CHAP. 1028-1128 Origin of the family of de Montfort Evreux. Tradition connects the family of Amauri with imperial blood, for the first of the name is said to have been the grandson of Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, and Baldwin Bras-de-fer, Count of Flanders;1 his son William married the heiress of Montfort and Epernon, and their child, Amauri II, gave his name to the family possession. Another legend however declares this Amauri to have been an illegitimate son of King Robert, and thus makes the blood of the Capets to run in their veins.2 Be this as it may, in this Amauri II the family first emerges into the light of history; we find him among the vassals of France they obtain in the year 1028. His son, Simon I, appears, like others of his race, among the truest supporters of the French Crown; and to him chiefly the family owed. their power, through a fortunate marriage with Agnes, daughter, and after her brother Williams death heiress, of Richard, second Count of Evreux. This important place is situated on the Iton, a tributary of the Eure, about thirty miles to the north-west of Montfort l'Amauri. The castle had been built by Duke Richard I, the great-grandfather of William the Conqueror, and given by him to his son Robert, whom he made first Count of Evreux, and shortly afterwards Archbishop of Rouen. This prelate however, in his secular quality as count, was married and had three sons, the eldest of whom, Richard, was father of Agnes. By this marriage therefore Simon I not only gained a noble property, but enabled his descendants to claim an equality in point of birth with the kings of England themselves. These details are mostly taken from L'Art de Vérifier les Dates, vol. iii, pp. 675 seq. and 803 seq. See Appendix J. Recueil des Rois de France (Du Tillet), p. 65, quoted by Pauli. CHAP. 1028-1128 The family fort in France. But this new dignity brought with it some evils in compensation, for the traditions of the Montfort family were those of adherence to the crown of France, while Evreux was decidedly Norman, and both Richard of of de MontEvreux and his son William had fought for their duke on the field of Hastings. Nevertheless William, when he came to be Count of Evreux, showed himself a troublesome subject, and was frequently in open revolt against the Conqueror and his sons. He went so far as to aid Duke Robert against his brother; but a little later we find him fighting on the side of Henry I at Tenchebrai. His fickle character was a constant source of disturbance, and, when he died without children in 1118, Henry thought to relieve himself from further trouble by seizing and garrisoning his castle of Evreux. But his nephew, Amauri IV of Montfort, claiming Evreux in right of his mother, took the place and expelled the garrison. His occupation was short; he was speedily driven out again, and for ten years was in constant opposition to the king of England, at one time a prisoner, at another free, now in open warfare on the side of France, now intriguing with discontented Norman barons; till at length, in 1128, Henry converted him from foe to friend by putting him in possession of Evreux and all his inheritance. Under his second son, Simon III, began a Connexcloser connexion with England. His difficult position, England. on the frontiers of France and Normandy, must have The persons of this name who are found before this in connection with England, e.g. Hughde Montfort, one of the most powerful allies of Duke William in his invasion of England, and Robert de Montfort, one of four Barons who tested the charter of liberties issued by Henry I, seem to have been members of another though possibly related family, the Montforts of Risle. D ions with CHAP. II. 1128-1190 The earldom of Leicester. brought into play the state-craft which was so notable in his son and grandson. In spite of a divided allegiance, and the hostilities between Henry II and France, he seems to have managed to keep well with both sides, although compelled in 1159 to give up his castles, Evreux included, to the king. From that time, though the title remained, Evreux itself ceased to belong to the family; it was in the hands of the English king till ceded by John to Philip as part of the dower of Blanche of Castile.1 But Simon gained more than he lost. He was fortunate enough, about the year 1160,2 to win the hand of Amicia de Beaumont, sister and coheiress of Robert Fitz-Pernell, Earl of Leicester. From this marriage sprang three sons and three daughters. The eldest son, Amauri, seventh and last Count of Evreux, married Mabel, daughter of William, Earl of Gloucester, and became earl himself in right of his Simon the wife. The second son, Simon IV, who took the de crusader. Montfort estates, was the famous warrior, zealot, and crusader, 'the scourge of the Albigenses,' and became Earl of Leicester in right of his mother. A daughter, Bertrade, married Hugh, Earl of Chester, and was mother of Earl Ranulf, the great leader of the opposition in the early years of Henry III. It would have been hard, at the opening of the thirteenth century, to point to a family of greater force of character and pretensions than that of de Montfort. Simon IV, the crusader, married, about 1190, Alice, daughter of Fœd. i. 79. 