Anna-Amicia Litwinska, @AnnaAmicia Amaury de Montfort: A Knight in the Age of Cathedrals Amaury VI de Montfort is often overshadowed by the two Simons – his father, the leader of the Albigensian Crusade, and his younger brother, the English revolutionary. To date, there is no dedicated biography of Amaury – his young adult years are covered, albeit in a cursory way, in the biographies of his father and in books on the Albigensian Crusade, and details of the last ten years of his life can be found mostly in biographies of his brother (and, on occasion, in studies on the Barons’ Crusade). The only work with Amaury at its centre is Lindy Grant’s article “The Montforts and the Capetian Court: Amaury V and His Family” (and, as the title suggests, it covers a very specific topic). What first piqued my curiosity many years ago was the practically unanimous opinion that Amaury was a weak man unworthy of his father’s legacy, because he could not hold his lands in Languedoc. I felt there was something inherently wrong with this assessment, and the lack of information concerning his life further fuelled my interest. The more I read, the more complicated the image of this man became, especially in the shadow of his more famous relatives. His most prominent trait was loyalty – to his family, to his sovereigns, to his comrades in arms. In a world and age where rebellions and feuds were daily occurrences, this was unusual – and highly valued. This article is, of course, not meant to be a comprehensive biography: writing one is impossible without access to archives and documents, something I currently lack. Instead, it is a summary of research compiled from available online sources and books I could get my hands on. A complete bibliography is included, and the article will be updated with new information as it is found. My profound thanks go to all the people who did research before me, people who digitised sources and books and put it online, and people who helped me: in particular, to my excellent friends Esther Zyskina and Courtney Krolikoski for reading the draft and providing the most helpful and friendly feedback possible. The history of the Montfort family begins with Guillaume d’Hainaut, a vassal of King Robert the Pious. The king tasked Guillaume with protecting the royal domain around Paris from the counts of Blois to the west. Guillaume built a castle on a hill and called it Montfort; his son Amaury founded a town nearby which received the name of Montfort-l’Amaury1. Eventually, the family came to hold an area roughly corresponding to the present-day department of Yvelines – other important towns under their dominion were Épernon, Rambouillet, and Houdan. Most of their estate was covered by forest, much of which still survives as part of the presentday Parc naturel régional de la Haute Vallée de Chevreuse. The Montfort family was also an important patron of the church. Monasteries on their lands or adjacent to them included the famous Port-Royal and Vaux-de-Cernay abbey. Bertrade, sister of Amaury III, established a daughter house of the great Order of Fontevraud in reparation for her marriage to king Philip I, and the monastery of St Trinity in Épernon welcomed pilgrims on the route from Paris to Chartres and on to Santiago de Compostela2. Around 1170, Simon IV de Montfort married an English noblewoman, Amicia de Beaumont, daughter of the earl of Leicester. Simon and Amicia had three children: two sons, Simon V and Guy, and a daughter, Pétronille. After the death of her elder brother, Amicia and Simon inherited the earldom of Leicester and, even though Amicia had moved to France and her children were subjects of the French King, the earldom would be passed on to them. Simon IV died in 1188 and was succeeded by his eldest son, also named Simon. Two years later, in 1190. Simon married Alix de Montmorency, dame of Conflans, a daughter of a rich and wellconnected family that was closely related to the royal court. Alix herself was the cousin of Isabelle of Hainaut, first wife of King Philip Augustus. Simon and Alix had seven known children: four sons (Amaury, Guy, Robert, and Simon) and three daughters (Amicia, Laure, and Pétronille). Next to nothing is known about Amaury’s birth and childhood, but we can assume he was born in the family castle of Montfort-l’Amaury around 1192 (we know he was knighted in 1213, and that it was customary for young noblemen to be knighted once they reached majority, i.e. the age of 21). He is first mentioned, along with his younger brother Guy, in a charter dated from 1199 in which his father confirmed a donation to the leprosarium of Grand-Beaulieu near Chartres made by one of his ancestors, another Amaury3. 1 2 In the name of town, l’ is a form of de, meaning ‘of’. The monastery, which later become St Thomas Priory, still functions as a spitirual centre and still welcomes pilgrims who choose to walk from Paris to Santiago de Compostela via Chartres. Around the age of seven, sons of noblemen were usually sent to be educated in the household of either their father’s seigneur or a relative. For Amaury, it is likely that he was sent to his maternal uncle Mathieu de Montmorency the future constable of France. His father spent significant time away from the family estate (which was usual for that time). An unusual aspect of the Montfort family was that, until the 13 th century, they virtually avoided the Crusades, although they were related to one of the kings of Jerusalem: Fulk of Anjou (d. 1143). Fulk was the son of Bertrade de Montfort, sister of Amaury III de Montfort and one-time queen consort of France. In 1204, Simon and his brother Guy joined the Fourth Crusade. However, Simon never reached the Holy Land because he split from the main crusader host prior to the sack of Constantinople and returned home. Guy continued on and made a career in the Latin East, eventually marrying Helvis d’Ibelin, widow of Renaud de Grenier, the count of Sidon. Guy remained in the Holy Land until the coming of age of his stepson Balian in 1210 and then returned to France. One year before his brother’s return, in 1209, Simon took the cross again. This time he joined in order to fight the Albigensians in Languedoc. Though at the onset of the Crusade he was one of many nobles, several months into the campaign he was appointed chief of the host after three more prominent barons (the Count of Nevers, the Duke of Burgundy, and the Count of Saint-Pol) decided to return to their own lands. This was not uncommon as, during the Albigensian Crusade, crusaders were only obliged to serve forty days, and afte this they could stay or return home as they wished. At some point after this, Alix joined Simon in the south. It is likely that she brought their children, as they are often mentioned as being present with no separate mention of their arrival. This certainly happened before 1211, the year Simon and Alix’ youngest daughter, Pétronille, was born and baptised by Saint Dominic. Dominic had by this time become Simon’s friend, even though their methods of fighting the Albigensian heresy and characters were strikingly different. Though it is unclear if Amaury accompanied his mother to Languedoc, he was certainly there by 1212, as mentioned by Pierre de Vaux-de-Cernay. While information on his whereabouts prior to 1213 is particularly scarce, we are lucky to have a detailed description of his knighting ceremony 4, thanks largely to its unusual setting. It took place in 1213, four years after the initial success of the crusade in Béziers and Carcassonne. By then, the local seigneurs were joined in their fight against the northern crusaders by the powerful King of Aragon. Though the knighting of his first-born son and heir was important in 3 4 Fmg.ac. 2021. NORMANDY - ALENÇON, EVREUX, MEULAN, PERCHE. [online] Available at: <http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMANDY%20NOBILITY.htm#_ftn795> [Accessed 