One of the very few dated early references we have is the information of 23 May 1205, which I will come to at the end, relating to William, the "First Yorkshire Beaumont," about whom I put some references on this blog on January 31, 2021.
It is clear from those that William was a retainer in some shape or form of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester, and it is clear from many other references that Roger commanded Chateau-Gaillard for king John until he had to surrender it on or about 6 March 1204 after a long siege.
 |
| From Achille Deville's book (Rouen, 1829) on the castle and siege |
The chronicle of William the Breton states that at the very end, when the French entered the castle, they took as prisoners forty knights, one hundred and twenty men at arms "and many others."
Another French chronicler, Rigord, says that there were thirty-six knights, four having been killed.
The commander, Roger, is the only one of the defenders mentioned by name in the French texts. He is identified as the Constable of Chester in some of the English texts and from other sources.
An unlikely version of the story is that the defenders charged out of the castle and killed many Frenchmen before being taken prisoner. More likely they were weak from lack of food, as there had been no supplies for months and indeed the whole objective of the French had been to starve them into submission.
As to what happened to these captives after their surrender, the French sources say little (note 1). Writers and translators north of the English channel adopt one of two extremes - the captives were either held in chains, or they were held on parole or "free custody" in recognition of their bravery.
The text from the monk of Waverley is Sicque præfatus Rogerus cum militibus sibi associatis vinculis enormiter mancipatus est.
That from Roger of Wendover is et Rogerus de Lasci cum suis omnibus in Franciam adductus, rege Francorum jubente, propter probitatem suam, quam in castri custodia fecerat, sub libera custodia detentus est.
"Vinculis enormiter" is not "enormous chains." "Vinculis" means bonds but not necessarily physical restraint, whilst "enormiter" means out of the usual. I prefer something like "My word is my bond," the word of an officer and gentleman!
The concept of free custody then makes sense, and can be compared to the rule that a knight, when charged with a debt claim, was to be trusted not to abscond before the hearing (Dialogus de Scaccarii Part II Section XXI). Perhaps then the Waverley text has simply been misunderstood (Note 2).
Certainly, a ransom must have been paid. Six thousand marks is the figure given by one chronicler. The public records suggest less, but still a huge sum.
 |
| Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833), vol. 1 page 4b August 7, 1204, at Northampton |
My reading of this is that Robert fitzRoger (a well-known north of England baron) had pledged the £1000 but is now being released (his charter to be delivered to him) - perhaps the king has decided to meet the cost of Roger's "redemption."
Roger de Lacy was apparently back in England by October of 1204 since he witnessed an order issued at Lambeth on 13th of that month. Thereafter he is seen a good deal in the public records. An invasion into Normandy was planned, and I suspect Roger was asked to lead it. Extensive planning took place in the first half of 1205, including the country being ordered to supply one knight in ten (at the cost of the other nine).
 |
| Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833) vol. 1, page 29b 29 April 1205, from Windsor |
A preliminary muster was to take place at Northampton in mid May, and the above shows essential supplies - wine! - being sent there. That is where and when the king issued this order to the sheriff of York:-
".... qd resp'ctu hre facis Willo de Bello Mo'te de x marcas quas debet Judis Ebor et quiet' ee facias de usur illi debiti q'diu fuit ult mare cu' equis & armis in svicio nro p pceptu nrm”
..... to give respite to William de Beaumont for ten marks which he owes [debet - present tense] to the Jews at York and to free him from the interest on the same debt so long as he was [fuit - past tense] beyond the sea with horses and arms in our service by our command"
 |
| Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833), vol. 1, page 33b 23 May 1205, from Northampton |
The order was to be carried out through none other than the Constable of Chester (the letter like a 9 there means "Con"), who was present that day, and who moreover, had the title of sheriff of York, and thus will have passed the order to his deputy!
What this proves is that William (note 3) had been serving overseas. It suggests that Roger was in some way interested. It does not prove that William had been one of Roger's companions in Normandy, or that it was intended he would go back there with him! But it hints towards one or both of those things, maybe.
The royal party proceeded south to Winchester and Portsmouth, and there is ample evidence that Roger Constable of Chester was involved, certain rewards and benefits being dished out to him as the military and naval plans were progressed. But in mid June the planned Normandy invasion was cancelled at the last minute (Note 4).
........
Lastly, as an open question, I wondered if there were any clues at all as to the identity of any of Roger's other companions in Chateau-Gaillard. I am afraid the answer is - nothing found. Two particular names strike me as possibles - Colin de Quatremares (also called Colin de Damelville), and Henry de Longchamp. Both these men witnessed the grant of land at Huddersfield by Roger to William (Dodsworth MS 133 f.114). Colin also received a grant of land at Huddersfield from Roger, whilst Henry was apparently with the 1205 Normandy expedition when it was called off (Note 5).
.......
Note 1. Except that one rather colourful account speaks of "the castellan," who had said he would only be dragged out by his feet, actually being in the pay of the French king afterwards, at doubled wages. This is from Ruville, quoting from Les Vraies Chroniques de Normandie depuis Robert le Diable jusqu'en 1212, c.15 copy fonds français, Bibliothèque Richelieu.
Note 2. Text attributed to Roger of Wendover, speaking of events of 1203, has certain prisoners at Compiegne detained in vinculis arctissimis. A little later in the same text, Roger and the other prisoners taken at Chateau Gaillard are treated very differently - sub libera custodia.
Note 3. Surely the WB who is the subject of this order is the Yorkshire one. There were a Norfolk father and son both of the same name but they had no connection with Roger, and there are numerous reasons for saying it does not refer to either of them.
Note 4. The plan had been a "pincer movement," landing both in Normandy and Poitou. It seems that ships had already put to sea, from Portsmouth, before the king accepted advice, and cancelled the Normandy expedition, which is no doubt the part Roger would have been involved in. Between about 13 and 19 June 1205 the royal party seems to have been at sea. On 19 and 20 June at "Dertem'" (?Dartmouth in Devon), Roger was a senior witness (Rotuli Chartarum p.155) (but Chroniclers put the landing in Dorset).
Note 5. On 22 June 1205 Henry was let off some commitments he had earlier made (Rot.Lit. Cur.i.38), a classic way of recompensing someone for wasted expenses.
Sources
To give particular sources in the proper academic style would take up a lot of space. I have made use of the numerous chronicles in various French and English editions (thank you, Hathitrust), public records including Patent and Close Rolls, Deville's book on Chateau-Gaillard, Brossard de Ruville's book on "La Ville Andelis...," an excellent online translation of the Dialogue of the Exchequer from the Yale Avalon Law project, several biographies of king John, Powicke's "Loss of Normandy," Norgate's "England under Angevin Kings," the Thesis by Andrew Connell on the Constables of Chester, and so on.
Much information has been translated for me from French by Caroline.
EMB 26 September 2021
