In December 1154, Henry II, founder of Plantagenet Dynasty (which will last until 1399), was crowned King and immediately appointed Thomas Becket as his Chancellor, apparently on the recommendation of Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury. Almost immediately as well, Henry began a campaign to limit clerical power as part of a wider project to restore power to the royal courts which had lost ground during the anarchic preceding two decades . In Becket, he seems to have misjudged, taking a perfect example of corporate man, loyal to obeying the role he has given like a caricature of Sartre's waiter, and misreading him as loyal to the person, himself, as Crown. This misjudgement was long masked by Becket's diligence in acting out his new given role as royal agent to the full in difficult negotiations with the Church. We all know the type - modernity certainly cannot survive without men who cease to be persons and become the roles they are assigned to - and, in this, Becket was a modern avant la lettre.
Henry perhaps thought he could solve the problem of appropriate jurisdiction by ensuring that Becket became Archbishop of Canterbury in June 1162 (Archbishop Theobald having died in the previous April). It is not that there was not a fundamental identity of interest between Church and Crown in the maintenance of social order. Quite the contrary. A hint that the English still need to be placated by their Continental rulers and shown the legitimacy of royal and Church rule through respect for English tradition is demonstrated in the almost standard performance art of honouring an English saint - in Henry's case, it was the transfer of the allegedly undecayed remains of St. Edward the Confessor to a new shrine built on the orders of the King.
The fact that the body was personally carried to its new resting place in 1163 by the King, the Archbishop and the Abbot of Westminster shows us how ideologically significant this bit of theatre was and perhaps how the former Chancellor was still thinking (as Archbishop) of political realities that served his King. At this point, it could be argued, Church and Dynasty were in perfect balance, holding on to the allegiance of the people at the expense of the conquering warlords whose excesses were something that Henry was determined to limit. The subsequent lack of co-operation by the Church in permitting the framework for the control of those excesses leads to a crisis in which the Archbishop was to be 'martyred' in order to ensure the Church's long term victory in drawing the line in the sand that suited it.
The crisis started with the January 1164 ratification of King's preferred national code of conduct, really a restoration of many practices normal in the reign of Henry I, at the Council of Clarendon. However, the Church had accrued an increased social and judicial power in the period of anarchy between the two Henries. Archbishop Becket, backed by his Bishops, rejected 'The Constitutions of Clarendon' because they limited that power. The breach between King and Archbishop became so serious that nine months later, following the Council of Northampton (October 1164), Becket was tried and found guilty of feudal disobedience. This brought into the open the issue of the primacy of Becket's fealty as a former Chancellor to the feudal chain of command or his fealty to 'God' through the Church. Since the trial was conducted within a feudal context, Becket justifiably feared for his life and he made a night time escape to Grantham. He was in voluntary exile in Europe within the month.
The King was not in the wrong as far as the restoration of national order was concerned. The absence of leading aristocrats on the crusades and the confusion created by the civil war had resulted in a considerable degree of continuing lawlessness. An enforceable legal structure that was national (and therefore royal) in scope was required to ensure order and order was, on balance despite its oppressive and brutal nature, mostly in the best interests of the people. Henry ordered an enquiry into the rise of criminality (shades here of periodic modern state panics about such things) and, at the Assize of Clarendon (1166), he introduced reforms that shifted the legal system from one dominated by ordeal or combat to one dominated by evidence-gathering and the jury operating under oath although the process, even here, was to be gradual. Some minor elements of the older Germanic system of trial by strength rather than the Roman system of 'justitia' would persist into the early nineteenth century. Power was to be transferred from local barons to appointed royal judges but the same process threatened to bring the sixth of the population classed as clergy under royal jurisdiction. In this matter, the Church was deeply reactionary, as much as the barons who were to try to claw back their power under King John (it is perhaps ironic that the reactionary Magna Carta is seen now as such a progressive document when this was never its intention).
It is at this point that Becket decided to return to Canterbury in December 1170, only to be murdered at the end of that month by four of Henry II's knights (Reginald Fitzurse, William de Tracy, Hugh de Morville and Richard Le Breton), almost certainly on Henry's orders. If this was an attempted coup against the English Church, it failed because Henry had underestimated the ideological power of the Church and its ability to disrupt the system of fealty owed to the Crown through proferring an alternative legitimacy based on the magical thinking of Judaeo-Christianity to which the vast majority of the population was culturally bound. A secure royal system was now at the point of potential destabilisation. Henry, who was clearly no fool even if he had miscalculated on this occasion or perhaps had lost control of his own retainers, was quick to change course, understanding that, at the end of the day, the Church needed the Crown as much as the Crown needed the Church.
There was no benefit or possibility for a medieval monarch in trying to create early modern monarchical absolutism against a Church that mediated between it (the Crown) and what passed for the middle classes and which acted as restraint on any number of minor and major barons ready to go back to the life of plunder that they had enjoyed in the recent Civil War. Not for the first time, the Church created a link between itself and the people and pacified popular feeling by creating a cult around Becket at Canterbury Cathedral where a shrine in the crypt recorded 14 miraculous cures within months. The boil of potential for instability was lanced by the King offering contrition for the acts of his agents and the Church exploited the situation to halt the drive against its privileges. In return, the Church then played its role in dampening down popular discontent by diverting it into the opiate of cultism. Things haven't changed much since the Angevin era if you substitute the terms State for Crown and Media for Church.
