William I, the Conqueror, as King of the English. Part IV.

Tags

Administration, Governmental Systems, King of England, King of the English, William I of England, William the Conqueror, Winchester

Elite replacement

A direct consequence of the invasion was the almost total elimination of the old English aristocracy and the loss of English control over the Catholic Church in England. William systematically dispossessed English landowners and conferred their property on his continental followers. The Domesday Book meticulously documents the impact of this colossal programme of expropriation, revealing that by 1086 only about 5 percent of land in England south of the Tees was left in English hands. Even this tiny residue was further diminished in the decades that followed, the elimination of native landholding being most complete in southern parts of the country.

Natives were also removed from high governmental and ecclesiastical office. After 1075 all earldoms were held by Normans, and Englishmen were only occasionally appointed as sheriffs. Likewise in the Church, senior English office-holders were either expelled from their positions or kept in place for their lifetimes and replaced by foreigners when they died. By 1096 no bishopric was held by any Englishman, and English abbots became uncommon, especially in the larger monasteries.

English emigration

Following the conquest, many Anglo-Saxons, including groups of nobles, fled the country for Scotland, Ireland, or Scandinavia. Members of King Harold Godwinson’s family sought refuge in Ireland and used their bases in that country for unsuccessful invasions of England. The largest single exodus occurred in the 1070s, when a group of Anglo-Saxons in a fleet of 235 ships sailed for the Byzantine Empire. The empire became a popular destination for many English nobles and soldiers, as the Byzantines were in need of mercenaries. The English became the predominant element in the elite Varangian Guard, until then a largely Scandinavian unit, from which the emperor’s bodyguard was drawn. Some of the English migrants were settled in Byzantine frontier regions on the Black Sea coast, and established towns with names such as New London and New York.

Governmental systems

Before the Normans arrived, Anglo-Saxon governmental systems were more sophisticated than their counterparts in Normandy. All of England was divided into administrative units called shires, with subdivisions; the royal court was the centre of government, and a justice system based on local and regional tribunals existed to secure the rights of free men. Shires were run by officials known as shire reeves or sheriffs. Most medieval governments were always on the move, holding court wherever the weather and food or other matters were best at the moment; England had a permanent treasury at Winchester before William’s conquest.

One major reason for the strength of the English monarchy was the wealth of the kingdom, built on the English system of taxation that included a land tax, or the geld. English coinage was also superior to most of the other currency in use in northwestern Europe, and the ability to mint coins was a royal monopoly. The English kings had also developed the system of issuing writs to their officials, in addition to the normal medieval practice of issuing charters. Writs were either instructions to an official or group of officials, or notifications of royal actions such as appointments to office or a grant of some sort.

William I, The Conqueror, as King of the English. Part II.

Tags

Administration, King of the English, Letters Patent, Matilda of Flanders, William I of England, William II of Normandy, William the Bastard, William the Conqueror, Write

Administration

After 1066, William did not attempt to integrate his separate domains into one unified realm or Kingdom with one set of laws. His seal from after 1066, of which six impressions still survive, was made for him after he conquered England and stressed his role as king, while separately mentioning his role as Duke. When in Normandy, William acknowledged that he owed fealty to the King of the Franks, but in England no such acknowledgment was made – further evidence that the various parts of William’s lands were considered separate.

The administrative machinery of Normandy, England, and Maine continued to exist separate from the other lands, with each one retaining its own forms. For example, England continued the use of writs, which were not known on the continent. Also, the charters and documents produced for the government in Normandy differed in formulas from those produced in England.

In common law, a writ (Anglo-Saxon gewrit, Latin breve) is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are common types of writ, but many forms exist and have existed.

The writ was a unique development of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy and consisted of a brief administrative order, authenticated (innovatively) by a seal. Written in the vernacular, they generally made a land grant or conveyed instructions to a local court. In the beginning, writs were the document issued by the King’s Chancellor against a landowner whose vassal complained to the King about an injustice, after a first summon by the sheriff to comply had been deemed fruitless.

