Rebellion In Norman England

On Christmas Day 1066, William The Conqueror was crowned king of England at Westminster Abbey. His coronation seemed to be going off smoothly until the time came for the Anglo Saxons to pay homage to their new king by bellowing out an enormous war cry. William’s guards outside the abbey were unaware that this was going to take place, took it to mean that William had come to some harm and so went on the rampage, burning nearby buildings. William was furious at this breakdown in communication but what this incident shows is how tense things were in England at the time. The Normans expected rebellion and they were right to be fearful.

As king, William developed an obsessive thirst for money as the chronicler William of Malmesbury describes ;”For, through dread of his enemies, the king used to drain the country of money through which he might repel their attacks.” Shortly after becoming king, William imposed heavy taxes on the English people and employed heavy handed tactics to enforce his authority. He marched on Exeter and besieged the town. The local population not only resisted William stubbornly but they also struck down scores of William’s soldiers. One young man William would have to keep a particularly close eye on would be Edgar Atheling, a claimant to the throne who, as a grandson of Edmund Ironside, had strong ties to the English crown. William was very aware of the threat posed to him by Edgar and he took the Aetheling with him during a brief return trip to Normandy. However, Edgar would not remain in William’s custody for long and in the years to come he would join in rebellions against the Norman king.

The taxes William imposed went on a remarkably vast programme of castle building, the ruins of which can still be seen far and wide across England today. The ASC says;”Shortly after Easter 1067, William went to Nottingham and built a castle there, so from there to York and there built two castles, also in Lincoln and elsewhere in those parts.” William was obviously a man ill at ease, desperate to establish his total authority over his new kingdom and much of his focus would be in the north. He was finally joined in England by his queen, Matilda, who would be crowned in May 1068, shortly having given birth to her and William’s final child, the future Henry I. Henry was the only of the royal couple’s children to be born in England, at Selby in Yorkshire. The slightly random birthplace for a Norman prince is a clue as to where William’s priorities were at that particular time.

William had enemies coming out of his ears. In York, he had to put down a rebellion led by Edgar and which was supported by King Sweyn II of Denmark. Sweyn was born in England and was a grandson of Sweyn Forkbeard who had briefly been king of England between late 1013 and early 1014. Having bribed Sweyn to abandon the campaign, William marched north and drove Edgar back into Scotland where he had been taking refuge. According to The ASC, the rebellion had caused the death of hundreds of Normans and William’s revenge was terrible. He ravaged the land, massacring all those who stood in his way. This became known as the Harrying of The North. Many died quickly at the hands of the Norman swords, others met a slower, more miserable death as access to food was denied to them by the killing of animals and the burning of crops. Dead bodies lay strewn everywhere and disease spread.

Just prior to this horrible massacre, William had other unwelcome guests in his kingdom. Three men named Edmund, Godwin and Magnus had arrived in England, having sailed over from Ireland. They were sons of the man William had defeated at Hastings, Harold Godwinson.

Godwinson’s sons raided across the south west and took their plunder back to Ireland. They were not finished and they returned with a large force, landing in Devon. One of William’s loyal magnates, named by the ASC as Earl Brian, marched westwards to meet this latest threat. The Normans defeated Harold’s sons at the Battle of Northam in 1069 and put an end to this particular danger and it’s possible that Magnus died in the battle with his two brothers not surviving him much longer. A more famous rebellion was led by Hereward The Wake. Born in Lincolnshire, Hereward was a troublesome youth who eventually angered his father to the extent that he was banished from the family home. After a career of travelling far and wide, a more mature Hereward returned home to find a gruesome sight.

As he approached his family’s house, a decapitated head could be seen hanging over the doorway. The head belonged to Hereward’s brother. Hereward had returned too late to save his sibling but in time to gain revenge for his grief stricken family. He found the murdering Norman knights, celebrating nearby, completely intoxicated. Hereward drew his sword and cut his brother’s killers to pieces. He gave his brother a dignified burial before replacing the heads of the Norman knights over the doorway. These knights had earned king William a very dangerous and Hereward would lead revolts across the country but most notably in Ely. His defiance supposedly earned him the praise of William who allegedly called Hereward “that fine knight” although whether the king would refer to an outlaw in such terms is dubious.

