#and Raoul was related to all of the above bc his mom was Geoffrey Boterel and Alan of Richmond's sister

[ardenrosegarden]

The context [of the Revolt of 1166] was that of the gradual takeover of Brittany by Henry II; Raoul II had already renounced certain inclinations in 1156. The Breton lords, and in particular that of Fougères, saw their autonomy increasingly curtailed by Plantagenet authority. The balance that the King of England was trying to impose was very unstable. A single event could ignite the powder keg; for Raoul II it was in two stages, first in 1162, then in 1164.

In 1162, the abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, Robert de Torigni, noted that in the “month of July, Jean de Dol died, he had placed his land and his daughter under the protection of Raoul de Fougères. The King of the English retook the tower.” The mention is lapidary, but Henry apparently forced Raoul to cede the donjon of Dol to him. This city was the archiepiscopal seat of Brittany – or at least it claimed to be – Henry could not ignore it, moreover in 1161, he had managed to place the dean of Bayeux at the Head of the Archdiocese of Dol, Roger de Hommet, relative of the Constable of Normandy. During his lifetime, Lord Jean II of Dol had been relatively hostile to Henry II, if he appealed to Raoul II it was mainly because of the matrimonial ties woven between the two families. In 1162, the King of England therefore controlled the town of Dol and its territories, but this was a policy followed for several decades, he named Étienne, son of Count Geoffroy Boterel II, vicarius and custos of the land. Keeping this seigniory would have enabled Raoul to counterbalance his loss of influence, particularly in Vendelais. But the King of England did not see it that way. By taking over the tower of Dol, he affirmed his authority, the city was run by one of his men. Raoul found himself more and more out of the game, without however entering into resistance at that time.

In 1163, the lord of Fougères took part in a revolt with Eudes de Porhoët, Henri de Penthièvre and Hervé, viscount of Léon. Hugues de Hommet, Henry II’s constable, summoned "the barons of Normandy and Brittany, in the month of August, and took the castle of Combourg in Brittany, in the name of the king, which Raoul de Fougères had held since the death of Jean de Dol.” The siege would have dragged on, Hugues de Hommet could not then afford to continue the repression towards the interior of Brittany due to lack of means. But the allies did not disarm and, “the personal intervention of Henry II was essential”. The lord of Fougères was then perhaps absent, he would have been on a crusade in Jerusalem, we see him draw up long charters of confirmation in favor of the abbeys of Savigny and Rillé. Taking the cross theoretically protected his property and his person, but in 1164, the King of England seized the English manor at Twyford from Raoul II. Henry could not be unaware that the lord of Fougères had left or he did not worry about the religious prohibition; which is far from constituting a unique case in the Plantagenet’s career, we will quickly recall that he was the origin of the assassination of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, the knights had taken in the first degree certain words of their king: "Will there be no one to rid me of this turbulent priest?". Henry was considered responsible. The latter may have taken advantage of this pilgrimage to the holy land to seize Combourg, which pushed the lord of Fougères, then guardian of these lands by Jean de Dol’s will, to revolt.

- Julien Bachelier, Réseau vassalique et réseaux de peuplement : une même géographie féodale ? L’exemple du Fougerais (v. 1160-1180)