Showing posts with label Edward the Confessor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edward the Confessor. Show all posts
Thursday, 26 May 2016
Saturday, 30 April 2016
1100-1135: Henry I
Henry, fourth son of William the Conqueror, was quick to seize the English treasury at Winchester and was crowned at Westminister Abbey within a few days of his brother William Rufus' death. You may recall William's agreement with their elder brother Duke Robert of Normandy that the domains of the first to die would go to the other so it is no surprise to find Robert landing at Portsmouth in July 1101 to claim his inheritance. The barons of Norman England took different sides according to interest and allegiance but a negotiated settlement at Alton saw Robert withdraw on a pension of £2,000 in return for renouncing his claim to the throne.
Henry's first major political act, in 1102, was a bit of a political theatre of the sort medieval kings loved to employ in order to establish their cultural legitimacy. Later it would be fun and games with King Arthur but at the start of the Twelfth Century, Norman Kings remained keen to establish their legitimate position as English Kings. The tomb of Edward the Confessor was opened and his body found 'miraculously' not to have decayed. Bishop Gundulf of Rochester, a significant figure in Norman construction works, was allegedly rebuked by Abbot Crispin for a rather unseemly attempt to pull out some tufts of King Edward's beard to add to his relic collection. This was not the only act of respect to the English past. In 1104, the bones of Saint Cuthbert were buried in the yet-to-be completed Durham Cathedral. From 1106, another round of cathedral building began in a pattern familiar from the previous reigns. We will outline these foundations in a later posting.
Henry is, however, disinclined to shell out £2,000 per annum on what probably appeared to him to be an unnecessary extortion so he brought the matter to a head by invading Normandy in 1106, defeating Robert at the Battle of Tinchebrai, acquiring the Duchy for himself and imprisoning his brother (for the rest of his life which lasted until 1134) in Cardiff Castle. What he has acquired, he must defend so, for example, he is forced to spend the entire of 1118 in Normandy successfully fighting off the King of France, the Count of Anjou and the Count of Flanders.
This is still defensive activity. We are not yet beginning that long history of dynastic involvement in imperial adventures on the Continent of Europe - an extension of the gangsterdom we have seen as at the heart of early medieval state formation but one that was also to became central to the myth of English nationalism and the formation in response of its French counterpart. However, the seeds of that story are about to be planted in the manouevres over the succession required to maintain the integrity of the family business.
While Henry was away in France, England was governed by a Vice-Regal Council but Henry was always a strong and effective King. Unfortunately, following the loss of his Queen in 1118, the 'family firm' suffered a further and more significant tragedy when Henry's heir and only legitimate son, William, drowned when the ship he was travelling in (The White Ship) was wrecked in the English Channel. Henry remarried in 1122 but this second marriage was childless leaving him with a succession problem and his domains with the prospect of anarchy.
Only a very strong and ruthless King would be capable of controlling the barons. Henry had only one legitimate heir, a daughter Matilda, who was married off at 14 to Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. The barons were forced to swear that they would recognise Matilda as Queen on his death in 1128. Henry forced the issue again with another such ceremony in 1131 showing just how problematic her acceptance would be. Matilda's son (later to be Henry II and first of the Plantagenet Kings) was born in Le Mans in 1133. In December 1135, Henry I died leaving an unstable situation with the Norman barons in England restive, a woman as heir and a two year old male grandson.
We should note here the death in 1125 of Edgar the Atheling, grandson of Edmund II Ironside, last member of the Royal House of Wessex, probably in Scotland. It cannot be said that Edgar was ever really a threat to the Norman hold over England. He was even released and pardoned by Henry I after his involvement against the King in his struggles with Robert Curthose. Thus ended the line of Wessex and 'authentic' English Kingship although we should really see Edgar as less of an English figure and more of an aristocratic figure who lost the game.
Henry's first major political act, in 1102, was a bit of a political theatre of the sort medieval kings loved to employ in order to establish their cultural legitimacy. Later it would be fun and games with King Arthur but at the start of the Twelfth Century, Norman Kings remained keen to establish their legitimate position as English Kings. The tomb of Edward the Confessor was opened and his body found 'miraculously' not to have decayed. Bishop Gundulf of Rochester, a significant figure in Norman construction works, was allegedly rebuked by Abbot Crispin for a rather unseemly attempt to pull out some tufts of King Edward's beard to add to his relic collection. This was not the only act of respect to the English past. In 1104, the bones of Saint Cuthbert were buried in the yet-to-be completed Durham Cathedral. From 1106, another round of cathedral building began in a pattern familiar from the previous reigns. We will outline these foundations in a later posting.
Henry is, however, disinclined to shell out £2,000 per annum on what probably appeared to him to be an unnecessary extortion so he brought the matter to a head by invading Normandy in 1106, defeating Robert at the Battle of Tinchebrai, acquiring the Duchy for himself and imprisoning his brother (for the rest of his life which lasted until 1134) in Cardiff Castle. What he has acquired, he must defend so, for example, he is forced to spend the entire of 1118 in Normandy successfully fighting off the King of France, the Count of Anjou and the Count of Flanders.
