¹ A review of the literature, particularly as it relates to Cheshire, may be found in my “New Evidence on the Palatinate of Chester,” EHR 85 (1970), 715-29, and in “The Alleged Palatinates of Norman England,” Speculum 56 (1981), 17-27.

² Jean Scammell, “The Origins and Limitations of the Liberty of Durham, “EHR 81 (1966), 451.

³ For example, G. T. Lapsley, The County Palatine of Durham (New York, 1900), passim, and his sources; Scammel, “Durham”, p. 450.

⁴ “The Capetian Apanages and the Nature of the French Kingdom,” Journal of Medieval History 2 (1976), 128.

⁵ Robert S. Hoyt, The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History 1066-1272 (Ithaca, 1950), pp 135-136; M. T. Clanchy, “The Franchise of Return of Writs,” TRHS, ser. 5, vol. 17 (1967), 59.

⁶ Scammell, “Durham,” p. 450.

⁷ D.E.C. Yale (ed.) The Prerogatives of the King, Selden Society, 921 (London, 1976), 210-212.

⁸ Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, (9th ed.; London, 1783), p. 113 ff.

⁹ William S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law (7th ed.; rev. 1956 by A. L. Goodhart et. al.), 1.109.

¹⁰ William Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England tfrd ed.; London, 1880), 1.271, 392.

¹¹ Theodore F. T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (Boston, 1956), p. 99; Sidney Painter, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony, (Baltimore, 1943), p. 114.

¹² History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1:1265-1603 (London, 1953), p. 59; “The Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster,” Trans, of the Hist. Soc. of Lancashire and Cheshire, 103 (1952), p. 59.

¹³ Scammell, “Durham,” p. 450; Helen M. Jewell, English Local Administration in the Middle Ages (Newton Abbot and New York, 1972), pp. 69, 70, 62.

¹⁴ Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of Close Rolls 9 Edward III (London, 1906 [1972]), p. 461. The best summaries of the thirteenth-century rights of the Irish lordships are A.J. Otway-Ruthven, A History of Medieval Ireland (2nd ed.; New York, 1980) pp. 181 ff., and Geoffrey J.P. Hand, English Law in Ireland 1290-1324 (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 113-118. Add to my Welsh references in “New Evidence,” pp. 720-721, the following: Walter E. Rhodes, “Edmund, Earl of Lancaster,” EHR 10 (1895), 19: Edmund had “extensive lands in the marches of Wales, in which he ruled like a little king,” and p. 38: “in his Welsh lands the power which Edmund enjoyed was regal, like that of the lords marchers“; R.R. Davies, “The Law of the March,” Welsh History Review 5 (1970-71), 1-39; idem. Lordship and Society in the March of Wales, 1282-1400 (Oxford, 1978), esp. pp. 3,32, 58, 66-90 (the lord of Glamorgan fuit dominus et quasi rex |1274|, and the Earl of Pembroke in the 1250s claimed totum regale, pp. 98, 151). Ibid., p. 217, notes that “lordship was at its most expansive in the March of Wales. Nowhere indeed did the powers of lordship and of kingship approximate more closely than they did here.” Davies then writes of “lords royal, royal lordship, royal liberties, regal jurisdiction, prerogatives of the lord's sword.” Cf. also pp. 218-29, 250-65, and his “Kings, Lords, and Liberties in the March of Wales, 1066-1172,” TRHS, ser. 5, vol. 29 (1979), 41-61, esp. p. 41, where Davies notes that marcher lords “claimed and exercised a measure of authority unsurpassed elsewhere within the king's dominions. A marcher lord was to enjoy all royal rights, prerogatives and customs belonging to royal lordships, and all royal courts and other jurisdictions.” J. Goronwy Edwards, “The Normans and the Welsh March,” Proceedings of the British Academy, 42 (1956), 155-177. F.M. Ptiwicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947), p. 433, wrote that the lords marcher ruled “their castellated liberties like petty kings.” Sir Matthew Hale, in Prerogatives of the King, p. 210, made a telling point concerning the marches: “much of that which shall be spoken concerning counties palatine is applicable to it, there being in most points but a titular difference between them.” He also (p. 203) found Pembroke “a county palatine by prescription.” References to Pembroke as a palatinate abound in J.R.S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 1307-1324 (Oxford, 1972), pp. 240, 243, 245,’ 247, 248, 251, 252. The earliest reference appears to be H. Owen (ed.), Calendar of Public Records Relating to Pembrokeshire (Cymmrodorian Record Series, 7; London, 1911-18), 1.39; a late source (1290), the document claims that Walter Marshal fl. as earl 1241-1245) “enjoyed absolute rights Itotum regale) within the precincts of his county of Pembroke.” Helen M. Cam, Liberties and Communities in Medieval England (London, 1963) p. 209, calls attention to Edward Ill's grant of 1339 to Lawrence of Hastings “the same prerogative and honour of a comes palatinus in Pembroke that Aymer de Valence had enjoyed.” A. H. Williams, An Introduction to the History of Wales, 2: The Middle Ages, pt. 1, 1063-1284 (Cardiff, n. d.), also denominated Pembroke a palatinate (p. 168): its “Earl exercised within its boundaries all the sovereign rights of the king.” And Michael Altschul notes (“The Lordship of Glamorgan and Morgannwg, 1217-1317,” in T.B. Pugh (ed.) Glamorgan County History, 3: The Middle Ages |Cardiff, 1971|, esp. pp. 67-72, “The Regal Jurisdiction of the Marcher Lord of Glamorgan and Morgannwg,“) that the de Clares “enjoyed almost complete administrative and judicial independence of the crown, (p. 67),” further that “in the government of their marcher lordship of Glamorgan, the de Clares enjoyed a position of virtual independence of royal control, regal jurisdiction (p. 72).” Naomi Hurnard, “The Anglo-Norman Franchises,” EHR 64 (1949), 314, reminds us that “marcher lordships themselves were not, properly speaking, franchises, as their jurisdiction was not based on royal grant.”