William the Conqueror took over the system unchanged, but was to extend it in two ways: first, writs became mainly framed in Latin, not Anglo-Saxon; second, they covered an increasing range of royal commands and decisions. Writs of instruction continued to develop under his immediate successors, but it was not until King Henry II that writs became available for purchase by private individuals seeking justice, thus initiating a vast expansion in their role within the common law. Writs could take two main forms, ‘letters patent’, which were open for all to read, and ‘letters close’ for one or more specified individuals alone.

William took over an English government that was more complex than the Norman system. England was divided into shires or counties, which were further divided into either hundreds or wapentakes. Each shire was administered by a royal official called a sheriff, who roughly had the same status as a Norman viscount. A sheriff was responsible for royal justice and collecting royal revenue. To oversee his expanded domain, William, as King of the English, was forced to travel even more than he had as Dule of Normandy.

He crossed back and forth between the continent and England at least 19 times between 1067 and his death. William spent most of his time in England between the Battle of Hastings and 1072, and after that, he spent the majority of his time in Normandy.

Government was still centred on William’s household; when he was in one part of his realms, decisions would be made for other parts of his domains and transmitted through a communication system that made use of letters and other documents. William also appointed deputies who could make decisions while he was absent, especially if the absence was expected to be lengthy. Usually, this was a member of William’s close family – frequently his half-brother Odo or his wife Matilda. Sometimes deputies were appointed to deal with specific issues.

William continued the collection of danegeld, a land tax. This was an advantage for William, as it was the only universal tax collected by western European rulers during this period. It was an annual tax based on the value of landholdings, and it could be collected at differing rates.

Most years saw the rate of two shillings per hide, but in crises, it could be increased to as much as six shillings per hide. Coinage between the various parts of his domains continued to be minted in different cycles and styles. English coins were generally of high silver content, with high artistic standards, and were required to be re-minted every three years.

Norman coins had a much lower silver content, were often of poor artistic quality, and were rarely re-minted. Also, in England, no other coinage was allowed, while on the continent other coinage was considered legal tender. Nor is there evidence that many English pennies were circulating in Normandy, which shows little attempt to integrate the monetary systems of England and Normandy.

Besides taxation, William’s large landholdings throughout England strengthened his rule. As King Edward’s heir, he controlled all of the former royal lands. He also retained control of much of the lands of Harold and his family, which made the king the largest secular landowner in England by a wide margin.

September 28: These Dates In History.

Tags

Elizabeth of Bohemia, Emperor Constantius of Rome, Friedrich Christian II, Friedrich Christian II of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, Hippolytus of Rome, Holy Roman Emperor Ludwig IV, King Henry I of England, Pope Pontian, William I of England, William the Conqueror

• From the Emperor’s Desk: I will expand on a couple these events later today.
  
• 235 – Pope Pontian resigns. He is exiled to the mines of Sardinia, along with Hippolytus of Rome.
• 351 – Constantius II defeats the usurper Magnentius.
• 365 – Roman usurper Procopius bribes two legions passing by Constantinople, and proclaims himself emperor.
• 935 – Duke Wenceslaus I of Bohemia is murdered by a group of nobles led by his brother Boleslaus I, who succeeds him.
• 995 – Boleslaus II, Duke of Bohemia, kills most members of the rival Slavník dynasty.
• 1066 – William the Conqueror lands in England, beginning the Norman conquest.
• 1106 – King Henry I of England defeats his brother Robert Curthose at the Battle of Tinchebray.
• 1238 – King James I of Aragon conquers Valencia from the Moors. Shortly thereafter, he proclaims himself king of Valencia.
• 1322 – Ludwig IV, Holy Roman Emperor, defeats Friedrich I of Austria in the Battle of Mühldorf.
• 1844 – Oscar I of Sweden–Norway is crowned king of Sweden

Births

1765 – Friedrich Christian II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg (d. 1814)

Deaths

• 1197 – Heinrich VI, Holy Roman Emperor (b. 1165)
• 1213 – Gertrude of Merania, queen consort of Hungaria (b. 1185). She was Queen of Hungary as the first wife of Andrew II from 1205 until her assassination. She was regent during her husband’s absence.
• 1330 – Elizabeth of Bohemia, queen consort of Bohemia (b. 1292). She became queen consort of Bohemia as the first wife of King John the Blind. She was the mother of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, King of Bohemia.
• 1429 – Cymburgis of Masovia, duchess consort of Austria (b. 1394)

May 23,1052: Birth of Philippe I, King of the Franks.

