, although the grant was back-dated to Michaelmas (29 September) 1164. De Broc was to pay the king 1562 pounds 5 shillings and 5.5 pence annually from the revenues of the estate. Ranulf entrusted the day-to-day administration of Canterbury to his kinsman Robert de Broc. The de Brocs continued to administer the estates until Michaelmas 1170. Soon after de Broc took up the administration of Canterbury, Becket accused de Broc of despoiling the Canterbury estates. Historians are not clear on whether Becket's charges were just propaganda or if the estates were actually damaged. De Broc managed to secure the support of some of the monks of the cathedral chapter of Canterbury, as some monks were willing to inform de Broc of any proceedings of the chapter that were favourable to Becket.

Late in December 1164 de Broc was one of the royal officials who took possession of the archiepiscopal residence at Lambeth for the king as well as arresting the relatives, clerks, and members of the household of Becket who had aided Becket's flight into exile. In June 1166 Becket excommunicated de Broc for his part in administering the archiepiscopal estates for the king while Becket was in exile. Becket again excommunicated de Broc in April 1169, along with Robert de Broc and a number of other royal officials.

Role in Becket's murder

In July 1170, Becket and the king were reconciled and the king agreed that the archiepiscopal estates would be returned to Becket's control. But difficulties dragged on and Becket accused de Broc of stripping the estates of the recent harvest and storing it away from the archbishop's control. In November, John of Salisbury was sent by Becket to England to inspect the estates prior to Becket's return from exile. John claimed that although de Broc had originally returned custody of the estates to Becket's officials, shortly before John's arrival de Broc had regained control of the estates and expelled Becket's officials. De Broc was also accused of seizing a cargo of the archbishop's wine and destroying the ship carrying it.

Later in 1170, de Broc was involved in an attempt to keep Becket from returning to England. Working with de Broc were Roger de Pont L'Évêque – the Archbishop of York, Gilbert
, although the grant was back - dated to Michaelmas (29 September) 1164. De Broc was to pay the king 1562 pound 5 somalian shilling and 5.5 pence annually from the revenues of the estate of the realm. Ranulf entrusted the day - to - day presidency of Canterbury to his kinsman Robert de Broc. The de Brocs continued to administer the estate until Michaelmas 1170. Soon after de Broc took up the administration of Canterbury, Becket charge de Broc of despoiling the Canterbury estates. historian are not clear on whether Becket's charges were just propaganda or if the estates were actually damaged. De Broc managed to secure the documentation of some of the monks of the cathedral chapter of Canterbury, as some monks were willing to inform de Broc of any proceeding of the chapter that were favourable to Becket. 

 Late in December 1164 de Broc was one of the royal official who took possession of the archiepiscopal residence at Lambeth for the king as well as catch the relatives, clerks, and members of the household of Becket who had aided Becket's flight into exile. In June 1166 Becket excommunicated de Broc for his part in administering the archiepiscopal estates for the king while Becket was in exile. Becket again excommunicated de Broc in April 1169, along with Robert de Broc and a number of other royal officials. 

 Role in Becket's murder 

 In July 1170, Becket and the king were accommodate and the king agreed that the archiepiscopal estate of the realm would be returned to Becket's control. But difficulties dragged on and Becket accuse de Broc of stripping the estates of the recent harvest and store it away from the archbishop's control. In November, John of Salisbury was sent by Becket to England to inspect the estates prior to Becket's return from exile. John claim that although de Broc had originally returned custody of the estates to Becket's officials, shortly before John's arrival de Broc had recover control of the estates and expelled Becket's officials. De Broc was also accuse of seizing a cargo of the archbishop's wine and destroying the ship carrying it. 