¹⁵ cf. Hale, Prerogatives, 218.

¹⁶ Alexander, “New Evidence,” and “Alleged Palatinates,” Geoffrey Barraclough, The Earldom and County Palatine of Chester (Oxford, 1953).

¹⁷ Henry Hawes Harrod (ed.), “A Defense of the Liberties of Chester, 1450,” Journal of the Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Society of J. Chester and North Wales, NS 8 (1902), 28-29.

¹⁸ Brian Harris “Ranulf III, Earl of Chester,” Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, 58 (1975), p. 110.

¹⁹ Barraclough, Earldom, p. 18. For these regalities, see ibid., pp. 18 ff.; Harris, “Ranulf,” p. 110 ff.; idem, “Administrative History,: Victoria County History of Cheshire, 2 (ex draft typescript generously provided me by Dr. Harris); Alexander, “New Evidence”, passim, and sources therein cited. To the material in that article should be added the following note to the accepted view that Chester had its own register of writs, given by Ranulf III (pp. 722-23,176). Elsa de Haas and G.D.G. Hall (eds.), Early Registers of Writs ISelden Society, 871 (London, 1970), pp. xcii-xciii, state that PRO, Palatinate of Chester 38/13, is probably not the register of writs given by Ranulf. “It does seem clear that this is not a Register specially made for use in Chester,” although “it was made for a man with Chester interests. It is in no sense an official Register, and only by minor emendation is it in any sense a Chester register.” Of course, this does not disprove the traditional attribution of a register of writs to Ranulf; it simply shows that if he did indeed grant a register to his county, this one is not it.

²⁰ S.B. Chrimes, introductory essay to Holdsworth. History of English Law,’ 22; Jewell, English Local Administration in the Middle Ages, p. 72; cf. R. Stewart-Brown, “The Exchequer of Chester”, EHR 57 (1942), 289. Annals of'Dieulacres, p. 26, claims that the king seized Cheshire in 1237 because regali gaudebal prerogative, but this is a suspect source, since it was compiled in the fourteenth century.

²¹ Barraclough, Earldom, p. 28.

²² John Horace Round, Peerage and Pedigree 1 (London, 1910), pp. 132-134; Ronald Stewart-Brown, “The End of the Norman Earldom of Chester,” EHR 35 (1920), 39 ff. Ralph V. Turner may have erred in thinking that perhaps the apparent difficulty in deciding the descent of the earldom was because Chester was “a palatinate rather than an ordinary lordship”: The King and His Courts [Ithaca, 1968], p. 176.

²³ “Administrative History.“

²⁴ “Norman Earldom,” p. 150.

²⁵ Gaillard T. Lapsley, Crown, Community, and Parliament, (eds. Helen Cam and Geoffrey Barraclough) (Oxford, 1951), p. i00.

