Two Treaties of Messina 1190–1191: Crusading Diplomacy of Richard I
Abstract
In the summer of 1190, King Richard I together with King Philip II of France departed on a crusade,which was the reaction to the battle of Hattin and subsequent capture of Jerusalem by Muslimforces. In September 1190, both kings appeared in the Sicilian city of Messina where they wereforced to spend winter. Sicily was under the rule of Tancred of Lecce, who seized the throne afterthe death of King William II of Sicily whose wife was Joanna, sister of King Richard. Tancred heldher in his custody and deprived her of her dowry and other possession. This was one of the reasonswhy Richard I soon fell into conflict with Tancred. He was also at odds with the hostile citizens ofMessina who attacked his forces and caused him many troubles. Open war with Tancred’s peoplewas interrupted only after the conclusion of the peace treaty on 6 October 1190. Tancred gave Richard20,000 ounces of gold as compensation of his sister’s dowry and the marriage was agreed uponbetween one of Tancred’s daughter and Richard’s nephew Arthur, duke of Brittany, whom Richardnamed his heir. Growing tension between Richard and Philip came to a head when Philip accusedRichard of violation of the treaty with Tancred. When Philip’s gossip was disproven by Richard himself,Philip was also forced to make a treaty with Richard. The main aim of this treaty was to releaseRichard from his oath to marry Philip’s sister, Alice since he was awaiting a new bride Berengaria ofNavarre. This treaty was concluded in March 1191. While the first treaty had an impact on events inEngland, the second freed Richard’s hands regarding his marriage diplomacy.
Full text
Two Treaties of Messina 1190–1191: Crusading Diplomacy of Richard I Jan Malý On 4 July 1187, the Christian army was dispersed by the Saracens in the battle of Hattin, which was then followed by the capture of Jerusalem, the Holy City in October of that year. This momentous event made apretext for anew crusade. Among those who took the Cross and promised to regain Jerusalem was King Henry II of England, his son and heir presumptive Richard of Poitou and King Philip II of France. Richard was the first of them to take the Cross since he had done it in November 1187.1 His father together with the king of France did the same during ameeting in Gisors on 21January 1188.2 When Henry II died on 6 July 1189, he was succeeded by his son Richard, count of Poitou. After being invested as duke of Normandy in August 1189 and then crowned king of England in September of the same year, Richard began to prepare for the departure to the East to accomplish his vow. First, he had to settle his affairs both in England and in his continental realm; establish afirm and reliable government for the period of his absence.3 One of the chief men in Richard’s administration, both prior to his departure and after, was William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, Richard’s chancellor and chief justiciar, also appointed papal legate.4 He would also play an important part in establishing Richard’s will concerning one of Messina treaties. Longchamp was indeed aremarkable figure. He soon ousted his co-justiciar Hugh de Puiset, bishop of Durham5 and he was then threatened only by Richard’s younger brother John, count of Mortain, who was Longchamp’s arch-enemy and eventually caused his fall. 1 J. FLORI, Richard Coeur De Lion: Le Roi-chevalier, Paris 1999, p.76. 2 W. L WARREN, Henry II, Berkeley 1973, p.607; P.FOURACRE— R.MCKITTERICK— T.REUTER et al., The New Cambridge Medieval History. c.1024— c.1198, Part 1, Cambridge 2004, p.558. 3 See chapters concerning Richard’s rule prior to his departure: R.V.TURNER— R.R.HEISER, The Reign of Richard the Lionheart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189–1199, Harlow 2000, pp.87–110 or FLORI, pp.87–105. 4 For Longchamp’s carrier as justiciar and chancellor see F.WEST, Justiceship in England 1066–1232, Cambridge 1966, pp.69–74. 5 J. GILLINGHAM, Richard I, New Haven— London 2002, p.121; TURNER— HEISER, pp.111–112.
