From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from House of Châteaudun)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the English royal house of the 12th century. For other houses of Anjou, see House of Anjou.
Royal Arms of England (1198-1340).svg
Arms adopted in 1198
Country England
Parent house House of Anjou
Founded 1154
Founder Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou
Final ruler John, King of England
Current head Extinct[1]

Many historians consider the Angevins /ænvɪns/("from Anjou") a distinct royal house, and the word is used collectively for the three English monarchs—Henry II, Richard I and John—of the Angevin dynasty. These historians consider John’s son (Henry III) the first Plantagenet king of England, while historians who do not distinguish between the Angevins and the Plantagenets consider Henry II the first English king.[2][3][4][5][6] The Angevins were a family of Frankish origin descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble. The chronicler Gerald of Wales borrowed elements of the Melusine legend to give the Angevins a demonic origin, and jokes existed about the story.[7]

The family held the title Count of Anjou beginning in 870. Territorial ambitions to expand Angevin holdings prompted power struggles with neighbouring provinces, extending their influence into Maine and Touraine. Fulk V, Count of Anjou, failed several times to expand his domain by marrying his daughters to heirs in Normandy and England before arranging the marriage between his son and heir, Geoffrey, to Henry I of England's daughter (and only surviving legitimate child) Matilda. This united the Angevins, the House of Normandy and the House of Wessex into the Plantagenet dynasty. Fulk the Younger, who forged valuable connections during the Second Crusade, surrendered his titles to Geoffrey and became King of Jerusalem with his 1131 marriage to Baldwin II's daughter Melisende.

Geoffrey (Fulk's eldest son) succeeded when his father left for Jerusalem, whilst Baldwin III (his eldest son with Melisende) inherited Jerusalem after Fulk's death in 1143. In 1154 Geoffrey's son, Henry II of England, won control of England and Normandy and expanded the family's holdings into what was later known as the Angevin Empire with his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Historians consider that members of the family after 1204, when John lost Anjou and the Angevins' continental territory to the House of Capet, are known as Plantagenets (from a nickname for Geoffrey) until the reign of Richard II. The dynasty is then considered to have split into two cadet branches, the House of Lancaster and the House of York.


An illuminated diagram showing the Angevins; coloured lines connect the two to show the lineal descent
Thirteenth-century depiction of the Angevins (Henry II and his legitimate children): (left to right) William, Henry, Richard, Matilda, Geoffrey, Eleanor, Joan and John

The Angevins descended from a ninth-century noble, Ingelger, with the family holding the title Count of Anjou beginning in 870. Although the main line of descent from Ingelger ended in 1060, cognatic kinship continued from Geoffrey II, Count of Gâtinais and Ermengarde of Anjou (daughter of Fulk III of Anjou).[8][9] The Angevins struggled successfully for regional power with neighbouring provinces such as Normandy and Brittany, extending their influence into Maine and Touraine. Although Fulk V, Count of Anjou married his daughter Alice to the heir of Henry I of England, William Adelin, to quash competition from Normandy, the prince drowned in the wreck of the White Ship.[10] Fulk then married his daughter Sibylla to William Clito, heir to Henry's older brother Robert Curthose, but Henry had the marriage annulled because of the rival claim to his throne. Finally, Fulk married his son and heir (Geoffrey) to Henry's daughter—and only surviving legitimate child—Matilda, beginning the Plantagenet dynasty.

