Monday, 18 November 2013

Coronation of the Young King Henry, 14th June 1170

Henry the Young King is crowned by the hand of Roger the archbishop of York, in disregard to the precedence of the church of Canterbury.





The circumstances surrounding the Coronation of the Young King [Rex Junior] are amongst the most controversial in the whole of the story of the Becket Conflict. It was at this time, in 1170, that matters came to a head, the coronation representing the beginning of the endgame, the climax of the contention between king Henry II and Becket, the beginning of a sequence of events which eventually led to Becket's martyrdom in his cathedral on 29th December 1170, that same year.

King Henry II was concerned that there should be no question who should succeed him on the throne of England were he to die prematurely. He had been planning for a long time that his eldest son should be formally crowned as the Younger King, from at least as early as 1161, as a crown had already be ordered for the ceremony then. The crowning of a successor whilst the antecedent was still alive was the common practice amongst the Capetian kings of France, but was not the usual custom in England.

On his instructions, in June 1170, Roger de Pont L'Évêque, archbishop of York, together with Gilbert Foliot, bishop of London, Jocelyn de Bohun, bishop of Salisbury, and others crowned Henry the Younger King at Westminster Abbey. Becket, always jealous of his rights, saw this act as contravening the archbishop of Canterbury's ancient and customary privilege and right to officiate at coronations in England. The elder king Henry, however, believed he was well within his rights to organise this coronation, and indeed was in possession of a letter written several years previously from the pope authorizing that he could use any bishop of his choice to perform this ceremony. But the pope had rescinded his earlier permission and drafted a letter, at Becket's request, to be sent to Roger archbishop of York and all the English bishops, forbidding them to undertake the ceremony. Becket had used the services of a nun known under the pseudonym of Idonea secretly to smuggle these letters across the Channel into England, in defiance of Henry's 1169 bans, and then to deliver them to Roger, archbishop of York and the other bishops in person. William fitzStephen records in his Life and Death of Thomas Becket that those meant for were delivered to Roger, Archbishop of York and the bishop of London before the ceremony took place.


The young queen, Marguerite daughter of king Louis VII of France, a girl of twelve or thirteen, and wife of the Younger King Henry was left behind in Normandy when the coronation had taken place. She was supposed to have been crowned too: coronation robes for her had even been prepared.  This greatly upset Marguerite’s father who thought his daughter had been snubbed. King Henry II who had been in attendance at the coronation ceremony in Westminster had to rush back to France because of this, to try to calm the situation down.

The day after the coronation the English barons swore fealty to the Younger King. As a political act it seemed that the elder king Henry had now at last won his battle with Becket. He had demonstrated that he was now fully in charge of the church in England. But the pope, upon Becket's complaint and at his request, excommunicated the bishops of London, Rochester, and Salisbury, and suspended the archbishop of York, and the bishop of Durham from their duties for having defied his orders; and lodged the instruments of these excommunications and censures with Becket for him to deliver when and if he were to return to England.

Note
The coronation of the young king took place on June 14th, 1170. It was performed by Roger of York, assisted by Gilbert Foliot bishop of London, Jocelin bishop of Salisbury and Walter bishop of Rochester. Nearly all the other English bishops, including Chester and Durham, were present but it would seem that Bartholomew bishop of Exeter might not have been. The Pope issued two letters of suspension, 16th September 1170 (MTB volume VII 360, 364).which included Bartholomew bishop of Exeter, but he was excused by Becket (MTB volume VII 388), presumably as absent).


This was the controversial letter from the pope of some years earlier which had granted Roger, archbishop of York, permission to crown the Young King. Some have argued it was a forgery, but that seems unlikely.

J.C.Robertson. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket. Volume VI, Cambridge University Press. pp. 206–7. ISBN 978-1-108-04930-6.
Gallica:  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50323g/f229.image 
Epistola CCCX June 17th 1167
Letter Pope Alexander III to Roger, Archbishop of York

Translation Hutton (1889) p. 177-8
...
Since through our dearest son Henry, the illustrious
king of the English, great help and favours are known
to have come to the Church in this extremity of need,
and as we love him with the more affection for the
constancy of his affection and hold him dearer to our
heart, so do we the more freely an^ eagerly desire all
such things as lend to the honour, the profit, and the
exaltation of himself and all that is his. Hence it is
that, at his request, we by the authority of the blessed
Peter and our own, and by the counsel of our brethren,
grant that our dearly loved son Henry, the said king's
eldest son, may be crowned in England.