²⁶ J.R. Studd, “The Lord Edward and King Henry III,” BIHR 50 (1977), 17; idem, “The Lord Edward's Lordship of Chester, 1254-72,” Transactions of the Hist. Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, v. 128 (1978), 1-25. See also Anne E. Curry, “Cheshire and the Royal Demesne, 1399-1422,” ibid., pp. 113-138. For parallel developments in the thirteenth-century Welsh Marcher lordships, see R.R. Davies, “Kings, Lords, and Liberties in the March of Wales, 1066-1272,” TRHS, ser. 5, vol. 29 (1979), esp. 53-61.

²⁷ Alexander, “New Evidence,” esp. pp. 727-29; Record Commission, Plaeita de Quo Warranto (London, 1818), p. 714.

²⁸ Gaines Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought (Princeton. 1964), p. 280; See also Scammell, “Durham,” p. 456.

²⁹ Barraclough, “Earldom,” p. 28.

³⁰ Warren Ault, Private Jurisdiction in England (New Haven, 1923), p. 246; Herbert J. Hewitt, Cheshire Under the Three Edwards (Chester, 1967), pp. 3, 11.

³¹ Lapsley, Durham, throughout; Geoffrey V. Scammell. Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham (Cambridge, 1956), C.V., “The Liberty of Durham”; J. Scammell, “Durham,” pp. 452-63.

³² Frank Barlow, The English Church 1066-1154 (London and New York, 1979). p. 166.

³³ “Durham” p. 468. Cf. Holdsworth, English Law 1.110: Hugh du Puiset adopted the legal innovations of Henry II. “In Durham the palatinate jurisdiction became more definite and exclusive by borrowing the new ideas and procedure. It came to be a jurisdiction which differed not merely in degree but also in kind from the jurisdiction possessed by the ordinary holders of franchises.

³⁴ Hugh du Puiset, pp. 188, 191; Richard's Sadberge charter is in James Raine (ed.), Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres |Surtees Society, 91 (London 1839), app. xl (1189). The charter grants rights in general rather than in specific terms, a practice which became problematical in the view of the lawyers of Edward I: the grant is cum omnibus rebus ad ea pertinentibus, et cum placitis ad coronam pertinentibus, sicut nos ipsi in propria manu nostra habebamus, et sicut ipse episcopatus habet et tenet alias terras suas et feoda militum in Episcopatu suo … Ibid., xlii, a royal grant conveying rights in Northumberland, is couched in general terms as well: omnibus libertatibus et liberis conseutudmibus et placitis et querelis, et omnibus aliis rebus ad coronam nos/ram pertinentibus.

³⁵ Puiset, 191.

³⁶ Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense (Rolls Series; 4 vols., London, 1873-38) 3.x; Record Commission, Rotuli chartarum (London, 1837). I1.37.

³⁷ “Durham,” p. 460.

³⁸ William Greenwell (ed.), Feodarium prioratus Dunelmensis ISurtees Society, 58] (London 1872,) w.lxxxvii-lxxxviii. Greenwell noted that “it is true indeed that many of the gigantic palatine claims asserted, and to some extent maintained, by later Bishops, had not at the time of Bishop |Marsh| even been heard of; nevertheless the Bishop of Durham was then possessor of privileges which, in ordinary cases of tenure, belonged only to the Crown (pp. vii-viii).”

³⁹ “Two Thirteenth-Century Assize Rolls for the County of Durham,” Miscellanea ISurtees Society, 1271 (London 1916), p. ix.

⁴⁰ F.M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1953), p. 494.

⁴¹ Registrant Palatinum Dunelmense 1.lxxviii.

⁴² Records of Antony Bek, Bishop and Patriarch, 1283-1311 [Surtees Society, 162] (London, 1953), p. vii.

⁴³ “Prerogative and the Bishops of Durham, 1267-1376,” English Historical Review 74 (1959), p. 472; see also Records of Antony Bek, pp. 80-99.

⁴⁴ Durham, p. 76.

⁴⁵ Great Britain, Public Record office, Calendar of Patent Rolls 1266-72 (London, 1913), p. 63; cf. the rather inflated description of this document in Hardy, Regisatrum 1.lxxxvi.

⁴⁶ Robert Surtees, The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, with a new introduction by Professor E. Birley (East Ardley, 1972) l.xxxiv.