Arrival in England[edit]

Multi-coloured map of 12th-century France and southern England
Henry's continental holdings in 1154, showing the lands known as the Angevin Empire

Matilda's father (Henry I of England) named her as heir to his large holdings in what are now France and England,[11] but when Henry died her cousin Stephen had himself proclaimed king.[12] Although Geoffrey had little interest in England, he supported Matilda by entering Normandy to claim her inheritance.[13] Matilda landed in England to challenge Stephen, and was declared "Lady of the English"; this resulted in the civil war known as the Anarchy. When Matilda was forced to release Stephen in a hostage exchange for her half-brother Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester, Stephen was re-crowned. Matilda was never crowned, since the English conflict was inconclusive, but Geoffrey secured the Duchy of Normandy. Matilda's son, Henry II, became wealthy after acquiring the Duchy of Aquitaine by his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. After skillful negotiation with King Stephen and the war-weary English barons, Henry agreed to the Treaty of Wallingford and was recognised as Stephen's heir.[14]

When Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury died, Henry II appointed his friend Thomas Becket to the post to re-establish what Henry saw as his rights over the church in England and to reassert privileges held by his father-in-law. Henry had clashed with the church over whether bishops could excommunicate royal officials without his permission, and whether he could try clerics without their appealing to Rome. Becket opposed Henry's Constitutions of Clarendon, fleeing into exile. Relations later improved, allowing Becket's return, but soured again when Becket saw the coronation of Henry's son as coregent by the Archbishop of York as a challenge to his authority and excommunicated those who had offended him. When he heard the news, Henry said: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk". Three of Henry's men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral (probably by misadventure) after Becket resisted a botched arrest attempt.[15] In Christian Europe Henry was considered complicit in this crime (making him a pariah), and he was forced to walk barefoot into the cathedral and be scourged by monks as a penance.[12]

In 1155, Pope Adrian IV gave Henry a papal blessing to expand his power into Ireland to reform the Irish church.[16] This was not an urgent matter until Henry allowed Dermot of Leinster to recruit soldiers in England and Wales, including Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (known as Strongbow), for use in Ireland. The knights assumed the role of colonisers, accruing autonomous power (which concerned Henry). When Dermot died in 1171 his son-in-law Strongbow seized considerable territory, but to defuse the controversy surrounding Becket's murder Henry re-established all fiefs in Ireland.[17]

When Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift of three castles, his wife and three eldest sons rebelled in the Revolt of 1173–1174. Louis VII encouraged the elder sons to destabilise his mightiest subject, hastening their inheritances. William the Lion and disgruntled subjects of Henry II also joined the revolt for their own reasons, and it took 18 months for Henry to force the rebels to submit to his authority.[18] In Le Mans in 1182, Henry II gathered his children to plan a partible inheritance in which his eldest son (also called Henry) would inherit England, Normandy and Anjou; Richard the Duchy of Aquitaine; Geoffrey Brittany, and John Ireland. This degenerated into further conflict, and the younger Henry again rebelled before he died of dysentery. Geoffrey died after an 1186 tournament accident; Henry was reluctant to have a sole heir,[19] and in 1189 Richard and Philip II of France took advantage of his failing health. Henry was forced to accept humiliating peace terms, including naming Richard as his sole heir. When he died shortly afterwards, his last words to Richard were said to be: "God grant that I may not die until I have my revenge on you".[20]


Man on horseback, wielding a sword

On the day of Richard's English coronation there was a mass slaughter of Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust".[21] After his coronation, Richard put the Angevin Empire's affairs in order before joining the Third Crusade to the Middle East in early 1190. Opinions of Richard by his contemporaries varied. He had rejected and humiliated the king of France's sister; deposed the king of Cyprus and sold the island; insulted and refused to give spoils from the Third Crusade to Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and allegedly arranged the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. His cruelty was exemplified by the massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre.[22] However, Richard was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners. Despite victories in the Third Crusade he failed to capture Jerusalem, retreating from the Holy Land with a small band of followers.[23]

Richard was captured by Leopold on his return journey. He was transferred to Henry the Lion, and a 25-percent tax on goods and income was required to pay his 150,000-mark ransom.[24][25] Philip II of France had overrun Normandy, while John of England controlled much of Richard's remaining lands.[26] However, when Richard returned to England he forgave John and re-established his control.[27] Leaving England permanently in 1194, Richard fought Phillip for five years for the return of holdings seized during his incarceration.[28] On the brink of victory, he was wounded by an arrow during the siege of Château de Châlus-Chabrol and died ten days later.[29]