Since therefore this pertaineth to your office we
command you by apostolic letter that when you shall
be requested by the father our son the king you shall
place the crown upon the head of their said son, by
the authority of the apostolic See ; and what shall be
therein done by you we decree to remain valid and
firm. You shall further show to him due subjection
and reverence in all things, saving his father's com-
mands, and shall admonish others to show the same.
...

But also see

George Lyttelton Baron Lyttelton (1768). The History [of The] Life of King Henry the Second, Volume II Book III. G. Faulkner. pp. 582–607.

William Howell (1750). Medulla Historiæ Anglicanæ: The Ancient and Present State of England. Being a Compendious History of All Its Monarchs, from the Time of Julius Cæsar. W. Innys. pp. 64–.

David Knowles (1951). Episcopal Colleagues. Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–9. ISBN 978-0-521-05493-5.

Zachary N. Brooke has written in
Zachary N. Brooke (1989). The English Church and the Papacy: From the Conquest to the Reign of John. Cambridge University Press. pp. 210–2. ISBN 978-0-521-36687-8.
...
However, as the danger from the Empire receeded, the Pope was able to take a firmer line, and eventually the reconciliation of Henry and Becket came about. There was no word of customs or Constitutions, and this meant a great victory for the freedom of the Church. But Becket was not satisfied with that. He was determined to recover all the possessions of his church and also to punish thosee who had taken part in the coronation of the young Henry. And it was his fierce vindication of the rights of Canterbury that was really responsible for his murder
...

In
The Becket Controversy in Recent Historiography
James W. Alexander
Journal of British Studies
Vol. 9, No. 2 (May, 1970), pp. 1-26
...
While negotiations, recriminations, and conflict continued during
Thomas's exile, Henry Plantagenet nourished his own growing
rage, complaining with justice of general defiance and lese-majesté,
insults to the crown, and ignominies perpetrated by adversarius
metis; then on June 14, 1170, in violation of Canterbury's customary
right to crown a king, and at Henry II's command, Henry
the Young King was crowned by Roger of York, assisted by Gilbert
of London and the bishops of Salisbury and Rochester. This act
was the climax of the Becket controversy and was carried out in
defiance not only of Thomas's rights as archbishop but also of
papal prohibition explicitly forbidding the ceremony; excommunication
of the contumacious officiants followed swiftly. Persistent
efforts at reconciling the King and Thomas seemed to have
borne fruit in the autumn of 1170, and Thomas returned to Canterbury,
but not in a spirit of harmony: portavit in manibus ignem
et gladium, thought Arnulf of Lisieux. The excommunication of
the insubordinate bishops was immediately followed by the savage
murder of their archbishop.
The general issues about which the controversy swirled did
not occasion the slaying of Thomas; rather, its immediate occasion
was his refusal of the knighted thugs' demand that he absolve
Roger, Jocelin, and Gilbert. Even had Thomas wished to release
the excommunicates from the papal ban, he lacked the authority
to do so, since such an act would have violated the principle that
an inferior cannot release those whom a superior has bound. The
slayers, in the belief that they had acted as instruments of the royal
ira et malevolentia concluded the great drama without mention
of customs or of constitutions.
...

References


Frank Barlow (1990). Thomas Becket. University of California Press. pp. 204–. ISBN 978-0-520-07175-9.

Frank Barlow (2014). The Feudal Kingdom of England: 1042-1216. Routledge. pp. 250–. ISBN 978-1-317-87806-3.

James Craigie Robertson (1859). Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. pp. 237–. 


James J. Spigelman (2004). Becket & Henry: The Becket Lectures. James Spigelman. pp. 209–13. ISBN 978-0-646-43477-3.

David Hilliam (16 September 2011). Crown, Orb & Sceptre: The True Stories of English Coronations. History Press Limited. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-0-7524-7079-5.


