Becket controversy

The matter dragged on for a number of years as both sides appealed to the pope, who attempted to bring the parties to a negotiated settlement, but to no avail.

Both sides resorted to actions that escalated the dispute with the king confiscating property and the archbishop issuing excommunications.

[5] He also no longer aided the king in defending royal interests in the church, but instead began to champion ecclesiastical rights.

Because even those men who took minor orders were considered clergy, the quarrel over the so-called "criminous clerks" potentially covered up to one-fifth of the male population of England at the time.

Henry, however, felt that this position deprived him of the ability to govern effectively, and also undercut law and order in England.

[8] Yet another contributing factor was Becket's excommunication of a royal tenant-in-chief who had resisted the archbishop's attempt to install a clerk in a church where the tenant claimed the right to name the appointment.

[9] In October 1163, Henry summoned the ecclesiastical hierarchy to Westminster to hear his complaints about the governance of the English Church.

The bishops remained steadfastly behind Becket, and refused to agree to observe the customs if they conflicted with canon law.

Both sides petitioned the papacy, and Becket also sent diplomatic feelers to King Louis VII of France and Frederick Barbarossa, the Holy Roman Emperor.

The king then proposed to have a committee of barons and clerks compile these customs into a written document, which would be presented to the council.

He was caught, and then tried on 6 October 1164 at a royal court on different charges of failing to adequately address a suit brought against him by nobleman John Marshal about lands that Becket had confiscated.

Once at the council, Becket was found guilty of ignoring the court summons and under pressure from the bishops, accepted the sentence of confiscation of all non-landed property pending the pleasure of the king.

[13] Thomas took a ship to the continent on 2 November 1164,[14] eventually reaching a resting spot at Sens, where both sides presented their cases to Alexander.

Becket continued to attempt to resolve the dispute, but Alexander ordered the archbishop to refrain from provoking the king before spring 1166.

[20] In December 1166, Alexander wrote to the English bishops that he was sending papal legates a latere to England to hear the various cases.

Although later writers on both sides of the controversy claimed that there was to be no appeal from the legates' decisions, nowhere in the documents announcing their appointment was any such limitation mentioned.

Meanwhile, John of Oxford had returned to England from a mission to Rome, and was proclaiming that the legates were to depose Becket, and supposedly showed papal letters confirming this to Foliot.

As the legates had no mandate to compel Becket to accept them as judges, the negotiations came to an end with the king and bishops still appealing to the papacy.

[23] On 13 April 1169, Becket excommunicated Foliot, along with Hugh, Earl of Norfolk, Josceline of Salisbury, and seven royal officials.

Foliot then prepared to appeal his sentence to the pope in person, and travelled to Normandy in late June or early July, where he met the king, but proceeded no further towards Rome, as the papacy was attempting once more to secure a negotiated settlement.

[27] Foliot then proceeded to Rome, but at Milan he received word that his envoy at the papal court had secured the right for him to be absolved by the Archbishop of Rouen, Rotrou.

When they did so, the royal anger at the timing of the excommunications was such that it led to Henry uttering the question often attributed to him: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?".

[36] For the ten years that the dispute ran, Henry was unable to appoint any new bishops in England to replace those who had died.

In return, the king managed to secure good relations with the papacy at a time when he faced rebellions from his sons.