This is still defensive activity. We are not yet beginning that long history of dynastic involvement in imperial adventures on the Continent of Europe - an extension of the gangsterdom we have seen as at the heart of early medieval state formation but one that was also to became central to the myth of English nationalism and the formation in response of its French counterpart. However, the seeds of that story are about to be planted in the manouevres over the succession required to maintain the integrity of the family business.
 |
| Tiverton Castle begun under Henry I in 1106 |
Only a very strong and ruthless King would be capable of controlling the barons. Henry had only one legitimate heir, a daughter Matilda, who was married off at 14 to Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. The barons were forced to swear that they would recognise Matilda as Queen on his death in 1128. Henry forced the issue again with another such ceremony in 1131 showing just how problematic her acceptance would be. Matilda's son (later to be Henry II and first of the Plantagenet Kings) was born in Le Mans in 1133. In December 1135, Henry I died leaving an unstable situation with the Norman barons in England restive, a woman as heir and a two year old male grandson.
We should note here the death in 1125 of Edgar the Atheling, grandson of Edmund II Ironside, last member of the Royal House of Wessex, probably in Scotland. It cannot be said that Edgar was ever really a threat to the Norman hold over England. He was even released and pardoned by Henry I after his involvement against the King in his struggles with Robert Curthose. Thus ended the line of Wessex and 'authentic' English Kingship although we should really see Edgar as less of an English figure and more of an aristocratic figure who lost the game.
Wednesday, 13 April 2016
1035-1100: The Anglo-Norman Church
We have already seen the pattern by which English Kings, including Danes who became English Kings, consolidated their rule. Once they had established power by brute force and the support of the aristocracy they would make an accommodation with the English Church, the provincial branch office of Rome. Certainly since Charlemagne, English Church and, better, Roman Church approval of a succession added significant lustre to the Crown and made it very much more difficult for a challenger to make an alternative claim although we should be in no doubt that it was the sword that counted in the end. The question of whether the English Church was always to take orders from Rome was another matter, one which became very relevant in the power struggles before and after the Norman Ascendency that emerged after the abortive English revolts of 1069.
The Church may have had no role to play in establishing power but it had a considerable role in maintaining power securely. Its role was to ensure order (since disorder was generally crueller even than a cruel autocracy for most people most of the time) on behalf of its charge, the mass of the population, and on behalf of itself given the financial and landed patronage necessary to maintain its mission. The general population had, of course, little or no say in this authoritarian structure. It wanted the order of Kingship but not necessarily the consequent taxation. Sections of the wider population also needed the limited welfare, celibate employment and protection that the Church could provide.
The people's own resources were, as often in history, redistributed to its own poor through a bureaucratic mechanism for the sake of peace with a 'take' for the clerics that grew larger with time. The similarities with twntieth century bureaucratic European socialism are clear for those with a mind to see them. The clerisy and its economic claims would grow larger with time until this thing that was 'too big to fail' got gutted by Henry VIII who saw that a bit of redistribution back to the English middle classes might secure his own base more effectively than relying on the Church to do so.
The Church never, of course, offered the threat of potential rebellion - this is not what it does, at least not while kings remained within the faith - but it did legitimise royal rule through explicit divine sanction in the coronation. Its preaching of quietitude and submission sat alongside its delivery of alms and its creation of meaning for existence and death as guarantors of a conditional order. "You give us the people", implied the Church, "and we will give you their submission and, incidentally, also save them from your brute plundering". It is the perhaps unhappy and unsatisfactory compromise required for a society that remained poor in resources and education and within which there are still few constraints on the exercise of force by those with weaponry on their side. The history of the liberation of the people from the whims of aristocratic brutes is one story. It takes a lot longer to effect liberation from the hollow ideologies of the Church. This scarcely starts for another half a millennium.
The creation of national saints is an essential part of this process. Our period starts with the canonisation of Archbishop John of York (died in 721) in 1037, known for his kindly concern for the poor. This sent its own signal in the middle of the brutal infighting that took place between the reigns of Cnut I and II that the ruling elite cannot and should not sink to its habitual and instinctive 'pagan' barbarism. Similarly, within a year of the burning down of Worcester Monastery by Cnut II after a tax rebellion (with the rebels inside it), Bishop Wulfstan had started to rebuild it on a larger scale in defiance of the royal sacrilege. The relationship of the English Church to the English people, manifest in the war of defence against the Danes, seems to have created a problem for the Normans in 1069-1070 and to have resulted in the latter's call on the Papacy to help bring the Church to heel.
The Church is never not part of the struggles for power at the very heart of the dynastic State. As we have seen, its leadership could be decisive just as it was in the power struggle that started in 1051 between the Anglo-Danish interest of the Godwin family and the pro-Norman position of Edward the Confessor. The shift in that year (temporarily) to the Norman interest was expressed at the highest level with the appointment of the Norman Robert Champert of Jumieges to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. There is something going on here in terms of Edward the Confessor's own sense of what sort of cleric will support him and his vision of a 'civilised' (perhapsd Charlemagnic) European monarchy. Edward is very active in his patronage of the Church. He founds Westminster Abbey (completed in 1065), which will be the future centre of the royal cult in England, in 1052. Waltham Abbey is completed and consecrated in 1060.
