APPENDIX I
Was Ranulph Flambard Dean of St. Paul's?
Professor C. N. L. Brooke has argued that dean Wulman died before 1102, being
succeeded by Ranulph Flambard, and has identified 'V.' with Humphrey Bigod. (fn. 1) This
gives the first three post-Conquest deans as follows:
Wulman, occ. c. 1090
?Ranulph Flambard, before 1099- c. 1106
V. [?Humphrey Bigod], occ. c. 1107.
The argument runs thus. Between 1102 and 1106 five documents, all closely affecting
the chapter of St. Paul's, are witnessed by three or four archdeacons, but never mention a dean. (fn. 2) Therefore Wulman was probably dead, and perhaps had been succeeded
by an absentee dean. Now Wulman had held the prebend of Totenhall, and this prebend was to be held by all the successive deans of St. Paul's from William de Mareni
(1111-38) to Alard de Burnham (c. 1201-1216). Between Wulman and William de
Mareni in the prebendal catalogues for Totenhall there occur Ranulph Flambard, and
Humphrey son of Roger Bigod. (fn. 3) Brooke suggests that Ranulph Flambard, bishop of
Durham (1099-1128), who was in Normandy from 1100 to 1106, might have been the
absentee dean who succeeded Wulman, possibly surrendering the dignity and prebend
in 1106 on his return from Lisieux, (fn. 4) and being succeeded in the deanery by V., who
occurs c. 1107 and is possibly to be identified with his successor in the prebend,
Humphrey Bigod. In favour of this theory, Brooke cites stories from Symeon of Durham and the Historia Eliensis, which are discussed below.
There is, however, an objection to the theory, where it concerns Humphrey Bigod,
who is described by Brooke as a 'shadowy figure'. Humphrey appears as a royal chaplain between 1101 and 1112 or 1113. (fn. 5) If he was dean of St. Paul's, it is difficult to see
why he should have been succeeded by William de Mareni as early as July 1111, since
he was still alive in 1112 or 1113. It seems more likely that Humphrey Bigod was prebendary of Totenhall but not dean, and was succeeded in his prebend after 1112 or
1113 by dean William de Mareni, who transferred from his earlier prebend of Chiswick. This would explain why William de Mareni is called 'Willelmus decanus' in the
catalogues for Chiswick. (fn. 6)
Symeon of Durham or his continuator tells of a quarrel between Flambard and
bishop Maurice of London over a certain decania from which Flambard was ejected,
and how as a result Flambard left Maurice's service to enter the king's. (fn. 7) As Brooke
admits, the story is impossible chronologically, because Flambard was already in the
king's service when he first associated with Maurice in 1083-5. (fn. 8) If there is any truth in
the tale about the decania, which deanery was involved ? Freeman understood it to be
probably the deanery of Christchurch, Twynham (Hants), (fn. 1) and since Freeman wrote.
a charter has been printed in which Flambard occurs as dean of Twynham in 1093 or
1094. (fn. 2) The Durham writer's story may refer to this deanery, although it is difficult
to see what interest bishop Maurice could have had in Christ Church, Twynham.
At any rate, without more evidence, the story probably cannot be used to suggest
that Flambard was dean of St. Paul's.
The Historia Eliensis, attributed to Thomas of Ely, tells how Henry I restored to
Ely the vill of Hadham (Herts.), which had been seized by Ranulph Flambard
'violenter per clericos Lundon. ecclesie sue'. (fn. 3) The London church apparently referred
to was thought by Brooke to be St. Paul's, which had land in Hadham at the time of
Domesday. But Dr. E. O. Blake, in his recent edition of the Liber Eliensis, has shown
that the Historia is simply an abbreviated version of the Liber, and therefore of no
independent authority. (fn. 4) In the matter of Hadham, the corresponding passage in the
Liber does not suggest that a London church was involved: there Flambard is said to
have seized Hadham 'violenter ecclesie per clericos Lundonie'. (fn. 5) The London clerks
who acted as Flambard's agents in the alienation from the church of Ely might have
been royal clerks. In Henry I's writ ordering the restoration of Hadham to Ely, in
1105, there is no clue that Flambard had acted as a representative of St. Paul's, or even
that St. Paul's was concerned. (fn. 6) It is true that St. Paul's had land in Hadham at the
time of Domesday, but it was episcopal and not chapter land, and was disputed
between the bishop of London and the abbot of Ely. (fn. 7) Flambard's seizure of Hadham is
perhaps better understood, as suggested by Professor R. W. Southern, (fn. 8) as one of the
illegal gains he made during Rufus's reign, probably when he was custodian of the Ely
lands during the abbatial vacancy of 1093-1100. (fn. 9)
There are, then, feasible alternative interpretations of the two stories thought by
Professor Brooke to stand in favour of Flambard's tenure of the deanery of St. Paul's.
But it is impossible to reach a firm conclusion. Clearly at some point Flambard held
the prebend of Totenhall, and if this was before his election to Durham or his disgrace,
in 1099-1100, dean Wulman must have died by 1100. Unless the deanery was vacant
until William de Mareni's term of office, which began in or before July 1111, we have to
find a dean for the intervening period. Flambard, a figure of national importance and a
well-known pluralist, is an attractive candidate, although it is strange that in no source
does he occur as dean. Shortly after his election to Durham he issued a charter in
favour of St. Paul's which gives no indication that he was head of the chapter. (fn. 10) Without
positive evidence, it is not possible to include Ranulph Flambard in the list of deans of
St. Paul's.