But without dwelling at greater length upon the peerage aspect of this charter, let us see how it illustrates the ambitious policy pursued in this struggle by the feudal nobles. Dr. Stubbs writes:— "It is possible that the frequent tergiversations which mark the struggle may have been caused by the desire of obtaining confirmation of the rank [of earl] from both the competitors for the crown."[326] But it is my contention that Geoffrey and his fellows were playing a deeper game. We find each successive change of side on the part of this unscrupulous magnate marked by a distinct advance in his demands and in the price he obtained. Broadly speaking, he was master of the situation, and he put himself and his fortress up to auction. Thus he obtained from the impassioned rivals a rapid advance at each bid. Compare, for instance, this charter with that he had obtained from Stephen, or, again, compare it with those which are to follow. The very length of this charter, as compared with Stephen's, is significant enough in itself. But its details are far more so. Stephen's grant had not explicitly included the _tertius denarius_; the Empress grants him the _tertius denarius_ "sicut comes habere debet in comitatu suo."[327] But what may be termed the characteristic features are to be found in such clauses as those dealing with the license to fortify, and with the grants of lands.[328] These latter, indeed, teem with information, not only for the local, but for the general historian, as in the case of Theobald's forfeiture. But their special information is rather in the light they throw on the nature of these grants, and on the sources from which the Empress, like her rival, strove to gratify the greed of these insatiable nobles.