24 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 John was another important man included in proceedings concerning Richard’s departure to the East6 and he was subsequently also deeply involved in the outcomes of Messina diplomacy. As King Henry II’s only surviving legitimate son, besides Richard, he posed acertain threat to Richard’s position in the case of his absence since he was one of the possible claimants of the throne. But he wasn’t the only male member of the Angevin family who possessed this feature. There was also Arthur, the posthumous son of Richard’s other brother Geoffrey, who passed away in 1186. Arthur was only two years old in 11897 but he would still play an important role in upcoming events. There were discussions over Richard’s attitude to secure the succession in his realm should he die without issue. Richard had been long betrothed to Alice, sister of Philip Augustus, but in the late 1180s, it seems, Richard was seeking anew bride. It was Berengaria, the daughter of Sancho VI of Navarre. Although the marriage took place in Cyprus in 1191 and only after negotiations with Philip Augustus, which will be discussed below, it is suggested, that the roots of this relationship were planted much earlier. Thus, Richard was at least partly aware of the succession to his vast realm.8 More serious steps regarding his succession and the division of his realm were to be taken in Messina and they will be discussed in detail later. On 4 July 1190, the army of King Richard finally departed from Vézelay, ameeting point of the crusaders in France. On 31 July Richard entered Marseille where his fleet should have been ready to sail but due to some difficulties, the departure was delayed.9 When Richard didn’t see his fleet coming by 7 August, he hired some local ships to transfer him to the next checkpoint of his journey and that was Sicily Here the two kings should have met.10 King Philip decided to take adifferent way and he headed for Genoa, where he embarked.11 Philip arrived in Sicily earlier than his English companion and he was welcomed by King Tancred, who let him stay in the royal palace in Messina.12 Richard reached Messina on 23 September. Chroniclers describe his arrival as amonumental entry with pomp overshadowing the arrival of King Philip couple days earlier. Roger of Howden, who was part of Richard’s suit, described his arrival in both of his major works: “On the twenty-third day of September, King Richard arrived at Messina in Sicily, with all his great galleys and ships, with such glory and with such anoise 6 Richard gave John several estates both in England and in France so John became one of the richest landowners in Angevin realm. He also married Isabele of Gloucester, an heiress of this important earldom. Before Richard left for the crusade, he made John and his half-brother Geoffrey swear that they wouldn’t enter England for three years. On insistance of Richard’s and John’s mother Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, John was eventually released from his oath. See TURNER— HEISER, pp.74–77. 7 Arthur of Brittany was born on Easter 1187, more than half ayear after his father’s death. He was at this time the only progeny of Henry II’s sons, neither Richard nor John had children in 1189. 8 GILLINGHAM, 2002, pp.125–127; J.GILLINGHAM, Richard Iand Berengaria of Navarre, in: Historical Research, Vol.53, No.128, 1980, pp.157–173. 9 GILLINGHAM, 2002, pp.128–129. 10 FLORI, pp.110–111. 11 Ibidem, p.105. 12 GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.131.