In 1075, although he was now sitting more securely on the throne, William still faced dangerous opposition. Two earls named Ralph and Roger formed a plot “to drive their royal lord from his kingdom.” This is known as the Revolt of the Earls. They gathered men from Brittany to join the plot and sailed to Denmark to seek support from Sweyn who Ralph and Roger knew they could entice to support them as Sweyn had his own, albeit weak, claim to the English throne. The rebellion however soon fell flat. An earl named Waltheof was beheaded, some of Ralph’s Bretons were blinded or exiled and the rebellion was duly crushed.

The first decade of William’s reign had been dogged by rebellions. The English had resisted the Norman Conquest determinedly but, gradually, William had overpowered them with his own forceful nature and his systematic methods of castle building and brute force. But, for William, the rebellions weren’t only limited to England. He had internal problems in his own family. He fell out with his eldest son, Robert Curthose, who proved to be a very dangerous threat to William and who even had the chance of killing his father before Robert lost his nerve.

William was accused of tyranny both in England and in Normandy. He was blamed for the poisoning of a Norman count as well as disinheriting other nobles including a nephew of Edward The Confessor, evidently looking to eliminate any potential threat to his power. Orderic Vitalus says that as William lay dying in 1087, he expressed remorse for the Harrying of the North although the modern historian Robert Bartlett believes that is Orderic writing what he feels the king ought to have said. Although William did become “the conqueror”, people at the time felt that the troubles that this Norman king had endured were brought on by God’s disapproval of him. William was, after all, a bastard and, in the view of some, he was unfit to be king. As a result, he endured numerous, divinely approved, revolts.

The Battle of Bannockburn

 

By 1314, things for King Edward II of England weren’t going very well. His relationship with his nobles were extremely strained because of the Piers Gaveston fiasco. But more serious still for the king was the situation in Scotland. Edward’s father, Edward I, had kept firm control over the Scots but Edward II was a very different type of king. Warfare was neither Edward II’s forte nor, indeed, was it even a priority. Over indulging with close friends and pursuing hobbies such as rowing, swimming, building walls and digging ditches which were all very unusual for a medieval king (except for the over indulgence perhaps). But the threat posed by Robert The Bruce to not only English control over Scotland but also to the peace and security of Northern England was growing ever more real. Edward knew this but the problem he had was that his kingdom was incredibly divided. Even if he was able to muster an army strong enough to invade Scotland, could he be sure that his men would support him wholeheartedly? Piers Gaveston, Edward’s close friend, had repeatedly insulted many of the most powerful men in England and the king had turned a blind eye to it. Although the English nobles, led by Thomas Earl of Lancaster, had their revenge by executing Piers in 1312, resentment of the king lingered on.

Before Piers’ capture and execution, he had accompanied Edward on a campaign to Scotland in 1310. This campaign was ordered by the king seemingly out of the blue. In reality, it was a diversionary tactic by Edward to distract the nobles from imposing a set of demands and reforms on the King that would be known as The Ordinances. Although The Ordinances were, in theory, to keep Edward’s power in check, its main purpose was to get rid of Piers Gaveston. Not wishing to front up to this, Edward chose that moment to go on campaign. Unsurprisingly, he found support for this Scottish expedition was in short supply. Even less surprising still was the fact the campaign, called in such haste, was a dismal failure. Edward pursued Robert The Bruce across Scotland but the King of Scots always maintained a safe distance from the English army and totally avoided battle. Edward was left with no option but to return to London and face the music.

By 1314, Robert The Bruce knew full well that Edward II was not the formidable adversary his father had been. Robert ravaged towns and villages on the border between Scotland and England, forcing the people there to come to terms, extorting massive tribute payments in the process. More significantly still, Robert turned his attention towards recapturing castles at Edinburgh and Roxburgh that had been held by the king of England. On hearing of these losses, Edward was said to be barely able to hold back his tears. At Stirling, Robert had forced the English constable of the castle there, Philip Mowbray, into an agreement. If Edward didn’t arrive to relieve the siege of Stirling Castle by June 24th 1314, then it would be surrendered to the Scots. As unwar-like as Edward II may be, even he knew now was the time for action. His royal prestige had taken a serious pummelling in the previous few years and the complete loss of Scotland could very well spell the end of his kingship. Edward once again called for his earls and barons to unite against their Scottish enemies. After all, defeat here could lead to Scottish invasions deep into the heart of England, threatening the lands and property of even the mightiest English nobles. Although the turnout was better then it had been for the 1310/11 campaign, powerful men like the Earls of Lancaster and Warwick still turned their back on Edward in his hour of need.

