King John and Beaulieu Abbey

If Beaulieu Abbey had produced a chronicler in the 13th century we might have been provided with a more positive view of John's reign. As it is we have the words of Matthew Paris, a brilliant chronicler but not always disposed to historical balance. His own abbey at St Albans was punitively treated by John but other abbeys, including Beaulieu, were reasonably well treated. Abbot Hugh was plainly on good terms with the king and was sent to meet with Pope Innocent III to negotiate during their dispute.

John and Innocent were well matched adversaries. John was clever and unscrupulous and knew when to stand his ground. Innocent III was also a forceful and intelligent man who did much to extend the power of the Papacy. The cause of the break between them was almost trivial and neither man anticipated the escalation that followed. Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, died in 1205. His successor by convention was elected by the cathedral chapter; however, there was an equally strong and practical convention that the monks would always elect the king's nominee. Much as the purists might have preferred otherwise the archbishop was a tenant-in-chief of the king and owed all his lands and income to the king. A rogue archbishop could lose all temporal holdings and thus diminish the power and prestige of the office.

Usually common sense prevailed, but not in this case.Upon Hubert Walter's death the monks got together and secretly elected one of their own, a man named Reginald. he was then sent off to Rome to seek the Pope's approval. Word got back to John  who was understandably furious, he stormed off to Canterbury to confront the monks who timidly denied that there had been an election. John then insisted that there should be an election and the monks unanimously elected John's chosen candidate John Gray. The bishop's approval was sought and given; all that remained was the approval of the Pope, which, since there were no issues about Gray himself, ought to have been automatic.
 
Innocent, now presented with two claimants, dealt with the matter by deciding that both elections had been improper and required the chapter to conduct a fresh election. Now they divided 50-50; half voted for Reginald, the other half for John Gray. Innocent then responded by appointing  Stephen Langton, one of he foremost academics at the University of Paris. It must have appeared to innocent an inspired solution.

The monks agreed, but John, when he heard about it did not. He would not surrender his right to licence the election of an archbishop. letters were exchanged. Positions were entrenched.

John started to play some of the cards at his disposal. he would not allow Langton to enter the country. He seized the archbishop's estates and expelled the monks, who then had to spend several miserable years in exile in France. The Pope gave John some time to come round but by the summer of 1207 he had decided to play a tough game himself. If John would not allow Langton to take up his place the country would be placed under interdict. This meant that the clergy were to withdraw their services, so no burials in consecrated ground, no weddings, no absolution for sin, and in many cases no baptisms. In theory it could be an effective weapon for the times.

In actual fact many in England were not out of sympathy with the king. They regarded it as right and proper that the king should have an archbishop who was acceptable to him. In any case, nobody had a bad word to say about Gray and very few had even heard of Langton who, although English born, had spent most of his life in France.

John handled the impasse cleverly. He presented himslef to the country as the aggrieved party and let it be known that he was prepared to negotiate. His ambassador for this purpose was Hugh, the Abbot of Beaulieu. Talks went on throughout the winter of 1207-8, but when it became apparent to Innocent that John was stalling, the Pope pronounced the Interdict at the end of March 1208. John was ready for this and on march 24th, the very day that the Interdict came into effect, Sherrifs and their officers moved in to sieze all monastic property in the king's name. Lay administrators were appointed to manage the clerical estates and four men from each parish were empowered to assess the clergy's needs and provide them with a maintenance allowance. All surplus revenue went to the crown.

The effect of the Interdict was to bring huge surpluses into the treasury, make little difference to public opinion, and to leave the church in straitened circumstances. Several bishops who did not support John stayed in exile. several bishoprics were left vacant, which meant in any case that the revenues went directly to the crown

There were ways around this. Most clergy were able to reclaim their property on payment of a fine, and the larger institutions had to pay large sums for the privilege of running their own estates.
Archbishop of Canterbury who had no reason to love John.

Beaulieu did very well out of the patronage of their founder. It was well-endowed from the beginning and successive grants from John and his son ensured the continued prosperity of the house. I don't think the Cistercians had any illusions about John's character. There is a legend from Beaulieu that the house was founded because of John's guilt at having tried to impose a tax of the Cistercians of England in 1200. It was said that he had a terrible dream in which he was flogged by Cistercian abbots and that he endowed, first Farringdon, then Beaulieu as a penance.