholar
73 Davies, J. C. (ed.), The Welsh assize roll, 1277-84 (Cardiff, 1940), pp 88-9,182-3Google Scholar. The details of this plea are unknown because on no occasion did the parties appear on the day given.
74 Davies, R. R., Lordship and society in the March of Wales, 1282-1400 (Oxford, 1978), pp 252-3.Google Scholar
75 Rot. part., i, 71b.
76 P.R.O., SC 1/19/93,97.
77 Hand, Eng. law in Ire., p. 125; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, nos 1645,1666; ibid., 1285-92, no 525; Cal. close rolls, 1279-88, p. 287; Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1305-7, pp 72-4; Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘Anglo-Irish shire government in the thirteenth century’ in I.H.S., v, no. 17 (Mar. 1946), pp 21-2Google Scholar. The temporary loss of the liberty of Trim over the case involving Nicholas Bacun was at the instance of the king for contempt and indicated Edward’s commitment to royalist policies even against his personal friends (O’Halloran, ‘Lordship of Meath’, pp 170-71; Clanchy, M. T., ‘The franchise of the return of writs’ in R. Hist. Soc. Trans., 5th ser., xvii (1966), p. 72).Google Scholar
78 Cal. close rolls, 1296-1302, pp 443-4, 564; Hand, Eng. law in Ire., pp 126-7; Frame, Robin, The political development of the British Isles (Oxford, 1995), pp 147-8Google Scholar; Cal. pat. rolls, 1292-1301, p. 589.
79 Calendar of inquisitions post mortem (20 vols, London, 1904-95), iii, 35-6; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, v, 279.
80 Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, v, 51,121-2; Cal. inq. post mort., ii, 20, 335; iv, 151-2; vi, 209; Inquisitions and assessments relating to feudal aids and other analogous documents, 1284-1431 (6 vols, London, 1900-8), ii, 242, 284, 376; iv, 154, 215; v,l.
81 Wightman, Lacy family, p. 210.
82 Sanders, I. J. (ed.), English baronies: a study of their origin and descent, 1086-1327 (Oxford, 1960), p. 96.Google Scholar
83 Hagger, ‘De Verdun family’, p. 78. The de Verdons held about thirty-seven knights’ fees in this area, however.
84 Cal. Gormanston reg., pp 10-13.
85 Otway-Ruthven, A. J., ‘Knight service in Ireland’ in R.S.A.I. Jn., lxxxix (1959), pp 1, 9.Google Scholar
86 Down, Kevin, ‘Colonial society and economy in the high middle ages’ in New hist. Ire., ii, 443Google Scholar; Cal. Gormanston reg., pp 10-13. The knights’ fees in the more settled part of Trim amounted to some 960 carucates (or ploughlands) and 40 acres. The fees on the western border of the liberty amounted to 443 carucates.
87 Down, ‘Colonial society & economy’, pp 453, 459, 485.
88 Hillaby, ‘Walter de Lacy & the lordship of Meath’, p. 42.
89 Graham, B. J., ‘Anglo-Norman settlement in County Meath’ in R.I.A. Proc, lxxv (1975), sect. C, p. 231.Google Scholar
90 Frame, Robin, ‘Power and society in Ireland, 1272-1377’ in Past & Present, no. 76 (Aug. 1977), p. 16Google Scholar; Connolly, Philomena, ‘Irish material in the class of ancient petitions (S.C. 8) in the Public Record Office, London’ in Anal. Hib, no. 34 (1987), p. 54Google Scholar; Frame, Robin, English lordship in Ireland, 1318-61 (Oxford, 1982), p. 65.Google Scholar
91 Hagger, ‘De Verdun family, pp 137-9.
92 Bartlett, Robert, ‘Colonial aristocracies of the high middle ages’ in Bartlett, Robert and Mackay, Angus (eds), Medieval frontier societies (Oxford, 1989), p. 32.Google Scholar
93 Wightman, Lacy family, pp 123,133-5,137.
94 Parisse, Michel, ‘La noblesse Lorraine XIe-XIIIes’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Universite de Nancy, 2 vols, 1975), ii, 138, 482, 775Google Scholar; Evergates, Feudal society, pp xix-xx.