Tags

Bernard II of Saxony, Bertha of Holland, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henri I of France, Louis VI of France, Louis VII of France, Philip I of France, William I of England, William the Conqueror

Philippe I (c.May 23, 1052 – July 29, 1108), called the Amorous, was King of the Franks from 1060 to 1108. His reign, like that of most of the early Capetians, was extraordinarily long for the time. The monarchy began a modest recovery from the low it reached in the reign of his father and he added to the royal demesne the Vexin and Bourges.

Philippe I, King of the Franks

Philippe was the eldest son of Henri I, King of the Franks and his wife Anne of Kiev, daughter of Yaroslav I the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev, Prince of Novgorod, and his second wife Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden, the daughter of Swedish King Olof Skötkonung and Estrid of the Obotrites .

Philippe was an unusual name for the time in Western Europe, his name was of Greek origin, being bestowed upon him by his mother. However, the name Philippe did become popular within the French Royal Family and France itself. Although he was crowned King of the Franks at the age of seven, until age fourteen (1066) his mother acted as regent, the first queen of the Franks (France) ever to do so. Count Baldwin V of Flanders also acted as co-regent.

Count Baldwin V of Flanders was the son of Baldwin IV of Flanders and Ogive of Luxembourg. Baldwin married Adela of the Franks daughter of King Robert II of the Franks, in 1028 in Amiens; at her instigation he rebelled against his father but in 1030 peace was sworn and the old count continued to rule until his death. The couple had three children: Baldwin VI, Count of Flanders (1030–1070) Matilda (c. 1031–1083), who was married to William the Conqueror, King of the English, and Robert I, Count of Flanders (c. 1033–1093).

Baldwin VI, Count of Flanders was married to Richilde, Countess of Hainaut (c.1018-1086) who is most likely a daughter of Reinier of Hasnon (died c.1049) and Adelheid of Egisheim.

On his deathbed in 1070, Baldwin VI left Flanders to his elder son, Arnulf III, and Hainaut to the younger son, Baldwin, with the provision that if either preceded the other in death, he would inherit the other’s county as well. Baldwin VI further entrusted Robert, his brother, with the safeguard of Arnulf III, who was still a minor, to which Robert gave his oath of homage and solemn promise to protect his nephew Arnulf. Richilde, Arnulf’s mother, was to be regent until Arnulf came of age.

Despite the oath, Robert disputed the succession of his nephew Arnulf III upon Baldwin VI’s death and entered Ghent with the intent of taking Flanders for himself. Richilde appealed to King Philippe I of the Franks who summoned Robert to appear before him.

Robert refused and continued his war with Richilde at which point Philippe I amassed an army which he brought to Flanders. Philippe’s army was accompanied by Norman troops, probably sent by Robert’s sister, Queen Matilda, and led by William FitzOsborn. William had an interest in marrying Richilde but he was killed in battle at Cassel on June 22, 1071.

In that engagement Robert’s forces were ultimately victorious but Robert himself was captured and his forces in turn captured Countess Richilde. Both were freed in exchange and the battle continued to its conclusion. Among the dead was Arnulf III, killed by Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester, who apparently fought for Robert. As a result of the battle Robert became the new Count of Flanders. Countess Richilde and her son Baldwin returned to Hainaut but continued to instigate hostilities against Robert.

Count Robert I of Flanders eventually gained the friendship of King Philippe I of the Franks by offering him the hand in marriage of his stepdaughter, Bertha of Holland. As a part of their negotiations Corbie, an important trade center on the border between Flanders and lesser France, was returned to royal control.

Philip first married Bertha of Holland in 1072. Bertha was the daughter of Count Floris I of Holland and Gertrude of Saxony, the daughter of Bernard II, Duke of Saxony and Eilika of Schweinfurt.

Although the marriage produced the necessary heir, Philippe fell in love with Bertrade de Montfort, the wife of Fulk IV, Count of Anjou. He repudiated Bertha (claiming she was too fat) and married Bertrade on May 15, 1092.

