Reginald Earl of Cornwall's Political Life and Family Connections

1
An examination into the political life of Reginald Earl of Cornwall
This dissertation will examine the political life of one of Henry I’s illegitimate sons,
Reginald Earl of Cornwall. Very little research has gone into this man. Kathleen Thompson
has examined the origins of his family on his mother’s side, as she has done with Henry’s
other bastard children. He is mentioned in passing in many biographies of King Stephen and
Matilda, as well as those of Henry II, but there is little detail on him. The secondary
literature on him does not focus on him as the primary point of study. Barlow’s English
Episcopal Acta of Exeter provides useful insight as does P. L. Hull’s The Cartulary of
Luanceston Priory. They both examine his role in terms of the Bishopric of Exeter and the
Priory at Launceston. The primary sources used in this study are charters from the two
books previously mentioned as well as the Regesta and the Angevin Acta Project. Looking at
the charters Reginald witnessed and the charters he made provides insights into his rule and
his personal relationship with the king. No pipe rolls have been used as Reginald ruled his
lands as an apanage, meaning he did not pay anything to the exchequer. Chronicles have
been used as well but due to their limited information and views on Reginald it is the
charters that have taken precedence. This study examines one of the most powerful earls of
Stephen and Henry II’s reign. In addition to Reginald’s life this study will shed light, in part,
on how illegitimate children could gain power and how they acted to achieve it. It shows in
detail how Cornwall may have been seen by the king, as well as analysing why certain earls
had their lands and titles taken away during the reign of King Henry and why others did not.
Reginald Earl of Cornwall was one of the most powerful earls during the reigns of
Stephen and Henry II. This dissertation will begin by discussing the origins of the man,
studying his family and his position as earl. The conclusion will be drawn that Henry created
a close bond between his illegitimate and legitimate children and therefore was able, for
himself and his daughter Matilda, to have a large group of ambitious vassals around him
who were loyal. Their loyalty came from having the blood of a king, giving them high
prestige, but, as they were illegitimate, they could not challenge for power. There will also
be an examination into Reginald’s family on his mother’s side which will show how they
gained in power as Reginald established himself. It will also show how the members of
Reginald’s family were involved in his politics in Cornwall. Finally this section will examine

2
how becoming an earl affected Reginald. Matilda made him earl so he would remain loyal to
her and Henry II, as he knew he could gain through his family connections. If Stephen had
won, his title could have been revoked.
The next topic in this dissertation will examine the lands he held, particularly in
Cornwall. It will show that Reginald was able to hold a substantial amount of power there,
ruling it as an apanage without royal influence. It will also show how the county of Cornwall
offered little, in terms of finance, to the king as it was one of the poorest counties in
England. However, the political value it offered is ambiguous. Reginald’s lands may have a
greater political value during the reign of King Stephen and the Anarchy as any land that
Stephen lost would have indicated to his supporters that he could not keep control of his
kingdom. Power in Cornwall threatened Devon and the other counties in the southwest of
England. But in Henry’s reign these issue did not present themselves as the country was
generally at peace. There is the possibility that lands in Cornwall were held for cadet
members of the royal family. Its purpose may have been to give royalty the lands necessary
to maintain their wealth but not allow them to be rich and powerful enough to challenge
the reigning monarch. One unknown is whether Henry II may have wanted these lands,
during Reginald's latter years, to give to his son John, who at the time of Reginald’s death in
1175, was fourth in line to the throne.
The final topic that will be examined is how Reginald managed to maintain his lands,
title and privileges when so many others had theirs taken away. Henry II was known for
suppressing earls who had become excessively powerful during the reign of King Stephen.
The reason Reginald managed to survive seems to be in part due to his lands. As Cornwall
offered little financially to Henry he may have seen no need to acquire any of it. Reginald
had done an effective job in entrenching himself in the county as well making alliances with
the lords and earls around him. Trying to remove him may have proved too risky. Reginald
may have remained loyal to Henry as he had no reason to rebel as long as his lands were
safe.

3
Chapter 1: Reginald’s antecedents and his role as an earl
Reginald was an illegitimate son of Henry I, as were his brothers Richard, Robert Earl
of Gloucester, and Robert fitz Roy. Reginald was also the brother of Matilda. Reginald and
Matilda both depended upon each other in the political uncertainty of the “Anarchy” of
twelfth century England. Family was critical both for survival and power and the nature of
their brother sister relationship was a crucial element in the political lives of both Reginald
and Matilda. He was also his mother's son and his mother’s side of the family played an
important role in his life. These family connections will show the extent of his power and
shed insight into his political actions. Finally, his appointment as earl will be examined and
an analysis made of what this meant for his political life. During this period parents and
ancestors played a large role in determining a person's life. Family decided one's standing in
society, from a person's social or political class to how one should act in society. Reginald’s
case is unique in so far as he was both an illegitimate son of a king and from a relatively
powerful maternal family. He also had a sister who was Empress and tentatively Queen of
England. Power was secured through relatives. Reginald used his position as a son of a king,
and brother to Matilda, to establish himself.
Williamof Malmesbury stated that the most remarkable thing about Henry was his
ability to keep rebellion in check through fear of his name.1 Henry ran a government that
rewarded those whom he trusted and marginalised those whom he could not. This was
demonstrated in the treaty of Alton, 1101, when he removed land from those he could not
trust and gave land generously to others in order to gain their loyalty.2 Henry went further
in securing his kingdom from rebellion. As Orderic Vitalis put it, he raised people from “the
dust”.3 This is probably an exaggeration though. Turner points out that Orderic Vitalis and
many other medieval writers comment on their disdain for the movement of people outside
their own social status.4 In their opinion people should be content to remain in their
“natural” position in society. This was due to the belief that the hierarchy on earth matched
1 R. A. B. Mynors, R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury Gesta regnum Anglorum, vol 1,
(Oxford, Clarendon Press,2006),p. 741.
2 C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, (London, Yale University Press,2003),p. 145.
3 Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1986),p.
139.
4 Ralph V. Turner, Men raised form the dust, (Philadelphia,University of PhiladelphiaPress,1988),p.1.

4
the fixed hierarchy in heaven.5 But movement through the layers of social hierarchy during
the medieval period was more common than many contemporaries would admit.6 The men
Henry raised to higher positions may not have been from the lowest positions in society that
Orderic’s rhetoric depicts but Henry does seemed to have created new men. These were
men who were not entitled to any granted land but rather relied on the king's generosity. As
a result men such as Rainer of Bath and Hugh of Buckland became exceedingly wealthy
whilst nobles of superior birth were disinherited.7 These men were talented individuals who
would have had much to offer Henry. They had possessed nothing before Henry and owed
everything to him. In addition Henry had the support of those from noble families but who
had little chance of gaining power from their fathers or more distant relatives. Many of
these were the most powerful members of Henry I’s household or were his more obscure
family relations. Henry’s brother-in-law, King David of Scotland, is a good example of this.
Before he became king, David was the sixth son of his father and seemed to have no hope of
gaining the throne.8 It was during this time that he joined Henry I’s household and was given
the honour of Huntingdon. Another example of raising a person to power, who seemed to
have little chance of otherwise gaining land, was Brian fitz Count. A bastard son of Duke
Alan Fergant of Brittany, he became one of Henry’s most loyal vassals, to the extent that
Henry gave him lands in Wales in 1119. This was part of Henry’s solution of the Welsh
problem. By giving Welsh lands to his most trusted friends Henry hoped to secure the
border.9
Many relatives of Henry, such as his nephews, Theobold and Stephen, as well as
illegitimate children such as Robert Earl of Gloucester, gained large amounts of power from
the king. This may have been due to Henry’s possible opinion that family would remain
more loyal than those whose were not related to him, but without the problems that kings
normally faced of legitimate sons betraying their father and of siblings fighting in order to
become kings themselves. Indeed Robert Earl of Gloucester, was betrayed by his own
legitimate son Phillip, when he joined Stephen’s side and went as far as capturing Reginald
as he returned from peace talks with Stephen in the summer of 1146. Although it may be
5 Ralph V. Turner, Men raised form the dust, p. 2.
6 Ibid.,p. 2.
7 Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I, p. 139.
8 MarjorieChibnall,TheEmpress Matilda, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell ltd,1992),p.12.
9 C. Warren Hollister,Henry I, p. 236.

5
too great a generalisation to say illegitimate children were more loyal than legitimate
children, it did seem to be the case.
Illegitimate sons made effective magnates, being both family and desperate for land,
yet with no rights to their father’s inheritance. Henry could therefore secure his kingdom by
using his illegitimate sons to manage areas that were in particular danger of rebellion or
invasion. Robert of Gloucester was given the city of Bristol and the earldom of Gloucester.
This was through his marriage in 1107, by the command of Henry, to Mabel, who was the
heiress to Robert, son of Hamon.10 He was given the earldom of Gloucester in 1122 and of
Glamorgan in 1121. England was frequently attacked by the Welsh and Wales was very hard
to control due to its terrain and a population that was unwilling to be subdued. Henry gave
lands to already powerful nobles so they had the resources to fight the unruly Welsh. Robert
was part of this tactic. Hollister points out that Brian fitz Count received Abergavenny in
1119 and Robert of Gloucester received Glamorgan in 1121. Along with this, Henry tried to
administratively integrate the earldoms of Pembroke and Shropshire into a kingdom-wide
administrative system.11 Matilda and Robert seemed to have copied this tactic with their
half-brothers Reginald and Robert fitz Roy. Reginald was given Cornwall to secure the
southwest of England and Robert was given the barony of Okehampton for the same
purpose. As a result Devon and Cornwall were largely protected from Stephen’s influence.
Not only were these men valuable as loyal vassals but they were clearly competent
in providing military and administrative assistance as well. During Henry’s reign this can be
seen particularly with Richard and Robert. They were trained by Henry with the intention of
them becoming educated and well trained knights. During this period it became increasingly
embarrassing for kings not to have knowledge of letters. It is therefore telling that Henry
took care to give his illegitimate sons an excellent education. Richard, for example, was
placed in the household of Robert Bloet, the Bishop of Lincoln. In this sense both these
children were treated as if they were legitimate sons.12 Thompson believes that Robert
10 John T. Appleby, The troubled reign of King Stephen, (London, G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1969), p. 15.
11 C. Warren Hollister,Henry I, p. 236.
12 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimatechildren of Henry I’, Journal of Medieval History 29
(2003) 129–151, p. 137.