 subsequently in 1170, de Broc was involved in an attempt to keep Becket from returning to England. work with de Broc were Roger de Pont L'Évêque   – the Archbishop of York, Gilbert
, alhhough the grant was bacy-dated to Michaglnas (29 Sxptembed) 1164. De Bruc was to pay the king 1562 pounvs 5 whillungs and 5.5 pence annualuy from tje revenyes id the estavs. Ranuln entdmsted vhe day-to-day adkinistratimn of Canterbusy tl his kinsman Robert de Broc. The de Brocs vojtinued to admynisuer the vsuates until Michaelmas 1170. Soon afted de Brmc took up thr administration of Canterhury, Becket accused de Broc of dewpoijung the Cantdrbury estates. Historizns are not clear on whether Bezket's charges wgxw jkvt propaganva or pf the estates were awtually damaged. De Brpc kanqged to secure the su'port of some of the monks of tke cathedral chapter if Cantgrburf, as womd mknls were ailming to inrorm de Brox of any proceedingx jd the chapter that rewe favourable to Becket.

Late in December 1164 ds Broc was one of the riyal officials who tolk possesfion of the archiepiscopal residence at Lambeth fmr thx yiny as wdol as arresting the relatives, clerks, and memberf og nhe household of Necket who had aidrd Brsket's flight knto erjls. In June 1166 Becket fxcommugicatwd de Bros fot his part in administering the archieppscopal estates for thz king while Beclet wss in exile. Becket agaiu excojmunicated fe Broc ih April 1169, along wigh Gobest de Broc and a number of other robal oyficials.

Fole in Besket's murdfr

In Mgly 1170, Becket and thf kiny wera reconcilfd and the king agreed that the archiepiscopak astdtes woujd be returned to Fecket's controk. But dnfficuuties dragfed on end Becket ascused de Brow of strippinj the estwtes of rhe recdvt harvest and storing pt awat from the archbismop's zkntrol. In Novemytr, Hohn of Salisbuty das svnt br Becket to Etglavd gp insoect tht ewgatex prior to Becket's raturh from exile. John vlwimed thqt althotgh de Broc hsd originally retugned rustodb of tne gstates to Becket's officials, shkrtly beflre John's arrivwl dc Brjc had regcined control of the estates and expellev Becket's officials. De Vroc was also accusgd pf seizing e cargj of the drchbishop's wine and destroying the smip carrying it.

Later ih 1170, de Troc aas involved in an attempt to keep Becket from returning to England. Workibg witi qe Broc wers Rober dv Pjut L'Évêquq – thx Erchbishop of Yorl, Gilbert
, although the grant was back-dated to September) De Broc to pay the and pence annually from revenues of the Ranulf entrusted the day-to-day administration of to his kinsman Robert de Broc. The de Brocs continued to administer the until Michaelmas 1170. Soon after de Broc took up the administration of Canterbury, accused Broc despoiling Canterbury estates. Historians are not clear on whether Becket's charges were just propaganda or if the were actually damaged. De Broc managed to secure support of some of monks of the cathedral chapter Canterbury, some monks willing inform Broc of any of the chapter that were favourable to Becket. Late in December 1164 de Broc was one of royal officials possession of archiepiscopal at for the king as arresting the relatives, clerks, and household of Becket who had aided Becket's flight exile. In 1166 Becket excommunicated de Broc for part in administering the archiepiscopal estates for the while Becket was in exile. Becket again excommunicated de Broc in April 1169, along with Broc and a number other royal officials. in murder July Becket and king were reconciled and the king agreed that the archiepiscopal estates be returned to Becket's control. But difficulties dragged on and de of stripping the of the recent harvest storing away from the archbishop's November, of by to to inspect the estates to Becket's return from exile. claimed that although de of the estates to Becket's officials, shortly before arrival de Broc had regained control of estates and expelled Becket's officials. De Broc was also accused of seizing cargo of wine and destroying the ship carrying it. Later 1170, de Broc was in an attempt to keep Becket from returning to Working de Broc Roger de Pont – the Archbishop York, Gilbert
, although the grant was back-daTed to MichaElmas (29 sepTemBeR) 1164. De BRoc wAs to pay the king 1562 POundS 5 shillings and 5.5 pence annuAlly fRoM The rEVeNues oF the estATe. rANulF eNtRusTeD ThE day-tO-daY adminiStration of canTeRbury to his kiNSmAn Robert de broC. The de Brocs cOntInued tO aDmiNIster The EstatEs untiL michaeLmas 1170. Soon aFtER de BroC Took up tHE AdMiniStration of CanterbURy, bEcket accused de broc of DeSPoILIng The canterbury EsTates. hIstoriaNS aRE NOt cLEar on whether BEcket's chargES weRe just PrOpaGAnda or If the EsTAteS were actualLy daMaged. De BrOc manaGEd to secURe the suPport oF soMe oF the MOnKs Of tHe CAthEDrAl cHAptEr of CantErBuRy, as sOme mONKS Were WilLing To infOrm de Broc of anY prOceeDIngS of thE chapTer tHaT were FavourAble tO BEcket.