Bertrade de Montfort was the daughter of Simon I de Montfort and Agnes of Evreux. Her brother was Amaury de Montfort.

In 1094, he was excommunicated by Hugh of Die, for the first time; after a long silence, Pope Urban II repeated the excommunication at the Council of Clermont in November 1095. Several times the ban was lifted as Philippe promised to part with Bertrade, but he always returned to her, but in 1104 Philippe made a public penance and must have kept his involvement with Bertrade discreet.

Philippe appointed Alberic first Constable of France in 1060. A great part of his reign, like his father’s, was spent putting down revolts by his power-hungry vassals. In 1077, he made peace with William the Conqueror, who gave up attempting the conquest of Brittany. In 1082, Philippe I expanded his demesne with the annexation of the Vexin, in reprisal against Robert Curthose’s attack on William’s heir, William Rufus. Bother we’re sons of the Conqueror. Then in 1100, he took control of Bourges.

It was at the aforementioned Council of Clermont that the First Crusade was launched. Philippe at first did not personally support it because of his conflict with Urban II. Philippe’s brother Hugh of Vermandois, however, was a major participant.

Philippe died in the castle of Melun and was buried per his request at the monastery of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire and not in St Denis among his forefathers. He was succeeded by his son, as Louis VI, King of the Franks.

Philippe’s children with Bertha were:

1. Constance (1078-1126), married Hugh I of Champagne before 1097 and then, after her divorce, to Bohemund I of Antioch in 1106.
2. Louis VI of the Franks (1081-1137).
3. Henri (1083 – died young).

Philippe’s children with Bertrade were:

1. Philippe, Count of Mantes (1093 – fl. 1123), married Elizabeth, daughter of Guy III of Montlhéry.
2. Fleury, Seigneur of Nangis (1095-1119)
3. Cecile (1097-1145), married Tancred, Prince of Galilee and then, after his death, to Pons of Tripoli.

King Philippe I of the Franks was the grandfather of King Louis VII of the Franks, first husband of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Christmas Coronations

Tags

1066, 800, Archbishop of Canterbury, Charlemagne, Charles the Great, Christmas Day, coronation, King of the English, King of the Franks, Pope Leo III, William I of England, William the Conqueror

Merry Christmas from the European Royal History Blog!!

Today I will briefly mention two coronations that took place on Christmas Day.

Charlemagne. King of the Franks crowned Emperor 800.
William I The Conquer, King of the English, Duke of Normandy 1066

Charlemagne

In 799, Pope Leo III did not have a good relationship with the citizens of Rome and suffered sever abuse when the Romans tried to put out his eyes and tear out his tongue. Leo III, naturally fearing for his life, escaped and fled to the court of King Charlemagne at Paderborn. Charlemagne, under the advisement of scholar Alcuin, sojourned to Rome and in November of 800 and on the first of December held a council on 1 December. On December 23rd Pope Leo III swore an oath of innocence. And two days later during a Mass, on Christmas Day (25 December), Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum (“Emperor of the Romans”) in Saint Peter’s Basilica. By doing this doing, the Pope effectively nullified the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople.

It was seen by scholars of the day that when Odoacer forced the abdication of Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476CE this did not effectively abolish the Western Roman Empire as a separate power Europe. Theoretically the powers of the Western Roman Emperor were said to have been reunited with or grafted into the Eastern Roman Empire. Therefore from that time contemporary scholars believed that there was a singular undivided Roman Empire. Pope Leo III and King Charlemagne, as well as their predecessors, also held to this political ideal of there being a singular Roman Empire that was one and indivisible.

However, the imperial coronation of Charlemagne was not believed to have caused a severance of the Roman Empire back into East and West factions. In the eyes Leo III and Charlemagne, along with contemporary political theorists, they were not revolting against a reigning sovereign, Empress Irene, but legitimately filling up the void of legitimate successors caused by the deposition Emperor Constatine VI in 797 and Charlemagne was held to be the legitimate successor, not of the Emperor Romulus Augustulus, but that of Emperor Constantine VI.