6
additionally must have had this sort of education.13 There is a possibility that Reginald may
have received this treatment as well.
Richard and Robert showed their knightly abilities at the Battle of Bremule in 1119.
This encounter probably only lasted one hour with Henry’s forces defeating and humiliating
the French king’s army. Henry of Huntingdon and the Hyde Chronicle refer to the
appearance of both men during the battle, albeit with differing accounts.14 Their position in
the battle is not that important, what is however, is that they are both mentioned by name,
which seems to show they held high command or were of high importance in the battle.
Orderic Vitalis describes Richard and Robert of Gloucester as “distinguished knights” at the
Battle of Bremule.15 This shows that their status as bastards had no effect on their status on
the battlefield.
Robert was clearly a competent administrator as well. In 1129 Robert, with Brian fitz
Count, carried out a special audit of the treasury.16 Reginald seems to have held similar
abilities and held similar importance to both Matilda and Henry II. Although Reginald was
not present for the Battle of Lincoln, the Angevin forces most famous victory, he did seem
to play important military roles for Matilda. This can be seen with her retreat from
Winchester on the 14th September 1141. Matilda was in the vanguard of the retreating
column, with Reginald escorting her as they feared an attack on the flank.17 The fact that
Reginald was given the responsibility of escorting Matilda shows that he must have been
trusted by the vast majority of the Angevin elite. The trust was that he would not abandon
her, and that his ability as a knight and commander would ensure her safety. Furthermore
Henry II must have had a strong faith in Reginald’s administrative ability otherwise he would
not have let him govern England in 1154 when he went back to Normandy. Although there
is not the same evidence that Reginald was as educated as Richard he was clearly brought
up to be a competent knight and statesman.
13 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimatechildren of Henry I’, Journal of Medieval History 29
(2003) 129–151, p. 137.
14 Judith A. Green, Henry I King of England and Duke of Normandy, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
2009),p. 151.
15 MarjorieChibnall,TheEcclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol 6, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978),
p. 237.
16 MarjorieChibnall,TheEmpress Matilda, p. 54.
17 Edmund King, King Stephen, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2010),p. 170.

7
Reginald’s use of the fact that his father was a king can be seen from the title he
used when issuing charters. When Reginald granted a charter he sometimes referred to
himself as Reginald, son of the king, Earl of Cornwall.18 He was emphasising his rights to this
land. It may have other meanings as well. Being the son of a king would have commanded a
great deal of prestige and respect. To include it in his title may have been to justify his
holding of Cornwall as an apanage as well as giving him greater status. It is probably similar
to the way Henry had charters written referring to himself as Henry, King of England, Duke
of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou. These titles showed the extent of his
domain, just as Reginald wanted to show the extent of his heritage. Both were attempting
to inspire awe. It seems to show that Reginald saw himself, and wanted others to see him,
as royalty.
When Reginald died on 1st July 1175 it is telling that he was buried in St. Mary’s
Abbey in Reading.19 This was where Henry I had been buried. Henry had founded this abbey
in the hope that it would act as a future resting place for his heirs, as St. Denis Abbey did for
the Capetian kings in France. William, the eldest son of Henry II, was buried there.20 Reading
Abbey was seen as the burial place for those with royal blood during the reigns of Henry I
and Henry II. This seems to show that Reginald had a regal persona. He may have requested
to be buried with his father but ultimately the dead do not decide when and where they are
buried. This can be seen in respect to Henry I, who according to Roger of Howden, lay
unburied in Normandy in 1136 until the stench was unbearable. As a result the body was
sewed into bull hides and the man dealing with the brain died even though he had wrapped
the dead king's head with clothes.21 Henry would have certainly wanted better treatment of
his body. But the dead do not have a voice amongst the living. The fact that people were
willing to take Reginald’s body to Reading shows that others saw Reginald as a royal son,
accepted by his father, sister and nephew as a member of the royal family. This may have
been because of the affection and trust he received from Henry I, Matilda and Henry II or
simply because he was the son of the king.
18 P.L. Hull,The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, vol 30, (Torquay, The DevonshirePress Ltd, 1987), charters 11,
12 and 13.
19 John T. Appleby, Henry II The Vanquished King, (London, G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1962), p. 236.
20 Elizabeth M. C. Van Houts, The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis and
Robert of Torigni, vol 2, (Oxford,Clarendon Press,1992), p. 741.
21 Henry T. Riley,The Annalsof Roger of Hoveden, vol I, (London, H.G. Bohn, 1853),p. 227.

8
Thompson states that there was solidarity among the siblings based on their
connection to Henry and that this support continued after Henry’s reign.22 This can be seen
with Reginald. At the beginning of Stephen’s reign he was, with others, conducting a
campaign of banditry in the Contentin and the Avranchin against the duke’s peace.23 William
of Malmesbury states that Reginald committed banditry in the Contentin as he favoured his
sister’s cause.24 It seems then that Reginald fought for his sister out of loyalty, an obligation
to his blood and possibly for opportunity as well. These relationships were mutually
beneficial as not only did Reginald help Matilda and Robert Earl of Gloucester, in their
political endeavours but they helped Reginald gain wealth, land and influence. It was in
1138 that Reginald sailed to England probably in hope, or at the promise, of gaining land.25
This unity can be seen among other siblings as well. Julianna an illegitimate daughter of
Henry provides a good example of this. Julianna was married to Eustace of Bretuil in order
to secure the border regions around Normandy. Henry did this with many of his illegitimate
daughters but on this occasion the strategy was particularly disastrous. Not only did Eustace
and Julianna betray Henry, but rejected his offer of peace by blinding the son of one of his
castellans, Ralph Harenc. Henry in turn allowed Ralph to blind both the daughters of
Julianna. Things quickly escalated even more when Julianna asked for an interview with
Henry but when he turned up she shot at him with a crossbow bolt and narrowly missed.26
Richard’s intercession on behalf of his sister shows how these siblings still remained close. It
was this, according to Orderic Vitalis, which softened the king’s heart and led to her and her
husband to be forgiven although it was with a much diminished status and without any of
their previous lands27. It is therefore evident that although there are some exceptions
illegitimate children generally supported each other.
Robert’s actions during the start of Stephen’s reign may challenge this view. The
historiography is extensive on this subject. Hollister takes Williamof Malmesbury’s word on
Robert’s motives, emphasising family loyalty. Paterson takes a different stance arguing that
Robert was motivated by self-gain rather than having any loyalty to his sister. Crouch takes
22 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimatechildren of Henry I’, p. 138.
23 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, (Harlow, Pearson education ltd, 2000),p. 67.
24 MarjorieChibnall,TheEcclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, vol 6, p. 511.
25 John T. Appleby, The troubled reign of King Stephen, p. 115.
26 Judith A. Green, Henry I King of England and Duke of Normandy, p. 148.

9
the opinion that Robert acted with a degree of self-interest but believes that Paterson went
too far with his criticism. Williamof Malmesbury claims that Robert of Gloucester did not
know what to do in regard of the succession upon hearing of the death of Henry.28 Appleby
agrees with this statement. He quotes Williamof Malmesbury stating that Robert only went
to England to gather support for Matilda’s cause, believing the reason he did not rebel
earlier was because it would have been too dangerous.29 Patterson takes the other extreme.
He shows the reasons Williamof Malmesbury would have supported Robert’s cause and
why both Geoffrey of Monmouth and Williamwere seeking favours from Robert. In
exchange Robert wanted a history from Williamthat showed his point of view as to why he
rebelled.30 Patterson shows that Williamwas fond of Henry I and was keen to obtain favours
for his monastery, St. Aldhelm’s.31 It seems then that William’s account of Robert’s motives
and actions in not fighting for Matilda immediately are open to doubt. It is very plausible
that Robert did not want to fight for Matilda’s cause immediately but Patterson’s claimthat
Robert had less of an intention for fighting for Matilda, and instead fought more for himself,
is unconvincing.
When talking about Robert’s motivation for war Patterson quotes chroniclers who
associate Robert with 22 military actions of varying importance in 10 shires. Those shires
contained 68 per cent of the earl’s geldable land, with 14 of these engagements taking place
in only 3 shires, which contained 47 per cent of Robert’s geldable land.32 He then implies
that Robert’s actions were based on protecting his own lands rather than attacking the
enemy and trying to win. This seems like a very unfair criticism. It is the mark of a good
commander to attack from where one is stronger than from a position where one is weak. It
would make sense for Robert to campaign where he was strong because he relied on the
support and supplies of his local allies. Furthermore it is clear that the few times he did
campaign outside his core area it often ended up in disaster. Firstly, on Matilda’s march on
London where the citizens refused them entry, and then at Winchester, where in securing
the safe escape of his sister Matilda, he ended up getting captured. Patterson is convincing
28 C. Warren Hollister,Henry I, pp. 481-2.
29 John T. Appleby, The troubled reign of King Stephen, p. 31.
30 Robert B. Patterson, ‘Williamof Malmesbury's Robert of Gloucester: A Re-evaluation of the Historia Novella’,
The American Historical Review, Vol. 70, No. 4 (Jul., 1965),pp. 983-997,Oxford University Press,p. 985.
31 Ibid.,p. 984.
32 Ibid.,p. 994.