His failure to produce an heir caused a succession crisis. Anjou, Brittany, Maine and Touraine chose Richard's nephew Arthur as heir, while John succeeded in England and Normandy. Philip II of France again destabilised the Plantagenet territories on the European mainland, supporting his vassal Arthur's claim to the English crown. Eleanor supported her son John, who was victorious at the Battle of Mirebeau and captured the rebel leadership.[30]

Arthur was murdered (allegedly by John), and his sister Eleanor would spend the rest of her life in captivity. John's behaviour drove a number of French barons to side with Phillip, and the resulting rebellions by Norman and Angevin barons ended John's control of his continental possessions—the de facto end of the Angevin Empire, although Henry III would maintain his claim until 1259.[31]

After re-establishing his authority in England, John planned to retake Normandy and Anjou by drawing the French from Paris while another army (under Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor) attacked from the north. However, his allies were defeated at the Battle of Bouvines in one of the most decisive battles in French history.[32][33] John's nephew Otto retreated and was soon overthrown, with John agreeing to a five-year truce. Philip's victory was crucial to the political order in England and France, and the battle was instrumental in establishing absolute monarchy in France.[34]

Old manuscript
One of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text of the Magna Carta

John's French defeats weakened his position in England. The rebellion of his English vassals resulted in the Magna Carta, which limited royal power and established common law. This would form the basis of every constitutional battle of the 13th and 14th centuries.[35] The barons and the crown failed to abide by the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War when rebel barons provoked an invasion by Prince Louis. John's death and William Marshall's appointment as protector of nine-year-old Henry III are considered the end of the Angevin period and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty by some historians.[1] Marshall won the war with victories at Lincoln and Dover in 1217, leading to the Treaty of Lambeth in which Louis renounced his claims.[36] In victory, the Marshal Protectorate reissued the Magna Carta as the basis of future government.[37] The word "Angevin" has also become associated with later Houses of Anjou awarded the title of "count" by French kings.


House of Plantagenet[edit]

Prince Louis's invasion is considered by some historians to mark the end of the Angevin period and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty. The likely outcome of military situation was uncertain at the time of John's death and it was William Marshall who saved the dynasty forcing Louis to renounce his claim through his military victory.[36] However, Philip had captured all of the Angevin possessions in France except Gascony. This collapse had various causes, including long-term changes in economic power, growing cultural differences between England and Normandy but, in particular, the fragile, familial nature of Henry's empire.[38] Henry III continued his attempts to reclaim Normandy and Anjou until 1259, but John's continental losses and the consequent growth of Capetian power in the 13th century proved to mark a "turning point in European history".[39]

It was Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York, who adopted Plantagenet as a family name for him and his descendants in the 15th century. Plantegenest (or Plante Genest) had been a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey, perhaps because his emblem may have been the common broom, (planta genista in medieval Latin).[40] It is uncertain why Richard chose this specific name, but it emphasised Richard's hierarchal status as Geoffrey's (and six English kings') patrilineal descendant during the Wars of the Roses. The retrospective usage of the name for all of Geoffrey's male descendants was popular in Tudor times, perhaps encouraged by the added legitimacy it gave Richard's great grandson, Henry VIII of England.[41]


Through John descent from the Angevins is widespread—both legitimate and illegitimate—including all subsequent monarchs of England and the United Kingdom. He had five legitimate children by Isabella.