W.H.Hutton (1899) S. Thomas of Canterbury (1899) 2nd Edition
1170, June 14. - Coronation of Henry the Younger
W.FitzStephen. Materials iii., p.103.
and

Wilfred Lewis Warren (1 January 1973). Henry II. University of California Press. pp. 501–7. ISBN 978-0-520-02282-9.


Wilfred Lewis Warren (1978). King John. University of California Press. pp. 111–. ISBN 978-0-520-03494-5.
Wilfred Lewis Warren (1978). King John. University of California Press. pp. 216–. ISBN 978-0-520-03494-5.

George Lyttelton (1767). The History Of The Life of King Henry the Second. Sandby and Dodsley. pp. 167–. Notes to page 591 vol 3.


Thomas Frederick Tout (1932). The Collected Papers of Thomas Frederick Tout. Vol. I. Manchester University Press. pp. 37–


Jeremy Collier (1840). An Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain Volume 2. W. Straker. pp. 314–

John Allen Giles (1846). The Life and Letters of Thomas À Becket: Now First Gathered from the Contemporary Historians. Whittaker and Company. pp. 264–.

B. Tierney; Peter Linehan (11 December 1980). Authority and Power. CUP Archive. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-0-521-22275-4.


Saint Thomas (à Becket) (2000). "Letter 277: Archbishop Thomas to Pope Alexander after 5th April 1170"The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162-1170: Letters 176-329. Oxford University Press. pp. 1181–5. ISBN 978-0-19-820893-8.

Saint Thomas (à Becket) (2000). "Letter 286: Archbishop Thomas to Bishop Roger of Worcester May 1170"The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162-1170: Letters 176-329. Oxford University Press. pp. 1219–. ISBN 978-0-19-820893-8.


Salzman (1914) Henry II.p.90
https://archive.org/stream/henryii00salz#page/90/mode/1up




Recueil des actes de Henri II, roi d'Angleterre et duc de Normandie, concernant les provinces françaises et les affaires de France; oeuvre posthume de Léopold Delisle
Vol I, p. 433 (No. cclxxxv)
Lettre de Henri II à Alexandre III pour se plaindre de Thomas Becket
Vers mai 1169. — Saint-Macaire

A.J. Duggan (A.J. Heslin), 'The Coronation of the Young King in 1170', Studies in Church History, Vol. II (1965), pp.165-78.
also in
 Anne Duggan (2007). Thomas Becket: friends, networks, texts and cult. Ashgate/Variorum. pp. 26–. ISBN 978-0-7546-5922-8.



Pope forbids Archbishop of York to partake in the Coronation
James Craigie Robertson; Joseph Brigstocke Sheppard (1907). Materials for the history of Thomas Becket: archbishop of Canterbury (canonized by Pope Alexander III., A. D. 1173). Volume 7. Longman & Company. pp. 217–.
Epistola DCXXXIII February 26th 1170
Alexander Papa Rogerio Eboracensi Archiepiscopo et Universis Episcopis Angliae
Forbidding a Coronation



Becket writes to English Bishops forwarding to them the Pope's command not to participate in the coronation.


Saint Thomas (à Becket). "Letter 283: archbishop Thomas of Canterbury to Henry Blois bishop of Winchester, April 1170". The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162-1170: Letters 176-329. Volume 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 1211–. ISBN 978-0-19-820893-8.
...
may God free the boy from this misfortune and every evil. Because such a coronation is known to be contrary to the dignity of the church of Canterbury, the lord pope forbids both the said archbishop and all the English bishops to take part in it in letters which we are sending to you and our other bretheren. And if, which God forbid, the archbishop or anyone elese should presume to attempt it, by apostolic authority and our own, by virtue of obedience and under threat of excommunication, we utterly forbid you or any of our brethren, or any who are subject to us through the legatine office or metropolitan right, to dare to participate in it,
...