10
when he says that at the start of Stephen’s reign Robert supported Theobold more than he
supported Matilda. This can be seen by the fact that Robert surrendered the royal treasury
at Falaise to Theobold after hearing of Stephen’s ascension. He was additionally one of the
Anglo-Norman leaders who elected Theobold as king on 20th December 1135.33 Crouch
points out that Geoffrey of Anjou and Matilda had been at war with Henry up until 1135 and
as a result feelings were very bitter towards the pair in Normandy.34 It seems clear that for
the first three years of Stephen’s reign Robert had no intention of joining Matilda’s court. It
was only after Stephen’s lack of action during the Welsh insurgencies, which would have
resulted in Robert losing wealth and influence, that Robert turned to Matilda.35 On top of
this Robert was losing his position of power in the king’s court at the expense of the
Beaumont faction. This is what probably led him to leave the royal court in Normandy in
1137.36 This was probably due to the fact that Robert had too much to lose in supporting
Matilda immediately. It is my opinion that Robert’s actions in the aftermath of Henry’s
death was a mixture of all these, with Robert being, to some extent, selfish, feeling betrayed
by Matilda and sensing that there was little chance of success by taking up her cause in
1135, especially as Theobold was an option for king and duke.
Reginald’s family on his mother’s side sheds further light on Henry I’s political
thinking when it came to illegitimate children. It also shows how her family operated for
Reginald especially in those whom Reginald picked for his household. Thompson is the best
starting place when researching Reginald’s family on his mother’s side. She comes to the
conclusion that Sybil Corbet was most probably Reginald’s mother. Reginald refers to an
aunt of his called Alice Corbet in one of his charters.37 But the question does remain as to
why Reginald was referred to as de Dunstanville by Orderic Vitalis. Thompson says this was
probably due to the fact that Alice and Sybil were half-sisters, related to the same mother,
Adeliza de Dunstanville.38 Sybil’s father was called Reginald. This is probably the family tie
that gave Reginald his name. This is different to many of his illegitimate siblings who were
p. 986.
34 D. Crouch,‘Robert, earl of Gloucester, and the daughter of Zelophehad’, Journal of Medieval History, 11
(1985),pp. 227- 43, p. 228.
35 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 75.
36 Patterson in Crouch, David,The Reign of King Stephen, p. 67.
37 See Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimatechildren of Henry I’, pp. 143-4 for more detail.
38 Ibid.,p. 145.

11
commonly given Norman ducal names, such as Robert, Richard and Matilda. This may not be
particularly significant. It is interesting however as to whom had the right to name their
children in this period. Sybil may have named him as she wanted him to be known as part of
her family with Henry seemingly not as worried about it. Alternatively this may have been
an intentional action by Henry, wanting to honour Sybil’s family by naming the child after
her brother and father. This may have been a form of an apology on Henry’s part after
impregnating their unmarried daughter. He may have felt it necessary to repair the
relationship with that side of the family. A different conclusion can be drawn from this
though. It is possible that Henry’s liaison with this woman had a political motive. It was not
uncommon for rulers to have sons born from sexual partnerships that had predated a
marriage that had been contracted for political and social reasons.39 Before analysing this it
is important to assess the de Dunstanville family, was as well as their standing in the
country.
The de Dunstanvilles were a landholding family with interests in Wiltshire,
Shropshire, Sussex, Cornwall, and Oxfordshire.40 They were, before marriage bound to
Reginald Earl of Cornwall, a relatively powerful family and members of the gentry. Reginald
de Dunstanville and his sister Gundreda, Earl Reginald’s uncle and aunt, appear in the
Wiltshire section of the pipe roll in 1130.41 Their standing seems to have increased when
Reginald came of age and became an important earl to Matilda. With this Thompson points
out how they started to become closer to the royal members of English society. She says
that Reginald introduced them into the royal circle, with an Alan de Dunstanville witnessing
a charter for Matilda in 1141.42 Furthermore a Robert de Dunstanville witnessed charters for
both Matilda and her son Henry and was referred to as Henry’s dapifer. He would later be
rewarded for this by being given the revenues of Heytesbury, Wiltshire worth £40 annually,
and from about 1160 received the revenues of Colyton in Devon worth £20 annually.43 It
seems that the de Dunstanvilles were on the up. The fact that the liaison probably
39 Kathleen Thompson, Affairs of State: the illegitimate children of Henry I, p. 135.
40 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Dunstanville,de, family (per. c.1090–c.1292)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford University Press, (2004; onlineedn, May 2014) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/54504>
[accessed 13 Aug 2015].
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.

12
happened in the late 1110 or early 1120s is telling as well.44 Henry was generous to the
family during this period. This may have been an attempt on his part to secure parts of
England by creating an alliance with the Dunstanville family. But it seems more probable
that it would have been Sybil or her family that took the initiative. If Sybil were a particularly
attractive or charming woman then she or her family may have tried to seduce the lustful
Henry for their own gain. At the time of Reginald’s conception it would have been clear to
many in England how Henry I treated his illegitimate children and their mother’s families.
Richard and his mother Ansfride are a good example of this. She had become homeless after
the death of her husband, Anskil.45 She gave birth to Henry's child, Richard, and was given a
manor. There seems to have been little political gain for Henry through this relationship,
whilst Ansfride seems to have gained a great deal. Reginald’s mother was similarly rewarded
after the birth of Reginald and was married to Henry I’s chamberlain.46 The Dunstanville’s
involvement in Reginald’s life can be seen by the series of charters they witnessed for him.
In a grant to the Priory of St. Stephen’s at Launceston which granted the priory full liberty
and freedom as well as freedom from suits in the shire courts, hundred pleas and
castleguard, two Dunstanvilles are mentioned, Robert and Hugh.47 The cartulary of
Launceston provides a vital source for Reginald’s life. This is because the priory played an
important role for Reginald’s control over Cornwall.
Reginald’s charters to this priory provide some insight into Reginald’s rule over
Cornwall. Robert de Dunstanville witnesses six charters including the one just mentioned.
This seems to show that the Dunstanvilles had gained a higher standing in Cornwall thanks
to their alliance with Reginald and that Robert was very much part of Reginald's entourage.
Furthermore the charters from the Angevin acta Project show that at least six of the
charters that Reginald witnessed for Henry were additionally witnessed by Robert de
Dunstanville and an additional one witnessed by Walter de Dunstanville and Reginald.48 It
has to be mentioned though that there are at least 34 charters witnessed by Robert de
44 See Kathleen Thompson, ‘Affairs of State: the illegitimatechildren of Henry I’, p. 143. Robert of Torigni states
that Reginald was a young man in the in the 1130s.Means that he was probably born in the period stated
above.
45 David Crouch, ‘Robert of Gloucester’s mother and sexual politicsin Norman Oxfordshire’,Historical
Research, (October 1 1999), p. 329.
47 P.L. Hull,The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. 10, charter 11.
48 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters: 229,436, 314,1806, 1934,2480, with Walter:1693.

13
Dunstanville for Henry II.49 Furthermore Walter witnesses at least 14.50 The dates of the
charters may lead to the conclusion that Reginald managed to give the Dunstanvilles access
to royalty. The charters that Reginald and Robert both witnessed, excluding the spurious
ones, were made between 1154 and 1158, the time Reginald was closest to the king. When
removing the charters which have their authenticity in doubt only five of the charters
Robert witnessed may have been witnessed before 1155. The vast majority were witnessed
afterwards. This may point to the conclusion that Reginald brought Robert closer to Henry.
This can be seen by the fact that Robert was a member of Reginald’s entourage and was
present with Reginald at the king’s court. An introduction may have been made which
proved invaluable for Robert as not only did he go on to witness several other charters and
therefore seemingly held some closeness to the monarch, but Walter his nephew and heir
went on to do the same thing. The charters found in the Regesta additionally support this
theory with Robert and Reginald together witnessing seven charters for Matilda and then
for Henry II between 1141 and 1154.51 Five were witnessed between 1153-4 where Reginald
was particularly close to the king.52 The majority of these charters are Robert's witnesses
and seem to have happened in the 1150s and 60s (his death occurring in 1166/7) whilst
Walter went on to witness in the later 60s and 70s. It could be that Reginald managed to
increase the power and prestige of two generations of Dunstanvilles. Reginald increased the
Dunstanville’s influence at Matilda’s court as well. With an Alan de Dunstanville witnessing a
charter given by her in 1141.53
It seems that everyone gained from these sorts of alliances. Reginald gained as he
was related to royalty and he had a relatively powerful family from his mother's side, whose
loyalty he could rely on as their proximity to royalty depended on Reginald’s good graces.
Reginald’s mother was given a good marriage and her family became closer to the royal
49 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters: 118,524, 592,593, 757, 777,909, 910, 1166,1257,1473,
1584,1585, 1606,1727, 1829,1939,1943, 2009,2097,2302, 2412,2445, 2477,2496,2507, 2510,2524, 2579,
2739,2828, 2839,2887.
50 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters: 251,430, 963,982, 1247,1248, 1380,1424, 1821,1882,
2256,2544, 2545, 2794, 2828.
51 H. W. C. Davis,Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum 1066- 1154,vol 3 (1135- 54), (Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1918),charters: 126,128, 259, 309,438, 709 and 821.
52 Ibid,charters:126, 128,309, 438 and 709.
53 Kathleen Thompson, ‘Dunstanville, de, family (per. c.1090–c.1292)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford University Press, (2004; onlineedn, May 2014) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/54504>

14
family. Conversely Henry, and then in turn his daughter Matilda, made an alliance with a
land holding family in England and gained a possible vassal who would be respected as a son
of a king but could not challenge either Henry or Matilda as he was illegitimate.
The children that Henry recognised and their extended families would go on to be
invaluable to Matilda during the Anarchy. The loyalty shown by the extended families of
Henry’s illegitimate children can be seen in their aid to Matilda. Robert fitz Edith’s (Robert
fitz Roy) family supported both Henry and Matilda. Ann William’s points out that Henry’s
liaison with this woman connected him with Cumbria, a region that had not been firmly
under the control of the Norman kings of England. Edith’s grandfather, Sigulf Forne, had
been a magnate in the area. Furthermore Sigulf’s son received land in Thornton-le-Moor.54
Edith ultimately married Robert of Oilli who was lord of Hook Norton. Both her husband and
her son Robert fought for the Empress during the war with Stephen. Robert was present at
the Battle of Winchester and attested charters made by the Empress between 1141 and
1147, usually in the company of Reginald Earl of Cornwall, and Robert Earl of Gloucester.
And Robert of Oilli was killed in the service of Matilda in 1142.55 It seems that both Edith
and Henry used each other, as Reginald’s mother and Henry had.
The third key factor in determining Reginald’s life and status was his creation as an
earl. Reginald gained power through his marriage into the family of Williamfitz Richard,
who was at the time the most powerful secular man in Cornwall. Soon after Reginald was
made earl. Williamof Malmesbury claims that it was Robert Earl of Gloucester, who made
Reginald an earl.56 This seemimprobable for two reasons. First, Williamof Malmesbury
clearly supported Robert. Patterson points out that Williamof Malmesbury was keen to
obtain favours for his monastery at St. Aldhelm’s. In addition to this Williammakes a
suggestive reference of Robert’s generosity to St Mary’s Tewkesbury in his 1120s Regnum
Anglorum. Both Geoffrey of Monmouth and Williamwere seeking favours from Robert and
in exchange he wanted a favourable history written about him.57 It seems possible that
Williamstated that Robert was granted the title to exaggerate and boast about the power of
54 Ann Williams, Henry I and the English, in Donald F. Fleming and Janet M. Pope, Henry I and the Anglo
Norman World,(The Haskins Society Journal,Special volume17,The Boydell Press,2007), pp. 33-6.
55 Ibid.,p. 36.
56 Edmund King, King Stephen, p. 134.
pp. 984-6.