JAN MALý 25 of trumpets, that everyone who was in that city was alarmed. The king of France together with his people, and all the chief men of the city of Messina, and clergy and people stood on the shore, admiring what they saw and heard of the king of England and his might.”13 Richard of Devizes, another great chronicler of Richard the Lionheart’s time wrote about the king’s arrival in avery similar way. He added the note that Richard surpassed the king of France in the magnificence of his arrival and that King Richard, unlike Philip of France, who was lodged in the palace within the city walls, settled his camp outside Messina in the open field.14Richard of Devizes, who certainly wasn’t present at the arrival of King Richard, also mentions awarm meeting of both monarchs, Richard and Philip, immediately after the former’s arrival.15 Roger of Howden also mentions ameeting between the two kings, but there is no mention suggesting that they met in such friendly way like in Richard of Devizesʼ narrative. The relationship of these monarchs was strained from the beginning of the crusade, and during their prolonged stay in Sicily, it would deteriorate even further.16 There is one other source of information about Richard’s stay in Messina, which is important since its author was also amember of the retinue of Richard. It was certain Ambroise, aNorman crusader and poet, whose Estoire de la Guerre Sainte is avery good source about the third crusade and King Richard’s adventures there. He describes the arrival of King Richard to Messina in his poem in verses 581–604.17 Like Howden, he also mentions the same glory and magnificence, but entirely omits the meeting on Richard’s arrival. Richard was ahero of Ambroiseʼs poem and thus we have to take his narrative with caution, but it is the same case with other chroniclers. Another meeting of King Richard and King Philip took place from 24 to 25 September. According to Howden, Richard first paid avisit to Philip’s lodging and afterwards the king of France met his English companion in his camp. In his earlier work, The Gesta, Howden mentions that they enjoyed mutual respect and goodwill during this meeting. In his Chronicle, written as an expansion of Gesta, he omits this information entirely.18 No author mentions, what the precise purpose neither of this 13 W. STUBBS (Ed.), Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, Vol.3, London 1870, p.55; W.STUBBS (Ed.), Gesta regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, Vol.2, London 1867, pp.125–126. 14 R. HOWLETT (Ed.), Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, Vol.3, London 1886, p.395. 15 Ibidem, p.395; He tells us, that Philip was very excited by the fact, that Richard, his brother and intimate, arrived and hastened to meet him in very friendly way with gestures of amity. 16 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.55; Howden mentions ameeting of kings immediately after Richard’s landing after which King Philip was to embark and go to the Holy Land as soon as possible, but due to abad weather conditions, he was forced to stay. It could suggest, that Philip wasn’t actually content with the presence of Richard. Another important chronicler of that period, Ralph de Diceto, also mentions the meeting, but without any further specification of the date, he mentions Philip Augustusʼ decision to leave immediately (STUBBS, William [Ed.], Radulphi de Diceto decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, Vol.2, London 1873, pp.84–85). 17 G. PARIS (Ed.), LʼEstoire de la guerre sainte, histoire en vers de la troisieme croisade, Paris 1897, pp.15–17. 18 STUBBS, Gesta, p.126; STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.55.
26 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 nor of any previous meeting of the kings was, but it’s probable, that they wanted to discuss their further proceedings. It is not wrong to say that for the time being, the two kings showed mutual accordance at least externally. But during their stay, this would change soon. Besides the meeting with his crusading companion, Richard soon resolved to meet King Tancred of Sicily too. They had some unresolved issues and now it was time to settle them. All Chroniclers mentioned above wrote about the grievances and the subsequent war between King Richard and King Tancred. Their struggle resulted in the first treaty, which Richard concluded during his stay in Messina. The chronology of events as put by contemporary authors, some of them also being eye-witnesses, even with slight differences, shows that the struggle was fast and furious. The core of the problems between King Richard and Tancred of Sicily was the state of Richard’s sister Joanna, awidow of the recently deceased King William the Good, and her dower together with some financial matters from the time of Richard’s father Henry II. Together with apparent resentment among citizens of Messina regarding crusaders, it was an explosive combination.19 Soon after his arrival, Richard sent his envoys to Tancred with his demands. Howden states, that it was during his meeting with King Philip on 25 September.20 This is supported by Ralph of Diceto.21 Joanna arrived on 28 September from Palermo, accompanied by some ships of Tancred,22 and she was escorted to the Saint John hospital.23 The next day, on the feast of St Michael, her brother Richard, together with the king of France went to see her. According to Howden, Philip was charmed with her beauty and this meeting made him happy.24 On 30 September, Richard crossed the river Del Far and took the fortified place called Le Baniere, and took his sister there with his soldiers.25 Richard of Devizes gives us arecord of the demands, presented by Richard to King Tancred. Besides her dowry, it included agolden seat and all that William of Sicily promised to Richard’s father, namely agolden table, which was twelve feet long, asilk tent, one hundred galleys for two years, ahuge amount of wheat and barley, the same amount of wine, twenty-four golden cups and the same number of golden plates. He then states, that Tancred was not much interested in fulfilling these demands and that he sent with Joanna only an ordinary table, but he also sent King Richard amillion tari, tiny coins with no big value.26 It’s obvious that Tancred didn’t give Richard what he really wanted so the conflict between the two kings was not closed yet. Furthermore, the tension between the inhabitants of Messina and Richard’s crusaders was growing. When Richard captured the Greek monastery of San Salvadore,27 which Howden in his Gesta, as well as Diceto, identifies as castellum, which is closer to the village or 19 GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.133. 20 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.55. 21 STUBBS, Diceto, p.85. 22 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.5. 23 STUBBS, Gesta, p.126. 24 Ibidem, p.126; He also states that the people of King Philip wondered if he marry her. 25 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.56; HOWLETT, Chronicles, Vol.3, p.396; STUBBS, Diceto, p.85. 26 HOWLETT, Chronicles, Vol.3, p.396; GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.133. 27 GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.134; FLORI, p.116.