John also had a large number of illegitimate children by various mistresses, including nine sons—Richard, Oliver, John, Geoffrey, Henry, Osbert Gifford, Eudes, Bartholomew and probably Philip—and three daughters—Joan, Maud and probably Isabel.[46] Of these, Joan became the most famous, marrying Prince Llywelyn the Great of Wales.[47]

Contemporary opinion[edit]

Tomb of Henry and Eleanor in Fontevraud Abbey

Henry was not a popular king and few expressed much grief on news of his death.[48] Writing in the 1190s, William of Newburgh commented that "in his own time he was hated by almost everyone"; he was widely criticised by his own contemporaries, even within his own court.[49][50] In contrast his son Richard's contemporaneous image was more mixed. On one hand that of a king who was also a knight, and that was apparently the first such instance of this combination.[51] He was known as a valiant and competent military leader and individual fighter, courageous and generous. Richard, however, also received negative portrayals. During his life, he was criticised by chroniclers for having taxed the clergy both for the Crusade and for his ransom, whereas the church and the clergy were usually exempt from taxes.[52]

Chroniclers, including Richard of Devizes, William of Newburgh, Roger of Hoveden and Ralph de Diceto were generally unsympathetic to John's behaviour under Richard's rule, but slightly more positive towards the very earliest years of John's reign.[53] Accounts of the middle and later parts of John's reign are more limited, with Gervase of Canterbury and Ralph of Coggeshall writing the main accounts; neither of them were positive about John's performance as king.[54][55] John's later, negative reputation was largely established by two chroniclers writing after the king's death, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris, the latter claiming that John attempted conversion to Islam, a story which is considered to be untrue by modern historians.[56]

Constitutional impact[edit]

Many of the changes Henry introduced during his long rule had major long-term consequences. His legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for English Common Law, with the Exchequer court a forerunner of the later Common Bench at Westminster.[57] Henry's itinerant justices also influenced his contemporaries' legal reforms: Philip Augustus' creation of itinerant bailli, for example, clearly drew on the Henrician model.[58] Henry's intervention in Brittany, Wales and Scotland also had a significant long-term impact on the development of their societies and governmental systems.[59] John's reign and his signing of Magna Carta was seen as a positive step in the constitutional development of England and the part of a progressive and universalist course of political and economic development in England over the medieval period by historians in the "Whiggish" tradition.[60] This was despite the flaws of the king himself.[60] Winston Churchill, for example, argued that "[w]hen the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns".[61] Magna Carta was reissued by the Marshal Protectorate and repeatedly afterwards as a basis for future government.[37]


A photograph of the wood block print of the Book of Martyrs. The book's title is in the centre and various scenes from the book are depicted around it.
John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, officially titled Acts and Monuments, which took a positive view of John's reign

Henry and his reign have attracted historians for many years while Richard's reputation over the years has "fluctuated wildly", according to historian John Gillingham. That reputation has come down through the ages and defines the popular image of Richard.[62] He left an indelible imprint on the imagination extending to the present, in large part because of his military exploits. This is reflected in Steven Runciman's final verdict of Richard I: "he was a bad son, a bad husband, and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier." ("History of the Crusades" Vol. III).

In the 18th century the historian David Hume argued the Angevins were pivotal to creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain.[63] Interpretations of Magna Carta and the role of the rebel barons in 1215 have been significantly revised: although the charter's symbolic, constitutional value for later generations is unquestionable, in the context of John's reign most historians now consider it a failed peace agreement between "partisan" factions.[64]

Henry's role in the death of Becket and his disputes with the French were considered relatively praiseworthy and patriotic by Protestant historians of the period[65] Similarly John's opposition to the Papacy and his promotion of the special rights and prerogatives of a king gained him favour from Tudor historians in the 16th century. John Foxe, William Tyndale and Robert Barnes portrayed John as an early Protestant hero, and John Foxe included the king in his Book of Martyrs.[66] John Speed's Historie of Great Britaine in 1632 praised John's "great renown" as a king; he blamed the bias of medieval chroniclers for the king's poor reputation.[67]

Increasing access to the contemporary documentary records from late-Victorian times led to Henry's contribution to the evolution of key English institutions, law and the exchequer being stressed.[68] William Stubbs' labelled Henry as a "legislator king" because of his responsibility for major, long-lasting reforms in England. In contrast Stubbs thought Richard "a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man".[68][69]

He was a bad king: his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration, for his people. He was no Englishman, but it does not follow that he gave to Normandy, Anjou, or Aquitaine the love or care that he denied to his kingdom. His ambition was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory that he sought was that of victory rather than conquest.