13 July 2021]. For example, in Barrau, J. J. Histoire des croisades contre les albigeois. Vol. 2, A. Lacour, 1840. Pp. 5-10. itself, Simon decided to use the event to boost his army’s morale. The ceremony took place in Castelnaudary, halfway between Toulouse and Carcassonne, on June 24, the feast of Saint John the Baptist. A knighting ceremony usually entailed the young candidate being knighted by the seigneur. However, Amaury’s accolade departed from custom: Simon wanted his son to be knighted by an ecclesiastical dignitary to make him not just a knight, but a knight of Christ; it was quite similar to entering a religious order. In fact, Simon asked not one, but two high dignitaries of the church – the bishops of Orléans and Auxerre – to be present to knight Amaury. Amaury spent the night before the ceremony in a church at prayer. In the morning, the bishop of Orléans celebrated a solemn mass. After the mass, Simon took the right hand of his son and Alix took his left. Together they led him to the altar. There, Simon asked the bishops to accept his son as the knight of Christ. The two bishops addressed Amaury with a short sermon, blessed his sword, and girded him with it while Veni Creator Spiritus was sung. A knighting ceremony was usually followed by a grand celebration, but Amaury’s was short due to the situation. Simon entrusted to Amaury, now a knight, with domains in Comminges and Gascogne, to the west of Toulouse, and accompanied him to Muret, where several seigneurs holding lands in Gascogne made homage. From this point Amaury was mostly on his own. For example, later in 1213, he participated in the siege of Roquefort and negotiated the release of sixty captives who had been imprisoned by the garrison of the fortress. As Martín Alvira notes, this is one of few known cases of prisoners being released in the course of the Albigensian Crusade. Further, it is the only example that Alvira provides wherein the release was obtained through negotiations 5. Amaury was recalled from Roquefort by his father prior to the battle of Muret6 and while his participation in the battle is not impossible, it is not mentioned in any known accounts. The battle of Muret is considered to be Simon de Montfort’s most brilliant battle, and it truly was a significant victory; not only did he win the battle, but it led to the death of the King of Aragon, one of the most important allies of the Count of Toulouse. Though the Franks had almost conquered Languedoc, it was important to also complement military victories with political actions. Arnaud Amaury proposed an often used tactic of arranging for 5 6 Alvira, Martín. “Prisoners of War in the Albigensian Crusade, 1209-1229.” e-Strategica, vol. 1, 2017, pp. 269–284. P. 289. Paladilhe, Dominique. Simon de Montfort et le drame cathare. Via Romana, 2011. P. 163. an an advantageous marriage. He knew that Simon was friends with Eudes de Bourgogne, and that Eudes was the brother of André Guigues VI, Dauphin of Viennois. The Dauphin only had one child, a daughter and heiress apparent, by his wife Béatrice de Sabran 7. The family was wealthy and wellconnected. Béatrice’s sister Garsende was the wife of Alphonse of Aragon, Count of Provence (their granddaughters would become queens of France, England, Sicily, and Germany). Arnaud Amaury believed that the young Béatrix would make a perfect match for Simon’s eldest son, and it seems that Simon agreed. In the spring of 1214, Simon and Amaury travelled to André’s court to ask for Béatrix’ hand8. André accepted, and in early June, the wedding was celebrated in Carcassonne and officiated by Dominic9. However, as the bride was only nine years old, the marriage could not be consummated until several years later. It is unknown where exactly Béatrix spent the period between her marriage and joining Amaury, but we do know that the consummation took place in Avignon, meaning that at some point Béatrix must have returned to her father’s court. In late 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council stripped Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse, of his lands and titles (except Provence) and gave them to Simon, making him the lord of practically all lands between Dauphiné and Provence in the east and the counties of Foix, Comminges, Bigorre in the west. Dauphiné was ruled by the friendly André Guigues VI and was expected to come under the rule of Amaury, but the western counties were another matter. Their lords had been fighting against the Franks from practically the beginning of the crusade, and not without success. Further, the mountains in their territory were drastically different from the rolling hills of the Occitan heartland between and around Toulouse and Carcassonne. So, in order to get them under his control, Simon took another approach and arranged a marriage between his second son Guy and Pétronille de Comminges, the ruling countess of Bigorre and daughter of the Count of Comminges. This marriage has attracted a lot of scholarly attention, and it is easy to understand why: if it were to be made into a medieval romance novel, it might seem too dramatic to be real. Pétronille came from a family who was very hostile towards the Franks and Simon de Montfort. She was also roughly eleven years older than her new husband who would barely have reached majority by the time of their wedding. Further, though her first marriage had lasted almost two decades, they had not had any children10 and her second marriage, to Nunyo Sanche, was annulled by the Pope at Simon de Montfort’s request. Her third marriage, to Guy de Montfort, ultimately produced two daughters who 7 8 9 By then, they had already separated – this fact would become important several years later. Paladilhe, Dominique. Simon de Montfort et le drame cathare. Via Romana, 2011. P. 179. The wedding probably could have been celebrated in the Dauphiné, and I think it possible that Simon wanted it to take place in Carcassonne so it could be blessed by Dominic. 10 This is a good counter-example to the notion that a woman’s principal role in marriage was to produce children and heirs. would each play an important role in the south and, even more broadly, in French-English relations. Finally, Pétronille outlived Guy by thirty-five years and would go on to have two more husbands and one more daughter. It is worth noting that the marriages Simon de Montfort had arranged for his two eldest sons were highly advantageous geopolitically; had all gone well for them, the Montfort family would have virtually gained the entire south of modern France under their rule, from the Alps in the east to the Pyrenees in the west. There were also plans to marry one of Simon’s daughters (probably Amicia, although this is not certain) to the heir of the King of Aragon. However, the fortunes of war were about to change. Simon, having become the Count of Toulouse, was now fighting more for his power and territories than against the heretics. And the local noblemen had now to protect not so much their subjects as their own position as lords of their lands. After Simon suffered a series of minor defeats, Toulouse openly rebelled against him. While Simon was usually good at sieges, and even though he had gathered almost all his force there, he could not manage to take Toulouse after several months of fighting. His fortune did not change even when, in the spring of 1218, his wife Alix travelled to Paris and returned with reinforcements. Simon had a hard time trying to persuade the newly arrived knights to stay after their mandatory forty days of service, though. Ultimately, on June 25, Simon was killed outside Toulouse while trying to help his wounded brother. “With him fallen, all else crumbled. With his death, all else died,” noted Pierre de Vaux-de-Cernay. Simon’s death was, understandably, as