Tension between bishop and count in 12th century + existence of "chaplains"

[rosesnake]

Hello everyone,

I'm not so much looking for answers to a question here as advice and suggestions (hope that's ok).

My situation is this :

Comments

[sollersuk]

The big complication here is the Outremer element, as the bishop would not be the same religion as the bulk of the local population. In the Levant they were a mosaic of various kinds of Muslim, various kinds of Christian, Jews and Samaritans. However, the psychological importance of the King of Jerusalem gets in the way of your political setup. What would be a better fit is Lamorie (The Morea - Greece) where there really was an autonomous Duke of Athens, like Theseus in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"; the Parthenon was the church of Our Lady of Satines" [Athens]. Here the locals were Orthodox with a strong resentment of barbarian heretics

[rosesnake]

Thanks for your answer

[irreparable]

I'm going to guess that your count is based on Pons and Raymond of Tripoli, as Tripoli was the closest to an autonomous "state" in Outremer in the 12th century. As the other commenter said, though, you've got a few problems being in Outremer proper, not the least being the melting pot of religious groups and sects and religious military orders, but the importance of the king at Jerusalem really overrode everything else, be it figuratively or literally. If you wanted to keep your politics as you have, changing your location is a good way to do it, and you've got a few options there, one being Lamorie as the other commenter said, another being Cyprus, as Richard I took it from the Byzantine Empire and it was used as a staging location for the crusaders heading towards Outremer, so you've still got the diversity of nationalities and religions and politics. Cyprus was sold in 1191 to the Templars (Richard got it in 1190), and then it was sold to Guy of Lusignan after the Templars had a revolt. His brother and heir, Aimery took it over

[rosesnake]

Hi

1/2.

[irreparable]

Ah righto, that makes things clearer. In this case, not changing the setting and focussing on Raymond, with there being some sort of line about how your count responds to the call of the king of Outremer, you should be okay. For the rest of it, well, mass is usually celebrated on the sabbath, confession would be when those who wished to confess desired it. What you could have as the beginning of the antagonism between duke and bishop could be a rumbling between personalities--not everyone gets along, even if a man of the cloth is supposed to be above those things. (They were just as involved in politics, if not more, than the gentry of the court). To exacerbate that, your bishop could find it un-Christian that your duke doesn't attend confession often enough, or that his court don't all attend mass on the sabbath, or any sort of thing that would stir the secular versus the church

2/2.

[irreparable]

What about when the count is away from his central city (and the centre of the bishop see) ? Would somebody be delegated to accompany him when he travels (to his various vassal fiefs and to war) ? The bishop can not be expected to follow him around everywhere, can he ?
Usually the bish and a chaplain and a novice (so he was suitably attended) would go with the duke. The duke can forbid him to go, though. Up to the bish if he wants to obey that, or complain to the pope and the cardinals in Rome about what's going on (which would also add to the tension).

How much leeway would he have about that ? How much could he avoid and how much could the bishop force him to do ? I'm thinking of him going to mass in other churches whenever possible (whenever he visits a vassal fief or is in Jerusalem for exemple) and confessing to the priest/bishop/Patriarch there. Would that be allowed ?Not a lot. The church really did control the majority of life in the medieval world. Especially on crusade, as this was a holy war. The duke could definitely go

[syntinen_laulu]

I second all that sollersuk and irreparable have said.

Plus: even a minor noble, let alone a near-independent minor monarch of the status you describe, would certainly have his own chaplain to say mass in his household daily and confess him as necessary; it simply was no part of a bishop's job to trail around after secular persons tending to their individual spiritual needs. This would be a personal appointment in which the bishop had no say; the cleric chosen might well originally come from outside the diocese, and would not come under the bishop's authority purely by reason of his job. It would not be at all unusual for the chapels in a 12th-century ruler's own castles to be exempt from diocesan control, as medieval monarchs were acutely aware of the need not to be beholden to their bishops (in England such a royal chapel goes by the rather quaint term 'Royal Peculiar'). Monastic foundations also often were exempt from diocesan control, and other churches might be if they could prove that they had historically been subject only to