William Stubbs on Richard[70]

The growth of the British Empire led historians such as Kate Norgate to undertake detailed research into Henry's continental possessions, creating the term "the Angevin Empire" in the 1880s.[71][72] Twentieth-century historians challenged many of these conclusions. In the 1950s Jacques Boussard and John Jolliffe, among others, focused on the nature of Henry's "empire"; French scholars in particular analysed the mechanics of how royal power functioned during this period.[73] The Anglocentric aspects of many histories of Henry were challenged from the 1980s onwards, with efforts made to bring together British and French historical analysis of the period.[74] More detailed study of the written records left by Henry has cast doubt on some earlier interpretations: Robert Eyton's ground-breaking 1878 work tracing Henry's itinerary through deductions from the pipe rolls, for example, has been criticised as being too certain a way of determining location or court attendance[75] Although many more of Henry's royal charters have been identified, the task of interpreting these records, the financial information in the pipe rolls and wider economic data from the reign is understood to be more challenging than once thought.[76][77] Significant gaps in historical analysis of Henry remain, especially the nature of his rule in Anjou and the south of France.[78] There has also been increasing debate about the nature of John's Irish policies. Specialists in Irish medieval history, such as Sean Duffy, have challenged the conventional narrative established by Lewis Warren, suggesting that Ireland was less stable by 1216 than was previously supposed.[79]

Interest in the personal morality of historical figures and scholars grew in the Victorian period led to greater criticism of Henry's personal behaviour and Becket’s death.[80] Historians were also more inclined to draw on the judgements of the chroniclers and to focus on John's moral personality. Kate Norgate, for example, argued that John's downfall had been due not to his failure in war or strategy, but due to his "almost superhuman wickedness", whilst James Ramsay blamed John's family background and his cruel personality for his downfall.[81][82]

Richard's sexuality has become an issue of wider interest and controversy since the 1940s when John Harvey challenged what he perceived as "the conspiracy of silence" surrounding Richard's homosexuality drawing on chronicler accounts of Richard's behaviour, two public confessions, penitences and Richard's childless marriage.[83] Opinion remains divided on this question. For example Gillingham argues against the idea[84] and Jean Flori takes the contrary position.[85][86]

Today, historians—such as John's recent biographers Ralph Turner and Lewis Warren—argue that John was an unsuccessful monarch, but also that his failings were exaggerated by 12th- and 13th-century chroniclers.[87] Jim Bradbury notes the contemporary consensus that John was a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general", albeit, as Turner suggests, with "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits".[88] John Gillingham, author of a major biography of Richard I concurs but considers John a less effective general than do Turner or Warren; Bradbury takes a moderate line, but suggests that in recent years modern historians have been overly lenient towards John's numerous faults[89] Popular historian Frank McLynn maintains a counter-revisionist perspective on John, arguing that the king's modern reputation amongst historians is "bizarre", and that as a monarch John "fails almost all those [tests] that can be legitimately set".[90]

Popular culture[edit]

A medieval sketch of Matthew Paris, dressed as a monk and on his hands and knees.
Matthew Paris, one of the first historians of John's reign

Henry II appears in highly fictionalised form as a character in several modern plays and films. The King forms a central character in James Goldman's 1966 play The Lion in Winter, set in 1183 and presenting an imaginary encounter between Henry's immediate family and Philip Augustus over Christmas at Chinon. He is presented as masculine in contrast to John represented as an "effete weakling".[91] In the 1968 film Henry is represented as a somewhat sacrilegious, fiery and determined king.[92] Henry also appears in the play Becket by Jean Anouilh, filmed in 1964.[93][94] The Becket conflict also forms the basis for T. S. Eliot's play Murder in the Cathedral forming a discussion of the of Becket's death and Eliot's deeper religious interpretation of the episode.[95]

A photograph of the first page of Shakespeare's play "King John", with two columns of text below.