⁴⁷ Fraser, Records of Antony Bek Great Britain, pp. 95, 98; Record Commission, Placita de Quo Warranto (London, 1818), pp. 604-605; Fraser, “Prerogative,” p. 475; Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar of Close Rolls 1288-1296, p. 332; Hardy, Registrum 3.xv; R.K. Richardson, “The Bishopric of Durham Under Antony Bek, 1283-1311,” Archaeologia Aeliana, ser. c, 9 (1913) p. 119; William Page (ed.), The Victoria History of the County of Durham, 2 (1907) 153. Fraser, Records of Antony Bek, p. 40, states that the bishops “from time immemorial had all regalian rights and liberties within their franchises of Durham and its members.” 48 “W.O. Ault, Private Jurisdiction in England (New Haven, 1923), p. 116.

⁴⁹ Durham was a “regalian franchise,” Constance M. Fraser, “Edward I of England and the Regalian Franchise of Durham,” Speculum 31 (1956), 336.

⁵⁰ Fraser, “Edward I and Durham p. 337; Fraser, Records of Antony Bek, pp. 85-86. Richardson, “Durham Under Antony Bek,” ex.

⁵¹ Eraser, “Edward I and Durham,” p. 333; Fraser, Records of Antony Bek, p. 96.

⁵² Frasaer, Records of Antony Bek, p. 98. Hardy, Registrum 3.61-67; Lapsley, Durham, pp. 130 ff.; Cal. of Close Rolls 1302-1307, Pp. 100-103; Eraser, Records of Antony Bek, pp. 92-3; Cal. of Patent Rolls 1307-13, pp. 2, 75; Great Britain, Record Commission, Feodera 2'.5, 47; Hale, Prerogatives of the King, pp. 203-8; Helen M. Cam. The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls i London, 1930), p. 219; idem,Libertiesa and Communities in Medieval England p. 184. The quotation following is from Eraser, Records of Antony Bek, pp. 92-93.

⁵³ Durham, p. 75.

⁵⁴ Cal. of Charter Rolls 1341-1417, p. 291; Cal. of Clone Rolls 1302-1307, p. 500; Cal. of Patent Rolls 1301-1307, p. 149; Hardy, Registrum, 3.xviii, xxxiv.

⁵⁵ Robert C. Somerville, “The Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster,” Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 103 (1952), 40, 59; the royal grant may be consulted, inter alia, in William Hardy, (ed.) Charters of the Duchy of Lancaster (London, 1845), iii, pp. 9-11; William Farrer (ed.), Lancashire Inquests, Extents, and Feudal Aids, 3 (1313-1355). ccxliii; Cal. of Patent Rolls 1350-1354(1907), p. 60; John Brownbill (ed.), The CoucherBook ofFurness Abbey, 2'IChethamSociety, NS 74] (London 1915), 10, John Parker(ed.),PleaRolhofihe County Palatine of Lancaster IChetham Soc, NS 87 I (London, 1928) vii. For Duke Henry, see the definitive biography of him by Kenneth Fowler, The King's Lieutenant, Henry de Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster, 1310-1361 (New York, 1969) a splendid book which stands as a rebuke and as a refutation to those who claim that a meaningful biography of a medieval person is not possible. May McKisack, The Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1959), p. 254, represents scholarly opinion on Henry's new status: “the title I of duke I was purely honorary and carried with it no specific rights or privileges: but the grant of the palatinate allowed I Henry I virtually royal powers within the county of Lancaster.“

⁵⁶ Cf. William Farrer and John Brownbill, eds; v. 2 (1908), 205. S. Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt (London, 1904).

⁵⁷ English Administration, p. 74.

⁵⁸ A. Cantle (ed). The Pleas of Quo Warranto for the County of Lancaster [Chetham Soc, NS 981 (London, 1937), p. 38. Hardy, Lancaster Charters, pp. 1-5, 6-8; Robert C. Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1265 -1603 (London, 1953) pp. 40-62; Ault, Jurisdiction, p. 269. Sydney Armitage-Smith, John of Count's Register (Camden, Ser. 3, 20; 1911), p. xxx.

⁵⁹ Hardy, Lancaster Charters, vi (pp. 17-18).

⁶⁰ Hardy, ibid, iv (pp. 12-13). Cal. Charter Rolls 1341-1417, pp. 172-3; Matthew Gregson led.) Portfolio of Fragments Relating to the History and Antiquities, Topography and Genealogies of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster (ed. 3, by John Harland; Manchester, 1869), p. 354.

