Bone of Contention (46 page)

Meanwhile Waleran had not been idle. In 1138, he was made earl of Worcester. His twin brother Robert was already earl of Leicester, William de Warenne; his half brother, was earl of Surrey; his first cousin, Roger de Beaumont, who was married to Waleran’s half-sister, was earl of Warwick; his younger brother, Hugh Pauper—because he was not yet as well endowed as his older brothers—was soon created earl of Bedford; his brother-in-law, Gilbert de Clare, was created earl of Pembroke.

By 1139 when Theobald left for Rome to receive his pallium from the pope accompanied by five other bishops, part of whose duties was to defend the king against Matilda’s appeal, Waleran and his close kin held six of the earldoms of England. Earl was then the highest rank of English nobility, but although the earls of a county were supposed to oversee the work of the sheriffs and defend the counties, the government under Salisbury operated so efficiently that being earl was essentially a functionless honor. The path to real power for Waleran and his kin was blocked by Salisbury and his.

Stephen knew his uncle, King Henry, had trusted Salisbury and his coterie enough to leave Salisbury as regent of the kingdom when he was absent, and Salisbury had been among the first to welcome him. However, in the year since Robert of Gloucester had cried defiance and Matilda had appealed to the pope to restore her kingdom to her, Salisbury had strengthened the castles that he held for the king and those he had built himself—he said for the glory and safety of his diocese—and had stocked them with all kinds of supplies, as if for war or against siege.

It is not impossible that Stephen, who was a good war leader, noticed these uncomfortable facts for himself. It is equally possible that Waleran also made note of what was happening, drew it to the king’s attention, and asked whether Salisbury might be preparing to use those keeps and supplies to support Robert of Gloucester when he invaded England, which was expected.

There had been enough rebellions by dissatisfied nobles and some who were truly distressed over their violated oaths to Matilda that Stephen had grown mistrustful. He was suspicious also of the bishop of Ely’s (Salisbury’s nephew) management of the finances of the realm. The constant wars Stephen had been fighting were an expensive business, and he was growing poorer while Salisbury grew richer. Better safe than sorry, the king must have thought, and decided to be rid of Salisbury. In fact, the suspicions were most likely justified. Although there was a tremendous uproar over the way the situation was handled, no one really attempted to deny that Salisbury and his supporters were plotting treason.

Being rid of them was easier said than done, however. Stephen feared the reaction of his barons if he simply dismissed Salisbury and his kin without a reasonably obvious cause. He certainly did not want to use his suspicion that Salisbury intended to abandon him and espouse the cause of Robert of Gloucester. It was all too likely that many nobles of the kingdom would follow his lead, as they had in acknowledging Stephen.

Nor did Stephen want any quarrel with the Church. In an attempt to mend fences with his brother, the king had appealed to the pope to name Henry the papal legate. Since this would give Henry authority even over the newly appointed archbishop, Stephen hoped Henry would be appeased. Unfortunately he was not. Henry understood all too well that the legatine authority lasted only during the lifetime of the pope who had issued it, an archbishop would be archbishop until he himself died.

Stephen needed to walk a sword’s edge between allowing Salisbury to do whatever he wanted and bringing down on himself the wrath of the Church. What seems to have been arranged was that the bishop’s armed retainers were provoked into a clash with the retainers of Alain, count of Brittany. In the fight one knight was killed, Alain’s nephew was badly wounded, and Alain’s men were put to flight.

This was a breach of the king’s peace, which was prohibited behavior during any Council called by the king. The bishops were summoned to Stephen’s presence, and he required them to give up possession of their castles as guarantees of their trustworthiness. Carefully, Stephen made no demands on the property of the Church nor did he require the bishops to abate their authority over their dioceses. He was asserting, as his predecessors back to the days of William the Bastard had done before, “that his ministers were answerable to him for their actions, that castles could be held only at the king’s pleasure and must be surrendered on demand, and that ecclesiastics who held secular offices were accountable for their conduct of those offices.” (Appleby,
op. cit.,
page 69.)

Unfortunately Salisbury and his kin had committed no real act that was questionable, nor had the bishops failed in their conduct of their offices. To many of the nobility and all of the clergy, Stephen’s behavior was high-handed and based on a patently fabricated cause. Although there is a strong possibility that he was right in his suspicions, and it was certainly his right to dismiss and appoint officers in his government, the king’s methods were violent and unacceptable. He, himself, had broken the king’s peace.

The results of Stephen’s action were disastrous in the long run—although it is entirely possible that the disasters would have occurred even if he had not acted. However, the events of
Bone of Contention
end with the summoning and demands on the bishop of Salisbury and his son and nephews. Further events will be addressed in later books.

Roberta Gellis

Flushing, Michigan

To my brother Roger with love in particular for the warmth and hospitality with which he has so often welcomed us into his home

Copyright © 2002 by Roberta Gellis

Originally published by Forge [978-0765300195]

Electronically published in 2015 by Belgrave House

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No portion of this book may be reprinted in whole or in  part, by printing, faxing, E-mail, copying electronically or by any other means without permission of the publisher. For more information, contact Belgrave House, 190 Belgrave Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94117-4228

     http://www.BelgraveHouse.com

     Electronic sales: [email protected]

This is a work of fiction. All names in this publication are fictitious and any resemblance to any person living or dead is coincidental.