It was in the Tudor period that popular representations of John first emerged.[96] He appeared as a "proto-Protestant martyr" in the anonymous play The Troublesome Reign of King John and John Bale's morality play Kynge Johan—in which John attempts to save England from the "evil agents of the Roman Church".[97] Shakespeare's relatively anti-Catholic play—King John—draws on The Troublesome Reign but offers a more "balanced, dual view of a complex monarch as both a proto-Protestant victim of Rome's machinations and as a weak, selfishly motivated ruler".[98][99] Anthony Munday's play The Downfall and The Death of Robert Earl of Huntington portrays many of John's negative traits, but adopts a positive interpretation of the king's stand against the Roman Catholic Church.[100] By the middle of the 17th century, plays such as Robert Davenport's King John and Matilda, although based largely on the earlier Elizabethan works, were transferring the role of Protestant champion to the barons and focusing more on the tyrannical aspects of John's behaviour.[101] Graham Tulloch noted that totally unfavourable nineteenth-century fictional depictions of John were heavily influenced by Sir Walter Scott's historical romance Ivanhoe. This in turn influenced the late 19th-century children's writer Howard Pyle's book The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood which established John as the principal villain within the traditional Robin Hood narrative. During the 20th century, John was normally depicted in fictional books and films alongside Robin Hood. Sam De Grasse's role as John in the black-and-white 1922 film version shows John committing numerous atrocities and acts of torture. .[102] Claude Rains played John in the 1938 colour version alongside Errol Flynn, starting a trend for films to depict John as an "effeminate ... arrogant and cowardly stay-at-home".[76][103] The character of John acts either to highlight the virtues of King Richard, or contrasts with the Sheriff of Nottingham, who is usually the "swashbuckling villain" opposing Robin. An extreme version of this trend can be seen in the Disney cartoon version, for example, which depicts John, voiced by Peter Ustinov, as a "cowardly, thumbsucking lion".[104]

Medieval folklore[edit]

