[864] Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 168; _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 139–41, and _Itin._ a. 15. The Flemish authority says “li cuens ... li fist houmage de la tierre ke il devoit avoir en Engletierre”; the English chronicler says the homage was for “all Flanders.” Unluckily there seems to be no charter extant to settle the point. [865] R. Coggeshall, p. 168. Raymond seems to have been on his way home, and travelling at John’s expense, in January 1214; _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. pp. 106 b, 108 b. [866] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 160. [867] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 109 b. [868] _Ib._ p. 110, 110 b. [869] It is a question whether this means the queen’s child so named, or that elder son Richard who figures actively in his father’s struggle with the barons a year or two later. [870] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 280; R. Coggeshall, p. 163; and _Itin._ a. 15. [871] R. Coggeshall, p. 168. [872] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 280. John was at La Rochelle February 15–20, _Itin._ a. 15. [873] _Itin._ a. 15. [874] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 111. [875] _Ib._ p. 111 b. [876] _Itin._ a. 15. [877] _Rot. Pat._ p. 112 b. [878] _Itin._ a. 15. [879] _Rot. Pat._ _l.c._ [880] _Itin._ a. 15. [881] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 99–115. Cf. Peter of Blois’s complaint (_Ep._ xli.) of the impossibility of tracking the movements of Henry II. [882] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 280, 281. The treaty with the Lusignans is in _Rot. Chart._ p. 197 b; it has no date. [883] _Itin._ a. 16. [884] M. Petit-Dutaillis (_Hist. de Louis VIII._ p. 48) thinks this affair at Nantes occurred “dans les premiers jours de juin.” The only blank days in John’s itinerary during this month are June 2–4, 8, 9 and 13. From the relative positions of the places where he was on the other days, I cannot but think that the 13th is the most likely date. [885] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 285, 286. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 169; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 172; and _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 143. [886] _Itin._ a. 16. [887] M. Petit-Dutaillis (_Louis VIII._ p. 49) remarks that the modern post-office spelling, “La Roche-aux-Moines,” is wrong, the Latin form being “Rupes Monachi,” not “Monachorum.” [888] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 178. [889] Dates from _Itin._ a. 16. [890] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 286. [891] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 202–18. [892] R. Wendover, _l.c._ [893] W. Armor. _Philipp._ l. x. vv. 243–65. [894] W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ c. 179. Cf. Itin. a. 16. [895] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 287, and M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 150. [896] _Rot. Pat._ p. 118 b. [897] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 288–91; M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 151; W. Armor. _Gesta P. A._ cc. 181–97; R. Coggeshall, p. 169 (wrong date), and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216. [898] M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. p. 151. [899] R. Coggeshall, p. 170; W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 216. [900] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 210 b. [901] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 139. [902] R. Coggeshall, p. 167. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 214.