Despite the good intentions of Charlemagne’s coronation as Emperor, it intended to represent the continuation of the unbroken line of Emperors from Augustus to Constantine VI. The reality was that his imperial coronation had the effect of setting up two separate, and often opposing, Empires along with two separate claims to imperial authority.

One of the issues that has been debated by scholars is whether of not Charlemagne saw this prestigious gift bestowed on him on that Christmas Day? According to the twenty-eight chapter of Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni which says that Charlemagne was ignorant of the Pope’s intent and did not want any such coronation:

“He (Charlemagne) at first had such an aversion to being granted the imperial title that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that theses imperial titles were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have foreseen the design of the Pope.”

A number of modern scholars, however, logically suggest that Charlemagne was indeed aware of the coronation. It has been said he certainly cannot have missed the bejewelled crown waiting on the altar when he came to pray; something even contemporary sources support.

Charlemagne is counted as Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor, but many scholars believe the state that evolved into the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation began with the coronation of Otto I, Duke of Saxony in 962. Otto I was crowned Emperor by Pope John XII at Olds St. Peter’s Basilica. The Pope also anointed Otto’s wife Adelaide of Italy, who had accompanied Otto on his Italian campaign, as empress. With Otto’s coronation as emperor, the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy were unified into a common realm, later called the Holy Roman Empire.

William I

Exactly when did William I The Conqueror become King of the English? Although he certainly became the De Facto King of the English when he defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in October of 1066, it was not until his coronation on Christmas Day of that year did will accede to the throne.

William may have hoped the English would surrender to his rule immediately after his his victory over Harold II but that just was not the case. A swiftly convened meeting of the Wittan, comprising the English clergy and magnates, elected Edgar the Ætheling King of the English. Edgar the Ætheling was of the House of Wessex and a nephew of King Edward the Confessor. The support for Edgar by the Wittan was very lukewarm.

Undeterred, William continued his conquest of England. He and his armies secured Dover, parts of Kent, and Canterbury, and also captured Winchester, where the royal treasury was located. These captures solidified his holdings in that region and also his line of retreat to Normandy, if that was needed. It was unnecessary.

William then marched northward to Southwark and into London in late November. Next he led his forces around the south and west of London, burning buildings of those in resistance along the way. He crossed the Thames at Wallingford in early December where Archbishop Stigand submitted to William. He moved on to Berkhamsted soon afterwards where Edgar the Ætheling, Morcar, Edwin, and Archbishop Ealdred also submitted. This solidified his power in London where William began the construction of the Tower of London And with his troops garrisoned in London William was crowned King of the English at Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day 1066.

These Dates in History. October 14, 1066, 1322 & 1586.

Tags

Battle of Hastings, King Edward II of England, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Mary I of Scotland, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Robert I of Scotland, William I of England

* 1066 – The Norman conquest of England begins with the Battle of Hastings.

William I-II the Conqueror, King of England and Duke of Normandy.

The Battle of Hastings was fought on October 14, 1066 between the Norman-French army of William II, Duke of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England. It took place approximately 7 miles (11 kilometres) northwest of Hastings, close to the present-day town of Battle, East Sussex, and was a decisive Norman victory.

The day after the battle, Harold’s body was identified, either by his armour or marks on his body. Harold II’s personal standard was presented to William and later sent to the papacy.

William expected to receive the submission of the surviving English leaders after his victory, but instead Edgar the Ætheling was proclaimed king by the Witenagemot, with the support of Earls Edwin and Morcar, Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ealdred, the Archbishop of York. William therefore advanced on London, marching around the coast of Kent. He defeated an English force that attacked him at Southwark but was unable to storm London Bridge, forcing him to reach the capital by a more circuitous route.

William moved up the Thames valley to cross the river at Wallingford, where he received the submission of Stigand. He then travelled north-east along the Chilterns, before advancing towards London from the north-west, fighting further engagements against forces from the city. The English leaders surrendered to William at Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire. William was acclaimed King of England and crowned by Ealdred on December 25, 1066, in Westminster Abbey.

(See entry tomorrow for more information Edgar the Ætheling being proclaimed King of England).