demoralising for the Franks as it was encouraging for the Toulousans and others in Languedoc who opposed his rule. Further, a large number of crusaders chose to leave what they deemed a lost cause. One month later, Amaury, who had succeeded his father and continued the siege, abandoned it and left for Carcassonne with what remained of his host. The next year, 1219, the Franks received what seemed to be a significant reinforcement – a host under the command of Prince Louis, the eldest son and heir apparent to Philip Augustus. It was the first direct royal involvement into the Languedoc affair as, before then, Philip Augustus was too occupied with his dealings in Normandy and Flanders. Together, Louis and Amaury took Marmande after a long and arduous siege (the massacre that followed is probably the most well-known event of the second phase of the Albigensian Crusade), and laid anotherm ultimately unsuccessful, siege on Toulouse. In July 1220, Amaury and his brother Guy laid siege to Castelnaudary. A prominent feature of the Montfort family was their loyalty to each other. Simon’s most loyal supporters were his brother Guy and his two eldest sons. After Simon’s death, the two Guys supported Amaury with the same loyalty. Amaury and his younger brother Guy seem to have been very close – just as their father and uncle had been. The age difference between them was probably small; around three years, assuming that Amaury came of age in 1213 and Guy in 1216, the year he married Pétronille de Bigorre. There are different accounts of Guy’s death, from Guillaume de Puylaurens’s simple statement that he died from wounds received during an assault to tales of his being taken captive and slain, possibly by Raymond VII11. What is known, however, is that Raymond had Guy’s body dressed and sent to Amaury with every display of respect, which Amaury seems to have perceived as mockery 12. No matter the circumstances surrounding it, Guy’s untimely death at Castelnaudary (coincidentally, the town where Amaury had been knighted seven years prior) must have been a heavy blow to his brother. Guy left behind two daughters, Alix and Pétronille. The next year, in 1221, Amaury arranged for the marriage of his sister-in-law to Aymeri de Rançon, one of his comrades in arms. Guy’s daughters remained with their mother and eventually married local noblemen. Pétronille maintained connections with her late husband’s brothers. It is very telling that in 1239, when the younger Pétronille married Raoul de la Roche-Tesson, Amaury gave Rambouillet as her dowry, with the consent of his wife13. This was quite a generous gift, especially when we consider that the Montforts’ lands were not exactly extensive and, further, that Amaury had four unmarried daughters of his own to provide dowries for. It is a truth almost universally acknowledged that Simon’s death led to a change in the course of the war14. However, as we have seen, the Franks’ defeats began significantly earlier, and the subsequent reinforcements sent from the north (including expeditions led by the prince and then King Louis) were not exactly successful. The Franks’ defeats and eventual retreat from Languedoc are also usually blamed on Amaury’s being less capable than Simon. He was certainly much milder in character, but he was courageous and not lacking in determination: he would not have continued the fight for so long and at such expense15 as he did otherwise. 11 Power, Daniel. “The Albigensian Crusade after Simon of Montfort (1218-1224).” Simon de Montfort (c. 1170-1218) : le croisé, son lignage et son temps, edited by Martin Aurell et al., Brepols, 2020, pp. 161–178. P. 164. 12 Barrau, J. J. Histoire des croisades contre les albigeois. Vol. 2, A. Lacour, 1840. Pp. 255-256. 13 Delpech, André. Pétronille de Bigorre. J & D éditions, 1996. P. 126. 14 E.g. J.R. Maddicott, in his book on Simon de Montfort the younger: “After his [Simon’s] death outside the walls of Toulouse in 1218 the advantage returned to the south, forcing his elder son, Amaury, to abandon his father’s gains”. Maddicott, John Robert. Simon de Montfort. Cambridge University Press, 1999. P. 3. 15 Literally: Maddicott mentions Pope Gregory IX estimating that the Montfort family owed him £10,000. Maddicott, John Robert. Simon de Montfort. Cambridge University Press, 1999. P. 8 In or around 1222, Amaury started to seek ways to dispose of the troubled inheritance in Languedoc: apparently, he did not think it possible to simply abandon it. We know that in 1222, he spent a significant time in the family estate in Yvelines, because he issued several charters from different locations in his lands. It is worth noting that his father left him a lot of lands and titles, but apart from the seigneurie of Montfort in the French heartland, these were very troublesome lands and titles: the earldom of Leicester in England (at a time when the relations between England and France were anywhere between cold and openly hostile), the county of Toulouse, and the viscountcies of Béziers and Carcassonne. And then there were also the lands in the Dauphiné which Amaury was due to receive as his wife’s dowry, but it was complicated. After the death of Simon and in view of the development of events, the marriage between Amaury de Montfort and Béatrix de Viennois would no longer seem quite as illustrious as several years before, for neither party. The dauphin Andre had remarried (although he would not get male heirs until several years later), and it was likely that Béatrix would not remain his sole heiress for long. There are indications that her father considered finding her a more fortunate husband, but the Archbishop of Embrun, Bernard Chabert, intervened on Amaury’s behalf. The negotiations were long, but finally Amaury and Béatrix’ marriage was formally celebrated and consummated in Avignon, most likely, in the first half of December 1222. We can assume this because we know that Amaury gave homage for his wife’s lands to the Archbishop on the Feast of St Lucia – that is, on December 1316. For all appearances, it was a happy marriage – we don’t know of any illegitimate children of Amaury. He had five children with his wife: Jean, Marguerite, Laure, Adela (or Alix), and Pernelle (or Pétronille). Their years of birth are, unsuprisingly, not known. Jean was born, most likely, between 1223 and 1227 – the earliest charter I could find that Jean issued as count is dated March 1248 17. Adela’s year of birth is sometimes given as 1230, but I have not been able to locate a source for this so far. Lindy Grant believes that Adela and Marguerite were the two oldest daughters, probably because she assumes it was Blanche of Castile who arranged their marriages to Simon de Nesle and Jean de Soissons, respectively; both were close to her court 18. It is known that Adela married Simon de Nesle in January or February 1242, but I have not been able to find out (at least not yet) when the marriage between Marguerite and Jean de Soissons took place. Marguerite outlived all her siblings, so she is 16 Sauret, Adrien. Essai historique sur la ville d'Embrun. Delaplace P. et F., 1860. Pp. 93-94. 17 Cartulaires de Saint-Thomas d'Épernon et de Notre-Dame de Maintenon. Raynal, 1878. P. 49. 