The political significance of the Archbishopric is demonstrated when the return of the Godwin interest under Godwin's son Harold Godwinson, after a brief Norman ascendency at court, results in the expulsion of Robert of Jumieges and his replacement as Archbishop of Canterbury with Stigand who is also Bishop of Winchester, still the primary see of the Wessex interest. We have covered this elsewhere. When William of Normandy became King, he quickly used the Church to seal his position by commissioning the Abbey at Battle on the site of his victory over Harold but he initially lets the Church continue as it had done under Edward until the rebellions of 1069-1070 break out.
His response is to invite three Papal Legates to Winchester in 1070. These legates gave him virtual carte blanche over the English Church after a ceremonial crowning. He promptly called a number of Church Councils and undertook a purge of Anglo-Saxon churchmen, deposing Stigand as Archbishop of Canterbury and replacing him with Lanfranc, a celebrated Italian jurist. What is going on here is also perhaps a Papal-driven frustration with the independence of the English Church, represented by the 'Anglican' Stigand (who was to be imprisoned). The reasonable suspicion here is that Rome saw the Norman Ascendency as an agent for imposing its control on a Provincial Church that had shown too many signs of independence in the recent past. The war crimes 'up north' would not have figured in the Church's moral reasoning at this point.
Church-State politics continued to calibrate in the years after the Norman coup. A controversy over the primacy of Canterbury over York, initiated by Lanfranc, was settled in 1072 at the Council of Winchester although not finally (the dispute would continue until the Fourteenth Century) but it is clear that both King and Papacy found this tiresome. In 1080, Pope Gregory VII tried to push his luck with William I by demanding that the King do him homage as his vassal in an attempt to make feudalism work for the Papacy. William simply refused. Such homage had not been offered by his predecessors. This in itself is interesting. William remembers that his Conquest was based on a right of succession to a line of English kings. He does not allow the Papacy to make the mistake that his power was owed in any way to the Pope. This tension, similar to that emerging from medieval interpretations of Charlemagne's coronation, between the inherent right of kings to rule by dynastic succession and the right of the Papacy to give God's blessing on kings would be a constant theme in European history as the balance of power between Church and State shifted and changed. However both sides agree that thrones can no longer be seized by warlords claiming right by mere conquest.Or at least if a warlord does this, he would soon want the Church to sanctify his seizure as legitimate.
Much as we have come to expect, when kings cut
deals with the Church the subsequent years see a massive redirection of funds to building major churches. Following a fire that destroyed the old Anglo-Saxon Cathedral in 1067, Canterbury Cathedral was rebuilt and 'Normanised' from 1070. Recompense is also made for the plundering of monasteries that took place in 1069 as the Normans put down a Saxon rebellion that may have had some succour from parts of the English Church. New cathedrals are started at St. Albans (1077), Old Sarum (1078), Winchester (rebuilding - 1079), Hereford (1079), York Minster (1080), Rochester (1082) and Ely (1083). The commitment continued under William I's successor, William II: Worcester (1089), Chichester (1093), Lincoln, Chester & Tewkesbury (1092), Durham (1093) and the completion of Norwich and the start of the Crypt at Canterbury in 1096. This commitment of investment is massive and it indicates the equally massive political comitment to partnership with the Roman Church that helped transform England into a catholic feudal dynastic State although much of these funds are not onlybased on land grants from kings but also from powerful aristocrats in a feudal state that was never entirely an autocracy.
It should not be assumed that the relationship between Church and State was ever an easy one. The tension over their respective rights between King and Papacy under William the Conqueror became something more serious in the four years after Lanfranc died and before Anselm finally agreed to be Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. Relations between King and Archbishop worsened further. William II attempted to bring Anselm to heel in 1095 by convening a Council at Rockingham but Anselm defied him by appealing over his head to Rome, stating that he could not be tried in a secular court. In 1097, Anselm finally quit Canterbury, leaving the Church's estates in the hands of the King, in order to confer directly with the Pope. He chose exile rather than total submission and so left the problem of the relationship of Church and State to the next King Henry I. For Anselm, the Church was universal with the absolute right to maintain its own internal authority whereas for William II the issue was one of ultimate royal control of both Church and State. What we have here is a culturally strong Church but one not as materially strong as any warrior King, albeit that many warriors, worried by the immortality of their souls, would continue to bequeath estates and property to the King's main rival for power. This ideological tension will be one of the grand themes of English history until the Reformation.
The Norman Cathedrals
(Note that the original Norman (or Romanesque) element in these Cathedrals has sometimes to be extracted visually from beneath later Gothic accretions and in one or two cases has been largely overwhelmed. Nowever, Norman architecture can generally be recognised by its simpler 'blocky' and less ornamented style with more rounded arches.)