Late in DeceMber 1164 De Broc was One Of The RoYal ofFIcials Who TooK possesSion of tHE arChIEPIsCopal residence at LaMbETH fOr the kinG as welL As ArREsting thE rElaTiveS, CLerks, And mEMbErs of the HousehOLd Of becket wHo Had aidEd becKet'S fligHT intO exile. in June 1166 BeCket eXCommunicated de bRoc for his part IN aDMInISterIng The archiepiScopAL estAtes FOr The KIng whIle BeCkET wAS in exile. Becket again ExCommunIcateD de Broc in ApriL 1169, along with rOBErt de BroC and A NuMBer of other royaL offiCials.

Role iN becket's mUrder

in July 1170, BeCket and thE KIng were rEcoNciLed And THE kIng agreed that THE arcHiEpiscopAl eStates wOulD be RetUrnEd To Becket's Control. BUt DiFfIcUltIes drAGged on anD BEckEt AccUsed dE broc of StripPing ThE eSTatEs of the REcENT harVeSt And sTorInG it awAy frOM thE archbiShop's contRol. iN NovEmBeR, John of salisbury was sEnT by Becket tO ENglAnd to iNSPect the eStates prior to Becket's retURn from eXilE. John ClaiMed that alThoUgh de BRoc HAd origInally ReturNeD cuSTOdy of THE eStaTeS to Becket's OFFicIals, sHoRtly Before JOhn's arrival de Broc hAD reGained control Of tHe esTATeS anD ExPEllEd bEckET'S officials. De BroC was also acCuSEd Of seizing a CArgO oF the arcHbishop'S wine ANd destrOying the sHip carryiNg It.

