The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society

118 G. C. BROOKE.
To return then to Roger :
of Hoveden the statement
that there was a coinage of Henry of Anjou is obviously
true. At the same time, it is equally obvious that the
whole of the phrase which I quoted above is confused
in respect of chronology: it was not in 1149, but in
1153 that the Duke came with a large army and reduced
several castles. Similarly, too, if Henry
issued his
coinage during the visit of 1149, i.e. between early
1149 and January 1150, and if all the magnates, earls,
barons and bishops alike were making their own
coinages, it could not have been during the same
period, 1149-50, that he suppressed their issues.
Hoveden has evidently no clear knowledge of the
four several visits of Henry, and has apparently, after
confusing the last two visits, made a perfectly true
statement, that there was a coinage in Henry's name,
and also irregular coinages of various magnates which
Henry (presumably at a later visit) suppressed.
Mr. Andrew, Brit. Num. Journ., vol. vi, pp. 365-6,
has assigned the profile types of Henry to the visit
of 1149, and the full-face types to that of 1153;
but, in spite of the statement in Roger of Hoveden,
I should move the whole of the Duke's coinage to an
earlier date. His use of the type of the first issue of
Stephen is probably due to the use of that type by his
mother, and I think that the coinage of the Empress
and Henry form a more or less continuous currency
in the Angevin part of the country. Matilda probably
continued to issue coins in her own name until the
second half of 1142, when her claim to the throne was
abandoned on behalf of her son. This change in the
object of the Angevin party is pointed out by Round
(Geoffrey of Mandeville, pp. 184-6), who notices the