As I’ve already indicated, Edward II was as unlike his father Edward I as one could imagine. The Lanercost Chronicles describes the differences in how father and son would journey northwards. Edward I, in stern and solemn fashion, would stop at the shrines of English saints to pray and give generous offerings. Edward II, on the other hand, was described as travelling in great pomp and he is also accused of taking goods from monasteries and doing harm to other Holy Places. Edward II arrived at Stirling in June 1314 but almost straight away, the English army was put on the back foot. On 23rd June, a part of the army, led by a baron named Robert Clifford, was suddenly fell upon by a ferocious Scottish attack. The Scots had come pouring out of a wood, catching the English unawares, killing some and forcing the rest to flee and reunite with the rest of the English force. This was a classic example of the guerrilla warfare tactics that Robert The Bruce had become accustomed to using. In terms of numbers, the attack was far from fatal for the English but psychologically it had a significant impact with the Lanercost Chronicle describing the English soldiers as growing more fearful.

The two armies prepared for battle. The Scots fell to their knees in prayer before drawing up in three lines. The Scots, famously, used pikes to form an almost impenetrable wall for the onrushing English knights. As the pikes penetrated the flesh of English warhorses, in the words of the Lanercost Chronicle, an appalling din arose in the air. English knights were cut down in huge numbers. Amongst the most notable men to be killed was Gilbert De Clare, Earl of Gloucester, and Robert Clifford as well as many other knights. Further chaos ensued when scores of English soldiers were crushed and suffocated attempting to cross a deep ditch. As the chaos of the battle continued, the hapless English king, alongside his new favourite Hugh Despenser The Younger, had to be led away from the battle and escaped to the castle of Dunbar. After defeat had become inevitable, Edward had tried to take refuge inside Stirling Castle but Philip Mowbray knew that the castle was about to fall into Scottish hands and if he permitted the English king to enter, then Edward would become a prisoner of Robert The Bruce. And so, for Edward, the only thing for it was escape and he eventually made it to Dunbar, having been pursued by The Black Douglas all the way. Any Englishmen not quick enough to escape were cut down without mercy.

For Edward II, this was a typically inglorious moment. The English had heavily outnumbered the Scots. But greater numbers were not a guarantee of success. The Scots tactics, that I’ve outlined earlier, were clearly far superior to those of the English army. Edward was living on a wing and a prayer. He had embarked on this campaign with a sizable army but many of the men who could have given him a greater chance of defeating Robert The Bruce had remained in England, unwilling to serve the king even in a time of national emergency.  The Battle of Bannockburn was a total disaster for Edward II. He had proved himself to be a useless military leader. What little authority he had left as king had been totally undermined. The combined threats of Scottish invasions into England and losing his crown had increased manifold. But the question has to be asked; had Edward II learned his lesson from this most humbling of defeats? The answer is no. After this latest embarrassment, Edward had a new ally to comfort him. Hugh Despenser The Younger, a man who would become even closer to Edward II than even Piers Gaveston had been. Despenser’s influence over Edward II would eventually lead to both their downfalls and it’s quite fitting that he was by the king’s side during the low point of Edward II’s reign.

The Violent End of Richard II?

 In 1399, Richard II was deposed as king of England by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke. After his formal abdication of the throne at the Tower of London, Richard was taken north where he would be held at Pontefract castle in Yorkshire. It was here that the former king would meet his end. It’s generally believed that Richard died a slow, miserable death of starvation. Some said that Richard’s death was voluntary as the shock and pain of his losing the throne proved too much to bear. But, in reality, it’s almost certain that Henry Bolingbroke, now King Henry IV, ordered Richard to be starved to death. The need to remove Richard, despite any family loyalties that may have lingered, was made all the more plain to Henry when a plot to kill him and his family, whilst they were staying at Windsor castle, was foiled. Had the plot succeeded, Richard would have been restored to power. In short, whilst he lived, Richard would have remained a figurehead for rebellion against Henry and so he had to go. Despite Richard’s death, in February 1400, Henry’s reign would still be plagued by plots and rebellions throughout its 14 year long course.