15
Robert even though he was only a minor Angevin. Second, there are concerns about the
nature of the title "earl".
The title of earl gave the bearer a huge amount of power and an even greater
amount of wealth. During this period the title of earl could not be inherited but was only
given by royal authority, although the aspiration to the title was inherited by the sons of
earls. The title additionally gave the bearer a new range of responsibilities and rights. An
earl was entitled to the third penny from the justices of the shire, increasing their wealth
greatly. The duties of earls involved keeping the peace and organising the king’s military
retinues. This gave them power as they effectively had control over who would become the
king’s men. An earl was effectively given the ability to exercise royal power. The fact that
the title of earl could only be granted by royalty is what is telling here. Matilda was the rival
to Stephen, as Lady of England. It seems probable that it would have been Matilda who then
granted Reginald the title of earl as she was the only person in the Angevin party who had
any royal authority. Robert needed Matilda to give legitimacy to his position as "earl".
Reginald's first years as earl can, to a large extent, be seen as a failure. After being
granted the earldom and receiving some of the most powerful lands in the region in 1140,
through his marriage to the daughter of William fitz Richard, he seemed to be in an
incredibly strong position. Yet in 1141 he was confined to his castle at Launceston unable to
rule his county, with Alan Earl of Richmond, who was made Earl of Cornwall by Stephen as a
challenge to Matilda’s authority, controlling the majority of the county. This was the
consequence of Reginald and his father in law alienating the church in the area, and in their
resulting excommunication. The reason they were excommunicated has largely been
overlooked by historians. Crouch claims that Reginald alienated the church by issuing new
taxes.58 King believes that Reginald’s excommunication was the result of the church trying
to exert its power during the Anarchy.59 But these points are made very generally and lack
any detail. It may be that the destruction of Church property played a key role rather than
the imposition of new taxes. Hull has created the most convincing argument for this. He
points out that the Launceston Priory of St. Stephen’s may have played a more important
role than originally thought. St. Stephen’s had received a gift from King Stephen in 1136 for
59 Edmund King, King Stephen, p. 321.

16
the permission to create of a new tower for the priory.60 Reginald, probably trying to quash
any connection or relationship with Stephen, attacked the priory and destroyed the tower
that had already been built.61 It was this destruction that eventually led to his
excommunication by the Bishop of Exeter. This church seems to have been part of the
bishop’s diocese. A charter made during the reign of Henry I confirms that the churches in
Bodmin, Launceston, Probus as well as some in Devon shall be given to the Bishop of Exeter
now and forever.62 Reginald as a result lost the majority of his power, with Earl Alan taking
the ascendency. Reginald only managed to regain his position when Alan was captured by
Ranulf Earl of Chester after the Battle of Lincoln in 1141. Alan’s power collapsed and
Reginald filled the void that was left. He subsequently repented to the church in order to
win back the church's support.
Reginald’s chances of inheriting his father’s titles and challenging for the throne
would have played an important factor in Matilda’s decision to make Reginald an earl. Times
and morality were indeed changing in Western Europe and it was becoming more
unacceptable for illegitimate children to inherit titles, especially those as holy as that of
king. Robert Earl of Gloucester shows this to be the case in England. Robert, as had been
shown, was clearly a competent and well respected administrator, leader and military
tactician. His leadership qualities are made clear in the early years of the Anarchy when the
likes of Miles of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count rebelled in 1139. Crouch goes as far to say
that it was Robert who convinced them to rebel following his entry into England.63 Robert
was a man who had the ability, the power and the bloodline to become a king but it seems
the fact that he was born out of wedlock held him back. This was probably the same
situation facing Reginald. Clearly he was a man of ability who held power and had the right
father. But as with Robert increasingly people would not have seen him as a viable option
for kingship.
The creation of new earldoms offered Matilda an opportunity to secure the loyalty
of her men. As only monarchs could grant earldoms many of these new earls would have
60 P.L. Hull,The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xvii.
61 Ibid.,p. xvii.
62 H. W. C. Davis,Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum 1066- 1154,vol 2 (1100- 1135),(Oxford, Clarendon
Press,1916),charter 841.

17
known that their new found status was depended on the success of Matilda. Although the
majority of the new earls went on to make peace with Stephen, or earls from his faction,
they still ultimately remained loyal to Matilda. This can be seen with the likes of Roger Earl
of Hereford and WilliamEarl of Gloucester, who through marriages and deals made peace
treaties with Robert Earl of Leicester, a powerful magnate in Stephen’s faction although
they still ultimately remained on Matilda’s side. This can be seen in 1149 when both Roger
and William, as well as others, met Henry at Devizes to give him support and council.64
Roger additionally helped in putting down rebellious troops in Devon.65 These men were
aware that they needed Matilda’s cause to succeed in order to keep their earldoms but
were equally aware that the cost of constant military action in a civil war could prove too
costly for the gains they had made. This was the same situation for Reginald. He remained
very close to Henry and supported his cause as he was aware that with Stephen’s success he
could have his earldom revoked. This may speak for Reginald’s action early in Henry’s reign
when he was constantly at the king’s side. As Henry could revoke Reginald's title as and
when he desired Reginald may have thought that it was the best cause of action to ally
himself with the king to assure his position remained unchallenged.
64 Edmund King, King Stephen, page 253.
65 David Crouch, ‘Roger, earl of Hereford (d. 1155)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University
Press,(2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47203> [accessed 13 Aug 2015].

18
Chapter 2: An examination of his lands
This part of the dissertation will show the extent of Reginald’s power by analysing
the land he held. It will begin by looking at Cornwall, where Reginald held most land, in
order to analyse the wealth and power it provided to him. This part of the study will also
help answer the question as to how he managed to keep the land and power he had
established in the "Anarchy" when the majority of the earls lost theirs. First, the dissertation
needs to identify the lands Reginald held during his life. Domesday Book will provide the
best guest as to how powerful the region of Cornwall was and how much wealth and power
it offered Reginald. There will additionally be an examination of the stannaries in Cornwall
and Devon. The stannaries were courts that took place in both Devon and Cornwall whose
purpose was to settle disputes between those involved in the tin mining industry. Examining
these may shed light on how much additional wealth Reginald could earn. Observing
Reginald’s lands outside Cornwall and the influence he held beyond that may help answer
how powerful he was. It may similarly begin to answer how he managed to keep hold of his
lands and titles when so many other earls lost theirs.
The first part of Reginald’s lands under analysis are those where he held his greatest
amount of power and influence, his Cornish lands. Reginald held his lands here as a royal
apanage under Henry II. This meant that his lands were excluded from payments to the
exchequer. It also meant he effectively ruled these lands as a 'king', albeit subject to Henry.
Reginald held lands in Cornwall from 1140 until his death. He gained these lands by
marrying Beatrice, the daughter of Williamfitz Richard, a powerful baron in Cornwall, and
was made the Earl of Cornwall soon afterwards. Through this marriage he became the lord
of Cardinham and probably the lord of Bodardle too.66 In addition to this Reginald had a
barony of 215 1/3 knights fees in Cornwall and Devon in 1166.67 Although the Devon figures
cited by Hull may be accurate Reginald did not answer to the exchequer for Cornwall so the
precise number is not known. The knights fees of Cornwall are therefore an estimation. But
if these figures are correct than Reginald would have been a very wealthy and powerful man
and one of the most powerful earls in Henry’s reign. He was not as powerful as the super
66 Judith A. Green, Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress’s Party in South- West England, in
Ed K.S.B. Keats- Rohan, Family Trees and the Roots of the Politics, The Prosopography of Britain and France
from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, (Woodbridge, The Boydell Press,1997), p. 161.
67 P.L. Hull,The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xx.

19
magnates under Henry I’s reign such as Robert Earl of Gloucester, Stephen of Blois and
Roger of Salisbury who held over 300 knights fees each.68 But Reginald's fees seemto be
typical of an earl of Henry II’s reign. These were men of power but not enough to effectively
challenge the king's authority.
More can be discovered about his wealth by an in-depth focus on Cornwall itself.
This can be determined by examining Domesday Book. Although things may have changed
in the decades after Domesday Book, Cornwall was at that time, and still probably during
the time of Reginald’s rule, one of the poorer counties in England. Of all the counties of
Domesday Book, with the exception of Rutland, Cornwall occupies the least space, at five
and a half leaves.69 Cornwall was probably a poor county with very small estates. Bearing in
mind that those who wrote Domesday Book may have been prone to human error, it is
likely that out of the total 401 hides in Cornwall only 124 were geldable.70 The population in
Cornwall seems to have been very sparse. When the number of velleins, bordars and serfs
are added together, along with other groups of rent payers, the adult male population of
Cornwall comes to about 5298, which points to a low population. Cornwall’s sparsity in
population can further be seen as they had about two men to the plough land, which was
smaller than most other counties.71 Due to its sparse population, and little amount of
geldable land, it is safe to assume that Cornwall was a poor county with little to offer the
King of England in terms of wealth. The diocese of Exeter shows the nature of Cornwall as
well. The diocese of Exeter was created by royal and papal permission to unite the dioceses
of Cornwall and Devon.72 The issues the bishops faced in this area were that many parishes
were large and isolated. Along with this there were stretches of rough indented coastline
and vast areas of moorland making access to some of these districts very difficult.73 This
seems to show that Cornwall was very hard to administer with its land unlikely to yield
much profit. There is additionally the possibility that this land was easier to defend than
others. Due to its rough terrain it may have been a very defendable position for an earl.
68 C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, p. 336.
69 WilliamPaige,The History of the County of Cornwall, part8, (London, St. Catherine Press,1924), p. 45.
70 Ibid.,p. 48.
71 Ibid.,p. 53.
72 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184,vol 1, (Oxford,Oxford University Press,1996),p. xxix.
73 Ibid.,p. xxx.