Saint Thomas (à Becket) (2000). "Letter 284: Thomas, archbishop of Cantterbury to Roger, archbishop of York, April 1170". The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162-1170: Letters 176-329. Volume 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 1214–. ISBN 978-0-19-820893-8.
...
place the crown on the lord king's son - may God direct his paths according to his pleasure -and raise him to the kingship, contrary to right and to the damage of the holy church of Canterbury. But since it is manifestly clear that this coronation would be contrary to the dignity of the church of Canterbury, if it were presumed, which God forbid, the Lord Pope forbids you and all the the English bishops to participate in it, as it is very clear in the letter which we are sending to you; and by apostolic authority we forbid anyone to attempt it, and appeal on this matter against every should who undertakes it,
...
And we utterly forbid by virtue of obedience and under anathema that anyone subject to our jurisdiction by metropolitical or legatine right should assit in this rash deed.
...

 
Saint Thomas (à Becket) (2000). "Letter 285: Archbishop Thomas of Canterbury to all the English bishops, May 1170". The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162-1170: Letters 176-329. Volume 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 1217–. ISBN 978-0-19-820893-8.

...

Once again the hidden message has been brought to us -and it should be kept secret for all time- that when peace with our lord the king was being discussed with us, he was persuaded to have his son crowned by the hand of our venerable brother the archbishop of York, to the injury of the holy church of Canterbury and oursleves. Indeed, we have always conscientously shown ourselves ready to  restore peace in the lord, and even now we are prepared in all  things to show the lord king and his son due honour and reverence in Christ, and if it pleases the king, to anoint and crown his king as king in accordance with the obligations of our office just as our predescessor is known to have consecrated our lord, preserve in all prosperity for a long time, for his honour and the benefit of the clergy and people. Therefore, if anyone else should presume to usurp this for any reason whatever, a greater and more obvious injury would be done to your mother the church of Canterbury and to us. The supreme bishop forbids this, with an authority which presides over all others, as can be seen from the letter which we are sending to you, and it formally declares   that anyone who presumes to attempt it, if anyone does, will clearly risk his honour, office, and benefice. And we also, supported by his authority, direct and command all of you by the virtue of obedience, in peril of your order and benefice, and under anathema that none of you attempt this or assist him who attempts it, but after very carefully choosing a favourable opportunity any one of you should by apostolic authority
prevent the one who presumes from usurping this right, and abstain from his communion.
...

Sister Idonea

Idonea (the Appropriate One) was the nom de guerre of the nun who was used by Becket to serve in person the papal letters containing the pope's prohibition on Roger, the archbishop of York, and the other bishops from performing the coronation ceremony for Henry the Younger King. By using a nun it seems that Becket succeeded in avoiding king Henry's ban on his letters and papal bulls being sent to the English bishops and was able to have these communications smuggled into England. Anne Duggan has suggested that she believes Idonea was, in reality, the countess of Boulogne, the daughter of king Stephen.


Saint Thomas (à Becket) (2000). The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162-1170: Letters 1-175. Oxford University Press. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-0-19-820892-1.


Saint Thomas (à Becket) (2000). "Letter 289: Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury to his Beloved Daughter Idonea, ca MAy 1170"The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1162-1170: Letters 176-329. Volume 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 1233–. ISBN 978-0-19-820893-8.
 
Epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu.
Epistolæ: Women's Biography: Marie of Boulogne and Blois.
Epistolæ: Letter sent by Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury.
John Allen Giles (1846). The Life and Letters of Thomas À Becket: Now First Gathered from the Contemporary Historians. Whittaker and Company. pp. 294–.


Once I Was A Clever Boy blog- The Young King

Letter from Pope Alexander to Roger, archbishop of York, granting consent to crown The Young King

Baron George Lyttelton Lyttelton (1769). The history of the life of King Henry the Second, Printed for J. Dodsley. pp. 291–.

Baron George Lyttelton (1769). The history of the life of King Henry the Second,  Printed for J. Dodsley. pp. 498–9.

James Craigie Robertson (15 November 2012). Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury (Canonized by Pope Alexander III, AD 1173). Volume VI. MTB 310: Cambridge University Press. pp. 231–. ISBN 978-1-108-04930-6.

Thomas Sanctus Episcopus Canterburiensis Becket (1845). Epistolae (etc.). Parker. pp. 45–.

