II. William de Tancarville (Fig. 3.5, a–c)

The medium-sized seal of the hereditary chamberlain of Normandy, who had very extensive lands in the Pays de Caux and Pays d’Auge and who had lost lands in several English counties in 1204, is one of several heraldic examples, as it bears a shield with an orle between six estoiles (arms that were used, with slight variations, by the chamberlain’s descendants).⁷⁴ It is one of only four remaining seals with a counterseal, bearing an estoile that alludes to the sigillant’s arms on the obverse. Tancarville’s seal has suffered significant loss since a mould was made in the 1860s, so that much of the sinister side of the shield is now lost.

III. Stephen de Longchamps (Fig. 3.6, a, b)

Stephen came from the Norman Vexin and was brother of William, bishop of Ely, the notorious governor of England under Richard I. He had served both Richard and King John, becoming lord of Cailly and Baudemont by marriage, but would lose his life fighting for Philip Augustus at the battle of Bouvines in 1214.⁷⁵ The symbols on his quite small seal, a crescent moon and seven-rayed estoile, were quasi-heraldic, for Bishop William’s seal bore them as well, and the Longchamps family later depicted crescents on their arms.⁷⁶

IV. William de Préaux (Fig. 3.7, a, b)

William de Préaux was the fourth of five brothers from the region of Rouen who were distinguished royal knights;⁷⁷ William had even allowed himself to be captured in place of Richard I during the Third Crusade.⁷⁸ While his career mainly took place in Normandy, he had briefly held the important honour of Okehampton (Devon) in 1203, as prospective husband of its lady,⁷⁹ and in 1215 he would return to England to claim the dower of his then wife Philippa, widow of William Malet, in Lincolnshire.⁸⁰ William’s large symbolic seal depicts an eagle displayed, and has been much damaged and restored since 1863.⁸¹ The eagle was a heraldic symbol of the Préaux family, for it appeared on the arms of his eldest brother John (see below, No. X), and a double-headed eagle was used on the symbolic seal of their brother Peter, the commander of King John’s garrison at Rouen, when he agreed a truce with the king of France on 1 June 1204, shortly before the city’s surrender; the son of the youngest brother, Enguerrand, likewise later had an eagle on his seal.⁸²

V. Nicholas de Montagny (Fig. 3.8, a, b)

Unlike the other jurors, almost nothing is known about Nicholas, a knight from the borders of the Pays de Bray and Norman Vexin, before 1203, when he and his kinsman Enguerrand benefited from the expulsion of their lord Hugh de Gournay, during the struggle between King John and Philip Augustus.⁸³ It is therefore interesting that he used an armorial seal, bearing four bendlets and a canton charged with a roundel: his seal clearly proclaimed his knightly status.

B. There are four extant seals on the right (Fig. 3.9)

VI. William de Mortemer (Fig. 3.10, a–c)

A knight with lands in the Pays de Caux and Roumois, as well as in Norfolk until 1204, Mortemer caught the attention of the Old French narratives for his defence of Norman castles on behalf of Richard I and King John.⁸⁴ His social and cultural aspirations are suggested by the fact that his seal bore a Classical motif, apparently a depiction of Hercules carrying a club. Another extant example of this seal survives on an act issued in 1224, but it was 10 mm thick, compared to the 4 mm of his seal on the declaration of 1205, and it had an ornate counterseal depicting a beast statant, possibly a bear (Fig. 3.11, a, b).⁸⁵

VII. Fulk Paynel (Fig. 3.12, a, b)

The seal of Fulk II Paynel, one of the chief barons of the Cotentin and Avranchin and, until 1204, a Yorkshire and Nottingshamsure landowner as well,⁸⁶ identifies itself as his privy seal. It bears a curious, possibly Classical motif, in which a standing figure, perhaps a child, presents a seated figure, probably a woman, with a bowl or similar object. The meaning of this scene is now lost. Douët d’Arcq believed it was moulded from an engraved gemstone, which would explain the seal’s concave, oval form.⁸⁷ The stone was reused in the seal of Fulk’s son and successor Fulk III, although his seal had a broader inscription and a symbolic counterseal (Fig. 3.13, a, b).⁸⁸ No other extant seal is known for Fulk II.⁸⁹