20
Cornwall may have then offered further military strategic value to its holder but this point
will be discussed later on.
The financial power of Cornwall determined the amount of influence and power
Reginald could muster. Cornwall seems to have been a very poor part of England. Paige goes
onto to say that this county was a conspicuous example of a low assessment in terms of
value of land. Domesday shows a heavy drop in value of Cornish lands between the time it
was granted to the Count of Mortain and when Domesday Book was created.74 This may
mean that the Cornish lands may have been worth more than previously thought through a
simple examination of the Domesday Book. On the other hand the lands may have
devalued. But it is more probable that these lands were just not valuable at all. The King
may have rewarded the Count of Mortain with lower taxes in order that the Count would
have more of an incentive to remain loyal to the King, as he was a powerful land holder in
Normandy and England. But it is even more probable that he was given this “beneficial
hidation”, as the loss in money would not have amounted to much for the king. It may have,
moreover, given the Count of Mortain more money to govern this newly conquered
territory and defend it against possible invasions from Harold’s heirs. This will be explained
further in a later part of the dissertation.
Cornwall may also have held economic value through the number of markets that
were there. According to Domesday there were six markets in Cornwall. Devon only has one
market recorded, meaning the only county that could rival Cornwall, in this regard, was
Shropshire which had 7 markets.75 This may have acted as another piece of income for
Reginald and made Cornwall a more valuable county. But the fact that it did not hold any
large towns again shows how poverty stricken the county was. Although Launceston was the
administrative capital of Cornwall, Exeter would have held greater importance in wealth and
power in both Devon and Cornwall. Reginald’s wealth and power would have been
particularly strong after 1162 due to his control over his grandsons' land in Devon. He would
have gained great amounts of wealth controlling these lands and taking their revenues but it
was not the same amount of power that Baldwin de Redvers, the first Earl of Devon, would
have had. Baldwin de Redvers during the Anarchy had accomplished the same as Reginald.
74 WilliamPaige,The History of the County of Cornwall, part8, p. 50.
75 Ibid.,p. 58.

21
He effectively ruled Devon as a 'king', on the behalf of Matilda. When Henry II became king
the perpetuation of his autonomy would be at Henry’s expense.76 This is the most probable
reason as to why Henry II took the control of Exeter away from Baldwin’s successor, Richard.
Not only this but when Richard died in 1162 he was referred to as the Lord of the Isle of
Wight, rather than the Earl of Devon.77 Therefore, although Reginald would have gained
revenue from his grandchildren’s lands in Devon, he was not all powerful in the way he was
in Cornwall. Henry II’s control of Exeter kept Reginald’s power in Devon in check.
This may be why Reginald was able to keep the land and power he had created for
himself during the Anarchy whilst so many other earls had their power chipped away or
taken away. Not only did Henry keep Reginald’s power in check through the control of the
major city in the area but the Bishop of Exeter could also be influenced into undermining
Reginald’s power. Although Reginald was the greatest secular power in Cornwall, the Bishop
of Exeter was the greatest ecclesiastical power. The Bishop would have still been able to
hold a considerable amount of power and influence over both the counties of Cornwall and
Devon. Although lands may have been moved around after Domesday Book was formulated
Domesday shows the Bishop held a considerable amount of land in Cornwall. In all he was
said to have had 102 hides of land, 78 of which were geldable.78 The Bishop’s influence in
Cornwall can be shown further in 1140 when Reginald and his father-in-law, Williamfitz
Richard, sacked the priory of St. Stephen’s in Launceston and caused a vast amount of havoc
in the county. The Bishop excommunicated them both.79 This gave Alan Earl of Richmond,
who had additionally been made Earl of Cornwall by Stephen in order to challenge Matilda’s
choice of earl, the ascendency in the county. The Bishop reduced Reginald from the
dominant power in Cornwall and then confined him to the castle at Launceston. Reginald
may have re-gained more power in the region later in his life but this incident shows his
power was to at least some extent rivalled.
The power the Bishop had in this area can be seen by Reginald’s’ actions after his
excommunication. After being excommunicated Reginald knew to regain power he would
76 Robert Bearman, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090- 1217,(Exeter, Devon and
Cornwall Record Society, 1994), p. 11.
77 Ibid.,p. 12.
79 P.L. Hull,The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xix.

22
need to repair this problematic situation. The Bishop of Exeter clearly held a huge amount of
power in this area. Until 1137 Bishops in Exeter were typically royal clerks nominated by the
king.80 After Williamde Warelwast died in 1137 his nephew Robert took over. This sort of
nepotism seems to show the growing power and influence in the bishopric as they were
able to nominate without royal influence. The Warelwast bishops seemto have had a hold
on the bishopric and a large amount of power in the area which was broken when Robert II
was nominated and elected in 1155.81 The power Robert I Bishop of Exeter had can be seen
further by some of his vassals. Among those who owed knights fees to the Bishop were four
of the tenants-in-chiefs of Devon and Cornwall. These include Robert fitz Edith (Robert fitz
Roy), Williamde Tracy, Henry de la Pommeraye and Williamfitz Robert.82 In ecclesiastical
circles no one could rival the Bishop of Exeter in this region especially after Crediton had
been subdued.83 It is telling that after the Bishop recognised Baldwin as the Earl of Devon in
1146, in regards of St. James’ Priory, Baldwin felt secure enough to go on crusade in 1147.
The Bishop clearly held a huge amount of power in Cornwall and Devon.
Reginald seems to have underestimated the bishop’s influence when attacking the
Priory at Launceston, which was connected to the Bishopric. WilliamWarelwast converted
the priory into a regular Augustinian one in the 1120s.84 Reginald made several grants to the
priory in order to repent for his sins. In fact Reginald made over ten grants to the church to
this end. Reginald had to provide a new site for the priory to build upon and gave gifts to
other churches such as Liskeard and Linkinhorne.85 Reginald managed to rebuild his power
in Cornwall by creating a better rapport with the church and the Bishop of Exeter. This may
again be another reason as to why Reginald was not persecuted by Henry as many other
barons were. The fact that the Bishop held enough power to undermine secular authorities
in this region, and as Henry often nominated bishops from royal clerks, meant that he would
not have been as fearful of Reginald’s power. He had the ability to challenge any possible
disobedience from Reginald. It is possible that Reginald realised this as well which in turn
kept him loyal.
80 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184,vol 1, p. xxxii.
81 Ibid.,p. xxxvi.
82 Ibid.,charter 110 in the footnotes.
83 Ibid.,p. xxxi.
84 P.L. Hull,The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, p. xi.
85 Ibid.,p. xix.

23
Reginald’s involvements and the amount of revenue coming out from the stannaries
and tin mines in Cornwall may help further explain the wealth of Reginald. Tin was
Cornwall’s greatest, and most famous, mineral export for the majority of the medieval and
early modern period. Three contemporary studies have been used for this examination on
how financially beneficial the stannaries were to Reginald. The first, an article by Powell, has
been used to see the relationship between the royal administration and the stannaries.
Williamde Wrotham’s position as warden, and the reforms he made, and the income it
created, may shed light on the amount of money at stake. The second study, written by
Hambling, offers a detailed look into the Dartmoor mines, a region that is predominantly in
Devon. He claims that Devon’s tin mining eclipsed Cornwall’s for the majority of Reginald’s
reign. As the most modern study, written in 1995, this is very helpful in understanding the
profits that could have been made by tin mining. But it is equally limited as it is focused on
Dartmoor. The third study is Lewis’ extensive book on the stannaries which will help give a
greater understanding of mining outside of Dartmoor. It is impossible to judge exactly the
amount of revenue Reginald would have gained from tin since there are no records. A brief
study of the stannaries and knowledge of tin mining in general may lead to a sensible
estimate to how much Reginald could have earned through the mining industry and
whether it would have increased his wealth exponentially or not at all. The fact that tin
mining was not mentioned in Domesday Book may indicate that tin mining had a unique
way of being taxed.86 The stannaries, rather than acting as a revenue for local lords, may
have acted as a revenue for the king. If this is the case then it may tell us two things. One, is
that the lands under Reginald’s control may have contributed very little to his wealth. Two,
that the reason Reginald ruled as a royal apanage was because the main asset, Cornish tin,
was generating revenue directly for the king.
Before 1189 the tin mines of Cornwall and Devon had acted as a steady but small
source of royal revenue.87 The value of the mines were quickly realised by the Norman kings
with the Assize of Mines being introduced in the 12th century. Not only this but Devon was
classified as a royal forest with forest officials. The forest officials were there not just to up
87 W. R. Powell,‘The Administration of the Navy and the Stannaries,1189-1216’,The English Historical Review
Vol. 71, No. 279 (Apr., 1956), pp. 177-189,p. 178.