Saint Margaret of Scotland
There is an additional footnote of interest in the career of Margaret of Wessex, sister of Edgar Atheling, in exile in Scotland. Canonised in 1250, it was she who ordered the rebuilding of Iona Abbey in 1072 and was credited with civilising her husband Malcolm III and with bringing Scotland closer to Rome under the influence of Lanfranc. This alone suggests that it would be foolish to position Lanfranc as anything other than servant of the Papacy. Her story also reminds us that the Church was a solace to aristocratic women married to near-barbarian warlords and that the aristocracy of the day bore no ethnic petit-bourgeois grudges once it was clear how the power game had played itself out. We cannot read ethnicity back too easily into contemporary power relations where being part of a universal Church and of an aristocratic and kingly caste was of far greater importance than one's racial origin.
The Church may have had no role to play in establishing power but it had a considerable role in maintaining power securely. Its role was to ensure order (since disorder was generally crueller even than a cruel autocracy for most people most of the time) on behalf of its charge, the mass of the population, and on behalf of itself given the financial and landed patronage necessary to maintain its mission. The general population had, of course, little or no say in this authoritarian structure. It wanted the order of Kingship but not necessarily the consequent taxation. Sections of the wider population also needed the limited welfare, celibate employment and protection that the Church could provide.
The people's own resources were, as often in history, redistributed to its own poor through a bureaucratic mechanism for the sake of peace with a 'take' for the clerics that grew larger with time. The similarities with twntieth century bureaucratic European socialism are clear for those with a mind to see them. The clerisy and its economic claims would grow larger with time until this thing that was 'too big to fail' got gutted by Henry VIII who saw that a bit of redistribution back to the English middle classes might secure his own base more effectively than relying on the Church to do so.
The Church never, of course, offered the threat of potential rebellion - this is not what it does, at least not while kings remained within the faith - but it did legitimise royal rule through explicit divine sanction in the coronation. Its preaching of quietitude and submission sat alongside its delivery of alms and its creation of meaning for existence and death as guarantors of a conditional order. "You give us the people", implied the Church, "and we will give you their submission and, incidentally, also save them from your brute plundering". It is the perhaps unhappy and unsatisfactory compromise required for a society that remained poor in resources and education and within which there are still few constraints on the exercise of force by those with weaponry on their side. The history of the liberation of the people from the whims of aristocratic brutes is one story. It takes a lot longer to effect liberation from the hollow ideologies of the Church. This scarcely starts for another half a millennium.
The creation of national saints is an essential part of this process. Our period starts with the canonisation of Archbishop John of York (died in 721) in 1037, known for his kindly concern for the poor. This sent its own signal in the middle of the brutal infighting that took place between the reigns of Cnut I and II that the ruling elite cannot and should not sink to its habitual and instinctive 'pagan' barbarism. Similarly, within a year of the burning down of Worcester Monastery by Cnut II after a tax rebellion (with the rebels inside it), Bishop Wulfstan had started to rebuild it on a larger scale in defiance of the royal sacrilege. The relationship of the English Church to the English people, manifest in the war of defence against the Danes, seems to have created a problem for the Normans in 1069-1070 and to have resulted in the latter's call on the Papacy to help bring the Church to heel.
 |
| Westminster Abbey in the Eleventh Century |
 | ||
| Battle Abbey - ruins of the East Range. | ||
The political significance of the Archbishopric is demonstrated when the return of the Godwin interest under Godwin's son Harold Godwinson, after a brief Norman ascendency at court, results in the expulsion of Robert of Jumieges and his replacement as Archbishop of Canterbury with Stigand who is also Bishop of Winchester, still the primary see of the Wessex interest. We have covered this elsewhere. When William of Normandy became King, he quickly used the Church to seal his position by commissioning the Abbey at Battle on the site of his victory over Harold but he initially lets the Church continue as it had done under Edward until the rebellions of 1069-1070 break out.
His response is to invite three Papal Legates to Winchester in 1070. These legates gave him virtual carte blanche over the English Church after a ceremonial crowning. He promptly called a number of Church Councils and undertook a purge of Anglo-Saxon churchmen, deposing Stigand as Archbishop of Canterbury and replacing him with Lanfranc, a celebrated Italian jurist. What is going on here is also perhaps a Papal-driven frustration with the independence of the English Church, represented by the 'Anglican' Stigand (who was to be imprisoned). The reasonable suspicion here is that Rome saw the Norman Ascendency as an agent for imposing its control on a Provincial Church that had shown too many signs of independence in the recent past. The war crimes 'up north' would not have figured in the Church's moral reasoning at this point.
