Another red herring (3 of 3) - Roger Constable of Chester in England during the Third Crusade

This is the third of three articles. Please take them in order.

I am sure all my readers will remember that Richard (the so-called Lionheart) became Duke of Normandy and King of England in July 1189, left England before that Christmas, and spent a few months in Normandy before travelling on via Marseille, Sicily, and Cyprus, reaching Acre in about June 1191.

After the King leaves England it is not long before a faction headed by his brother, the future king John, known at this time as "Count John," begins to assert itself. This is when we find mention of Roger Constable of Chester (de Lacy, if you prefer), not in the Holy Land at all, but in England!

As so often with old stories, this one exists in several versions, and it would take many pages to compare and analyse the different versions. What seems most likely is that Roger's father, John Constable of Chester, who attends the coronation at Westminster, agrees to have responsibility for keeping Nottingham and Tickhill castles for the king, and places Robert of Croxton at Nottingham and Eudes de Deiville at Tickhill on his behalf.

Giving him Tickhill and Nottingham makes sense in that the Constable of Chester has lands in the East Midlands and indeed South Yorkshire from which he can draw men and resources (1). His castle at Halton (near Runcorn, on the Mersey) is further away but he could also draw in support from Cheshire and indeed Lancashire if necessary.

One side of Roger's seal (from Ormerod, Cheshire,
Standard Edition, vol. 1 p.696

John however then decides to join the Crusade. He leaves England in March 1190 and he is killed or dies before the end of that year (2). News comes back to England, and his son Roger (a young man in his mid-twenties) finds himself with all this responsibility.

Some treachery is involved. The "Gesta Regis Henrici" (3) tells the explicit story that Robert of Croxton (at Nottingham) and Eudes de Deiville (Tickhill), betray those castles to count John, that both men then disappear, and that Roger apprehends two of their associates - Alan of Leek (who had been at Nottingham) and Peter de Bovencourt (Tickhill), and has these two hanged, and later also hangs an unnamed squire who was found driving away the birds that were feasting on their still-swinging corpses.

Someone gave Roger the nick-name "Hell" (this is supposed to refer to his treatment of the Welsh, but I do wonder). Richard Holmes, editing the Pontefract Chartulary over 100 years ago, described him as "of an able, capable, and dauntless character." Count John (who was to be King from 1199) was unhappy at the time, but later came to recognise and respect Roger's abilities.

This Nottingham / Tickhill story refers to the year 1191. I think it more credible than the alternative story that Roger was in the Holy Land, which is based on a copying error. I think some of the confusion is due to his later change of name, to Lacy, for I have even seen that name ascribed to his father, which must be quite wrong.

The two castles are now in the hands of Count John's supporters, and although at a meeting at Winchester in late March it is agreed that they should be restored to the king's side, or at least security given, I don't think that actually happens. I think the castles remain in rebel hands for two or three years.

Not long after this comes the news of the death (childless) of Roger's distant relative Robert de Lacy, lord of Pontefract and Clitheroe (4). Through his grandmother, Roger has the best claim to being Lacy's heir.

King Richard arrives back in England in early 1194. Tickhill surrenders just on news of the royal return. Nottingham holds out till the King appears in person in late March. It is tempting to suggest that Roger Constable of Chester is there in person when the rebels were marched out. But I don't have evidence.

Nottingham Castle (Photo by EMB, April 2020)

Roger's track record of loyalty counts a lot in his favour. He gets the honours of Pontefract and Clitheroe (5). Roger will go on to serve King John prominently, in both Normandy and England.

It is very clear that a William de Bellomonte / Beaumont works for Roger - starting in the mid 1190s it would seem - and that he is later granted lands by him and so on. I plan to write more about that, quite soon.

The object of these three articles has been to argue that in the absence of evidence, the Third Crusade story is a red herring! I always say that one new fact can change everything, but here we are dealing with stories rather than facts, so it is a matter of where the story came from and when, and whether it fits with other credible stories.

I have considered the intriguing possibility that perhaps William de Beaumont went to the East in the service of John Constable of Chester, Roger's father. Chronologically that seems possible but there is no evidence!
.................

(1) See eg Farrer, Honors & Knights Fees, vol. 2 for details of parts of the "barony" of the Constables of Chester, which extended into several counties. But that only details lands they held of the Earls of Chester.

(2)  It has been suggested that, following a visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Chester, John decided to lead a group of Cheshire men to go with king Richard, and that he left England in March 1190 (Kathryn Hurlock, Cheshire & the Crusades (2011) in Trans. Hist. Soc. Lanc. & Cheshire). Sources conflict, but John Constable of Chester is generally said to have died at Tyre before the end of 1190. This is before the Lionheart reached the Holy Land. News of John's death would not have reached England till some weeks later. I have not much knowledge of the crusade but was there anything going on at Tyre in 1190? I wonder if that was a slip of a quill pen long ago. However, at that very time, I believe the siege of Acre was taking place. Remember that Roger was said to have been at Acre. Perhaps his father was actually there, in 1190. Interestingly the eminent Cheshire historian Geoffrey Barraclough in a footnote to his (posthumous) 1988 edition of charters of the Earls of Chester, said that John died at Acre (p.210, note to charter no.208). So does a well-written Wikipedia article on John.

(3) A useful secondary source for much of what is covered in this article is John T. Appleby, "England without Richard" (1965), which at pp. 68-69 tells the story of Nottingham and Tickhill. The source for this is Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi (ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series) vol. ii pp. 232-233 not 234-5 as cited by Appleby.

(4) Robert de Lacy [the lord of Pontefract, and Clitheroe] died on 21 August 1193 and was buried at Kirkstall Abbey near Leeds, according to that abbey's doubtfully reliable history of his family (Mon. Angl. 5 533b). There may be some traditions of Robert de Lacy having been to the Holy Land and dying there, but I now think that doubtful or due to mix-ups.

(5) April 1194, agreed when the King was at Winchester. The castle at Pontefract is kept back from him, which seems to mean that Clitheroe becomes for a time a more important castle.

..................

EMB
June 2020