Richard Hurrell Froude; James Bowling Mozley (1839). Remains of the Late Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude: v. 2.  J. G. & F. Rivington. pp. 484–.

Michel-Jean-Joseph Brial (1813). Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France: Rerum gallicarum et francicarum scriptores. Imprimerie impériale puis royale. pp. 414–.


Saint Thomas (à Becket); Herbertus (de Boseham); Jacques Paul Migne (1854). S. Thomae Cantuariensis archiepiscopi et martyris nec non Herberti de Boseham clerici ejus a secretis opera omnia. Migne. pp. 1–.


On 17 June 1167, however, the Pope formally authorises Roger to crown the young Henry
Materials, vi. p. 206
MTB 310

The authenticity of this letter has been doubted by Roman catholic writers, such as Berington, Henry II,  and  Lingard, 

Joseph Berington (1790). The History of the Reign of Henry the Second,  M. Swinney. pp. 217–9.

Joseph Berington (1790). The History of the Reign of Henry the Second,. Appendix II: M. Swinney. pp. 668–.

and his enemies, to remove the scruples of the prelates, exhibited a pretended letter from the pontiff empowering the archbishop of York to crown the prince.
...
Footnote:  Lord Lyttelton was deceived by this letter: Mr. Berington has shewn that it was a forgery. App. ii.


Henry Hart Milman (1861). History of Latin Christianity: Including that of the Popes to the Pontificate of Nicolas V. Sheldon. pp. 401–.

The Archbishop of York produced a papal brief, authorising him to perform the ceremony. An inhibitory letter, if it[199] reached England, only came into the King's hand, and was suppressed; no one, in fact (as the production of such papal letter, as well as Becket's protest to the archbishop and to the bishops[200] collectively and severally, was by the royal proclamation high treason or at least a misdemeanor) would dare to produce them.

Footnote 189
Dr. Lingard holds this letter, printed by Lord Lyttelton, and which he admits was produced, to have been a forgery. If it was, it was a most audacious one; and a most flagrant insult to the Pope, whom Henry was even now endeavoring to propitiate through the Lombard Republics and the Emperor of the East (see Giles, iv. 10). It is remarkable, too, that though the Pope declares that this coronation, contrary to his prohibition (Giles, iv. 30), is not to be taken as a precedent, he has no word of the forgery. Nor do I find any contemporary assertion of its spuriousness. Becket, indeed, in his account of the last interview with the King, only mentions the general permission granted by the Pope at an early period of the reign; and argues as if this were the only permission. Is it possible that a special permission to York to act was craftily interpolated into the general permission? But the trick may have been on the side of the Pope, now granting, now nullifying his own grants by inhibition. Bouquet is strong against Baronius (as on other points) upon Alexander's duplicity..

Reginald Lane Poole (1928). Two Documents Concerning Archbishop Roger of York. Speculum, 3, pp 81-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2848122
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2848122


Becket's remonstrances induced the pope to withdraw his license to Roger to crown the young Henry, and on 26 Feb. 1170 Alexander forbade the archbishop of York to perform the ceremony of coronation during the exile of the primate of all England (Materials vii. 217).

MTB 633
Cervinarium, 26th February 1170
Pope Alexander to Roger, arcbbishop of York and all the English bishops
https://archive.org/stream/materialsforhist07robe#page/n240/mode/1up
Translation
Leopold George Wickham Legg (1901). English Coronation Records. A. Constable & Company, Limited.
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924081293627#page/n158/mode/1up
Given at Cervinarium, .
Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to the Archbishop of York and all the bishops of England, greeting and apostolic benediction. We have heard that the church of Canterbury hath this dignity and privilege of old, that the Kings of England are accustomed to be anointed by the archbishops of the said church, and to be crowned by them at the beginning of their reign. And moreover whereas, in the duty of our office and in consideration of our venerable brother Thomas, archbishop of the said See, a man religious, honourable and discreet, we desire to preserve the rights and ancient dignities of the said church whole and unimpaired, Now therefore, should such a case arise, by our apostolic authority we inhibit all and every one of you from crowning a new king, in defiance of the ancient custom and dignity of the church of Canterbury without the consent of the said archbishop or of his successors, and without the approval of the said church of Canterbury, and presume not on any occasion whatsoever to put your hand to this work, or dare to attempt so to do.

