[310] “Proposuit rex Francorum quod ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat Anglorum regi restitueret, et post, omnia manerent in eo statu quo fuerunt ante crucem susceptam.... Comes Pictavorum penitus contradixit; sibi quidem videbatur incongruum quod hac servata conditione Cadurcum redderet et totum comitatum, et alia multa ... pro feodo de Castro Radulfi et de castello de Hissoudun et Crazai,” etc., R. Diceto, ii. 58. The two kings took the Cross in January 1188. The date of Richard’s annexation of the Quercy is not certain, but it must be either 1186 or spring 1188. Philip took Châteauroux in June 1188; but he had won Issoudun and Graçay in the spring of 1187, therefore these two places would not be included in a restoration of “ea quae post crucem susceptam ceperat.” The only possible explanation of the discrepancy seems to be that Ralph de Diceto momentarily confused the conference at which Philip and Henry took the Cross, at Gisors in January 1188, with their meeting at the same place on March 10, 1186. [311] Cf. R. Diceto, ii. 58, Rigord, 92, 93, Gerv. Cant., i. 435, and _Gesta_, ii. 50. The biographer of William the Marshal gives (ll. 8089-175) a somewhat different account of the conference; he says nothing of any request made there by Richard to his father, but represents Philip as urging Henry to increase Richard’s actual possessions by giving him Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and asserts that before the conference Philip had won Richard over to him by promising “qu’il li dorreit en demeine” those three counties, and Richard had privately done him homage for them. If we accept this story, we must regard the whole conduct not only of Philip but also of Richard at Bonmoulins as a piece of utterly shameless acting, performed with the deliberate purpose on Richard’s part of breaking finally with his father; for no sane person could expect any other answer than a refusal to such a request as this. The whole story of the relations between Henry, Richard, and Philip is, however, only touched upon in a very meagre and perfunctory way by the Marshal’s biographer, whose subject it did not directly concern, and who has almost certainly made one positive mistake with regard to the Bonmoulins conference, in giving it a date which is five months too late; I think therefore that the version of Rigord, Ralph de Diceto, and Gervase of Canterbury is to be in every way preferred to his. [312] R. Diceto, ii. 58. [313] Gerv. Cant., i. 435. [314] R. Diceto, _l.c._; _Gesta_, ii. 50. Cf. Rigord, 93. [315] _Gesta_, _l.c._ [316] _Ib._, R. Diceto, ii. 58. [317] “Eissi commensa la meslee Qui unques ne fu desmelee,” _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8185-6. [318] Gerv. Cant., i. 435, 436. [319] R. Howden, ii. 355. [320] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8189-254. [321] Cf. Gerv. Cant., i. 436. [322] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8285-9. [323] Gerv. Cant., i. 439. [324] Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 10.