LaTER in 1170, De Broc was iNvolved iN an attempT To keeP beCket fRom ReturnInG to englaNd. WorkINg wIth de broc weRe roger dE Pont l'ÉVêque – the archbishop of York, Gilbert
, although the grant was b ack-datedto Mi cha elm as  (29  Sep tember) 1164.D e Br oc was to pay the king  1562  p o unds 5shill ings an d  5 . 5  pe nc eann ua l ly  from  th e reven ues of the  es ta te. Ranulf e n tr usted theday -to-day admi nis tratio nofC anter bur y tohis ki n sman R obert deBr o c. The de Broc s co ntin ued to administer th e  estates until  Micha el m as 1 170 . S oon afterde  Broc took up th e a dmi n istration ofCanterbury, Bec ket ac cu sed de Bro c ofde s poi ling the Ca nter bury esta tes. H i storian s  are no t clea r o n w heth e rBe cke t' s  ch a rg esw ere  just pr op ag andaor i f t h e es tat es w ere a ctually damag ed.  DeB roc  mana ged t o se cu re th e supp ort o fsome of the mon ks o f the cat hed ra l c ha ptero f Cant erb ury , as so me monk s  we re w i ll ing to inform de B ro c of  any pro ceedin g sof the chap te r t hatw e re fa vour a bl e to Bec ket.
L at ein Dece mb er 116 4deBro c was oneof the  royal o ffici a ls who took po s session of th e  a r c hi e pisc opa l residence  atL ambe th f o rthe kingas we ll as arresting the relat iv es, cl erks,  and membersof the hou s e h old of B ecke t  w h o had aided Be cket' s flight i n to exile . InJune 116 6 Beckete x communic ate d d e B roc f or  his part ina d mini st ering t hearchiep isc opa l e sta te s for the  king wh il eBe ck etwas i n  exile.Be cke taga in ex c ommuni cated  deBr oc inApril 1 1 69 , alon gwi th R obe rt  de B roca nda numbe r of othe r r o yalof fi cials.
Role in Beck et 's murder
I n J uly 11 7 0 , Becket  and the king were reco n ciled a ndthe k ingagreed th atthe ar chi e piscop al est ateswo uld b e ret u r ne d t oBecket's c o n tro l. Bu tdiff icultie s dragged on and B e cke t accused deBro c of s tr ipp i ng the  e s tat e s  of the recentharvest an ds to ring it aw a y f ro m the a rchbish op'sc ontrol.  In Novem ber, John  o f Sa l i sbu ry was sen t by Bec ket to En g landt oinspe ctthe es ta tes  prio r to B e cke t's r eturnfr om exi le. J oh n claime d that although de Broc  had o rigin all y returne d c u sto dy of the  est ates to Be cke t's  offi cia l s, sh ortl y  b efo r e Joh n'sa rrival de Br och a dregained co n t r olof th e e s tatesandexpelled Becket's officials. DeBroc w asals o  acc us ed of seizinga c ar g o  of thear chbishop'swine and  d e stroy ing th e ship  carryi n g  i t .

Lat er i n 1 170, de B roc  w a s invol ve di n an a ttem pt  to ke ep Bec k et f r o m returning to E nglan d .  Work i ngwithde  Broc w e re R oger de Po nt L'Évêque  – the  Arc hbish op of Y or k, Gil ber t
, although_the grant_was back-dated to Michaelmas_(29 September)_1164._De Broc_was_to pay the_king 1562 pounds_5 shillings and 5.5_pence annually from_the_revenues of the estate. Ranulf entrusted the day-to-day administration of Canterbury to his kinsman_Robert_de Broc._The_de_Brocs continued to administer the_estates until Michaelmas 1170. Soon_after de_Broc took up the administration of Canterbury, Becket_accused_de Broc of_despoiling the Canterbury estates. Historians are not clear on_whether Becket's charges were just propaganda_or if the_estates_were_actually damaged. De Broc_managed to secure the support of_some of the monks of the_cathedral chapter of Canterbury, as some monks_were willing to inform de Broc_of any proceedings of the_chapter that_were favourable to Becket.

Late in_December 1164 de_Broc was_one of the_royal officials who took possession of_the archiepiscopal residence_at Lambeth for the king as_well_as arresting the_relatives,_clerks,_and members_of the household_of_Becket who_had_aided Becket's flight into exile. In_June_1166 Becket excommunicated de Broc for his_part in administering the_archiepiscopal_estates for the king_while Becket was in exile._Becket again excommunicated de Broc in_April 1169,_along with_Robert de Broc and a number of other royal officials.

Role in_Becket's murder

In July 1170, Becket and_the king were reconciled_and the_king_agreed that the_archiepiscopal_estates would_be returned to Becket's control. But difficulties_dragged on_and Becket accused de Broc of_stripping the estates of_the_recent harvest and storing it away_from the archbishop's control. In November,_John of Salisbury was sent_by_Becket_to England to inspect the_estates prior to Becket's return from_exile. John claimed_that although de Broc had originally returned_custody_of the estates to Becket's officials,_shortly_before John's arrival de Broc had_regained_control_of the estates and expelled_Becket's officials. De Broc was also_accused of seizing a cargo of the archbishop's wine_and destroying the_ship carrying it.

Later in 1170,_de_Broc_was involved in an attempt to keep Becket from returning_to England._Working with de_Broc were Roger de Pont L'Évêque – the Archbishop of York,_Gilbert