18 Grant, Lindy. “The Montforts and the Capetian Court.” Simon De Montfort (c. 1170-1218) : le croisé, son lignage et son temps, edited by Martin Aurell et al., Brepols, 2020, pp. 179-191. Pp. 189-190. likely to be the youngest or second youngest; the youngest could be Pernelle. as she took the veil at Port-Royal (eventually becoming the abbess there in the early 1270s), and it was usually the youngest children who entered monasteries. Anyway, I think the marriages between Amaury’s daughters and the Capetian courtiers could have been just as well arranged by King Louis, who held Amaury in very high regard, or by Queen Marguerite – Amaury’s children were her second cousins, as the father of Marguerite and the other three queens from Provence19 was Béatrix’ cousin. In January 1224, Amaury concluded a treaty with Raymond VII and left Languedoc to go to the royal court. His February meeting with Louis VIII was more successful than the previous attempts to get the French crown to participate in the southern affairs more actively: the king finally agreed to take his rights to the lands in the south to the French crown. In exchange, the seigneurie of Montfort was elevated to a county, and Amaury was also promised the charge of Constable of France, one of the most prestigious positions in the realm. At that time, it was occupied by his maternal uncle Mathieu de Montmorency, and it is probably worth noting that the office, although held for life, was not hereditary, so it is not as if Amaury were given this charge over one of Mathieu de Montmorency’s own sons, and there is no surprise that Amaury’s son and heir would not succeed his father as one. Now that Amaury was free from the southern affairs (at least relatively, as we will see below), he could take time to organise the northern ones. One of the first things he did was to make an inventory of his French lands: this produced a detailed description known as the Scriptum feodorum de Monteforti20. The agreement with the king did not mean end of war in Languedoc for Amaury: he had to accompany Louis on his campaign. It was not the first time they went to war together (they had already fought in Languedoc in 1219-1220), and it appears that they got along well. In November 1226, Amaury was one of the noblemen and dignitaries present at the deathbed of Louis, along with the counts of Blois, Boulogne, Soissons, and Sancerre, the seigneurs of Bourbon and Coucy, the king’s half-brother Philippe Hurepel, the archbishops of Sens and Bourges, and the bishops of Beauvais, Noyon, and Chartres. The king requested that they make homage to his eldest son Louis (or, should something befall him, to the second son, Robert) and see to his coronation as soon as possible 21. As the young Louis was only 12 years old at the time, his mother Blanche of Castile became regent of the 19 Eleanor, married to King Henry III of England; Béatrice, married to Charles I, brother of Louis IX and king of Sicily; Sanchia, married to Richard, Earl of Cornwall and King of the Romans. 20 Mémoires. Société historique et archéologique de Rambouillet et de l'Yveline. Rambouillet, Librairie de Raynal, 1873. P. 291. 21 Le Goff, Jacques. Saint Louis. Gallimard, 1996. Pp. 95-96. realm (although the word “regent” wouldn’t come into use until the 14th century, and Blanche’s official role was that of a “guardian and tutor”) 22. Amaury remained unwaveringly loyal to the Queen Mother and Louis (not a very common thing in that age), and they apparently valued his loyalty. The Albigensian Crusade came to a formal end in 1229, when Queen Blanche and Raymond VII concluded a treaty in Meaux. Amaury formally confirmed the cession of his rights to his father’s Occitan inheritance to the French crown; Blanche and Raymond agreed on the marriage between prince Alphonse de Poitiers and Jeanne, Raymond’s only daughter and sole heiress. In December 1230, Matthieu de Montmorency died, and Amaury became Constable of France, as promised by Louis VIII. The importance of the position can be gleaned from the role which Matthieu played at the court: for example, earlier in 1230, when Blanche and Louis concluded a set of treaties to settle the issue of Brittany, they were required to swear on the relics, as was the custom to ensure that the sides to the bargain would keep their promises, but instead, they had Matthieu do it for them23. This indicates perhaps both the importance of the position of constable and the fact that only a very trusted person could have been appointed to it. As a close ally of the queen regent and the new king and as the constable, Amaury would spend a lot of time at the court or on military campaigns: Blanche’s regency and the early years of Louis’ reign were marked by a series of rebellions by major noblemen holding lands in the north of France, most notably, in Brittany under Pierre Mauclerc and Champagne under the count Thibault. He was not only a supporter of the queen regent and the young king, but it appears that his vassals were loyal to the Crown, too. I have not seen mentions of any revolts in the Montforts’ lands, and Amaury’s knights continued to serve Blanche faithfully many years after his death24. His connection to the court and Queen Blanche was not limited to military action and courtly functions: Amaury also actively participated in her religious activity, making gifts to the monastery of Royaumont which she founded and working with her on the promotion of the nunnery of Le Trésor in Normandy. When Blanche founded the abbey of Maubuisson in 1236, the nuns and abbess for it came from another abbey, Saint-Antoine-des-Champs, where Amaury’s sister Pétronille was a nun (she entered the nunnery around 1222, according to the will of her mother Alix de Montmorency; Pétronille was to be educated at the nunnery and then could take the veil should she wish to do so – which she 22 Le Goff, Jacques. Saint Louis. Gallimard, 1996. P. 97. 23 Grant, Lindy. Blanche of Castile, Queen of France. Yale University Press, 2017. P. 90. 24 For example, two of them, Guy de Chevreuse and his brother Hervé de Maincourt, were in Languedoc on Blanche’s orders in 1250; see Moutié, Auguste. Chevreuse: ptie. chatelains, barons et ducs. Rambouillet, Imprimerie De Raynal, 1876. Pp. 163-169. did). Another sister, Amicia, was married to Gaucher de Joigny, also close to the court. Yet another, Laure, had been married to the vidame of Amiens, but died several years previously. There were also more distant relatives – the cousin, Philip de Montfort, son of Guy de Montfort the older by his wife Helvis d’Ibelin and husband of Éléonore de Courtenay, another prominent noble family, and his two half-sisters, Alix and Pétronille, who were now nuns at the important abbey of Port-Royal. The family was now well-established at the court, and Amaury’s marriage to the heiress of Dauphiné proved advantageous in a probably unexpected way when Louis IX married Marguerite of Provence, the daughter of Countess Béatrix’ cousin. Lindy Grant suggests that Béatrix could have played a role in the negotiations and help the young queen at the court25 (Marguerite might have feel very lonely at first, especially as Blanche apparently did not like her a lot and could be openly hostile from time to time). It can be more than a coincidence that one of Amaury’s daughters was named Marguerite: noble families usually gave the children one of an established set of names (in the Montfort family, sons were normally called Amaury, Simon, or Guy, and daughters’ names also did not vary much). Of course, Amaury already deviated from the family tradition when he named his son Jean 26, and there were several women named Marguerite in Béatrix’ family, but I think it possible that Marguerite was born some time after the marriage of King Louis IX and Marguerite of Provence and named after the young queen. It would have certainly been a nice gesture on the part of the Constable of France and his wife, the new queen’s relatives. There was that one troublesome relative, too: Simon, Amaury’s only surviving brother. Guy died in 1220; of another brother, Robert, next to nothing is known, except that he probably died around 1226. In Capetian France, it was the eldest son who inherited the estate. The younger sons could get something small (Guy de Montfort the older was lord of la Ferté-Alais and Bréthencourt) or enter a monastery, but, apparently, Simon the younger could not be satisfied with either of these two option. He tried to find an advantageous match and attempted to marry Countess Jeanne of Flanders, causing a scandal: the marriage was expressly prohibited by the French crown (apart from purely political reasons due to the issue of Flanders, Blanche’s personal dislike for Simon is sometimes cited as an explanation27). Fortunately for Simon, their father’s inheritance was split between two countries – France and England, and, although Amaury formally inherited it all, he could not hold lands from the English king, 25 Grant, Lindy. “The Montforts and the Capetian Court.” Simon De Montfort (c. 1170-1218) : le croisé, son lignage et son temps, edited by Martin Aurell et al., Brepols, 2020, pp. 179-191. P. 184. 