* 1322 – King Robert I the Bruce of Scotland defeats King Edward II of England at the Battle of Old Byland, forcing Edward to accept Scotland’s independence.

Robert I, King of Scots.

The Battle of Old Byland (also known as the Battle of Byland Moor and Battle of Byland Abbey) was a significant encounter between Scots and English troops in Yorkshire on October 14, 1322, forming part of the Wars of Scottish Independence. It was a victory for the Scots, the most significant since Bannockburn, though on a far smaller scale.

Ever since Robert Bruce’s victory at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, the Scots had taken the initiative in the wars with England, raiding deep into the north of the country repeatedly and with comparative ease to attempt to force the English to the peace-table. The English king, Edward II seemed incapable of dealing with the problem, distracted, as he often was, in a political struggle with his own barons and refused to even begin peace negotiations with the Scots which would have required recognizing Robert the Bruce as King of the Scots. In early 1322 the situation had become critical, with some senior English noblemen, headed by Thomas of Lancaster, preparing to enter into an alliance with the Scots.

By the time Edward II was ready to begin his advance in early August Bruce was more than ready. He deployed his usual tactics: crops were destroyed and livestock removed and his army withdrawn north of the River Forth. Bruce crossed the Solway in the west, making his way in a south-easterly direction towards Yorkshire, bringing many troops recruited in Argyll and the Isles.

All that stood between them and a royal prize was a large English force under the command of John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond. John had taken up position on Scawton Moor, between Rievaulx and Byland Abbey. To dislodge him from his strong position on the high ground Bruce used the same tactics that brought victory at the earlier Battle of Pass of Brander. As Moray and Douglas charged uphill a party of Highlanders scaled the cliffs on the English flank and charged downhill into Richmond’s rear. Resistance crumbled and the Battle of Old Byland turned into a rout. Richmond himself was taken prisoner, as were Henri de Sully, Grand Butler of France, Sir Ralph Cobham (‘the best knight in England’) and Sir Thomas Ughtred. Many others were killed in flight. Edward – ‘ever chicken hearted and luckless in war’ – was forced to make a rapid and undignified exit from Rievaulx, fleeing in such haste that his personal belongings were left behind.

* 1586 Trial of Mary I, Queen of Scots.

Mary I, Queen of Scots

On August 11, 1586, after being implicated in the Babington Plot* Mary was arrested while out riding and taken to Tixall. In a successful attempt to entrap her, Walsingham had deliberately arranged for Mary’s letters to be smuggled out of Chartley. Mary was misled into thinking her letters were secure, while in reality they were deciphered and read by Walsingham. From these letters it was clear that Mary had sanctioned the attempted assassination of Elizabeth.

She was moved to Fotheringhay Castle in a four-day journey ending on September 25, and in October was put on trial for treason under the Act for the Queen’s Safety before a court of 36 noblemen, including Cecil, Shrewsbury, and Walsingham. Spirited in her defence, Mary denied the charges. She told her triers, “Look to your consciences and remember that the theatre of the whole world is wider than the kingdom of England”. She protested that she had been denied the opportunity to review the evidence, that her papers had been removed from her, that she was denied access to legal counsel and that as a foreign anointed queen she had never been an English subject and thus could not be convicted of treason.

Mary was convicted on October 25 and sentenced to death with only one commissioner, Lord Zouche, expressing any form of dissent. Nevertheless, Elizabeth hesitated to order her execution, even in the face of pressure from the English Parliament to carry out the sentence. She was concerned that the killing of a queen set a discreditable precedent and was fearful of the consequences especially if, in retaliation, Mary’s son, James VI, formed an alliance with the Catholic powers and invaded England. Elizabeth asked Paulet, Mary’s final custodian, if he would contrive a clandestine way to “shorten the life” of Mary, which he refused to do on the grounds that he would not make “a shipwreck of my conscience, or leave so great a blot on my poor posterity”.

On February 1, 1587, Elizabeth signed the death warrant, and entrusted it to William Davison, a privy councillor. On February 3, ten members of the Privy Council of England, having been summoned by Cecil without Elizabeth’s knowledge, decided to carry out the sentence at once.