24
hold forest laws but mining law as well.88 Royal intentions are even more telling as Jews
played a large role in the mining community, especially in Dartmoor. The expulsion of the
Jews in 1291 was blamed for the downturn in production for 10 years afterwards and as late
as the 19th century the buildings in Dartmoor were commonly called Jews’ houses.89 Records
in the 12th and 13th century certainly show they were involved with early tin mining in
Devon. What is not clear is the role they played in these mining ventures, whether it was as
traders, financiers, or as miners themselves.90 Clear royal involvement is illustrated due to
the status of Jews in medieval England. They were the property of the king, protected by his
influence and under his control. When they died, rather than having their personal wealth
inherited by their successors, it was given to the king. This may have been the way William
the Conqueror implemented a tax on the tin mines. This may be why there was not a serious
change in the tax and administration of the tin miners until 1198. Whether the Jews acted
as financiers, traders or miners in Dartmoor the king would be able to gain revenue from
their savings upon their deaths. Nevertheless, although it does seem that tin mining was a
royal asset, there are possibilities that Reginald may have still gained great wealth from it.
Before 1198 it is possible that the stannaries of Devon and Cornwall were not taxed
or controlled to a great extent by the royal administration. In 1198 Williamde Wrotham,
who was warden of the stannaries, implemented a new code of regulation and a tax three
times the size of the old one.91 Royal revenue increased drastically after these changes. In
fact William’s implements to the administration yielded more for King Richard than the rest
of the entire revenue of Cornwall.92 From 1156 to 1160 the tax output was 30d per
thousand weight in Devon and 5s for the same weight in Cornwall. This was farmed by the
sheriff of Devon for the annual sum of £16 13s 4d.93 This increased year to year as
production increased but is still very shy of the amount of money made by Williamthrough
his administrative reform in 1214, when stannary revenue was £599 1s 3 1/2d. This could be
due to the fact that royal officials were reacting to increasing tin production in the late
1190s. Other evidence points to the fact that royal officials were slow to exploit the growing
88 Paul Hambling, The Dartmoor Stannaries, (Dawlish,Orchard Publications,1995),p.24.
89 Ibid.,p. 16.
90 Ibid.
91 W. R. Powell,‘The Administration of the Navy and the Stannaries,1189-1216’,p.179.
92 G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, (Truro, D. Bradford and Barton ltd, 1965), p. 36.
93 Ibid.,p. 34.

25
amount of wealth that could be gained from the stannaries and tin mining. This means that
there would have been a great deal of wealth from the stannaries not going to the king
before Williamde Wrotham. Some of this may have gone to Reginald, although this is still
speculation.
Lewis claims that from 1156 the production of tin was small and for the most part
was confined to west Devon.94 Furthermore Hambling believed that the peak tin production
in Dartmoor was between 1171 to 1189 when it averaged at a production of 343 tons (349
tonnes) a year.95 There may have been increases in production between these periods.
Between 1156 to 1160 there was production of about 133 thousand weight in tin. This
increased to 183 thousand weight in 1163, 533 thousand weight in 1169 and 640 thousand
weight in 1171.96 Lewis bases these estimations on the pipe rolls of Devon. These increases
in production were not subject to the taxes and regulations that Williamde Wrotham had
put in place. It is therefore possible that Reginald would have gained much wealth from this
tin mining industry. The issue with these figures is that they are speculation. As Cornwall
was absent from the pipe rolls until 1175 it is impossible to state exactly how much tin was
coming out of the county. Furthermore the counting of tonnes coming out of Cornwall is
dubious as well.It is difficult to believe that Hambling or Lewis could work out exactly how
many tonnes of tin were coming out of Dartmoor or Devon due to human error and the
decay of documents. Although these statistics should not be taken at face value the theory
that there was an increasing amount of tin coming out of Devon is not completely flawed.
The new tax systemRichard, and then John, wanted to implement may point to their belief
that the increasing profits of tin were not being efficiently taxed.
Even if the amount Reginald gained from tin mining in Cornwall was small he may
still have gained large amounts from the increasing profits in Dartmoor. Reginald’s influence
and power expanded into Devon after the death of Richard de Redvers in 1162. Richard had
married Denise, his daughter, to Richard de Redvers and they had two sons, Baldwin (died
1188) and Richard (died 1193). They must have been very young at the time of their father’s
death as Reginald acted as their guardian, and took the profits from their lands, until his
94 G.R. Lewis, The Stannaries, p. 34.
95 Paul Hambling, The Dartmoor Stannaries, p. 21.

26
death in 1175. From 1162 to 1175 Reginald may have made a great deal of money from this
industry.
There are other things to consider when analysing the kind of wealth Reginald would
have gained from the stannaries. The control he had over the counties does not necessarily
mean he held control over the stannaries, or the mines themselves. Ownership of the mines
was spread across a large spectrum of society, from landowners to traders. There does not
seem to be any evidence that Reginald actually held shares in mines around Devon or
Cornwall. Where he may have earned money was whether they mined on his property. The
owners of the land that miners mined on were entitled to a toll of one fifteenth of the
produce. These were ‘ancient customs’ and may have evolved from older Cornish industry
practice and then been adopted by the miners of Devon.97 Reginald may have gained some
wealth from this.
His power was not threatened from the stannary courts either. After Williamde
Wrotham’s reforms the miners had their own court separate to the manor and hundred
courts. This caused a lot of tension with the landholding populace, as those who lived on
land could build mines where they wanted without having to compensate or face the justice
of the owner of that land. These courts were originally made to just deal with mining issues
but these rights were abused and soon any laws broken, which involved those in the mining
industry, went to the stannary courts. Not only did this remove power and influence from
the landowners in the area, but, as justice came at a price, landowners lost out financially
too. This may not have had a huge impact in Reginald’s life. Although miners could search
for tin regardless of the rights of the landowner, and were linked to the king through tax and
his right to pre-emption,98 they were not yet separate from the manor and hundred court.
This means that landowners in the area, whether they be Reginald or his men, could gain
money through justice.
Hambling points out that smuggling of tin was a common practice in the Dartmoor
mines. Traders would sail around the Channel Islands in order to sell tin without royal

27
taxation.99 Royal officials tried to stop this practice but their efforts constantly failed.100
Could Reginald have gained from this? Possibly, but again the only evidence is for the
opportunity rather than for the act. This study of the stannaries therefore shows that
although tin mining was under royal control, through Jewish enterprise and taxation,
Reginald still had ample opportunity to gain money through tin mining, whether it was
through the tax they paid through mining on his land, money through the courts he
controlled, or possibly through illegal enterprise. It will furthermore show that one of the
reasons Reginald was allowed to rule Cornwall as a royal apanage was because Henry II
could still tax the tin coming out of Devon. Tin production in Devon meanwhile had eclipsed
that of Cornwall which may have decreased Henry’s interest in Cornwall.
Now that the financial power the county of Cornwall possessed has been examined
the second step will be to discuss the political significance that these lands held for Reginald
and the king. Cornwall may have been strategically very important to the King of England as
a possible point of invasion. The strategic value of these lands could help us determine how
much leverage Reginald had over Henry II. During the time of Domesday, and therefore
Williamthe Conqueror, this threat came from Ireland where Harold Godwinson’s heirs had
retreated to and were rumoured to be planning an invasion of England. It is telling that the
men picked by Williamthe Conqueror to defend the western counties from possible
invasion were men from west Normandy and Brittany. These men were the likes of Count
Brian of Brittany, Williamde Vauville, Bishop Geoffrey of Countances and the Count of
Mortain, who were all given land in this area.101 These men could quickly get
reinforcements, due to their family contacts and the close proximity of the western counties
to Brittany and west Normandy.102 The Count of Mortain in particular was the dominant
land holder in Cornwall at the time of Williamthe Conqueror. The Count of Mortain in
Domesday Book, written in 1086, held 48 hides of land with his men holding a total of 145
hides.103 William’s thinking behind giving the Count this amount of land in Cornwall may
have been so the region could be easily and quickly reinforced by the men of Normandy in
100 Ibid.
101 Judith A. Green, Family Matters: Family and the Formation of the Empress’s Party in South- West England,
pp. 148-9.
102 Ibid.,p. 149.

28
case one of Harold’s sons tried to invade England from Ireland. Henry’s reign however was
nearly a century after William’s so it is possible that Cornwall no longer held the same
strategic significance to Henry as to William.
Whether the region was of strategic valued during the reign of Henry remains
ambiguous. But the region may have held a real strategic value to Empress Matilda and her
West Country allies. If Cornwall had remained in Stephen’s hands it could have
compromised Baldwin de Redvers’ lands in Devon which in turn could have had a knock on
effect on Somerset and then onto Matilda and Robert Earl of Gloucester’s heartland of
Gloucestershire and south Wales. Reginald’s position during the “Anarchy” was to protect
the rear of the Angevin forces in England so Stephen could not out flank or compromise
Matilda's position in the West Country. Barlow disagrees with this analysis though. He
points to the fact that as the peninsula saw no great disturbance during the period. He
believes the reason the Bishop of Exeter was able to keep out of trouble throughout the civil
war from 1139-49 was due to Cornwall and Devon holding no strategic importance.104 The
lack of devastation in this area may have been due to the intelligent political actions of
Matilda. The only major area in Devon that supported Stephen during this civil war was the
region of Barnstaple, which Stephen had granted to Henry de Tracy on 1139.105 In addition
to this the desire of the nobles to fight each other later on in the civil war began to wane,
which would have resulted in less devastation. Reginald moreover came to terms with
Stephen in 1146,106 which would have protected his lands form being attacked too
vigorously. Cornwall’s important strategic position during the Norman Conquest and the
Anarchy may not have been so prominent during the years of Henry II. Reginald had some
contacts, and possibly land, in western Normandy but these contacts and lands would not
have been as numerous or as powerful as those of the Count of Mortain in William’s reign.
There was additionally not the same threat of invasion either, as the Godwin dynasty was no
longer a credible option for kingship.
The geographical position of Cornwall, however, could have still held some
significance. Brittany had caused many problems for Henry during his reign, fighting against
104 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184,p. xxxv.
105 Ibid.,p. xxxv.
106 Ibid.,p. xxxiv.