JAN MALý 27 fortified place, he placed there his men and supplies and expelled the monks.28 The capture occurred on 2 October and next day, there was adissension between the soldiers of King Richard and it soon culminated in an armed struggle. King Richard tried to calm his soldiers down at first but he was unsuccessful.29 He called for aconference to settle these problems with King Philip and the envoys of King Tancred and several representatives of the city of Messina. They met on 4 October in Richard’s lodging but in the middle of the talks, another clash between the English and the citizens of Messina occured.30 The citizens attacked the house of Hugh of Lusignan, one of Richard’s companions. When Richard heard about the proceedings of citizens of Messina, he immediately left the conference and the peace negotiations were broken.31 Now, Richard’s patience was over. He made his men prepare for the attack and proceeded to take Messina by force. His anger was stimulated by the fact that Tancred still refused to pay what had been agreed upon by his predecessor as well as Richard’s sister’s dowry. Richard of Devizes brings us anote illustrating this state of mind. He says, that “If King Tancred does not more speedily satisfy me for my sister’s dowry and the legacy of King William, which falls to me in right of my father, after the depopulation of his kingdom, he shall be compelled to restore them fourfold”.32 The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes includes many speeches of important characters, but since the author wasn’t an eye-witness and his information was only second-hand, most of these speeches are, in fact, imaginary. But it indicates how deeply Richard was upset. The attack of Richard’s forces on Messina’s walls is well recorded in several narrative sources. They generally agree in the fact, that the citizens of Messina were fighting back vigorously and that Richard’s men had to sustain an attack by stones, arrows and bolts. They also admit, that soldiers of the king of France, who were admitted peacefully into the city, were looking on that fighting between the English and citizens of Messina without any interference.33 When Messina was eventually captured by Richard, he placed his banners on the city walls. According to Howden and Ambroise, it strongly offended King Philip of France, who took it as an insult of his own dignity and immediately sent aletter to Richard with the request to lower the banners and to replace them with those of the Kingdom of France.34 The result was, that neither the banners of Richard nor Philip’s flew over the city.35 Banners of military orders, the Templars and Hospitaliers were put on the city walls and Messina was entrusted to their hands until the dispute had been settled.36 28 STUBBS, Gesta, p.127; STUBBS, Diceto, p.85; Richard of Devizes calles it castellum fortissimum quod dicitur Monasterium Grifonum (HOWLETT, Chronicles, Vol.3, p.396). 29 GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.134; STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.56. 30 FLORI, p.116; STUBBS, Gesta, p.128; STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, pp.56–57. 31 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.57. 32 HOWLETT, Chronicles, Vol.3, pp.398–399. 33 STUBBS, Gesta, p.129; STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, pp.57–58; HOWLETT, Chronicles, Vol.3, pp.400–401; PARIS, pp.343–344. 34 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.58; PARIS, p.344. 35 Ambroise explains, that King Richard didn’t want to struggle over this matter, Howden says, that Richard didn’t want to permit King Philip to put his own banners to the walls but instead he accepted the banners of the orders. 36 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.58.
