In later medieval England, the proper authorisation of
letters to chancery formed an important part of the bureaucratic authority that
underpinned the governance of the realm. Royal seals were required to authorise
the most important letters since only royal authority was thought sufficient to
move the great seal, and so endorse the chancery documents that formed the
material essence of royal government. This short piece examines three very
unusual writs, authorised with the seal of the king’s closest companion,
William Montagu, that stand outside the normal process of authorisation. The
influence of these unusual documents in the historiography of relations between
William Montagu and Edward III is noted, and an alternative interpretation of
the writs is given.
C 81/1538/22 Warrant from the council endorsed by the seal
of William Montagu, March 18 1335
‘Saluz et bon amour. Come noz chers en dieu le Supperiour et
Covent de Merton nous aient cartefietz par leur lettres patentes queles nous
vous envenoms encloses desoutz le seal nostre cher et foial monseigneur William
de Montagu….Donne a nostre Tour de Londres desoutz le seal Monseigneur William
avantdit le XVIII iour de Martz.’
Par
le Consail
A letter patent signifying royal assent to the election of
Thomas de Kent as prior of St Mary’s, Merton, was issued on March 24 (CPR 1334-1338, p. 87).
C 81/1330/11 Writ in Favour of Sibyl de St. Martin, March 20
1335
‘…..done a Westmoustier souz le seal nostre foial et loial
monsire William Montagu le XIX. Jour del mois de Mars lan de nostre regne IX’
Adhering to the request of this writ, a license for Sibyl de
St. Martin to marry whoever she wished was issued on March 19, with the letter
patent bearing the note of warranty ‘by p.s’ (CPR 1334-1338, p. 87).
C 81/1330/24 Letter to William Zouche, requesting a letter
of protection for Thomas Gray, 20 June 1336
‘…Done souz le seal Monsire William de Montagu a la ville de
Seint Johan, par reson qe nous ne avioms mie nostre seal ovesque nous
illoeques, le XX. jour de Juin lan de nostre regne disme.’
The above royal writs, which would normally be authorised by
one of the king’s privy seal, were all issued under the authority of
William Montagu, the greatest friend and confidant of Edward III until the
former’s death in 1344. The use of an earl’s seal to warrant royal letters to chancery represents a highly irregular deviation from the normal
administrative process which depended on the acceptance of only those writs
endorsed with accepted royal warranty. The use of Montagu’s seal in
authorising such letters has been seen by W.M. Ormrod as part of the harmful
monopoly of favour and counsel exercised by Montagu over the king, which alienated
other members of the aristocracy as they were denied their important role
within the polity of counselling the king. In Ormrod’s words, by using his seal
to represent the authority of the council and the king ‘Montagu…exercised an
influence quite out of proportion to his station’ (W.M. Ormrod, The Reign of Edward III (London, 1990,
p. 107).[1]
Ormrod then uses this interpretation to show that the crisis of 1340-1 was
heavily influenced by the presence of a court clique, of which Montagu was the
most conspicuous member.
There is little evidence for this interpretation. Warrants C
81/1538/22 and C 81/1330/11 both served their purpose, as both were accepted without issue by chancery as being sufficient to authorise letters patent. The fact that C 81/1538/22 was under Montagu’s
seal but was endorsed ‘par le Consail’ does not necessarily imply that Montagu
was usurping the authority of the council; rather, the warrant, and its
acceptance by chancery, seems to show that Montagu’s authority was associated
with, and not opposed to, that of the council (whose authorisation was thought
sufficient for the issuing of letters patent). Indeed, the use of Montagu’s
seal could be seen as a matter of convenience, with there being no need to use
the privy seal since Montagu’s seal was thought sufficient by the council. Similarly,
that the letter patent resulting from C 81/1330/11 was authorised ‘by p.s’
shows that Montagu’s writ was accepted as a makeshift writ of privy seal, and therefore
as sufficient for the authorisation and enrolment of a letter patent.
Again, the use of Montagu’s seal in C 81/1330/24 need not be
equated with any usurpation of royal authority resulting from Montagu’s
favoured position. This time, the use of Montagu’s seal to authorise a royal
writ can be explained by internal evidence. As justified in the letter, Montagu’s
seal is being used in the absence of the privy seal at Perth. The period in
which C 81/1330/24 was written saw Edward undertake a risky dash from Newcastle
to Berwick via Perth in order to meet his gathering army. Montagu was one of very
few men to accompany the king on this unplanned expedition, and was certainly
the most important, so in the absence of the usual method of privy seal
warranty Montagu’s seal was the best alternative.[2]
I would suggest, then, that a closer inspection of the three
royal writs authorised by William Montagu does not support the thesis that
Montagu was occupying the position of a harmful royal favourite. Instead, the
use and acceptance of Montagu’s seal on these writs seems to point in the
opposite direction. This conclusion needs to be bourne in mind when the crisis period of 1340-1 is approached.
[1] It
should be recognised that Ormrod’s opinion of Montagu’s influence is very
different, and probably much more accurate, in his Edward III (Yale, 2011) but his warranting of royal writs is not
directly addressed.
[2]
For Edward’s journey from Newcastle to Berwick and Montagu’s participation see BL
Cotton MS Nero C VIII fol. 241.
No comments:
Post a Comment