intensified bitterness between Roger of Pont-l’Evêque and the former comrade of whom he had long been jealous, and who had now once again been promoted over his head; the king, hoping to turn it to account for his own purposes, was intriguing at the Papal court in Roger’s behalf, and one of his confidential agents there was Thomas’s own archdeacon, Geoffrey Ridel.[133] The bishops as yet were passive; in the York controversy Gilbert Foliot strongly supported his own metropolitan;[134] but between him and Thomas there was already a question, amicable indeed at present but ominous nevertheless, as to whether or not the profession of obedience made to Theobald by the bishop of Hereford should be repeated by the same man as bishop of London to Theobald’s successor.[135] [127] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iv.) p. 142. Isabel de Warren was the widow of Stephen’s son William, who of course was cousin in the third degree to William of Anjou. [128] “Hic” [_i.e._ Thomas] “regis fratrem pertæsum semper habebat, Ne consul foret hic, obvius ille fuit: Cum nata comitis comitem Warenna tulisset, Nobilis hic præsul ne nocuisset ei. Irâ permotus, nunquam rediturus, ab Anglis Advenit is, matri nunciat ista piæ. Hinc Beccum veniens fratrum se tradit amori.” _Draco Norm._, l. ii. c. 8, vv. 441–447 (Howlett, _Will. Newb._, vol. ii. p. 676). [129] Rob. Torigni, a. 1164. _Draco Norm._, l. ii. c. 8, vv. 448–450 (as above). The date is from the first-named writer.