26 The only possible explanation I can think of is a connection to St John the Baptist: Amaury’s knighting took place on his feast, so perhaps this saint was very special to him. 27 Grant, Lindy. Blanche of Castile, Queen of France. Yale University Press, 2017. P. 113. as he was already a liegeman of the French king and Constable of France. At some point, the brothers arrived at the following settlement: Amaury would retain all the French lands, and Simon would get the earldom of Leicester (should the English king allow it, of course). There are several factors which could impact Amaury’s decision to give Leicester up, apart from the family habit of helping each other. First, as mentioned above, Simon proved to be a troublesome relative. Second, Amaury was in need of money due to his vast debts resulting from the Albigensian Crusade (in 1232, his wife sold her dowry lands in the Viennois to her half-brother for 100,000 marks, and, apparently, it still was not enough to pay all the debts back), and the settlement with Simon provided for rather generous payouts. The final settlement also had a clause providing that, should Simon die without issue, the earldom of Leicester would return to Amaury and his heirs. The negotiations and formalities took time: it was not until April 1239 that Amaury formally renounced his claims to the English earldom before King Henry III of England at Westminster. By that time, Simon had already established himself in England and married the king’s sister Eleanor. This caused another scandal, this time at the English royal court, due to the fact that Eleanor, recently widowed, had sworn an oath of chastity, and that she married a foreigner without a title or wealth in secret, without her brother’s knowledge or consent. Henry III was a magnanimous man who quickly forgave Eleanor and Simon, but Henry and Eleanor’s brother Richard, earl of Cornwall, was deeply offended and even rebelled against the king, although briefly. Amaury already knew that another, much longer, journey laid ahead, as several years previously, in 1235, he took the cross vowing to go to the Holy Land. There could be several reasons for this, apart from the desire to fight for the liberation of Jerusalem, including purely financial considerations: as a crusader, he would have all his debts forgiven. The crusade he went on came to be known as “the Barons’ Crusade”, because no head of state participated in it. But the French barons were supported by the royal family, and not only financially. Louis IX, in Jacques Le Goffe’s words, “a même donne un caractère « royal » a leur armée en permettant au connétable Amaury de Montfort d’y porter les fleur de lys”28. Although Pope Gregory IX called crusaders from England, France, and Germany, they did not depart as a single host: the French party was the first to leave and first to reach the Holy Land, and the English under Richard of Cornwall followed almost a year later. So, although Simon de Montfort also went on the crusade, the brothers did not travel together. Simon did not travel together with his new countrymen, either, maybe due to the fact that the English host was led by Richard of Cornwall. 28 Le Goff, Jacques. Saint Louis. Gallimard, 1996. P. 215. The French host arrived to the Holy Land in October, disembarking in Acre. The organisational problems became then apparent: for one thing, the crusade had virtually no leader. There were five important noblemen, each of whom had more or less equal claims to leadership: Thibault of Champagne, who also happened to hold the title of king of Navarre; Hugues, Duke of Burgundy; Pierre Mauclerc, count of Brittany; Amaury de Montfort, Constable of France and practically a representative of the French King; Count Henri de Bar. Moreover, it is easy to see why they would not get along well: Thibault and Pierre had a long history of rebellions against the French crown, and Amaury, as a loyal supporter of Louis VIII, Queen Blanche, and Louis IX, would have been their adversary on more than one occasion. In the end, the crusaders elected Thibault of Champagne (Michael Lower suggests that his nominal title as king could be crucial in this decision29). A common goal tends to make people forget their differences and unite, but here comes the second issue with the Barons’ Crusade: it had no clear and feasible goal. The Crusader states were practically surrounded by adversaries, so the Crusaders could strike practically in any direction, and, as is usual in such situations, everyone had his own opinion where to go first. They travelled down from Acre to Jaffa and then to Ascalon, where Pierre Mauclerc assaulted a caravan going north to Damascus with his own knights, without telling the others. Pierre’s operation was a success, and caused a lot of envy; in fact, the two sources that directly explain the reasons for what happened next cite envy as the main cause. One of those sources is a letter quoted by Matthew Paris in his Chronica Majora, and another is the Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr, de 1229 à 1261, dite du manuscrit de Rothelin, commonly called The Rothelin Continuation and written several decades later30, but by a very knowledgeable author, even though his knowledge is sometimes imperfect. Upon learning of Pierre Mauclerc’s secret expedition, several barons, including Henri de Bar and Amaury, were envious and wanted to make a raid of their own, despite the protests of Thibault de Champagne and the Grand Masters of the Templars and the Hospitallers 31. This was actually a large and diverse party: apart from Henri and Amaury, it included Walter of Brienne, Count of Jaffa, Philip de Montfort (Amaury’s cousin, son of his uncle Guy by Helvis d’Ibelin), and, most curiously, Philip de Nanteuil, close friend of Thibault de Champagne – they were both poets, among other things. Henri de 29 Lower, Michael. The Barons' Crusade: A Call to Arms and Its Consequences. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. P. 164. 30 Morgan, M.R. "The Rothelin Continuation of William of Tyre.” In Outremer: Studies presented to Joshua Prawer. Edited by B. Z. Kedar (Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Inst: Jerusalem, 1982), 244-257. 