Although it is widely believed Richard II starved to death, one medieval author gave a very different version of events. This account would heavily influence William Shakespeare’s play, Richard II. According to the anonymous author of the Traison Et Mort De Richard II, after the Windsor castle plot had been thwarted, Henry IV told one of his knights, Peter Exton, to ride to Pontefract and remove Richard II once and for all. On arriving at Pontefract, Sir Peter found Richard at the dinner table, waiting to be served. Sir Peter told Richard’s servant that he would no longer be required to assist Richard as he had been accustomed to do. He was not to taste Richard’s food (to check for poison). Sir Peter, supported by 7 other heavily armed men, made it quite clear to the helpless servant that this was to be Richard’s last meal. If the former king, unaware of these developments, questioned him too much, then he was to eat alone.

When Richard became aware that his servant was now acting under the orders of the new king, he was furious and struck his poor servant brutally over the head, cursing both him and the man who had taken the crown. On hearing this commotion, Sir Peter and his band of men stormed into the hall, brandishing their axes. If Richard was surprised, he didn’t show it and he lunged forwards and snatched an axe out of the hands of one of his would be killers. He swung his axe like a madman, cutting down four of the 8 knights. Sir Peter leapt up on to the chair where Richard had been sitting and waited for his moment to strike. Still, Richard continued to defend himself. But as the fighting wore on, Richard began to tire. With Richard being forced backwards, the moment for Sir Peter to strike came and he brought the axe crashing down on Richard’s head. Richard staggered and cried out “Lord have mercy on me!” before he fell to the ground. Sir Peter ensured the deed was done by striking another blow to Richard’s skull. When it was all over, Sir Peter sank to his knees and bemoaned the grizzly act, stating that it would haunt him for the rest of his days.

A king going down swinging like this makes for a far more interesting tale than simply saying that he died a lonely miserable death in some lonely room in the north of England. Exciting or not, this story is completely false. After the king’s death on 14th February 1400, his body was brought down to London where it was put on display at St Paul's Cathedral as “proof” that Richard had died of natural causes rather than foul play. It goes without saying that two blows of an axe to the head would hardly go unnoticed no matter what precautions were taken. Henry would hardly have been stupid enough to order such a violent execution of his rival and then put his body on public display. The author also further undermines himself by saying Richard was buried at Pontefract. He wasn’t. He was, as mentioned, transported to London before he was buried in Hertfordshire. Henry V later moved Richard’s body to Westminster Abbey.

The Life and Reign of Edward The Confessor

 The reign of Edward The Confessor is often overlooked by the events that immediately followed his death in the first week of January 1066. What type of king was he? Was he at fault for the turmoil of 1066? Here, we’ll attempt to answer these questions by journeying through Edward’s near quarter century long reign. Edward was the son of Aethelred The Unready and Emma of Normandy. His father was a memorably hapless king who was out of his depth trying to fend off repeated Viking invasions. His mother, Emma, was certainly cannier than Aethelred. After Aethelred’s death in 1016, Emma married King Cnut. Cnut had fought a long and draining campaign against the old king’s son, Edmund Ironside, Edward’s half brother. Edmund was decidedly more stoic than his father had been as the tussle for the English crown rumbled on for 6 months until October 1016. Thanks to the treachery of Eadric Streona, Earl of Mercia, Cnut triumphed over Edmund at the Battle of Ashingdon and a few weeks later, Edmund was murdered, leaving Cnut to establish himself as King of England. By marrying Cnut, Emma ensured her own political survival.