* The Babington Plot was a plan in 1586 to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I, a Protestant, and put Mary, Queen of Scots, her Roman Catholic cousin, on the English throne. It led to the Queen of Scots’ execution, a result of a letter sent by Mary (who had been imprisoned for 19 years since 1568 in England at the behest of Elizabeth) in which she consented to the assassination of Elizabeth.

The long-term goal of the plot was the invasion of England by the Spanish forces of King Felipe II and the Catholic League in France, leading to the restoration of the old religion. The plot was discovered by Elizabeth’s spymaster Sir Francis Walsinghamand used to entrap Mary for the purpose of removing her as a claimant to the English throne.

1066, Not something to celebrate?

Tags

1066, 2066, Battle of Hastings, Duke of Normandy, England, Harold Godwinson, Kingdom of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen of England, William I of England, William the Bastard

Okay, I am a few months behind on this. The Norman Conquest of England occurred on October 14, 1066. The Battle of Hastings was fought between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy (who became King William I of England) and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England. That was 950 years ago. In 50 years from now, the year 2066, this historic even will celebrate its 1,000th anniversary. Will this be something to celebrate or not?

Maybe celebrate is not the correct word? How about honor…or even mark the date? No matter how you want to note this historic event the topic is very controversial. Even though this was a significant date that forever changed England’s entire culture, language and structure of society; this event helped shape England and the United Kingdom into what it is today. The truth is, this is the date when England was conquered and defeated and then occupied by a foreign power. Who wants to celebrate or honor that!?

However, is there anything positive that can be acknowledged on this anniversary? Without the Norman Conquest England would have developed very differently. Certainly the end result of this conquest, the by product of this invasion, is something to honor? The monarchy itself, although it did exist pre-1066, also was significantly changed and a descendant of William the Conqueror sits on the throne today. In fact, many people alive in Britain are descendants of William the Conqueror.

Much of this is speculative. In 50 years I will be 103 so chances are I will not be here, but you never know!? I am sure the occasion will be marked in someway and maybe a balance can be found and the good and the bad from this can be acknowledged.

 

 

Historical Fiction

Tags

A Royal Affair, Caroline Matilda of Great Britain, Historical fiction, Johann Friedrich Struensee, King Christian VII of Denmark, King George III of Great Britain, King Henry VIII of England, King John of England, King Richard I of England, Queen Elizabeth I of England, William I of England, William the Conqueror, William Wallace

I enjoy writing short stories. I have written several short stories in the science-fiction genre. After viewing several royalty related movies I began to long for certain stories to be made into feature films. One story I wish Hollywood would make is a story on William the Conqueror. Yet one of the reasons I realize why this probably never would happen is the fact that William the Conqueror is not as well known as other English royals.

The American population is familiar with the present royal family, Queen Victoria and the Tudors, specifically Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. King Richard the Lion Heart and King John are well known as long as they are tied to a story about Robin Hood. Beyond that I am not sure there would be a big interest in a film about William the Conqueror in this country. On the other hand, If Mel Gibson can make Braveheart, about William Wallace who was obscure to many Americans prior to the film, then I guess any story about European royals may be open. There is a foreign film, A Royal Affair, that is up for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. That is the story about King Christian VII of Denmark and Norway and the affair his wife, Queen Caroline Matilda (sister to King George III of Great Britain) had with Johann Friedrich Struensee a royal physician. So maybe it is possible other films will be made about Englisdh and other royals?

In the meantime I have decided to write some historical fisction, in the form of short stoiries. I am beginning with the story of William the Conqueror. I will cover his life in three self-contained stories. One story about his youth and how he withstood tests to his rule of the Duchy of Normandy. The second story will cover his conquest of England and the third will cover the end of his life.

I am in the research mode right now and as I complete these stories I will share them on this blog.

Legal SuccessionI Part III: Stephen and Matilda

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, Empress Matilda, Henry I of England, Henry II of England, Kings and Queens of England, Matilda of England, William Atheling, William I of England, William the Conqueror

In the last section of this series I wrote of the battle for the throne between the three surviving sons of William the Conqueror. While that royal melee between the brothers really cannot be called a sucession crisis, the battle for an hier to the throne after the death of Henry I can be considered a crisis. It was a crisis that lasted almost 20 years.