28 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 King Tancred of Sicily, facing the overwhelming force of King Richard, was eventually compelled to agree with the terms of peace and to make atreaty with the King of England. After some negotiations, recorded in the chronicles of eye-witnesses, the peace was finally made between the King of England and the King of Sicily.37 To strengthen his position, Richard constructed awooden castle in ahill above the city and named it Mategriffon (Kill the Greeks) which was offensive for the Greeks.38 On 6 October 1190, the peace treaty was finally pronounced and it was then ratified in November.39 Tancred agreed to pay 20,000 ounces of gold as adower of Richard’s sister Joanna and another 20,000 ounces as adower of one of his daughters, who was to be married to Arthur of Brittany, Richard’s nephew.40 Precise terms of the treaty are preserved in aletter by Richard I, addressed to Tancred. This treaty can be divided into two main parts. In the first half, Richard made promises, including that he would keep peace and that he would protect Tancred’s interests and would be helpful if Sicily was attacked during his stay in Messina. Sureties are named (those who made an oath to observe the terms of the treaty both on the side of Tancred and Richard). On behalf of Tancred, Richard, archbishop of Messina, Walter, archbishop of Monreale, William, archbishop of Risa and Richard, the son of Walter, the chancellor of Tancred, are named. On the first place among those named on behalf of Richard is Walter, archbishop of Rouen, together with Gerard, archbishop of Auxonne and two more bishops, John of Evreux and Bernard of Bayonne. They are followed by several members of Richard’s household.41 Roger of Howden preserved also aform of the oath, made by the above-named sureties upon the Holy Gospels to follow the peace, concluded between Richard and Tancred. In the case of aviolation of this treaty, those who swore the oath should have been placed into the custody of Tancred. Asimilar oath was made by the people of King Tancred.42 This part of the treaty had an immediate effect on the relations of both kings, which were, at least for the time being normalised. Also, Tancred was assured that he would be supported by Richard in the case of the invasion of Sicily. In 1190, this was areal threat since there had been adispute over the throne of Sicily. It was claimed not only by Tancred but also by Henry VI, king of the Romans and husband to Constance, daughter of Roger II of Sicily. By this treaty, Tancred gained astrong ally in his eventual fight with Henry. As Gillingham remarks, Angevins were allies of Welfs, the opponents of the Hohenstaufen in Germany so the alliance against Henry seems appropriate.43 Also, the money assigned to Richard by Tancred could be used freely to 37 Howden preserved aletter by Tancred, sent to Richard as an answer to his demands concerning Joanna’s dower and other provisions agreed upon by Richard’s father and King William of Sicily. He promised to do what is in accordance with the custom of his kingdom. 38 GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.136. 39 FLORI, p.117. 40 GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.136. 41 T. RYMER (Ed.), Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et Acta Publica, Vol.1, Part 1–2, London 1745, p.21. 42 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.64. 43 GILLINGHAM, 2002, p.136.