But what of her sons from her marriage to Aethelred? In 1013, Aethelred was forced off the throne by Sweyn Forkbeard, Cnut’s father. He, along with his sons Edward and Alfred, fled to Normandy which is where the boys remained until the mid 1030s when they made a fateful return to England in 1036 which would lead to Alfred being brutally killed and Edward just about escaping. During this period in exile, Edward would have met a young boy named William who would be remembered by history as William The Conqueror. Later in life, William would refer to Edward as his “relative”. Throughout the early years of Cnut’s reign, one of his priorities was to eliminate potential rivals for the English crown. Edward’s half brother, Eadwig, was executed and the sons of Edmund Ironside, Edward The Exile and his younger brother Edmund, no more than infants, were sent abroad where they were to be murdered. The King of Sweden took pity on the young boys and refused to carry out Cnut’s orders. Edward The Exile and Edmund would end up at the court of the Hungarian court. It was clear that England during the reign of Cnut was not a safe place to be for Edward The Confessor and Alfred. Their mother’s marriage to Cnut meant they were now the king’s stepsons. But Edward and Alfred also happened to be the rightful kings of England and Cnut little more than a usurper. At the time of Cnut becoming sole king of England, Edward and Alfred were still young boys and no match for the mighty Cnut. As time marched on, Cnut’s might only grew and any hope Edward or Alfred may have harboured with regards to taking the English crown were purely fanciful.

Cnut died in 1035 and the political situation in England changed again and a potential opportunity for rival claimants had arisen. The throne, it was agreed, would pass to Harthacnut, Cnut’s son with Emma, with Cnut’s other son, Harold Harefoot, Harthacnut’s half brother, acting as regent whilst the former was busy in Denmark. However, Harold stole the crown for himself, much to Harthacnut’s anger. Harold made little impression as king and the most notable event occurred in 1036 with the arrival in England of the now mature Edward and Alfred. Were they trying to take advantage of the uncertainty and reclaim the crown that was rightfully theirs? It’s possible. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles says that Edward and Alfred wanted to visit their mother at Winchester. However, they were prevented from doing so by Earl Godwin and his supporters. Godwin, now the most powerful man in England, had initially been angered by Harold’s seizing the crown but Godwin didn’t want to make an enemy out of the man who was now King of England and he put his feelings to one side. The arrival of Edward and Alfred posed a threat to not only Harold but Godwin as well. Edward and Alfred’s retinue was violently attacked with Alfred being killed and Edward forced back into exile.

Harold Harefoot died in 1040 and Harthacnut finally arrived in England to become king. He was accompanied by his mother, Emma, and Edward, his half brother. Despite Edward’s obvious status as a contender for the crown, there was no animosity between Edward and Harthacnut and the two got on well. Harthacnut’s reign was a short lived one, only two years long. The Danish rule over England that had begun in 1013, with an interruption of two years with the return of Aethelred, was now at an end. England was once again ruled by an Englishman. Edward The Confessor was in his late 30s when he became king. His early life had been eventful and traumatic as a number of his relatives died violently. He had spent decades away from home, forced into exile by Cnut with the threat of assassination hanging over his head. But now was his moment of glory.

Edward was famously a deeply pious man and there would be times during his reign when he would need his faith. When he came to the throne in 1042, England was stricken by a variety of problems. Terrible weather had led to crops being destroyed which resulted in famine. Disease spread across the country, killing cattle and other farm animals. This was hardly the ideal way of starting a new reign but the return of the crown into English hands was still a cause for celebration. Edward was crowned at Winchester cathedral on 3rd April 1043 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Eadsige. Edward, rather dramatically, stripped Emma of her lands and much of her money. He also stripped a man named Stigand, who was close to Emma, of his Bishopric. Evidently,  Emma was being accused of treason by men surrounding the king, including Godwin, hence Edward’s actions. He would later restore Emma’s lost goods. 

Godwin clearly wielded influence over Edward and this only increased when the king married Godwin’s daughter, Edith. In 1049, Edward was contacted by the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III. Henry wanted support against a rebellious count and support was not in short supply. Even the Pope became embroiled in the matter. Edward, for his part, assembled a fleet off the Kent coast where he waited, lest the rebellious count should try and escape the Emperor’s clutches by sailing across the English channel. This fairly dramatic event aside, Edward’s main concern continued to be not only Godwin but also the Earl’s sons and other family members. The king was approached by one of Godwin's sons, Swein, who wanted to be restored to some lands that had been taken from him. Swein had been on campaign in Wales when, on his return to England, he had scandalously abducted the Abbess of Leominster. Swein’s pleas, unsurprisingly, met a cold reception and even his own brother, Harold, urged Edward to reject Swein out of hand.

