Robert Curthose – the man who should have been king

Robert Curthose. The name was vaguely familiar. During my ongoing research into the de Lacy family I read that they were his supporters so when I saw a book named Conqueror’s Son – Duke Robert Curthose, Thwarted King by Katherine Lack I bought it and read it with interest. This well researched book tells the story of Robert Curthose, the eldest son of William the Conqueror who was beaten to the English throne by not one, but both, of his wily younger brothers. And to give legitimacy to the claims of first William Rufus and then Henry I, the reputation of their brother was recorded by chroniclers as that of a lazy and incompetent man. But then the victors always record their own version of history, don’t they? And along with kings such as Edward II and Richard III, Robert Curthose appears to have been done an injustice.

As William the Conqueror lay dying in 1087, his second son William Rufus left him to his fate and sailed across the English Channel to have himself crowned king of England before his elder brother could do anything about it. Robert Curthose became Duke of Normandy and there were those who said that this division of his kingdom was what his father had planned, but if it had been pre-arranged why didn’t William Rufus wait until his father was dead and buried before leaving? I definitely smell a rat.

Having lost England, Robert Curthose was one of the leaders of the First Crusade to reclaim Jerusalem. This was a huge undertaking. Thousands of people went – men, women and children. Robert Curthose proved himself a skilled military leader and returned in triumph three years later with a beautiful young bride. Except that just before he got back his eldest brother William Rufus was mysteriously shot in a hunting accident. He died and Robert Curthose’s youngest brother Henry had himself crowned king of England the very next day. I smell another rat.

Robert Curthose did lead an invasion of England but was persuaded to come to an agreement with Henry. Robert returned to Normandy, but Henry wanted that as well and breaking his promise he invaded. He beat Robert in battle, took him prisoner and kept him captive in Cardiff Castle for the rest of his life.

The de Lacy family lost their lands during this time and only had them restored after Henry’s death. Although the book doesn’t mention the de Lacy family other sources put Robert de Lacy and his son Ilbert at the centre of these struggles, which make more sense to me now that I’ve read more about the history. It’s a story well worth telling and one that I plan to pursue in the future.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Robert Curthose – the man who should have been king

  1. Scott La' Chance says:

    Hi, in the article above you mention ‘sources’ which place Robert de Lacy at heart of the troubles between Henry I and Robert Curthouse. This is a issue which has captured my attention. Can you tell me what these texts are? Thanks, Scott.

    • Hello Scott. Thanks for your comment. It’s a while since I wrote the article so I’ve had to check on some of the sources I had been looking at. A couple of books I used are Pontefract, its name, its lords and its castle by Richard Holmes and also The de lacy Family at Pontefract ( I don’t have the book on my shelf so I need to check the author. I think it’s White). I also looked at The Lancashire Pipe Rolls. What they say is that Roger de Poitou was stripped of his lands for supporting Robert Curthose. The lands were given to Robert de Lacy and a few years later taken back from him, although he didn’t lose his lands in Normandy and presumably went to live there at a time when Robert Curthose was Duke of Normandy. So, reading between the lines, as you so often have to do, it would seem that Robert de Lacy was a supporter of Robert Curthose – or at least he no longer supported Henry.

      Also this from Whittaker’s Lords of the Honour of Clitheroe: Robert, however, did not long enjoy his inheritance in peace, for, an. 1mo. Henry I. having espoused the better cause of Robert Curthose, he was dispossessed of all his lands by that monarch, and is stated by Dugdale to have gone twice into banishment, from which he did not return a second time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s