MTB 647

Becket's Spies


MTB 673 [CTB 296]
To Becket from a friend [Master Ernulf] at Caen
ca 9th June 1170
Translation
Richard Hurrell Froude; James Bowling Mozley (1839). Remains of the Late Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude: v. 2.. J. G. & F. Rivington. pp. 485–.


The Coronation of Young Henry by Matthew Paris
"De coronatione regis Henrici III. Junioris nimis detestanda." Historia Anglorum, sive, ut vulgo dicitur, Historia minor. Ed. Sir Frederic Madden (London, 1866), Vol. I, 352-3.

Anno quoque sub eodem, idus Julii, convenerunt ad mandatum regis Henrici apud Westmonasterium, Rogerus, Eboracensis archiepiscopus, et omnes suffraganei Cantuariensis ecclesiæ episcopi, ad coronationem Henrici, filii regis primogeniti. Qui, patre jubente, coronatus est a Rogero, Eboracensi archiepiscopo, et aliis episcopis regni, xiiii°. kalendas Julii, contra prohibitionem papæ, in enormemque ecclesiæ Cantuariensis læsionem. Quantumque Deo dispücuit hæc præsumptio, mors ipsius elegantissimi juvenis festina evidenter edocuit. Præterea, ipsa die coronationis, dum a dextris novi regis in menso pompose prandentis sederet archiepiscopus Eboracensis Rogerus, rex pater formam senescalli ministrantis sibi assumpsit. Et stans coram eis, palam protestatus est coram omnibus, se deinceps non esse regem, sed filium suum.


In that year, too, in the same manner, on the ides of July, assembled at Westminster, at the command of King Henry, Roger, archbishop of York, and all the suffragan bishops of the church of Canterbury, for the coronation of Henry, the son of the king, his first-born. A person who, at the commandment of their father, was crowned by Roger, archbishop of York, and the other bishops of the kingdom, on the fourteenth day before the Calends of July, despite prohibition by the Pope, and the enormous harm to church of Canterbury; how much so  was God dissatisfied with this presumption, the death of this same elegant young prince evidently demonstrated this. Further, on the very day of the coronation, when he was lunching, sitting at the table on the right hand of the new king was archbishop Roger of York, who had ministered to him. Stewarding him he took the form of a father for the king. And he stood before them all, openly testifying pompously in front of everyone, that he would henceforth not just be his king, but his son as well.

Aftermath


MTB 676 [CTB 297]
To Becket from a friend [Master Ernulf] at Caen
14th June 1170
Translation
Richard Hurrell Froude; James Bowling Mozley (1839). Remains of the Late Reverend Richard Hurrell Froude: v. 2. J. G. & F. Rivington. pp. 489–.

Other References

Charles Henry Pearson (1861). The Early and Middle Ages of England. Bell and Daldy. pp. 365–.

William Hickman Smith Aubrey (1867). The National and Domestic History of England: With Numerous Steelplates, Coloured Pictures, Wood Engravings, Facsimiles, Maps, Etc. Hagger. pp. 266–. 

Alison Weir (2011). Eleanor Of Aquitaine: By the Wrath of God, Queen of England. Random House. pp. 185–. ISBN 978-1-4464-4902-8.

England Under the Angevin Kings. Ardent Media. pp. 71–


Biographia Britannica:  Volume I. W. Innys. 1747. pp. 639–.


Elizabeth A. R. Brown (1992). "Franks, Burgundians, and Aquitanians" and the Royal Coronation Ceremony in France. American Philosophical Society. pp. 46–7. ISBN 978-0-87169-827-8.


 


2 comments:

  1. The scale of your work here is highly impressive, CJD (Jim) Roberts! What a meticulous research. Would you mind if I add your blog to my blogroll and recommend it on Sharon Kay Penman FB Fan Club Page? I am ardent admirer of Miss Penman's Angevin Trilogy and I'm certain that her readers will be really eager to learn more about the Constitutions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Please go ahead and add my blog to your blog roll

      Delete