Another man who stood in opposition to Swein was Earl Beorn, a distant relative. Swein later murdered Beorn when the two were riding to meet the king. Swein disposed of the body but Harold, on hearing of the dreadful deed committed by his brother, rode out, found Beorn’s body and had him interred at Winchester Cathedral. Swein’s actions had disgusted even his own followers, most of whom abandoned him. The King declared Swein to be a man without honour and sent him into exile in Bruges. However, that exile didn’t last very long and Swein returned to England in 1050 and he was declared to be no longer an outlaw. But as powerful as Godwin and his family may be, Edward knew that they would be a continuing problem for him. Soon, existing tensions between the Godwins and Edward came to boiling point.

In 1051, a violent dispute broke out between the local people of Dover and the Count of Boulogne who happened to be visiting. For diplomatic reasons, the king probably felt obliged to side with the Count and ordered Earl Godwin to march to Dover to teach the locals there a harsh lesson. The Earl, however, refused to comply with the King’s orders, asserting that he would not harm his fellow countrymen. A council was called in London to discuss the matter and things became increasingly heated. Godwin wanted hostages as assurance for his safety at the meeting whilst the king demanded homage was paid to him after Godwin had, in Edward’s eyes, so blatantly undermined his authority. The meeting ended with Godwin and Swein crossing the channel into exile whilst Harold sailed for Ireland. They would be back and Edward knew this better than anybody. Disgusted by these events, Edward turned his back on Edith and committed her to a convent and seized most of her money. This seems wholly unfair as the dispute was hardly Edith’s fault.

Godwin and his sons returned to England in 1052, sacking, seizing ships and taking hostages as they went. Ultimately, Edward’s hand was forced. The Godwins were too powerful for him and he restored Godwin to his earldom and Edith also returned into the king’s favour. The following April, 1053, Earl Godwin, whilst sitting alongside the king at a feast and in front of two of his sons, Harold and Tostig, became seriously ill. The description of his symptoms would indicate a stroke and, after a few days clinging on to life, he died at Winchester. Harold would succeed him as Earl of Wessex. For Edward, the death of the overbearing presence of Godwin would hardly have been a disappointment but the king also knew that the Earl’s sons were no shrinking violets either.

During these troubled days, Edward welcomed to his court the young Duke of Normandy. Duke William, aged now about 23 or 24, brought with him, in the words of the ASC, a whole troop of Frenchmen. Edward received him warmly. Is it possible that, during this visit, Duke William was made Edward’s heir? Edward, by this point, was in his mid 40s and still without any children. The good news was that his wife, Edith, was still a young woman in her mid or late 20s so having children was still a possibility. But nearly 9 years of Edward’s reign had passed and no heir had been born to the royal couple. Was Edward abstaining from this most vital of royal duties because of his strong religious convictions? That remains the most compelling argument although modern historians have come to be sceptical of this view. Perhaps Edward had a medical issue but this, now nearly a 1000 years later, can hardly be proven. It is possible Edward saw in the strong, young Duke a possible candidate for the throne and, given his troubles with the Godwins at the time, he may have wished to ensure that the crown didn’t fall into their hands.

But in 1057, with still no sign of an heir, another potential successor to Edward’s crown arrived in England. This was Edward The Exile, the man who had been sent overseas by Cnut to be murdered. On hearing of Edward’s survival, King Edward, the exile’s uncle, recalled him to England. As time had gone by, the king must have given more and more thought to the succession and here, in the shape of the son of the formidable Edmund Ironside, was an almost perfect candidate. Described by the ASC as a “good man”, Edward The Exile represented an opportunity to avoid a contested succession. Sadly, not long after landing in England, Edward The Exile died. This didn’t necessarily mean all hope was lost. Edward The Exile had a young son, named Edgar. But Edgar was aged only 5 at the time of his father’s death and child rulers in Anglo Saxon England, and later in history too, were rarely a good idea. If King Edward should die soon, then Edgar stood little chance of becoming king. As it were, he was about 13 when Edward The Confessor died and still too young to compete with the much more experienced Harold Godwinson or Duke William. Had Edgar been just a few years older, history could have been very different.