31 The Eracles continuation to William of Tyre’s chronicle tells a very different story, though. According to it, the Crusaders learned about the Egyptian garrison at Gaza and decided to send 400 knights against them: Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century: the Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with Part of the Eracles or Acre Text. Ashgate, 1999. P. 123. Bar himself might have been acquainted with Amaury since the early years of the Albigensian Crusade (he fought in it in 1211), and he had been an associate of Thibault de Champagne, having supported him during the War of the Succession of Champagne of 1216-1221 and during the revolt against Queen Blanche in 1226-1227. The expedition did not go well: the party was ambushed by the Egyptian garrison of Gaza under Rukn ad-Din al-Hijawi near the village of Beit Hanoun, in the north-eastern corner of the present-day Gaza strip. Some have fled, including Walter of Brienne and Philip de Montfort. Henri and Amaury, as it is told, refused to abandon the foot soldiers who would certainly be killed, and decided to stand and fight, possibly in the hope that Walter and Philip would alert those who stayed in Ascalon and bring reinforcements in time. To the credit of the crusaders in Ascalon, they did rush to the rescue, but were too late: almost all have been killed, Amaury and sixty other knights were taken prisoners, and the fate of Henri de Bar remained a mystery: his body was not found on the field and he was not among the prisoners. The Rothelin Continuation gives a very somber story of his death at the hands of the Bedouins, but it is uncorroborated by other sources. The prisoners were taken to Cairo, while Rukn adDin also had the heads of the slain crusaders collected and brought to the Egyptian capital, where they were displayed on the city walls (for another decade, until Louis IX’s crusade). The Rothelin Continuation is bitterly critical about Henri de Bar’s raiding party and carefully lists all their miscalculations: going deep into enemy territory, stopping for lunch, and so on. In my view, the expedition was not really different from Pierre Mauclerc’s raid, and it is very possible that, had it been successful, it would be written about in a very different tone. But it ended in a disaster and had serious consequences (not all of them adverse, though). It is quite understandable why everyone would feel bitter about it and want to find explanations for the disaster, starting with the less than noble intentions of those who caused it. Having told about the foolhardiness of the crusaders and the approach of the Egyptians, the author of The Rothelin Continuation changes his tone very abruptly, and his narrative turns into a heroic song: he describes in detail how Henri and Amaury encouraged those who stood with them and how they fought against the prevailing Egyptians. Then he describes with clear compassion how the prisoners were led to Cairo and treated in Egypt. Matthew Paris cites two letters describing the events in Gaza, and I would like to cite the entire fragment of the Chronica Majora here: De deploranda strage Christianorum in partibus Damascenis. Cum hæc autem in partibus Francorum agerentur, in partibus Damascenis nostrates lugubrem jacturam in suo exercitu, tam in suis personis, equis, et armis, quam in honore suo, infausto sidere miserabiliter pertulerunt. Quod dolentes referimus, talibus epistolis certificati: Epistola. “Talis amicus tali salutem. Sciatis quod comes Britanniæ fecit equitatum unum ante Damascum, et sumpsit prædam magnam, et salvam conduxit ad exercitum. Super hoc inviderunt ei comes de Bar, comes de Monteforti, dux Burgundiæ; et post octo dier fecerunt alium equitatum sine consilio comitis Britanniæ, et ibidem interfectus fuit comes de Bar, dominus Simon de Claro-monte, dominus Johannes de Barres, dominus Robertus Malet, Ricardus de Beumund, et alii innumerati. Dominus Almaricus comes Montisfortis captus fuit et ductus in Babiloniam; dux autem Burgundiæ fugit.” Similiter hæ literæ venerunt de comite Montisfortis ad comitissam uxorem suam, et ipsa transmisit comiti Ricardo. Item aliæ literæ. “Sciatis, quod Damascus non capitur, ut dictum est prius; sed redierunt omnes Acon. Præterea sciatis, quod dominus rex Franciæ amovit omnem thesaurum suum a templo, quoniam Templarii hoc Hospitalarii voluerunt Francos in hoc discrimine adjuvare. Et sciatis, quod sexaginta capti sunt vivi, et postea in reditu decem milites nobiles et expectabiles.”32 The second letter is sometimes attributed to Amaury 33. However, the sentence separating the two letters reads, literally, “A similar letter was sent from the count of Montfort to the countess, his wife, and she passed it to Earl Richard [of Cornwall]”, while the second letter is preceded by a heading saying “Here is another letter” (which is rather imprecise for Matthew Paris, if I might add). It looks more likely that the St Albans chronicler decided to quote a couple of extracts from different letters without disclosing the names of their authors, added to the first that a similar one was sent by Amaury to his wife, and proceeded with the second letter. The baffling thing about it is that it gives details of the French king’s actions in Paris, and I cannot imagine how Amaury could know about it so far away 32 Matthew Paris. Chronica Majora. Vol. IV. A.D. 1240 to A.D. 1247. Longman & Company, 1877. Pp. 25-26. 33 Cf. Ambler, The Song of Simon De Montfort, p. 84; Lower, in The Barons' Crusade, p. 228 calls this letter “anonymous”. The opinion that the second letter was written by Amaury may be based on J.A. Giles’ English translation of the Chronica Majora, which translates Similiter hæ literæ venerunt de comite Montisfortis ad comitissam uxorem suam, et ipsa transmisit comiti Ricardo as “At the same time, the following letter came from the earl of Montfort to the countess, his wife, and she transmitted it to Earl Richard: –“ (and omits the heading separating this sentence from the letter). There are other issues with the English translation as well, for example, it claims that the duke of Burgundy was also taken prisoner, not fled, as in the Latin text. Matthew Paris's English History: from the Year 1235 to 1273. Translated by J.A. Giles. Vol. 1, London: H.G. Bohn, 1852. P. 273. from France (let alone being in the sultan’s prison). Perhaps it was written from someone in Paris, relaying news from the Holy Land and news of the French king’s reaction to them? Another episode related by Matthew Paris in the Chronica Majora is how the sultan of Egypt interrogated Amaury, wishing to know if there were other important noblemen in his prison, apart from the count of Montfort. Matthew does not give a precise date for it, but I think it likely that this happened in summer 1240, after As-Salih Ayyub deposed Al-Adil III and became the new ruler of Egypt (it would make sense for the new sultan to make an inventory of his resources). Amaury answered that there were no other important persons among the prisoners, in an attempt to make their ransoming easier – the ransom depended directly on one’s rank and wealth 34. Unfortunately, this did not work: the sultan was suspicious, made a careful search, discovered several other prominent nobles, and so knew he was lied to – and did not take this lightly. According to Matthew Paris, Amaury was then transferred to another place of confinement, a castle which the chronicler names Maubech, and was kept in stricter conditions there.35. The Crusaders in the Holy Land could indeed do with something that would make freeing the prisoners easier. This matter was even further complicated by the fact that the Templars and the Hospitallers supported opposite courses of action. Thibault de Champagne eventually reached an agreement with the Ayyubids, but decided to leave the Holy Land in summer 1240, before finalising the agreement, actually freeing the captive French crusaders, or even waiting for the English host to arrive. Pierre Mauclerc departed with Thibault, so practically the only important French barons to meet Richard of Cornwall, when he arrived in October, were the Duke of Burgundy and the Count of Foretz. Richard had a rather small army under his command, so he deemed it wiser to continue with diplomacy – and chose to pursue the agreement reached by Thibault. On April 23, 1241 the French prisoners finally returned to their own – we have it on Richard of Cornwall’s authority36. The Rothelin Continuation offers a surprisingly different version and claims that the prisoners were released a year earlier, thanks to Thibault de Champagne’s efforts, but this is unsupported by other sources37. It is really unclear if the Rothelin continuator disliked the English and wanted to downplay Richard of Cornwall’s role (strictly speaking, he mostly finished Thibault’s enterprise and enforced his agreement), or if he was not too well-informed. Richard’s role was certainly 34 Amaury’s own ransom was fixed at 5,000 silver marks, and was eventually paid by Pope Gregory IX: Delpech, André. Pétronille de Bigorre. J & D éditions, 1996. P. 127. 