Church-State politics continued to calibrate in the years after the Norman coup. A controversy over the primacy of Canterbury over York, initiated by Lanfranc, was settled in 1072 at the Council of Winchester although not finally (the dispute would continue until the Fourteenth Century) but it is clear that both King and Papacy found this tiresome. In 1080, Pope Gregory VII tried to push his luck with William I by demanding that the King do him homage as his vassal in an attempt to make feudalism work for the Papacy. William simply refused. Such homage had not been offered by his predecessors. This in itself is interesting. William remembers that his Conquest was based on a right of succession to a line of English kings. He does not allow the Papacy to make the mistake that his power was owed in any way to the Pope. This tension, similar to that emerging from medieval interpretations of Charlemagne's coronation, between the inherent right of kings to rule by dynastic succession and the right of the Papacy to give God's blessing on kings would be a constant theme in European history as the balance of power between Church and State shifted and changed. However both sides agree that thrones can no longer be seized by warlords claiming right by mere conquest.Or at least if a warlord does this, he would soon want the Church to sanctify his seizure as legitimate.
 |
| Canterbury Cathedral - Norman Arcade |
deals with the Church the subsequent years see a massive redirection of funds to building major churches. Following a fire that destroyed the old Anglo-Saxon Cathedral in 1067, Canterbury Cathedral was rebuilt and 'Normanised' from 1070. Recompense is also made for the plundering of monasteries that took place in 1069 as the Normans put down a Saxon rebellion that may have had some succour from parts of the English Church. New cathedrals are started at St. Albans (1077), Old Sarum (1078), Winchester (rebuilding - 1079), Hereford (1079), York Minster (1080), Rochester (1082) and Ely (1083). The commitment continued under William I's successor, William II: Worcester (1089), Chichester (1093), Lincoln, Chester & Tewkesbury (1092), Durham (1093) and the completion of Norwich and the start of the Crypt at Canterbury in 1096. This commitment of investment is massive and it indicates the equally massive political comitment to partnership with the Roman Church that helped transform England into a catholic feudal dynastic State although much of these funds are not onlybased on land grants from kings but also from powerful aristocrats in a feudal state that was never entirely an autocracy.
It should not be assumed that the relationship between Church and State was ever an easy one. The tension over their respective rights between King and Papacy under William the Conqueror became something more serious in the four years after Lanfranc died and before Anselm finally agreed to be Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. Relations between King and Archbishop worsened further. William II attempted to bring Anselm to heel in 1095 by convening a Council at Rockingham but Anselm defied him by appealing over his head to Rome, stating that he could not be tried in a secular court. In 1097, Anselm finally quit Canterbury, leaving the Church's estates in the hands of the King, in order to confer directly with the Pope. He chose exile rather than total submission and so left the problem of the relationship of Church and State to the next King Henry I. For Anselm, the Church was universal with the absolute right to maintain its own internal authority whereas for William II the issue was one of ultimate royal control of both Church and State. What we have here is a culturally strong Church but one not as materially strong as any warrior King, albeit that many warriors, worried by the immortality of their souls, would continue to bequeath estates and property to the King's main rival for power. This ideological tension will be one of the grand themes of English history until the Reformation.
The Norman Cathedrals
(Note that the original Norman (or Romanesque) element in these Cathedrals has sometimes to be extracted visually from beneath later Gothic accretions and in one or two cases has been largely overwhelmed. Nowever, Norman architecture can generally be recognised by its simpler 'blocky' and less ornamented style with more rounded arches.)
 |
| St Albans' Cathedral started in 1077 |
 |
| Ruins of Old Sarum started in 1078 |
 |
| Norman Transept of Winchester Cathedral started in 1079 |
 |
Norman Nave of Hereford Cathedral started in 1079 |
 |
| Nave of Rochester Cathedral started in 1082 |
 |
| Norman Nave of Ely Cathedral started in 1083 |
 |
| Norman Arch of Worcester Cathedral started in 1089 |
 |
| Chichester Cathedral started in 1091 |
 |
| Norman West Front of Lincoln Cathedral started in 1092 |
 |
| Norman Arch at Chester Cathedral started in 1092 |
 |
| Norman West Front at Twekesbury Cathedral started in 1092 |
 |
| Durham Cathedral started in 1093 |
 |
| Norwich Cathedral completed as a Norman Cathedral in 1096 |
 |
| Norman Crypt of Canterbury Cathedral started in 1096 |
Saint Margaret of Scotland
There is an additional footnote of interest in the career of Margaret of Wessex, sister of Edgar Atheling, in exile in Scotland. Canonised in 1250, it was she who ordered the rebuilding of Iona Abbey in 1072 and was credited with civilising her husband Malcolm III and with bringing Scotland closer to Rome under the influence of Lanfranc. This alone suggests that it would be foolish to position Lanfranc as anything other than servant of the Papacy. Her story also reminds us that the Church was a solace to aristocratic women married to near-barbarian warlords and that the aristocracy of the day bore no ethnic petit-bourgeois grudges once it was clear how the power game had played itself out. We cannot read ethnicity back too easily into contemporary power relations where being part of a universal Church and of an aristocratic and kingly caste was of far greater importance than one's racial origin.
Monday, 28 March 2016
1035-1066: The Godwin Ascendency & The Last Years of an English Kingdom
1035 saw two events of significance for the future destiny of England - the death of King Cnut which saw the disintegration of his Empire, much as the deaths of Offa and Brian Borum had seen the disintegration of their achievements, and the accession to the Duchy of Normandy of William. In England, Harold of England, Cnut's illegitimate son by Aelgifu of Northampton, became Anglo-Dane Regent but the country split into its older North-South resentments as Mercia and Northumbria organised against Wessex. The following year, apparently seeking to exploit the situation, Ethelred's sons, Alfred and Edward, returned to England but Alfred was seized by Harold, savagely blinded and died at Ely. Edward understandably returned to the safety of Normandy which he seems to have considered more his natural home than England.