⁶¹ Seriatim, the citations, separated by the period, are as follows. J. Scammell, “Durham”, p. 450: “The term ‘palatinate’ had no specific meaning in England as late as 1377, when John of Gaunt, created earl (sic; read Duke) palatine of Lancaster, had almost immediately to seek clarification of his rights.” Cal. of Patent Rolls 1374-77, p. 433; Hardy, Lancaster Charters, ix tpp. 32-34); Gregson, Fragments, p. 353; G. H. Tupling, “The Royal and Seignorial Bailiffs of Lancashire in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries” (Chetham Miscellanies, NS 8 (Chetham Soc, NS 1091 (London, 1945), p. 9 Cal. of Patent Rolls 1377-81, p. 284; Hardy, Lancaster Charters, xiii (pp. 62-64); John Parker (ed.), Plea Rolls of the County Palatine of Lancaster |Chetham Soc, NS 87| (London 1928), p. 48.

⁶² Somerville, “Duchy” p. 60.

⁶³ Scammell, “Durham,” p. 451.

⁶⁴ K.B. McFarlane, “Had Edward I a ‘Policy’ Towards the Earls?”, pp. 248-267 in The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973); M.T. Clanchy, “Did Henry III Have a Policy?”, History 53 (1968), 203-16.

⁶⁵ See, for example, Hoyt, The Royal Demesne, pp. 133-136; Clanchy, “The Franchise of Return of Writs” p. 59; N. Denholm-Young, Seignorial Administration in England (New York, 1964), p. 2.

⁶⁶ Durham, p. 1.

⁶⁷ See, for example, the insight brought to bear upon the career of Richard I by stressing his Aquitainian, rather than his English, role by John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart (New York, 1978). Another work illuminated by comparative history is the spendid short study by Bryce Lyon, “What Made a Medieval King Constitutional?”, pp. 157-175 in T.A. Sandquist and M. R. Powicke (eds.), Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson (Toronto, 1969).

⁶⁸ This statute may be most conveniently consulted in William Stubbs (ed.), Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History (ed. 9, by H.W.C. Davis; Oxford, 1957), pp. 449-50, and (in translation) in Harry Rothwell (ed.), English Historical Documents 1189-1327 (London, 1975), pp. 414-19.

⁶⁹ Clanchy, “Henry III,” pp. 215, alleges the proceedings to have begun before 1258, Sir Maurice Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947), pp. 111-12; cf. pp. 326 ff.

⁷⁰ Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 408; Rothwell, English Historical Documents, p. 382; and see Peter Riesenberg, Inalienability of Sovereignty in Medieval Political Thought (Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences, 591; New York, 1957) p. 164.

⁷¹ Hale, Prerogatives, p. 204.

⁷² Gaines Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought (Princeton, 1964), p. 280.

⁷³ Helen Cam, “The Evolution of the Medieval English Franchise,” Speculum 32 (1957), 438.

⁷⁴ Quo warranto Proceedings in the Reign of Edward I, 1278-1294 (Oxford, 1963), pp. 179, 182. This superb study makes it unnecessary for me to discuss the quo warrantos in depth here.

⁷⁵ Studies, C. IX; Ralph V. Turner, “Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton”, Journal of British Studies 15 (1975), 25; Ernst Kantorowicz, “Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation Oaths in the Thirteenth Century,” Speculum 29 (1954), 488-89. Turner, “Roman Law,” throughout, is the most convenient introduction to the topic; he shows that the influence of Roman law was as yet not significant among the king's justices. Professor Riesenberg also alluded in his pioneering study to the introduction into England in John's time of a “general theory of inalienability composed of Roman and canonical elements.” Riesenberg, Inalienability, p. 100.

⁷⁶ Clanchy, “Henry III,” pp. 208, 215 (“Henry III deliberately looked beyond England both for men and ideas.”)

⁷⁷ See Riesenberg, Inalienability, p.40.

⁷⁸ Kantorowicz, “Inalienability,” pp. 488-89.

⁷⁹ Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957), p. 166; ff. also stresses the importance of the reforms of Henry II in familiarizing governmental officials and the polity with the concept and practice of inalienability.

⁸⁰ Hoyt, Royal Demesne, pp. 146-57, 162-63.

⁸¹ Cam, “Franchise,” pp. 440-42, is succinct on Bracton's position and on the distinction between feudal and franchisal justice.

⁸² Henry Bracton, De legibus et conseutudinibus Angliae, v. 2 (ed. George E. Woodbine, rev. Samuel E. Thorne; Cambridge, 1968). 346. Thome (Ibid., n. 5), points out the same notation in the margin of case 1273, Braeton's Note Book (London, 1887). See further, on Bracton's high royalism and on his influence on Henry III's policy, Clanchy, “Henry III,” pp. 208-10.