95 In contrast, eastern Champagne had suffered ‘German’ invasion in the 1240s (Delaborde, Joinville, p. 74), and Ludlow had suffered some damage on account of Edward I’s Welsh wars (Rees, William (ed.), Calendar of ancient petitions relating to Wales (Cardiff, 1975), p. 524).Google Scholar
96 Frame, Colonial Ire., p. 26; Cat doc. Ire., 1285-92, nos 559,591; ibid., 1293-1301, nos 328, 333, 346, 392; Ann. Conn., pp 125,139,143,151,159. The de Verdon family was also forced to pay more attention to its lands bordering Connacht from the 1280s onwards (Hagger, ‘De Verdun family’, pp 97-100).
97 Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement in County Meath’, p. 233.
98 O’Halloran, ‘Lordship of Meath’, p. 163.
99 Cal. Gormanston reg., pp 9-10,13-14; Frame, ‘Power & society in Ireland’, pp 15-16.
100 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 560; Ann. Conn., pp 159, 165, 183, 219; Theiner, Vetera mon., p. 151. Joan FitzLeones had undertaken to marry according to the will of Geoffrey and Matilda in return for their help in recovering her inheritance against Geoffrey FitzLeones in 1288 (Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 453).
101 Smith, Brendan, Colonisation and conquest in medieval Ireland: the English in Louth, 1170-1330 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 93.Google Scholar
102 Theiner, Vetera mon., p. 151.
103 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1389; Orpen, Normans, iv, 17.
104 Cal. Gormanston reg., pp 5-6.
105 Register of the priory of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Tristernagh, ed. Clarke, M. V. (Dublin, 1941), pp ii, 81.Google Scholar
106 Frame, ‘Power & society in Ireland’, p. 7; Cal. Gormanston reg., p. 10.
107 Delaborde, Joinville, p. 387.
108 P.R.O., SC 1/5/88.
109 Connolly, ‘Irish material in the class of ancient petitions’, p. 86.
110 Cal. Gormanston reg., pp 13-14.
111 Ibid., p. 10.
112 Reg. Tristernagh, pp xix, 32-3. Otway-Ruthven argued that the sheriff in question was a royal one, but she seems to be mistaken in this (see Otway-Ruthven, ‘Anglo-Irish shire government’, p. 17; Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 525).
113 Smith, English in Louth, pp 122-3. The de Verdon family were known as harsh lords in their lordship of Ewyas Lacy (Hagger, ‘De Verdun family’, p. 79).
114 Wightman, Lacy family, pp 209-10; Bartlett, ‘Colonial aristocracies’, p. 39.
115 Clifford, Knight of great renown, p. 216.
116 Ibid., pp 68, 175, 177, 248-9, 259-60.
117 Prestwich, War, politics & finance, pp 283-4.
118 Altschul, Michael, A baronial family in medieval England: the Clares, 1217-1314 (Baltimore, 1965), pp 190-93.Google Scholar
119 Phillips, ‘Anglo-Norman nobility’, p. 98.
120 Jean de Joinville classed his brother among the ‘wealthy men [who] sponsored banquets’ prior to his departure on crusade (Evergates, Feudal society, pp 112-13).
121 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285-92, no. 558.
122 For example, see Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1666.
123 A similar situation existed between Theobald Walter and the crown in the 1190s (Frame, Political development, p. 88).
124 It has been suggested that John de Verdon had not been allowed these liberties because the Lord Edward was concerned about his power in Ireland (Hagger, ‘De Verdun family’, p. 273).
125 Smith, Brendan, ‘The concept of the march in medieval Ireland: the case of Uriel’ in R.I.A. Proc., lxxxviii (1988), sect. C, pp 266-7Google Scholar. Uriel was left to the attention of Theobald II’s younger brothers Nicholas and Miles. The justiciarship of Theobald de Verdon in 1314-15 apart, the de Verdons were more important as royal servants in the context of the Welsh March than in Ireland in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries (Hagger, ‘De Verdun family’, pp 101, 111-12).
126 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252-84, no. 1192.
127 I should like to thank Professor Robin Frame for reading and commenting upon this article in draft.