35 Matthew Paris. Chronica Majora. Vol. IV. A.D. 1240 to A.D. 1247. Longman & Company, 1877. Pp. 78-79. 36 Barber, Malcolm, and Bate, Keith. Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th-13th Centuries. Taylor and Francis, 2016. P. 140 37 Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century: the Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with Part of the Eracles or Acre Text. Ashgate, 1999. Pp. 57-58. not underestimated by the French (apart from liberating the prisoners, he also had the bones of those killed at Gaza collected and interred at Ascalon): a year later, in spring 1242, he effectively saved his brother, the king of England, by arriving to the battlefield at Taillebourg and negotiating with the French barons by whom, as the chronicler says, he was very warmly welcomed. This strengthening of the French-English relationship was not the only positive consequence of the Barons’ Crusade: Richard’s agreement also returned Jerusalem to Christians and restored the Kingdom of Jerusalem to its largest size since the First Crusade (not for long, though). Richard left the Holy Land very soon after the conclusion of the treaty and release of the prisoners – he embarked at Acre on May 3. It is unclear if Amaury (and Simon) joined him then, and in fact, it seems that they did not, as Richard sailed to Trapani in Sicily, and Amaury, to Otranto in Apulia. Possibly, the brothers stayed in the Holy Land a bit longer. Another indication of this is that in June 1241, “the barons, knights of citizens” of the kingdom of Jerusalem wrote to Frederick II asking him to appoint Simon as their temporary governor38. J.R. Maddicott argues that Simon “probably left Syria in the autumn of 1241”39, possibly because this was when Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy, left, and Simon was in Burgundy in summer 1242. Maddicott also seems sure that Amaury died in November 1241, but he gives no explanation or reference to a source40, and the only source I could find so far – the obituary of the Priory of Haute-Bruyère41 – gives his date of death as August 28: Quinto kal. sept. Amaricus, pie memorie et venerabilis comes Montisfortis, cum rediret ab Ierosolimis anno Domini m°cc°xl°, apud Otrentem civitatem migravit ad Christum, qui apud civitatem Babilonie pro Dei amore ab impiissimis paganis incarceratus et crudeliter pro Christo religatus, tam patienter sustinens quod Dei providentia de manibus illorum illesus exivit. Cum autem vir nobilis obiisset apud dictam civitatem, jussit corpus suum apud Romam in monasterio Sancti Johannis Lateranis recondi, cor vero suum propter nimiam dilectionem filiarum suarum sanctimonialium de Altabrueria, quas inter omnes et super omnia semper dilexerat, jussit asportari. Dilecte siquidem filie sanctimoniales dicti loci propter dilectionem et reverentiam dictum cor in quodam lapide, excuso ad similitudinem vultus dicti viri, in sinistra parte majoris altaris dicte ecclesie de Altabrueria a venerabili Alberico, episcopo Carnotensi, ipso die inventionis S. Stephani [3 aug.] [cum] hymnis et laudibus sepeliunt. 38 39 40 41 Maddicott, John Robert. Simon de Montfort. Cambridge University Press, 1999. P. 30. Maddicott, John Robert. Simon de Montfort. Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. 30-31. Maddicott, John Robert. Simon de Montfort. Cambridge University Press, 1999. P. 30. Cited in Molinier, Auguste. Obituaires de la province de Sens. Vol. 2, Paris, 1902. P. 225. The cause of death is not indicated, neither here nor in any other text mentioning Amaury’s passing (and there are two more I am aware of: the chronicles of Philip Mouskes and Alberic of TroisFontaines). The Latin phrase migravit ad Christum may indicate a peaceful death, but it is practically all we have. There are, of course, some issues with this text and several contradictions when we can factcheck it against other sources, starting with the year being indicated as 1240. St Stephen’s Translation is August 3, which is before August 28, so either the scribe mixed it up with another feast, or the funeral took place on August 3, 1242. Another small discrepancy is that the religious of Haute-Bruyere remembered Amaury annually on August 22: “Et du conte Amaury, dont la figure est à senestre, fils dou devant dit conte Simon; nous en faisons le service xi kal. septembris [1241]”. And we know that Amaury was buried at St Peter’s Basilica, not at St John Lateran (a possible explanation is that he was buried in St John Lateran first, then transferred to St Peter’s Basilica, but this is only a speculation). It would be logical to assume that he was buried there at the Pope’s order, but – to add even more to the confusion – there was no Pope in Rome between August 22 and October 25 (from the death of Gregory IX to the election of Celestine IV; Celestine ruled only for 16 days, dying before his coronation, and the next Pope, Innocent IV, was not elected until June 25, 1243). The timeline could be as follows: Amaury dies in Otranto on August 28, is buried at St Peter’s by Celestine IV in late October or early November, and then his brother and knights, in accordance with his last wish, bring his heart to Haute-Bruyere, where it is buried by Aubry le Cornu, bishop of Chartres42 (at that time, the territories around Montfort-l’Amaury belonged to the Diocese of Chartres, so it naturally fell to its bishop to celebrate the funeral mass for the lord of the lands) on December 26, the feast of St Stephen, or on August 3, 1242 (which is very possible, as for most of spring and summer 1242, there would be a serious conflict between France and England, culminating in the battle of Taillebourg). It would remain there until the destruction of the priory during the French Revolution. Queen Blanche, for one, would have been deeply saddened by the loss of one of her most loyal friends. Lindy Grant writes that she “paid 8 livres to a servant of Amaury’s who brought news of the prisoners, then sent his daughter a fine gold belt in condolence.” 43 I have not been able to consult the primary source for this yet, but I find it a bit surprising that Blanche chose to single out one of the daughters, and am inclined to speculate that the belt could be a wedding gift to Adela on the occasion 42 L'Hermitte, M.-J. Précis sur la ville de Montfort-l'Amaury, et histoire chronologique des seigneurs de cette ville depuis la construction de son château-fort jusqu'à la révolution de France (996-1792). Paris, Dupont et Roret, 1825. P. 88 43 Grant, Lindy. Blanche of Castile, Queen of France. Yale University Press, 2017. P. 175. of her marriage to Simon de Nesle which took place in January or February 1242. The household account containing this entry covers the years 1241-124244, so it is a possibility. Another indication of the royal family’s mourning for Amaury is that the position of the Constable remained vacant until 1249, when Louis went on his first Crusade (between 1241 and 1249, the lists of signatories for the royal charters included the line Constabulario nullo). Louis himself did not forget the participants of the Barons’ Crusade: in 1250, he negotiated the return of the heads of those killed at Gaza to bury them. He particularly remembered Amaury, and Joinville retells a story of how, during the Albigensian Crusade, some people advised Amaury to go and see a priest transforming bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass, to which Amaury replied as follows: “Go and see it yourself, you who don’t believe it. I believe it totally. It is how the Holy Church explains the sacrament at the altar to us. My prize, for having had faith throughout my earthly life in the teachings of the Church [is that] I will deserve a crown in paradise even more than the angels — the angels who see God face to face and thus must believe in him.”45 Jean de Montfort was obviously still underage at the time of his father’s death (he could not have been born before late 1223), so for several years to come his mother, the Countess Béatrix, would rule the estate. In April 1242, she attended the king’s council in Chinon together with her sister-in-law Amicia de Montfort, Countess of Joigny 46, and she died some time after 1248, on September 17 47. Jean would go on crusade under Louis IX and die on Cyprus in the winter of 1248/1249, leaving an only daughter, also named Béatrix. He was mostly remembered as a benefactor of the abbey of Port-Royal where his sister Pernelle was a nun (and later abbess) and for helping his aunt Amicia and Dominican nuns in France and Germany in establishing new nunneries despite the then Master of the Order’s unwillingness to accept women into the Dominican family – but this is a different story. 