Henry I had three children by his first wife Matilda of Scotland, daughter of Malcolm III, King of Scots. The two eldest surviving children were William Adelin and Matilda. William was married Matilda of Anjou in 1119 when he was 16 and Matilda was only 8. Needless to say that when William drowned in the English channel the next year when his ship, The White Ship, sank, there were no children from the union. Henry I did remarry the next year. His new bride was Adeliza of Louvain, who was 18 while Henry was 53. No children were born of this union.

The other legitimate child of Henry to survive was Matilda who had married Holy Roman Emperor Hienrich V. That union gave Matilda the title of Empress and it is as Empress Matilda she is most known by. There were no children of this union and the Emperor died in 1125. Matilda remarried in 1128, Geoffery, Count of Anjou (who had the nickname Plantaganet) a prince which the powerful barons did not trust. This union provided Matilda with three healthy sons, Henry, Geoffery & William.  

Henry I desired that his daughter would succeed him and had the Barons of the relm swear and oath to that aim. When Henry died on December 1, 1135 Matilda was in Normandy pregnant with her third child and her cousin, Stephen of Blois usurped the throne from her. Stephen had support from the Barons and was swiftly crowned King of England. Although Stephen held the crown Matilda did not just sit quietly. For almost the entierty of the reign of king Stephen there was civil war, which some historians call “the Anarchy,” which was settled shortly before his death in 1154. The agreement between the two factions was that Matiilda’s eldest son, Henry Fitzempress, would succeed as King of England upon the death of King Stephen.

When Stephen died on October 25, 1154, Matilda’s son became King Henry II of England. Matilda retired to Normandy and held court when her son was abscent from Normandy. She died in 1167 and was clearly the legal successor to her father. Since she was the legal heir and given the fact the she briefly held London when Stephen was captured and imprisoned, many consider her the first true Queen Regnant of England.

Legal Succession Part II: Henry I

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Germany, Henry I of England, Kings and Queens of England, Robert II of Normandy, William I of England, William II of England, William Rufus, William the Conqueror

With the Norman Conquest and the Witan abolished the monarch had greater authority in name his successor. This authority later evolved into a more concise hereditary system.

William I “the Conqueror” divided his lands upon his death in 1087. This was a common practice in this age. This practice was continued in many German states leading to many problems…but I digress. William gave Normandy to his eldest son Robert, and the Crown of England went to his next surviving son, William Rufus. The third surviving son, Henry, received 5,000 pounds in silver and there is a legend that says that the old king, William I, had declared to Henry: “You in your own time will have all the dominions I have acquired and be greater than both your brothers in wealth and power.”

William Rufus was therefore the new and lawful king and is counted as William II and ruled until his death in a hunting accident in 1100. By that time the “prophecy” about Henry had come true. Robert II of Normandy was on a crusade in the Holy Land in August of 1100 when William II died in a hunting accident in the New Forest. With Robert far a way Henry claimed the throne. Did Henry usurp the throne from his brother Robert?

There had been an agreement between Robert II and William II to become one anothers hier should either of them die without issue. This was made in 1087 upon the death of the conqueror. This brotherly love did not last long for in 1088 the two rebelled against one another. This rebellion was spurred on by the barons in both Normandy and England. Dividing the lands between the two brothers created a problem for the barons. The Barons owned land in both England and Normandy and having to serve two different rulers created many difficulties so they sided with Robert II to defeat William II and take the Crown of England from him. The major problem with this rebellion is that when it became time Robert II did not arive at the battle for Rochester Castle and the rebellion swiftly ended.

From that time on who the legal successor to William II should be was never settled. The Crown was up for grabs until William could name a successor. He never got the chance. When he was killed in a hunting accident and with Robert too far away from England to claim the throne, Henry siezed the opportunity and was crowned King of England. In 1106 Henry I of England took Normandy from his brother thus unifying England and Normandy once again.

From a legal standpoint it seems that Henry can be considered the legal hier since the 1088 rebellion dissolved any agreement between William II and Robert II and in the abscence of a named heir the crown went to the first person to grab it.