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.

Tiverton Castle begun under Henry I in 1106

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.

1066-1087: The Conquest of England

The year 1066 marked a revolutionary watershed. It was to be more than a dynastic shift, albeit not immediately. Initially it was just another foreign kingship for the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy. This had changed within a few years into the effective dispossession of an elite which persisted in challenging the claims of the incomers. There would eventually be no more compromises between ethnic elites, Dane and Anglo-Saxon, but rather the imposition of a Norman elite and the introduction of a new feudal culture imported from the Continent. This took place through an exceptional ruthlessness in the exercise of centralised power based on superior military technology and administrative skills. William the Conqueror was just very good at what he did - the exercise of power.

The year started with the death of Edward the Confessor which triggered the expectations of William, Duke of Normandy. As far as the English Witengemot is concerned, his claim was of no consequence. Harold Godwinson was immediately chosen as Edward's successor. He was the natural national choice. He had the backing of his people or rather of the aristocracy that dictated terms to the people. That Autumn, the events unfolded that would cost Harold his throne. It started with the invasion of Northumbria in September by Harold's alienated brother Tostig, backed by a Norwegian army led by Harald Hardrada, King of Norway. King Harold defeated the invaders at the Battle of Stamford Bridge but, within days, William of Normandy had landed in Pevensey Bay on the English South Coast to enforce his claim to the throne.

Harold undertook a forced march south and met William near Hastings where his men lost the battle, partly from exhaustion and partly because of tactical errors on the field. Harold was killed and the Witengemot quickly chose Edgar Atheling, grandson of Edmund Ironside, to succeed him. William equally quickly moved around London and approached it from the North long before the Anglo-Saxons could raise a fresh army. Edgar Atheling and representatives of the Witengemot met William at Berkhamsted in October, accepted the reality of their situation in military terms (and, no doubt, fearful of the impending sack of London) and offered him the Crown. William was crowned King in Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day 1066. The coup had succeeded within barely three months.

The White Tower begun in 1067 as it looks today

William was secure enough in his position by February to leave England for the rest of 1067 although he took care to commission the massive fortress (the White Tower) that would become the basis for the Tower of London complex that still dominates the eastern river side of the merchant City of London. He also commissioned Battle Abbey to commemorate his victory and to seal his side of a pact with the Church.

The only rebellion at this stage was in Kent led by Eustace II, Count of Boulogne. Eustace was not an Anglo-Saxon but a disgruntled leading ally of William, probably the provider of the ships that brought William over the year before and now dissatisfied with his share of the loot. He was able to mobilise the Kentish, with whom he no doubt had trading relationships, against the new regime. His rebellion failed. He forfeited his land grants. Some were later restored in what looks more like the settlement of a business dispute than anything recognisably political.

Up to this point, William had come to a modus vivendi with the local aristocracy but more serious rebellions started to break out in Mercia and Northumbria in 1069 leading to the notorious and genocidal 'harrying' of the North over the winter of 1069-1070. The Danish element in the rebellion was bought off but the Anglo-Saxons, now under Edgar Atheling, decided to fight on. William's response was to starve them out through a brutal scorched earth policy directed at the civilian population. The estimates of the deaths caused are disputed. Some historians believe that the numbers have been accidentally exaggerated but there is no doubt that William used famine tactics deliberately (part of the contemporary armory of warfare). Otherwise sympathetic chroniclers such as Orderic Vitalis considered it as a stain on his reputation. It is also noted as the only occasion when he used such brutal tactics, indicating a degree of desperation in dealing with a major threat to the basis of his power in England.

His relatively tolerant attitude changed in other respects as we will see in our account of his handling of the Church. We can summarise the tale we will tell there by saying that, in the wake of Anglo-Saxon revolt, William effectively cut a deal with Rome, purged the English Church of recalcitrant 'Anglicans' and started a massive programme of patronage in the form of cathedral building. The Conquest of England by the Normans became nothing more nor less than its co-reconquest by Rome from 1070 even if Pope Gregory VII started to push his luck by 1080. Roman interest in the fate of the English North seems to have been minimal even if the chroniclers were to shed their crocodile tears after the event. 1070 is thus a moment when we see a radical Europeanisation of England by means of the sword, enforced famine and terror and the deliberate purge of anyone able to speak for the people through the Church, the latter all with the knowing connivance of Rome.

There is one last significant English revolt - that of Hereward the Wake, presumed to be an Anglo-Saxon noble in the English Fens, based on Ely in 1071/2 which had linked up to another abortive invasion by the Danes who had sought to exploit Northern discontent. William secured his position quite quickly. He then did what every strong southern ruler eventually did: he mounted an attack on Scotland where he defeated Malcolm and achieved his main aim which was the expulsion of Edgar Atheling from the Scottish court and so from a base of operations within the British Isles.

From this point on, William is to have more problems with his own ambitious Norman aristocracy than with the defeated Anglo-Danes. His own son Robert of Normandy rebelled in 1079 in order to force his father to cede the Duchy to him before the latter's death. This family quarrel is patched up after a defeat for the son by his father in the field. This was also the period of the Domesday Book, the 'Great Survey' of the King's assets in England and Wales undertaken in 1085/6. We can take this as a sign that the King was a remarkably forward-thinking political businessman, perhaps giving us the point when we can say that entrepreneurial feudalism was being replaced by managerial feudalism.

The King died in Rouen in September 1087 following a horse-riding accident and was immediately succeeded by his third son William Rufus. In 21 years, the Normans had collectively tamed a very troublesome province of the informal Roman Christian system. They had centralised power to an extent never seen before around an administratively capable and ruthless leader, albeit reliant on an oligarchy of militarised nobility. The Anglo-Norman settlement, based on an imported feudalism, was to prove extremely resilient, sufficient to make England a power that invades rather than is invaded.