Edward The Confessor died on 5th January 1066 and was buried at his finest work, Westminster Abbey (which would later be transformed by King Henry III who idolised Edward). This brings us back to the questions that I asked at the start. Firstly, what type of King was Edward The Confessor? It is notable that, despite the issues with Earl Godwin and his sons, over the course of Edward’s 24 year long reign, England was a relatively calm and peaceful place, especially when stood in contrast with what was to come over the next decade or so. Edward was, at the very least, a competent king. His handling of the Earl Godwin situation may, on the surface, look a trifle weak at times but Godwin was a particularly difficult customer to deal with. Godwin’s son, Harold, would serve Edward well, helping to deal with long term and ongoing instability in Wales. In the North, Earl Tostig, another of Godwin’s sons, was driven out of Northumbria with the northerners demanding that a man named Morcar was made earl in his stead. Edward granted this. Despite this, a collection of Northumbrians, who had journeyed south, sacked Northampton. This is further evidence that most of Edward’s problems had centred around the Godwins.

Secondly, and finally, was Edward at fault for the turmoil that followed his reign? Partially, certainly. Whether it was through choice or for some other reason, Edward not having a son to succeed him doomed Anglo Saxon England. It also has to be emphasised that he had plenty of time to think about the succession. Even if Edward did intend on getting Queen Edith pregnant, the time would have come when Edward realised that this was not likely. Edward should have outlined his wishes for the succession long before his death. Was his successor to be Harold Godwinson, his brother in law? Duke William of Normandy, the man he had welcomed to England and whom he may have felt a strong connection with given his days spent in Normandy? Or Edgar Aetheling, a young boy with the strongest ties to the English crown? There was another candidate too. Harald III Hardrada of Norway who else held a claim to the English throne, albeit a flimsy one. Long before he died, Edward had plenty of options to choose from and yet he chose to leave the succession shrouded in mystery. This was his biggest failure.

How Did The Wars of The Roses Start?

By the 1440s, England was on the brink of defeat in the Hundred Years War. Disunity amongst the English nobles was beginning to set in, finances were heavily stretched and all that could be done to stave off defeat was occasional peace treaties and the actions of battle hardened warriors like John Talbot. All the same, final defeat was now only a matter of time. It was during one of the truces that the King of England, Henry VI, was betrothed to Margaret of Anjou, who was a niece of the French King Charles VII. Charles’ wife, Marie, was the sister of Margaret’s father, Duke Rene. The marriage between Margaret, just turned 15, to the 23 year old Henry took place in April 1445. She was crowned a few weeks later. Margaret, in her life as Queen consort of England, would make quite the impression. Margaret’s arrival in England coincided with increasing tensions in the country. These tensions centred around enmity between Richard Duke of York and Edmund Beaufort. Edmund was quite clearly jealous of the Duke of York and he began to use the new and impressionable young Queen to advance his agenda against Richard. The Duke of York was recalled to England where he was ordered to go and oversee matters in Ireland and Beaufort was now made lieutenant of France. Margaret, who had taken a liking to Beaufort, had actively encouraged this rearrangement thereby fostering huge resentment between York and Beaufort.

This did nothing for English prospects in France and, by 1450, after the battle of Formigny, Normandy fell into French hands. Three years later, Gascony would fall after the defeat at Castillon leaving England  holding only Calais. Anger at loss after loss was substantial and those closest to the king like Beaufort, William De La Pole, Duke of Suffolk, and the Queen herself were widely blamed. After numerous failed military expeditions, the English crown and the country’s economy began to suffer and rebellions were inevitable. In January 1450, a man named Thomas Cheyne, who called himself Bluebeard, was arrested in Kent for inciting rebellion against the King, with De La Pole being one of his primary targets. Cheyne, or Bluebeard, was Hanged, Drawn and Quartered at Tyburn just a few weeks later. But it would not be the last of the king’s troubles. A couple of weeks after Cheyne’s execution, the king’s palace at Eltham was severely damaged by a lightning strike which caused a fire to burn down a number of rooms including the kitchen and hall. In the midst of all the country’s troubles, this was hardly the most pressing of matters but some at the time may well have taken it as an ominous sign of more problems to come. If so, they would be proved right.

