[1115] _Foedera_, I. i. p. 175; _Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. pp. 210, 211; date, 25th August. A dateless letter from Falkes to the constable of Stoke Courcy, urging its immediate surrender, is in _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 490. On 29th August twenty marks were granted to Falkes from the treasury “for his expenses”; _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 643 b. [1116] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 98. [1117] The _Ann. Wav._, a. 1224, say, “Uxor ejus [_i.e._, Falkesii] ... tradita est cuidam magnato Angliae custodienda cum filiis suis.” This means “_her_ sons”--one by Baldwin and one by Falkes. Falkes himself speaks only of “wife and son” (_Quer. Falc._, pp. 271, 272), and so does the Pope when writing in his behalf to Henry. [1118] See (1) the Pope’s reproach to Stephen in 1226 concerning Falkes and Margaret--“Quomodo potest anima tua in eorum venire consilium qui uxorem ejus nobilis detinent, et in multorum scandalum animarumque suarum perniciem matrimonii violant sacramentum?” (_Roy. Lett._, vol. i. p. 547), which clearly takes it for granted that their marriage was still recognized by Stephen and everyone else; and (2) a letter patent of 1228 which calls Margaret “quondam uxorem Falkesii” (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. ii. p. 211); “quondam uxor” or “quae fuit uxor” being the legal description of a widow, but not of a woman who had been “divorced,” _i.e._, declared by a judicial sentence to have been never truly a wife at all. [1119] In _Quer. Falc._, p. 270, Falkes says he was in the bishop’s custody “ix septimanis et amplius.” Nine weeks from 17th August, which seems to be the earliest possible date for his committal to Eustace’s keeping, brings us to 24th October; and we shall see that the latest possible date for the Council’s decision is 26th October. Roger of Wendover’s statement (vol. iv. p. 103) that it took place “Martio mense” is of course quite wrong. [1120] See above, footnote 1087. [1121] Cf. _Quer. Falc._, p. 270, and R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 103. Ralf of Coggeshall, p. 208, has a slightly different version of the way in which this sentence was arrived at. [1122] _Quer. Falc._, _l.c._ [1123] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 478. [1124] _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 633 b. [1125] R. Wend., _l.c._ [1126] Cf. _ib._, W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 254, and _Ann. Dunst._, p. 89. [1127] So says Roger, _l.c._; but the Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., _l.c._) says Louis sent him to prison at Compiègne, and only released him on an order from the Pope. [1128] _Ann. Dunst._, _l.c._ [1129] R. Wend., _l.c._ [1130] _Roy. Lett._, vol. i. pp. 264–269; cf. _Foedera_, I. i. 175, 176.