29
his overlordship. Henry seems to have been constantly campaigning against the Bretons,
especially during the 1160s.107 Cornwall, if in the wrong hands, could have acted as a viable
landing point for the rebellious Bretons, especially during "the war without love" (1173-4).
Geoffrey, the count of Brittany and the son of Henry II, could have opened a new front in
England if he could have entered England from Normandy. Cornwall, therefore, may have
held strategic significance because of its proximity to the rebellious region of Brittany, and
this may have led to it being seen as a doorway into England. Having said that, this could
also be true for all the counties along the English southern coast. Cornwall may well have
held no more strategic significance in Henry’s reign as Devon, Hampshire or any county
along the seashore. The significance of Cornwall remains uncertain.
There are other factors that can be examined to determine the value of Cornwall to
the King of England and the amount of power it may have offered to its earl. The fact that
Devon and Cornwall shared one sheriff may show that Cornwall did not produce a great
amount of wealth for the monarch. This can be seen from one of Henry I’s charters where
he gives a notification to Richard fitz Baldwin, sheriff of Devon and Cornwall, that he has
given his portion of the chapel in St. Stephen’s Launceston to the canons there.108 This may
mean that Cornwall was a particularly poor county and was added to Devon for
administrative ease. The inclusion of the stannaries in the lands that the Richard Earl of
Cornwall was given by Henry III may again point to the conclusion that the lands of Cornwall
had little economic value. The land without the stannaries may have been too small an
honour for a son of a king and an earl.
The probability is that Cornwall was on the periphery of England and on the
periphery of the minds of the King of England. This is illustrated by the movements of King
John. For a king who was well known for travelling the width and breadth of the country,
unlike many of his predecessors, it is telling that John never visited Cornwall as king. It
would therefore seem, in John’s mind, that Cornwall had very little use, politically or
economically. Although it must be made clear that ruling did not mean a king had to be
present in that county. It is telling that a king who possibly felt that he had to see, or be
seen throughout his kingdom, did not think Cornwall was a relevant place to visit. This is in
107 W.L. Warren, Henry II, (London, Yale University Press,2000),pp. 100-1.
108 H. W. C. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum 1066- 1154,vol 2 (1100- 1135),p. 206, charter 1486.

30
contrast to King Stephen’s and Henry II’s hasty actions to remove Cornwall from Reginald
and, in Henry’s case, from his daughters. Stephen took an active role in Cornwall in 1140
after it had been given to Reginald for two reasons. The first is obvious, he wanted to show
his supporters that he would fight for his kingdom and did not want to lose any more of his
counties no matter how insignificant they may have been as it would have threatened the
image of his ability and authority. The second is that, Cornwall would have held strategic
value during the Anarchy. If Stephen could retain it not only would it threaten the rear of
the Angevin faction’s lands but it would additionally reduce the chance of Henry, or his
father Geoffrey of Anjou, from crossing into England and threatening his position any
further.
As to why Henry disinherited Reginald’s daughters the answer may have been to
show the extent of his power. Reginald died two years after the “war without love.”
Although Reginald had sided with Henry II, Henry may still have felt vulnerable in losing
control of large sections of his lands as well as losing control of his family. He may have
wished to make it clear that he had full control over his entire kingdom. To have Cornwall
act as a royal apanage under Reginald’s daughters, and their husbands, may have been
unacceptable at this period of his reign. He took the land back in order to show that there
were no limits to his power and that he had total control. It is a possibility that Henry II
made his assize of Clarendon in 1176, a year after Reginald’s death, to assert his authority
over the entirety of his kingdom, with justices being sent into Cornwall as well. Conversely
the reason Henry disinherited Reginald may have been simply to give John lands to rule. This
does not necessarily mean that Cornwall was a powerful or equitable piece of land but that
Henry saw an opportunity to show the extent of his power and give his youngest and
favourite son an income. John was embarrassingly referred to as “lackland” so this problem
had to be addressed. Later, the county was given back to Reginald’s illegitimate son, so this
shows it was not a highly value piece of land in the eyes of the Angevin kings.
There is the possibility that Cornwall held great political value to the kings of
England. Barlow points out that Cornwall was consistently entrusted as a whole to a near
kinsman of the king.109 There is truth to this statement as kings of England have frequently
109 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184,p. xxx.

31
given Cornwall to cadet members of their families. This can be seen with Williamthe
Conqueror, where he made his half-brother Robert Count of Mortain, the dominant land
holder in Cornwall. Reginald was given the land by Matilda and was allowed to keep it by
Henry as Reginald was his uncle. It additionally explains why Henry remorselessly took the
land from Reginald’s daughters and gave it to his son John. There would have been as a
terrible act by many unless Cornwall had this image. Examples of Cornwall going to cadet
members of the Angevin family can be seen after Reginald as well. Henry III gave the land to
his brother Richard which was then in turn given to his son Edmund. Cornwall may have
been very valuable to the kings of England as land used to appease possible troublesome
family members.
Considering there were traditional dower lands in England, for the king’s daughters,
it does not seem to be too absurd to presume that there may have been traditional lands
that were granted to cadet members of family. The reason Reginald’s illegitimate son,
Henry, was able to gain the title back may have been due to the fact that there were no
other royal family members to be given the land. At the time Henry received the Cornish
title John's closest relative was Arthur who was too much of a threat to be given land. If this
point is true than it may have been that Cornwall was very useful to Henry II and other
kings. With it they could appease ambitious family members whilst simultaneously limiting
the amount of power they could exercise. This may be another reason as to why Reginald in
many of the charters he issued referred to himself as ‘Reginald, son of the king, earl of
Cornwall.’110 He was showing his peers his connection with royalty justifying why he should
hold the earldom of Cornwall when legitimate sons such as John needed land. This may
have been a reason as to why Reginald was able to keep his land whilst so many others
could not. Although Henry may have wanted this land for his son John he probably thought
that trying to take his loyal uncle's land would have faced a fierce backlash.
Although Reginald’s lands may not have been particularly valuable it is important to
acknowledge that he would have still been a wealthy man with a great amount of influence.
He managed this through the wealth he mustered as an aristocrat and through the
numerous alliances he created. The alliances Reginald established and the lands which his
110 P.L. Hull,The Cartulary of Launceston Priory, charters 11,12 and 13 areexamples of this.

32
allies held made him particularly dangerous. Reginald, through his relations, managed to
gain a firm authority in the southwest of England. In part this was due to the actions of
Matilda, but it was Reginald who managed to capitalise on this situation. During Stephen’s
reign Matilda, needing support, gave titles and placed trustworthy men in certain areas to
secure their loyalty and create a stronger power base for herself. Reginald and Baldwin de
Redvers gained greatly from this both becoming the earls of Cornwall and Devon
respectively and effectively ruling them as kings by their own right on her behalf. In Devon
the Redvers had been the dominant family, owning the more powerful land in the county,
the barony of Plymouth. It was only the barony of Okehampton that ran them a close
second.111 To add to this Matilda’s illegitimate brother Robert filius regis (or Robert fitz Roy),
not to be confused with Robert Earl of Gloucester, had held the honour of Okehampton by
1158 through his marriage to Matilda d’Avranches.112 Thompson says that Robert made
these acquisitions during the rule of both Robert Earl of Gloucester and Matilda.113 If this
was the case than both Matilda and Robert Earl of Gloucester had protected their southern
flank ensuring that the three most powerful land blocks there were securely under their
allies' control. What had benefited the Empress would subsequently go on to benefit
Reginald. He ruled Cornwall as a royal apanage: to his east his half-brother and son-in-law,
and then Reginald himself through his grandchildren, held Devon. He had the potential to be
a very powerful enemy or a very powerful ally to Henry II. When Reginald married his
daughter Denise to Richard de Redvers, he sacrificed two of his manors in Cornwall, Rillaton
and Linkinhorne in the east of the county.114 This united the counties of Cornwall and Devon
with Reginald having a leading influence. Reginald’s sister Rohese was married to the local
baron Henry de Pomeray before 1146.115 Henry was one of the tenants-in-chief in Devon.116
This again allowed Reginald to entrench himself in Cornwall and make him the dominant
secular power there.
111 Robert Bearman, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090- 1217,p. 1.
p. 162.
114 Robert Bearman, Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom of Devon 1090- 1217,p. 19.
115 David Crouch, ‘Reginald,earl of Cornwall (d.1175)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press,(2004;onlineedn, Oct 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23319> [accessed 13
Aug 2015].
116 Frank Barlow, English Episcopal Exeter 1046- 1184,p. 100,charter 110 in notes.

33
This can be seen furthermore from before the "war without love". During the first
half of Henry II’s reign, the most influential and powerful earls were Geoffrey Earl of Essex
(died 1166), Robert Earl of Leicester (died 1168), and Reginald Earl of Cornwall (died
1175).117 Warren argues that Henry achieved ascendency over his earls in 1177. Williamde
Cahanges wanted the honour of Leicester broken up, with him to hold his barony of the
king. Robert Earl of Leicester managed to keep his title despite of this. Stating that he and
his forefathers had always, and only, held their land of the king.118 Warren claims that this
was a public acknowledgement of the earls’ submission to the king. It seems that after
Reginald’s death Henry was in a much more powerful position than he had been in before.
The fact that Reginald held his land as an apanage again shows the amount of power he
had. Warren claims that there were other parts of England which did not pay tax towards
the exchequer during the reign of Henry II. In Durham the money went to the Bishop of
Durham and that in Chester it went to the Earl of Chester.119 He suggests this may be due to
the terrain of these areas. They were underpopulated and practically ungovernable parts of
the realm.120 It seems more than a coincidence though that Cornwall paid tax after
Reginald’s death. This again supports the theory that Cornwall was a piece of land reserved
for the cadet members of the royal family. The fact that the king could not be effectively
administered along with its seemingly insignificant financial and political value seems to
make it the perfect land for a possibly troublesome family member to hold.
Reginald may have been one of the most powerful earls in England because many
others were facing increasing royal influence. An example of this is Hugh Bigod. He wanted
to rid himself of the young royal clerks and justiciars that had been set up in East Anglia and
had taken his power away as they were royal officials.121 This shows the privilege Reginald
had in comparison to his peers. Especially when Henry increased the farms from the shires.
This was an incredibly damaging practice for land owners. According to Gladwin no single
act of the king could have caused more widespread suffering.122 This shows Reginald to
clearly be in an advantageous position. It must be additionally noted though that with earls
117 W.L. Warren, Henry II, p. 366.
118 Ibid.
119 Ibid.,p. 372
120 Ibid.,p. 372
121 John T. Appleby, Henry II The Vanquished King, p. 212.
122 Irene Gladwin, The Sheriff: The man and his office, (London, Victor GollanczLtd, 1974), p. 65.