The Witenagemot, a council of the ruling elite, sought to resolve the situation in 1037 by making Harold King of England [Harold I] but Harold died three years later in 1040 to be succeeded by Harthacnut [Cnut II], another son of Cnut (by Emma). In 2014, Cnut II's tax collectors were murdered in Worcester and the Danes burned the local monastery to the ground suggesting tensions that ran deeper than mere squabbles between members of the aristocratic elite. Cnut II himself seems to have pragmatically seen Edward, known as 'The Confessor', as his natural successor so that there seems to have been an implicit policy that the Kingdom was best held together by an 'understanding' between the natural leader of the Danish interest and the natural heir to the English interest. What is clear from subsequent years is that the pious Edward was not holding onto power by the force of his personality. He was not a natural representative of the native English or Danish interest and consistently looked to the Continent for his values. He was legitimate, convenient and circumscribed. Cnut II died in 1042. Edward, 'the 'King's brother', son of Ethelred the Ill-Advised, was crowned in 1043 and married his powerful sponsor's [Earl Godwin] daughter, Edith in 1045.
Godwin made Edward King and expected him to continue to defer to the most powerful noble in the land. Godwin was certainly the power behind the English throne by the 1040s. Earl Godwin had risen under Cnut I as the loyal English fixer for the Danish interest and almost certainly the architect of the merger of Anglo-Danish interests into one national force. However, something went seriously wrong in 1051, when William of Normandy visited England. Edward made a fateful and foolish promise of the English succession to the Duke of Normandy during what appears to have been a court quarrel between the Godwin interest and Edward over the latter's preference for Norman advisers and friends. One senses that Edward, a weak King by most standards, was looking to his old friends from his exile to counter the constraining influence of the Anglo-Danish aristocracy who represented a past of which he had nothing but bad memories, noting that his own brother had been effectively murdered by someone from that interest in 1036. The dynastic is the personal in early medieval England and this ill-understood personal dimension would eventually seal the fate of the English line of Kings.
Godwin is not only exiled but a Norman, Robert Champert de Jumieges, is appointed Archbishop of Canterbury although he lasted only eighteen months. Whatever the religious meaning of this, its political meaning was that Edward was hook, line and sinker committed to the Norman interest as counterplay to the Anglo-Danish interest. The trajectory that leads remorselessly to the seizure of England by the Normans started in earnest in these political struggles of 1051. There is another change of fortune when Early Godwin dies accidentally. Some balance is restored with his son Harold's commitment to the King's cause although we can safely assume that the pragmatic and cynical Harold was far more committed to his own and his family's interest.
Harold is leader of the English army. This represented a considerable force within a polity constantly threatened by invasions at the first sign of weakness and the nation craved order after the experiences before Cnut came to the throne and in the difficult period between his death and the Kingship of Edward. Edward, it would seem, was the creature of his aristocracy and his brief break out in 1051-1052 was clearly unsustainable. The result was a decisive shift against the Norman interest. Archbishop Robert of Canterbury was forced into exile and replaced with Stigand, clearly no Norman.
The power of the Godwin interest expanded when Harold's brother Tostig was appointed Earl of Northumberland on the death of Siward. No doubt the intention was to have the Godwins control Northumbria, the English army and the court in a triple encirclement of a weak King in anticipation of the succession. The systematic extension of Godwin power takes another turn in 1057 when Leofric, Earl of Mercia, dies and his son Aelfgar succeeds at the price of ceding East Anglia to another brother of Harold, Garth (although Aelfgar is succeeded in turn by his young son Edwin in 1062 without incident). Yet another brother, Leofwine, takes an Earldom that covers the counties surrounding London. Looked at from Normandy, these manouevres seemed destined to make Edward's personal promise of the succession to Duke William meaningless without decisive military action by the Duke.
There is another factor in the game - the Norwegians on the other side of the North Sea. Their intervention will eventually prove decisive if not to their benefit. An attempted Norwegian invasion is repulsed in 1058 but they are ever-present as a threat that almost destroyed England in the past and could do so again. But, after a decade of Harold's military victories against Welsh and Norwegians alike, an unfortunate accident brings matters to a head. Harold, still only a military leader and the leading aristocrat answerable to the king he serves, is shipwrecked off the Normandy coast (1064) and falls into the hands of Duke William. Duke William takes the opportunity to make him swear an oath to accept the promise given by Edward during the brief Norman ascendency at the English court in 1051-52. Oath-keeping is important to the Franks and Normans but a more contingent matter to the Anglo-Danes, especially when extracted in a situation where there was little choice in the matter, so, returning to England, Harold has little intention of keeping his promise, especially when his military leadership is no less proven that of William.
What is about to happen now is a perfect storm for Harold. He has alienated the greedy and ambitious Normans, he has had his eye off the ball because of his accidental absence overseas and the Norwegians are lurking on the margins waiting for an opportunity for plunder. At this point, the Northumbrians revolt against the imposed Godwin brother Tostig (1065) who is then forced into exile. The personal is again the dynastic as Tostig becomes enraged at Harold's failure to support him and then, inopportunely, King Edward dies.