JAN MALý 29 finance the upcoming crusade which certainly was agood asset to Richard’s budget.44 Although Richard of Devizes notes, that the amount of money wasn’t enough and that it was accepted only with scornfulness by Richard, it’s not so plausible than the fact, that Richard was satisfied by the enrichment.45 The second part of the treaty was dedicated to the marriage between one of Tancred’s daughters and the nephew of King Richard Arthur of Brittany. This marriage was intended to strengthen the newly concluded peace and to reinforce ties between the two houses. According to the treaty, the marriage should have taken place when Tancred’s daughter would come to the marriageable years or sooner, if it would be awish of Tancred and if the Pope would give permission to do so. Next, the dower was discussed and it was arranged, that it should’ve been provided by Arthur from the income of his dukedom. It’s here, where the sum of 20,000 ounces of gold as adower for the future bride of Duke Arthur is mentioned. The use of this money was however conditional. If either Arthur or Tancred’s daughter would have died before the wedding, the dower should have been returned. The Church of Rome and the Pope are named as sureties for this part of the treaty. If Arthur didn’t marry Tancred’s daughter, the Pope had the power to force him or Richard, as the person who had concluded this treaty, to do so or to return the money.46 This section of the treaty includes one line, which has particular importance for the matters in England. When Richard proposed, that Arthur should have married Tancred’s daughter, he also named him his successor in the case of his death without heirs. When Richard had left England for the crusade, he hadn’t made any specific provisions concerning his successor. Now he clearly declared, who was to be his heir.47 Was it only adiplomatic statement to support the upcoming marriage and to make Duke Arthur abetter spouse? Or were there some deeper meanings in this simple pronouncement? Contemporary narrative sources differ in the amount of information they say about this treaty and particularly about its second part. It varies from the full account of the treaty and its consequences to entire omission.48 Roger of Howden is the most important source because he was the eye-witness and he also rewrote the letters and other documents concerning this agreement. He didn’t mention the designation of Arthur as the heir of Richard in the main narrative, where he only stated, that amarriage was planned, but since his chronicle includes the full text of the treaty, it’s understandable.49 Ambroise, another possible eye-witness, in his Estoire describes the proceedings of Richard and his conflict with Messina and Tancred and he mentions the final agreement including the marriage. 44 FLORI, p.118. 45 HOWLETT, Chronicles, Vol.3, p.401. 46 RYMER, p.21–22. 47 STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, p.63; “[…] Arthurum egregium ducem Britanniae, nepotem nostrum, et haeredem, si forte sine nos obire contigerit…” 48 Certainly, the most probable reason for this state is that not every chronicler had the same access to information and it can be expected, that the narrative of eye-witnesses is more precise and fuller. 49 STUBBS, Gesta, p.135; STUBBS, Chronica, Vol.3, pp.63–64.
30 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1/2017 He describes Tancred’s daughter as afair girl and noble damsel. However, he doesn’t say anything about Arthur’s designation.50 Ambroise’s poem is chiefly focused on the crusade, the crusaders and, particularly, on the deeds of his hero— King Richard. Information about the designation of an heir could have been less important for this author because it didn’t concern the fighting and proceedings of the crusaders or it simply didn’t fit the structure of his verses. In the 1220s, the Latin translation of Estoire was written by Richard of Holy Trinity with certain changes compared to the original in old French, but the section about the treaty is almost the same as in Ambroise with no mention about Arthur’s nomination.51 Ralph de Diceto, one of the most reliable and very well informed chroniclers of 12th century England, brings us basically afull account concerning the treaty. Although his narrative is much shorter than that of Howden, which is understandable given the fact, that Ralph wasn’t an eye-witness, he recorded every important piece of information including the exact sum of money and reasons for this exchange and he added the note about the marriage as well. Then, Ralph noticed the nomination of an heir even if he did not match this event explicitly with the marriage.52 Ralph’s narrative is shorter and the Chronicle as awhole is very factual but it’s important, that although not an eye-witness, he recorded information about the designation, which apparently seemed important and noteworthy to him.53 Another England-based chronicler of this time, William of Newburgh, amonk from Yorkshire, is another important source of information. Although he doesn’t mention the treaty between Richard and Tancred in his narrative covering Richard’s conflict with the citizens of Messina as well as with the King of France,54 his chronicle still contains interesting information. William of Newburgh recorded Arthur’s nomination in achapter, regarding William Longchamp and his activities in England during Richard’s absence. William wrote, that William Longchamp had tried to secure Arthur’s succession as king of England with the support of King William of Scotland and that he had dispatched his two brothers to the Scottish Royal Court. Newburgh also mentions letters, sent by King Richard from Sicily to Longchamp, apparently with the information about the former’s decision regarding the succession. This is also supported by astatement, that Arthur had ahereditary right to the throne through his deceased father Geoffrey.55 These letters could have been brought to Longchamp 50 PARIS, p.346. 51 W. STUBBS (Ed.), Itinerarium peregrinorum et Gesta regis Ricardi, London 1864, p.169. 52 STUBBS, Diceto, pp.85–86; “[…] matrimonio quod erat contrahendum inter Arturum, Britanniae ducem et filiam Tancredi. Rex Ricardum praedictum Arturum haeradem suum instituit si sine prole decesserit.” 53 Richard of Devizes, whose chronicle is filled with stories of Richard’s adventures during crusade, doesn’t mention Arthur’s designation at all. 54 R. HOWLETT (Ed.), Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, Vol.1, London 1884, pp.324–325; William of Newburgh mentions Richard’s sister in chapter XIX, where he notices, that she was awidow of King William of Sicily and that she gained some money from King Tancred (p.347). 55 Ibidem, p.335.