34
having their power decreased the notion of Reginald being one of the most powerful earls in
England would not have meant the same as it would have in Stephen’s and Henry I’s reign
when earls held more prominence and power.
In addition to his lands in Cornwall and Devon Reginald may very well have held
lands elsewhere. Bradbury refers to Reginald having lands in the Cotentin region in
Normandy. He comments on their usefulness to Geoffrey of Anjou’s campaign in Normandy,
along with those of Robert of Gloucester.123 There is the possibility that Reginald held some
land in this region as a base for himself to launch a campaign of banditry in the Contentin
and Avranchin with Baldwin de Redvers and Stephen de Mandeville, in 1137. But there is
also the possibility that he only stayed in the Redvers family’s lands as they were well
connected in this region of Normandy. Indeed Bradbury offers no footnote to any source
material that would prove this statement. It therefore cannot be confirmed as to whether
Reginald held any land in Normandy. He may have eventually made connections there
through the marriage of his daughter to the Count of Meulan, but this does not mean he
held land. Reginald moreover held some land in Shropshire. This can be seen from the Pipe
Roll for the Michaelmas of 1175, which show that the earl’s lands in Shropshire, after his
death, were in the king’s hands.124 This land was probably inherited from his mother’s side
of the family. Her father, Robert Corbet, had relations in this region.125 Shropshire would
have probably been on the periphery of Reginald’s vision, and would have given little power
in comparison to his other lands.
Ultimately Cornwall was not a wealthy county. It could have held political and
military strategic significance during the civil war between Matilda and Stephen but during
the reign of Henry this value would have no longer been relevant. Although Reginald held
Cornwall independently from royal administration it probably had little effect on the
crown’s wealth. The lands may have still had some political significance acting as a land
traditionally suited for royal cadets. This may be why Henry gave it to John who, on the 1st
123 Jim Bradbury, Stephen and Matilda the Civil War of 1139- 53,(Frome, Alan Sutton PublishingLtd, 1996), p.
151.
124 David Crouch, ‘Reginald,earl of Cornwall (d.1175)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, (2004;onlineedn, Oct 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23319> [accessed 13
Aug 2015].
p. 162.

35
July 1175, was fourth in line to the crown, but without land. There are no records of
Reginald’s wealth, as he did not pay to the exchequer. Therefore one can only speculate
how much he may have made from the tin mines. What is known is that at this stage there
were large amounts of tin coming out of Dartmoor, Devon. Reginald may have had control
over this being the guardian of his grandchildren’s land in Devon, but he did not hold the
same power here as he had in Cornwall. Henry was still able to tax these mines and have a
sheriff there. Much of Reginald’s power came from the alliances he created. As his brother
and son-in-law were in close proximity, and held the major secular titles in the area, it
would have been very difficult for anyone to challenge their authority. Reginald was in a
situation where challenging his authority was not worth the risk. His lands did not offer
much financial reward. Trying to take his land and power, or hinder it, may have caused the
southwest of England to rebel, especially as he had been so loyal to his nephew Henry II.
There were plenty of challengers to Henry’s kingship and dukedoms as well. His brothers,
and then his son, may have found a valuable ally there. Henry would have been well aware
of the fact that one of the crucial reasons that he gained the throne was the West Country’s
ability to stubbornly stand against royal power. He did not want to be another Stephen. In
summary Reginald entrenched himself in a position that Henry would be find hard to
challenge and could afford to overlook.

36
Chapter 3: How Reginald kept his lands during Henry II’s reign
This part of the dissertation will show how Reginald managed to maintain his power
long into Henry’s reign and how his relation with the king allowed this to happen. First of all
it will show how the nature of his land holdings allowed him to maintain his power. This will
be followed by an analysis of how the relationship he built with Henry may have allowed to
keep his land and power.
One of the possible reasons Reginald kept his land, when others did not, was
because he did not control a major city. William Earl of Gloucester in contrast, held the city
of Bristol, yet became a political outsider, with a decreasing number of court appearances
precisely because he held the important city of Bristol. Williamand Reginald were both
blood relations to Henry, uncle and cousin respectively, and they were both loyal to Henry
during the civil war of 1173-4, which makes them a good comparison. Both had been loyal
to Henry during his reign yet Williamhad his power curtailed and Reginald did not. This is
possibly due to William's control of Bristol. Although William’s earldom survived in 1175
Williamwas called to the king’s court and Bristol was taken away from him.126 The fact that
Williamdied in Henry’s custody in 1183 shows the extent of how much influence he had lost
and how Henry distrusted him. The confiscation of Bristol seems to be the first major
acquisition Henry made from Williamand marked the beginning of the end of their
cooperative relationship. This “end” may have been due to the fact that Henry was not
taking any chances with over mighty subjects. Henry had defeated a very large rebellion in
1173 -1174, and he was not prepared to allow any secular power to be in a position to
challenge his authority again. Especially when one such as Williamhad a claimto a city like
Bristol.
Williammay have had his lands taken away because his possession of Bristol made
him too powerful. At the beginning of the Anarchy in 1138, only Bristol stood against
Stephen, acting as a rallying point for those against him.127 From Bristol Matilda and her
allies managed to fight off Stephen and secure themselves in the southwest of England. The
126 Robert B. Patterson, ‘William,second earl of Gloucester (d. 1183)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford University Press,(2004; onlineedn, Jan 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/47236>
127 David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, p. 80-1.

37
importance of Bristol can be seen by the way WilliamEarl of Gloucester, witnessed certain
charters. Williamwitnessed at least two charters in that period as WilliamEarl of Bristol.128
Indeed most of the chronicles of this period speak of the wealth of Bristol and the fertility of
Gloucestershire. Orderic Vitalis states that Robert Earl of Gloucester, by the command of his
father, had great power in England, with great wealth, castles and warlike vassals.129 The
author of the Gesta Stephani goes as far as saying that the city of Bristol was not only the
richest in the entire country, receiving merchandise from far and wide, but was the most
fortified as well.130 Having someone else hold this city might have been a worrying prospect
for Henry, not to mention the revenue he would have lost. As early as 1155, Williammay
have been under pressure to give up the city.
A similar scenario is evident with Baldwin de Redvers who, as the Earl of Devon,
controlled the city of Exeter. The importance of Exeter can be seen through Baldwin de
Redvers actions during the mid to late 1130s. Baldwin made a name for himself by taking
the city in the spring 1136.131 Not only did the capture of the city make him famous but it
also allowed him to dominate the machinery of local government.132 It is telling how secure
Baldwin’s position became that he was able to leave England on the Second Crusade in
1147.133 The cities these nobles controlled allowed them to rule their areas of England
without challenge. This may have threatened Henry, knowing the same issues faced
Stephen. Henry II took Exeter at his first opportunity. Reginald did not pose a problem of
possessing a powerful city. He may have dominated the region of Cornwall but its
administrative capital was small and was not a threat to Henry’s power. Exeter was not only
the dominant city in Devon but probably dominated Cornwall as well. Henry’s control over
Exeter gave Reginald the freedom to act, to a large extent, independently from Henry as he
was not a threat.
128 Nicholas Vincent, Angevin Acta Project, charters 2476 and 2480.
130 K.R. Potter, The Deeds of Stephen Gesta Stephani, (London, Nelson, 1955),p. 57.
131 Robert Bearman, Baldwin de Redvers Some Aspects of a Baronial career in the Reign of King Stephen in Ed.
Christopher Harper- Bill,Anglo Norman Studies, Xviii Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1995, (Woodbridge,
The Boydell Press,1996), p. 20.
132 Ibid.,p. 39.
133 Ibid.,p. 45.

38
Exeter's importance can again be seen from the stannaries. Williamde Wrotham
decided to hold his first stannary court at Exeter in 1198.134 Williamde Wrotham would go
on to hold two juries of miners, one at Exeter for Devon and one at Launceston for
Cornwall.135 This seemto show that Williamde Wrotham chose the two biggest cities in the
two counties to administer his new system. The fact that Launceston was the biggest city in
Cornwall shows how poor and rural the county was. Launceston had very little influence
over the county, which can be seen from Reginald’s early years as earl. Alan Earl of
Richmond managed to control Cornwall even though Reginald still held Launceston. Matilda,
on the other hand, was still able to fight off Stephen when only controlling Bristol. This again
shows the power of Bristol and the insignificance of Launceston. This point is still largely
speculative though it is interesting how cities were targeted by Henry, seemingly showing he
was worried about over-powerful earls holding financially valuable areas. There still is no
direct evidence that shows Reginald kept his land because he did not hold a city but
hopefully this has added to the other theories as to why Reginald kept his lands and others
did not.
The nature and position of Reginald’s lands can further be seen as an advantage
when comparing them to the lands of other earls. One reason the earls may have lost their
lands and the title of earl was because their lands and titles put Henry under a financial
disadvantage. Earls were first citizens, comparable to bishops; they would take the third
penny of justices in their shire.136 Henry would consequently lose the third penny of the
shire and from the wealthy counties this amounted to a considerable sum. Henry’s
intentions towards these earldoms were clear; ten of them created during the reign of
Stephen were either destroyed or deliberately suppressed.137
The other reason earls may have faced some oppression whilst Reginald did not was
the position of their land. The reason Hugh Earl of Chester, WilliamEarl of Gloucester and
Roger Earl of Hereford all faced persecution and in some cases rebelled against Henry may
have been, in part, due to their lands bordering Wales. Whilst Reginald’s lands may have
134 Paul Hambling,The Dartmoor Stannaries, p. 27.
135 Ibid.,p. 85.
137 Vincent, The Court of Henry II, in Nicholas VincentChristopher Harper- Bill,Henry II New Interpretations,
(Woodbridge, The Boydell Press,2007), p. 294.

Reginald Earl of Cornwall's Political Life and Family Connections

Reginald Earl of Cornwall's Political Life and Family Connections

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Reginald Earl of Cornwall's Political Life and Family Connections