44 Dépenses de la reine Blanche, en 1241 et 1242, in BNF MS Latin 9017 45 Grant, Lindy. “The Montforts and the Capetian Court.” Simon De Montfort (c. 1170-1218) : le Croisé, son lignage et son temps, edited by Martin Aurell et al., Brepols, 2020, pp. 179-191. P. 183. 46 La Roque, Gilles André de (Sieur de la Lontière). Traité de la Noblesse, de ses différentes espèces, de son origine, etc. Rouen, 1735. P. 56. It is rather surprising how many of the attendants were women! 47 Rivet de La Grange, Antoine. Nécrologe de l'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Port-Royal-des-Champs. Amsterdam, 1723. P. 376. *** Eight hundred years are a lot (not in comparison with eternity, though), and very little has survived to our days apart from the great Gothic cathedrals and (mostly ruined) castles. But the memory of Amaury is still very much alive in more than one place. First, he still rides his white horse in one of the stained glass windows of Chartres Cathedral, just above the altar, in the first round window, followed by his brother Simon48. Second, in the Vatican Grottoes under St Peter’s Basilica, his tomb plate could still be found in late 19th century49, and it very likely still remains there. Third, in the carefully restored Hospitaller citadel in Akko, St-Jean-d’Acre of the Crusaders, the tombstone of Pierre de Vieille-Bride, Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller, bears the mention of the Count of Montfort’s liberation from Cairo50. Last but not least, the hospice in Montfort-l’Amaury he founded before departing for the Holy Land functions to this day – now as branch of the Centre Hospitalier de la Mauldre51. Bibliography Documents Cartulaires de Saint-Thomas d'Épernon et de Notre-Dame de Maintenon. Raynal, 1878 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=FrdCAAAAYAAJ&rdid=bookFrdCAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1] Dépenses de la reine Blanche, en 1241 et 1242, in BNF MS Latin 9017 [available online: https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc771969] Books and Articles Adams, Henry. Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres. Outlook Verlag, 2019 48 Brongniart, Alexandre. Mémoire sur la Peinture sur verre. Selligue, 1829. P. 124, and Adams, Henry. Mont-SaintMichel and Chartres. Outlook Verlag, 2019. P. 120. 49 Barbier de Montault, Xavier. Les souterrains et le tresor de S. Pierre, a Rome. Rome, Librairie de Joseph Spithoever, 1866. P. 30. 50 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crusader_halls_IMG_2914.JPG 51 http://chmauldre.fr/Nous-connaitre/3/19/3 Alvira, Martín. “Prisoners of War in the Albigensian Crusade, 1209-1229.” e-Strategica, vol. 1, 2017, pp. 269–284 [available online: https://www.journal-estrategica.com/pdf/numero-1/prisoners-ofwar-in-the-albigensian-crusade.pdf] Ambler, Sophie Thérèse. The Song of Simon De Montfort: England's First Revolutionary and the Death of Chivalry. Picador, 2020 Barber, Malcolm, and Bate, Keith. Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th13th Centuries. Taylor and Francis, 2016 Barbier de Montault, Xavier. Les souterrains et le tresor de S. Pierre, a Rome. Rome, Librairie de Joseph Spithoever, 1866 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details? id=6opRFCw0q0sC] Barrau, J. J. Histoire Des Croisades Contre Les Albigeois. Vol. 2. Paris, A. Lacour, 1840 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Xr5cU_YGzekC] Brongniart, Alexandre. Mémoire sur la peinture sur verre. Selligue, 1829 Crusader Syria in the Thirteenth Century: the Rothelin Continuation of the History of William of Tyre with Part of the Eracles or Acre Text. Ashgate, 1999 Delpech, André. Pétronille de Bigorre. J & D éditions, 1996 Grant, Lindy. Blanche of Castile, Queen of France. Yale University Press, 2017 Grant, Lindy. “The Montforts and the Capetian Court.” Simon de Montfort (c. 1170-1218) : le croisé, son lignage et son temps, edited by Martin Aurell et al., Brepols, 2020, pp. 179-191 Jackson, Peter. The Crusades of 1239-41 and Their Aftermath. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Vol. 50, No. 1 (1987), pp. 32-60 [available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/616893?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents] La Roque, Gilles André de (Sieur de la Lontière). Traité de la Noblesse, de ses différentes espèces, de son origine, etc. Rouen, 1735 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details? id=13vRAAAAMAAJ] Le Goff, Jacques. Saint Louis. Gallimard, 1996 L'Hermitte, M.-J. Précis sur la ville de Montfort-l'Amaury, et histoire chronologique des seigneurs de cette ville depuis la construction de son château-fort jusqu'à la révolution de France (996-1792). Paris, Dupont et Roret, 1825. [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details? id=hOtJ811FEdsC] Lower, Michael. The Barons' Crusade: A Call to Arms and Its Consequences. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013 Maddicott, John Robert. Simon de Montfort. Cambridge University Press, 1999 Matthew Paris. Chronica Majora. Vol. IV. A.D. 1240 to A.D. 1247. Longman & Company, 1877 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=lvkKAAAAYAAJ] Matthew Paris's English History: from the Year 1235 to 1273. Translated by J.A. Giles. Vol. 1, London: H.G. Bohn, 1852 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details? id=Lj0LAAAAYAAJ] Mémoires. Société historique et archéologique de Rambouillet et de l'Yveline. Rambouillet, Librairie de Raynal, 1873 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details? id=MRIQAAAAYAAJ] Molinier, Auguste. Obituaires de la province de Sens. Vol. 2, Paris, 1902 [available online: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5905q] Morgan, M.R. "The Rothelin Continuation of William of Tyre.” In Outremer: Studies presented to Joshua Prawer. Edited by B. Z. Kedar (Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Inst: Jerusalem, 1982), 244-257 Moutié, Auguste. Chevreuse: ptie. chatelains, barons et ducs. Rambouillet, Imprimerie De Raynal, 1876 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=MI4IAQAAIAAJ] Paladilhe, Dominique. Simon de Montfort et le drame cathare. Via Romana, 2011 Power, Daniel. “The Albigensian Crusade after Simon of Montfort (1218-1224).” Simon de Montfort (c. 1170-1218) : le croisé, son lignage et son temps, edited by Martin Aurell et al., Brepols, 2020, pp. 161–178 Rivet de La Grange, Antoine. Nécrologe de l'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Port-Royal-des-Champs. Amsterdam, 1723 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=qXstH9TrwkC] Sauret, Adrien. Essai historique sur la ville d'Embrun. Delaplace P. et F., 1860 [available online: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ctqzL-xyoIAC]