The Witenagemot, a council of the ruling elite, sought to resolve the situation in 1037 by making Harold King of England [Harold I] but Harold died three years later in 1040 to be succeeded by Harthacnut [Cnut II], another son of Cnut (by Emma). In 2014, Cnut II's tax collectors were murdered in Worcester and the Danes burned the local monastery to the ground suggesting tensions that ran deeper than mere squabbles between members of the aristocratic elite. Cnut II himself seems to have pragmatically seen Edward, known as 'The Confessor', as his natural successor so that there seems to have been an implicit policy that the Kingdom was best held together by an 'understanding' between the natural leader of the Danish interest and the natural heir to the English interest. What is clear from subsequent years is that the pious Edward was not holding onto power by the force of his personality. He was not a natural representative of the native English or Danish interest and consistently looked to the Continent for his values. He was legitimate, convenient and circumscribed. Cnut II died in 1042. Edward, 'the 'King's brother', son of Ethelred the Ill-Advised, was crowned in 1043 and married his powerful sponsor's [Earl Godwin] daughter, Edith in 1045.
Godwin made Edward King and expected him to continue to defer to the most powerful noble in the land. Godwin was certainly the power behind the English throne by the 1040s. Earl Godwin had risen under Cnut I as the loyal English fixer for the Danish interest and almost certainly the architect of the merger of Anglo-Danish interests into one national force. However, something went seriously wrong in 1051, when William of Normandy visited England. Edward made a fateful and foolish promise of the English succession to the Duke of Normandy during what appears to have been a court quarrel between the Godwin interest and Edward over the latter's preference for Norman advisers and friends. One senses that Edward, a weak King by most standards, was looking to his old friends from his exile to counter the constraining influence of the Anglo-Danish aristocracy who represented a past of which he had nothing but bad memories, noting that his own brother had been effectively murdered by someone from that interest in 1036. The dynastic is the personal in early medieval England and this ill-understood personal dimension would eventually seal the fate of the English line of Kings.
Godwin is not only exiled but a Norman, Robert Champert de Jumieges, is appointed Archbishop of Canterbury although he lasted only eighteen months. Whatever the religious meaning of this, its political meaning was that Edward was hook, line and sinker committed to the Norman interest as counterplay to the Anglo-Danish interest. The trajectory that leads remorselessly to the seizure of England by the Normans started in earnest in these political struggles of 1051. There is another change of fortune when Early Godwin dies accidentally. Some balance is restored with his son Harold's commitment to the King's cause although we can safely assume that the pragmatic and cynical Harold was far more committed to his own and his family's interest.
Harold is leader of the English army. This represented a considerable force within a polity constantly threatened by invasions at the first sign of weakness and the nation craved order after the experiences before Cnut came to the throne and in the difficult period between his death and the Kingship of Edward. Edward, it would seem, was the creature of his aristocracy and his brief break out in 1051-1052 was clearly unsustainable. The result was a decisive shift against the Norman interest. Archbishop Robert of Canterbury was forced into exile and replaced with Stigand, clearly no Norman.
The power of the Godwin interest expanded when Harold's brother Tostig was appointed Earl of Northumberland on the death of Siward. No doubt the intention was to have the Godwins control Northumbria, the English army and the court in a triple encirclement of a weak King in anticipation of the succession. The systematic extension of Godwin power takes another turn in 1057 when Leofric, Earl of Mercia, dies and his son Aelfgar succeeds at the price of ceding East Anglia to another brother of Harold, Garth (although Aelfgar is succeeded in turn by his young son Edwin in 1062 without incident). Yet another brother, Leofwine, takes an Earldom that covers the counties surrounding London. Looked at from Normandy, these manouevres seemed destined to make Edward's personal promise of the succession to Duke William meaningless without decisive military action by the Duke.
There is another factor in the game - the Norwegians on the other side of the North Sea. Their intervention will eventually prove decisive if not to their benefit. An attempted Norwegian invasion is repulsed in 1058 but they are ever-present as a threat that almost destroyed England in the past and could do so again. But, after a decade of Harold's military victories against Welsh and Norwegians alike, an unfortunate accident brings matters to a head. Harold, still only a military leader and the leading aristocrat answerable to the king he serves, is shipwrecked off the Normandy coast (1064) and falls into the hands of Duke William. Duke William takes the opportunity to make him swear an oath to accept the promise given by Edward during the brief Norman ascendency at the English court in 1051-52. Oath-keeping is important to the Franks and Normans but a more contingent matter to the Anglo-Danes, especially when extracted in a situation where there was little choice in the matter, so, returning to England, Harold has little intention of keeping his promise, especially when his military leadership is no less proven that of William.
What is about to happen now is a perfect storm for Harold. He has alienated the greedy and ambitious Normans, he has had his eye off the ball because of his accidental absence overseas and the Norwegians are lurking on the margins waiting for an opportunity for plunder. At this point, the Northumbrians revolt against the imposed Godwin brother Tostig (1065) who is then forced into exile. The personal is again the dynastic as Tostig becomes enraged at Harold's failure to support him and then, inopportunely, King Edward dies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)