⁸³ Quo warranto, pp. 3, 102. Louther, incidentally argued the royal quo warranto case against the Abbot of Dieulacres discussed in my “New Evidence.”

⁸⁴ See also Riesenberg,Inalienability, p. 4 (alluding to a legal fiction fromFleta), 6; Cam, “Franchise,” pp. 440-41.

⁸⁵ Published by the Record Commission: Rotuli hundredorum (London, 1812); on these matters, the fundamental work remains Helen Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls (London, 1930). Post, Studies, c.viii, is excellent on the matter of resumption of royal rights and dignities.

⁸⁶ Sutherland, Quo warranto, pp. 115-18. (For example, “all liberties and free customs” unless they were enumerated).

⁸⁷ Sutherland, Quo warranto, pp. 6, 12.

⁸⁸ For a discussion of this principle and its ramifications, Kantorowicz, King's Two Bodies, pp. 168-70. Its applicability to the quo warranto proceedings is lucidly and learnedly set forth by Sutherland, Quo warranto, c. iv.

⁸⁹ Michael Prestwich, War, Politics and finance Under Edward I (London, 1972), p. 227.

⁹⁰ Joseph R. Strayer, The Reign of Philip the Fair (Princeton, 19801, p 352.

⁹¹ Clanchy, “Return of Writs,” p. 66.

⁹² Barbara English, The Lords Road ofHolderness, 1086-1260: A Study m Feudal Society (Oxford, 1979), p. 121.

⁹³ Edward the First (London, 1906), p. 124.

⁹⁴ Strayer, Philip the Fair, p. 243.

⁹⁵ Kantorowicz, King's Two Bodies, pp. 347-58.

⁹⁶ Record Commission, Statutes of the Realm 1 (1810), p. 31 (c. 17); translation in Rothwell, English Historical Documents, pp. 401-02.

⁹⁷ Statutes of the Realm 1, 136-41; Rothwell, ibid., pp. 496-501. Cf. the 1275 Grant of Custom on Wool (Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 443-44; Rothwell, English HistoricalDocuments, p. 410), which similarly was to be imposed within liberties as well as without.

⁹⁸ Somerville, Lancaster, p. 41; Lapsley, Durham, p. 11; Alan Harding, The Law Courts of Medieval England (New York, 1973). Alexander, “New Evidence,” pp. 721 ff.

⁹⁹ Fritz Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages, tr. and introduction by S. B. Chrimes (Oxford, 1956). p. 124; Kern finds this function in England, but his references do not support his point.

¹⁰⁰ On Edmund, see Walter E. Rhodes, “Edmund, Earl of Lancaster,” EHR 10 (1895), 19-40, 209-37. J. Scammell, “Origin,” p. 451, also noted a possible connection here, but did not pursue the matter.

¹⁰¹ Jean Longnon, “La Champagne,” in Ferdinand Lot and Robert Fawtier, Histoires des Institutions francaises ait Moven Age, 1; Institutions seigneuriales (Paris, 1957), 127.

¹⁰² For the title, see Michel Bur, La Formation du Comte de Champagne, v. 950-v. 1150 (Publications de l'Université de Nancy, 2; Nancy, 1977), pp. 113, 463, 465, 184, 191 (all eleventh century).

¹⁰³ Bur, Champagne, pp. 460-61; Bur, “La Champagne feodale.” in Maurice Crubellier, Histoire de la Champagne (Toulouse, 1975), p. 131.

¹⁰⁴ Longnon, “Champagne,” p. 128; pp. 128-34 lists these rights, many of which are inapplicable to late-thirteenth century England, owing to differences both of time and of geography.

¹⁰⁵ Champagne, p. 463.

¹⁰⁶ Longnon, “Champagne”, p. 128.

¹⁰⁷ Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade (Princeton. 1979), p. 39; Jordan did not elaborate upon the analogy, since it was not germane to his work.

¹⁰⁸ Elizabeth Hallam, Capetion France 987-1328 (London and New York, 1980), p. 300.

¹⁰⁹ Charles T. Wood, The French Apanages and the Capelian Monarchy, 12-44-1328 (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 82, 84.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 116-17, 131.

¹¹¹ Barthelémy-Amedée du Haut-Jussé, “A Political Concept of Louis XI: Subjection Instead of Vassalage,” pp. 196-215 in P.S. Lewis (ed.), The Recovery of France in the Fifteenth Century (New York, 1972).