VIII. Robert d’Esneval (Fig. 3.14, a, b)

Robert d’Esneval, a baron of the Roumois and Pays de Caux who also held land in Norfolk and Kent until 1204, had come of age only a few years before the declaration on the Norman Church, but his youth was evidently no bar to his participation in stating the customs that had governed the Norman Church before 1199. Nor was his youth an obstacle to his having a seal.⁹⁰ Indeed, his armorial seal was remarkably large, being the same size (55 mm across) as William de Tancarville’s seal, although he came from a much less renowned or powerful family.⁹¹

IX. An unidentified seal (William du Hommet?) (Fig. 3.15, a, b)

The most perplexing of all the surviving seals, this unidentified fragment cannot be linked to any entry in Douët d’Arcq’s catalogue; presumably it was too damaged to merit inclusion. The seal’s obverse is equestrian, while its counterseal appears to depict a human figure, possibly a head and neck. The inscriptions are too mutilated to give much clue to its identity, but the foot of the obverse appears to read “T-O” or possibly “E-T-O”. This may indicate William du Hommet (de Hometo), constable of Normandy, but the seal does not match the design of the seals of either William I du Hommet or his grandson William II. Most probably the William who was a juror at the Rouen declaration was the grandson, for whom a seal is known from two fine impressions from the 1220s and 1230s as well as a third impression which cannot be dated because of the loss of its parent charter.⁹² William II’s seal was equestrian and had a counterseal, like the unidentified fragment in question, but the designs on both sides were clearly different. Furthermore, while it is difficult to extrapolate the size of the original seal from the extant fragment, it appears to have been larger than William’s II’s known seal (perhaps 65–70 mm across compared to 53–55 mm across). The fragment’s putative size is much closer to the seal of William I du Hommet (70 mm), but that seal had no counterseal and a very different, older equestrian design.

William II du Hommet was constable of Normandy by Easter 1205,⁹³ but his grandfather had apparently retired to the abbey of Aunay in 1204 and so may have still been alive and able to participate in a public event such as the Rouen declaration – the text named simply ‘William du Hommet’, without giving the title of constable.⁹⁴ Nevertheless, there is no other evidence for William I after 1204, and most probably the juror of 1205 was the grandson. If the seal fragment is indeed that of William II du Hommet, it must bear the imprint of a different matrix from his later seals. It is possible that the grandson began his career with a large seal like his grandfather’s, but using a counterseal; but later, in keeping with the times, he opted for a smaller seal and a more Classical counterseal. Nevertheless, the identification of this seal fragment must remain in doubt.

C. Extant detached seals (Fig. 3.16)

Three detached seals have been preserved with the declaration: their thin size, wax type and colour, and nineteenth-century moulds leave no doubt that they come from the same document.

X. John de Préaux (Fig. 3.17, a, b)

John de Préaux was a prominent baron of the districts between Rouen and the eastern Norman frontier, and had also held lands in Kent and Gloucestershire in right of his wife until 1204. As the eldest of the Préaux brothers, it was fitting that he bore a larger and more elaborate seal than those of his brothers Peter and William: whereas they had single-sided symbolic seals (see above, No. IV), his was equestrian in design and had a counterseal. All three seals, however, emphasised the eagle displayed of their family arms. It appeared on the shield of the horseman on the obverse of John’s seal. The counterseal also alluded to these arms with a similar eagle, but this time its head was turned to sinister. Like William’s seal, John’s has suffered badly since the 1860s, losing most of what then remained of the inscription on the obverse as well as the rider’s sword and the horse’s hind quarters.

XI. Hugh de Coulonces (Fig. 3.18, a, b)

Hugh was a baron from southwest Normandy, who had also lost land in England in 1204.⁹⁵ His armorial seal bears fretty, a canton sinister. The inscription is distinguished by its poor Latin, and much of it, on the left of the seal, has been lost since 1863.

XII. Roger de Meulan (Fig. 3.19, a, b)

As an active supporter of Philip Augustus since at least 1195, this scion of a renowned Franco-Norman family had survived the downfall of his elder brother, Count Robert of Meulan, in 1203–4.⁹⁶ In 1196, he had used a symbolic seal bearing a lion passant,⁹⁷ but by 1204 he had adopted a genuinely heraldic seal, depicting a shield with a lion rampant – arms that recurred in various forms upon the seals of his descendants, lords of Quittebeuf near Évreux and La Queue-en-Brie and Gournay-sur-Marne east of Paris.⁹⁸ It was the second, armorial version that was affixed to the declaration of 1205.

D. Moulages of seals lost since 1863–67

In addition to the extant seals, we have surviving moulds for four others that have been lost since the first two volumes of Douët d’Arcq’s inventory. All but one are heraldic.