JAN MALý 31 by Hugh Bardolf, one of the sureties of the treaty, who was recorded to be in England at the beginning of November.56 Newburgh also mentions that the actions of Longchamp, leading to secure Arthur’s succession were mostly of his personal interest because, by these proceedings, Longchamp checked the ambitions of Richard’s brother John, his only real threat in England. Although these negotiations were intended to be secret, John soon discovered what had happened and he was, according to Newburgh, strongly offended.57 There is no doubt, that the chief motivation for Longchamp in securing Arthur’s succession, was his personal interest in maintaining his power. Newburgh openly says that Longchamp did this because in the event that Arthur would really succeed the throne of England, he would be aregent and thus would maintain his power and influence.58 Some evidence, that he really undertook some actions to support Arthur’s claim can be also found in another chronicle of this period, written in the Abbey of Melrose in Scotland. This chronicle also provides information about Arthur’s nomination and adds anote about oaths, taken by members of nobility and clergy. It’s also interesting, that according to this chronicle, Arthur was constituted heir not only to England but also to other parts of the Angevin Empire.59 If these actions were undertaken in England to secure Arthur’s succession, it could suggest, that Richard really meant this designation as amean to settle the succession for the time being and to secure his throne from usurpation by John and not only to embellish the marriage treaty.60 There is an evidence in the treaty itself, that Richard preferred amodel of succession, which gave precedence to Arthur over John. In the final phrases of the treaty, it’s said that in the case Richard would have died without heirs, Arthur would have succeeded him by the hereditary right. His wife, Tancred’s daughter would then 56 L. LANDON, The Itinerary of King Richard Iwith Studies on Certain Matters of Interest Connected with His Reign, London 1935, pp.196–197. 57 HOWLETT, Chronicles, Vol.1, pp.335–336. 58 Ibidem. 59 J. STEVENSON (Ed.), Chronica de Mailros, e Codice Unico, Edinburgh 1835, p.100; “Rex Angliae constituit Arturum ducem Britanniae heredem suum, tam de Anglia quam de ceteris terris suis, si ipse sine prole decesserit, et hoc sacramento episcoporum et comitum et baronum suorum fecit confirmari.” 60 Modern historiography also varies in interpretation of this particular event. Lionel Landon states that Richard realized, that John would never accept his exclusion from the succession and thus he secured Arthur’s claim by instructions to Longchamp. Landon agrees, that this part of the treaty with Tancred was intended to secure succession and to protect the throne against John’s schemes (LANDON, p.197). Ralph Turner also emphasizes the importance of designation for Richard’s throne protection against John and he also remarks that that it was apart of marriage treaty (TURNER— HEISER, p.50). Marc Morris says, that the only motivation for Arthur’s nomination was to make him more suitable fiancé for Tancred’s daughter (M. MORRIS, King John: Treachery, Tyranny and the Road to Magna Carta, London 2016, p.67). Judith Everard also admits, that this was the main reason (J. EVERARD, Brittany and the Angevins: Province and Empire 1158–1203, Cambridge 2000, p.159). Some historians also emphasise the fact, that Richard gained considerably large sum fo money which he can immediately use for his crusade (FLORI, p.118; GILLINGHAM, 2002, pp.136–167).