2 Pauli says 'not later than 1173;' it could not well have been later than 1160, for the husband of his daughter Bertrade, the Earl of Chester, died in 1180. How it was that Amauri of Evreux did not become Earl of Leicester before his brother does not appear, nor is Dugdale clear as to how he gained or lost the earldom of Gloucester. II. 1190-1207 Bouchard V, Sire de Montmorenci, a woman noted СНАР. for her piety and wisdom,' and in courage and energyno unworthy companion for such a husband. Simon himself, if we are to believe the report of an enthusiastic admirer, combined with great intellectual ability, and the power of leading men, personal beauty and all the knightly virtues. Of his orthodoxy and ambition he gave only too terrible proof. His wife accompanied him on his crusades, and gave him valuable help in the foundation of his transitory dominion, built up with bigotry and cruelty that have rarely been surpassed, and supported mainly by the terror of his name. His connexion with England was little more than nominal. Robert, Earl of Leicester, died in 1204, and Simon's right to his mother's heritage seems to have been recognised almost immediately. In August 1206 we find him spoken of as Earl of Leicester ; 1 and on March 10, 1207, the king confirmed to him half the Barony of Leicester, with the third penny of the Earldom, and the High Stewardship of England.5 This great office had become hereditary in connexion with the Earldom of Leicester before the end of the reign of Henry II, though even then the Hist. Albig., Recueil xx. 22, quoted by Pauli. 2 Id. 23. 3 Chron. Guill. de Nang. p. 156. Rot. Lit. Claus. 28 Aug. 1206. 'Comitissa mater comitis Leicestriæ.' In Rot. Lit. Claus. of the year before she is called 'Amicia Comitissa de Montford.' The author of the article in Quarterly Rev. cxix. calls Simons mother Petronilla, but in Fed. i. 96 Petronilla is said to have been mother of the late Earl of Leicester (i.e. Robert), and therefore was grandmother of Simon IV. Fad. i. 96. Hudson Turner (Household Expenses vii.) says there is no charter of his creation in existence, but it seems to have been lost, for, besides the mention of him in the writ of 28 Aug. 1206, we read in that of March 10, 1207, 'comitatus Leircestr' unde ipse comes est.' Simon IV, Earl of Leicester. 36 CHAP. II. 1207-1218 Simon IV, Earl of dignity seems to have been shared by several persons at once. It had long ago ceased to have any political importance, the official functions connected with it having mostly passed to the Chief Justiciar, at a time Leicester; when hereditary officers were being replaced by others over whom the king had more power. The other half of the earldom was conferred by the king at the same time on Saer de Quenci, with the title of Earl of Winchester. The division was to take effect on the deaths of Petronilla, the mother, and Laurentia, the widow, of the late Earl of Leicester. Simon seems to have held the title until the position he had won for himself in the south of France made the mere name comparatively worthless, or until, as Pauli thinks, the reconciliation of his backer, the Pope, with England, induced him to resign his claim. It is very doubtful whether he ever set foot in England; it is certain he can never have reaped any pecuniary advantage from his earldom, for in the very same year, 1207, we find that the king deprived him of his possessions.3 Though we are not told the reason of this change, it cannot be far to seek. Simons strength lay in Normandy, his family traditions bound him to the French court; in the very next year he was appointed Captain-General of the French forces in the crusade against the Albigenses. The conquests of the French king in Normandy would have in any case made the position of such a subject in England very doubtful, apart from the feeling with which he deprived of the earldom. 1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 343, 345. Gneist, Verw. i. 235. 2 Pauli, Simon de Mont., 25. Rot. Lit. Claus., 27 Dec., 1207. Raymond of Toulouse was Johns brother-in-law. |