Main article: Matter of England

From the 13th century folk tales developed in which Richard’s minstrel Blondel travelled singing a song known only to the two of them to find where Richard was imprisoned.[105] The story was the basis of André Ernest Modeste Grétry's opera Richard Coeur-de-Lion and seems to be the inspiration for the opening to Richard Thorpe's film version of Ivanhoe. In the 16th century, tales of Robin Hood started to mention him as a contemporary and supporter of King Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry, during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John, while Richard was away at the Third Crusade.[106]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b "The Angevins". The Official Website of The British Monarchy. 
  2. ^ BlockmansHoppenbrouwers 2014, p. 173
  3. ^ Aurell 2003
  4. ^ Gillingham 2007a, pp. 15–23
  5. ^ Power 2007, pp. 85–86
  6. ^ Warren 1991, pp. 228-229
  7. ^ Warren 1978, p. 2
  8. ^ Davies 1997, p. 190
  9. ^ Vauchez 2000, p. 65
  10. ^ Davies 1999, p. 309
  11. ^ Hooper 1996, p. 50
  12. ^ a b Schama 2000, p. 117
  13. ^ Grant 2005, p. 7.
  14. ^ Ashley 2003, p. 73.
  15. ^ Schama 2000, p. 142
  16. ^ Jones 2012, p. 53.
  17. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 79–80
  18. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 82–92
  19. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 86
  20. ^ Jones 2012, p. 109
  21. ^ Ackroyd 2000, p. 54
  22. ^ Jones 2012, p. 128
  23. ^ Carlton 2003, p. 42
  24. ^ Jones 2012, p. 133
  25. ^ Davies 1999, p. 351
  26. ^ Jones 2012, p. 139
  27. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 140–141
  28. ^ Jones 2012, p. 145
  29. ^ Jones 2012, p. 146
  30. ^ Turner 1994, pp. 100
  31. ^ Jones 2012, pp. 161–169
  32. ^ Favier 1993, p. 176
  33. ^ Contramine 1992, p. 83
  34. ^ Smedley 1836, p. 72
  35. ^ Jones 2012, p. 217
  36. ^ a b Jones 2012, pp. 221–222
  37. ^ a b DanzigerGillingham 2003, p. 271
  38. ^ Gillingham 1994, p. 31
  39. ^ Carpenter 1996, p. 270
  40. ^ Plant 2007
  41. ^ Wagner 2001, p. 206
  42. ^ Carpenter 1996, p. 223
  43. ^ Carpenter 1996, p. 277
  44. ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 344
  45. ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 306
  46. ^ Richardson 2004, p. 9
  47. ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 328
  48. ^ Strickland 2007, p. 187
  49. ^ White 2000, p. 213
  50. ^ Vincent 2007b, p. 330
  51. ^ Flori 1999, pp. 484–485
  52. ^ Flori 1999, p. 322
  53. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 2
  54. ^ Warren 2000, p. 7
  55. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 15
  56. ^ Warren 2000, pp. 11, 14
  57. ^ Brand 2007, p. 216
  58. ^ HallamEverard 2001, p. 211
  59. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 22–23
  60. ^ a b Dyer, p.4; Coss, p.81.
  61. ^ Churchill 1958, p. 190
  62. ^ Flori 1999, pp. 484
  63. ^ Gillingham 2007a, p. 2
  64. ^ Huscroft 2005, p. 174
  65. ^ Gillingham 2007a, p. 3
  66. ^ Bevington 2002, p. 432
  67. ^ Gillingham 2007, p. 4
  68. ^ a b Gillingham 2007a, p. 10
  69. ^ White 2000, p. 3
  70. ^ Stubbs 1874, pp. 550–551
  71. ^ Gillingham 2007a, p. 16
  72. ^ Aurell 2003, p. 15
  73. ^ Aurell 2003, p. 19
  74. ^ Gillingham 2007a, p. 21
  75. ^ Gillingham 2007a, pp. 279–281
  76. ^ a b Gillingham 2007a, pp. 286, 299
  77. ^ Barratt 2007, pp. 248–294
  78. ^ Gillingham 2007a, pp. 22
  79. ^ Duffy, pp. 221, 245.
  80. ^ Gillingham 2007a, pp. 5–7
  81. ^ Norgate 1902, p. 286
  82. ^ Ramsay 1903, p. 502
  83. ^ Gillingham 1994, pp. 119–139
  84. ^ Gillingham 1994, pp. 119–139
  85. ^ Gillingham 1994, pp. 119–139
  86. ^ Flori 1999, p. 448
  87. ^ Bradbury 2007, pp. 353
  88. ^ Turner 2009, pp. 23
  89. ^ Bradbury 2007, p. 361
  90. ^ McLynn 2007, pp. 472–473
  91. ^ Elliott 2011, pp. 109–110
  92. ^ Martinson, p. 263; Palmer, p. 46.
  93. ^ Anouilh 2005, p. xxiv
  94. ^ Anouilh, p. xxiv.
  95. ^ TiwawiTiwawi 2007, p. 90
  96. ^ Bevington 2002, pp. 432
  97. ^ Curren-Aquino 1989, pp. 19
  98. ^ Curren-Aquino 1989, p. 19
  99. ^ Bevington 2002, pp. 454
  100. ^ Potter 1998, p. 70
  101. ^ Maley 2010, p. 50
  102. ^ Aberth 2003, p. 166
  103. ^ Potter 1998, pp. 210
  104. ^ Potter 1998, p. 218
  105. ^ Flori 1999, pp. 191–192
  106. ^ Holt 1982, p. 170