After the fall of Normandy, Henry VI and William De La Pole had to face the wrath of a furious Houses of Parliament. De La Pole was arrested and thrown into the Tower of London. Even though the King was a man of simplicity, even Henry had enough sense to realise that De La Pole’s life was in jeopardy and he banished him from England for five years, for his own protection more than anything. As well meaning as Henry had been in sending De La Pole out of the country, it did the Duke of Suffolk little good. He made preparations to sail to Brittany with a few vessels and, in late April 1450, he set off from Dover. However, he didn’t get very far. His little fleet was confronted by a huge ship named Nicholas of The Tower. Its occupants arrested De La Pole, gave him a mock trial before cutting his head off. The hated De La Pole, who chroniclers refer to as “the evil Duke” was dead and his corpse lay on the beach for a number of weeks before it was eventually collected and buried.

Still, the king’s troubles kept on coming. Another protest broke out in Kent, a notoriously troublesome area throughout the medieval period. This was led by a man named Jack Cade. Cade intended for the protest to be as peaceful as possible. King Henry sent some notables, including the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, to treat with Cade and see what his demands were. Essentially, Cade wanted an overhaul of government which the king’s advisers, and Henry himself, viewed as impertinent and dismissed them out of hand. At least, though, Cade and his followers were peaceful. Or so it appeared. The problem was, although Cade said he wished to avoid violence, it would be hard to control the large band of men that were following him particularly when they felt justifiable grievances against the crown and its government. And Cade was perfectly aware of that. The disregard Cade’s requests were shown would have done nothing to cool the heated atmosphere and Cade himself grew steadily more agitated.

Realising things were about to turn ugly if he didn’t act, Henry declared that he would arrest all traitors in government and throw them in the Tower of London. He arrested his treasurer and put him in the Tower but it would take more than that to appease Cade and his men now. The treasurer was taken from the Tower and beheaded before Cade then apprehended the sheriff of Kent and beheaded him at Mile End. Cade and his men then became embroiled in a fierce fight with those loyal to the king near London Bridge where scores were killed on both sides. Desperate to try and restore some sense of order, Henry announced a general pardon and the men of Kent, including Cade, eventually began to go home. However, a band of royal officials pursued them and a few days later, Jack Cade was killed. Although Cade had made promises to keep his followers in good order, it was fairly obvious that this wasn’t going to happen. The rebellion of Jack Cade was not quite as destructive or impactful as the Peasants Revolt of 1381, which also found its origins in Kent, it was another damning indictment on the state of England under Henry VI and further undermined what little authority the King had. It didn’t help the king’s cause that Cade had presented him with an opportunity to negotiate but Henry and his advisers clearly felt that was beneath them. A king with more shrewdness would have made empty promises to keep Cade and his band happy, ensuring they left London unharmed and then arrested the rebels after they had gone home. Henry had shown that he was not capable of ruling.

Throughout 1450, England remained in a state of high tension. In September, this was exacerbated by the return of the Duke of York from Ireland and some hated members of government, including John Sutton, Lord Dudley, turned to the Duke for protection. Richard then marched on London. In November, the king called Parliament with most of the nobles bringing an armed retinue with them, fearful that the enmity between Richard Duke of York and Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, coupled with the general anger across the country, could spark a civil war. Violence across the capital was rife and threats were made against Somerset but York instead tried to calm the situation, beheading some of the more serious troublemakers. On 3rd December, the king and his barons marched through London, in a show of unity and a desperate attempt to quell the anger. Across the channel, the French king, Charles VII, ramped up his efforts to seize control of Gascony, England’s last significant holding in France. If there was anger and resentment after Normandy’s fall, the eventual and now inevitable loss of Gascony would send England over the edge.

The state of the country could be summed by a parliamentary roll of 1450. The roll stated that many "murders, manslaughters, rapes, robberies, riots, affrays and other inconveniences greater than before" were committed that year. Although the losses in France certainly didn't help, the mood in the country had worsened over the previous decade by a series of brutal winters and terrible famines. It's hardly a surprise people were angry and in late 1450, and well in to 1451, further riots took place across Sussex. Led by two brothers named John and William Merfold, the common people across the county attacked nobles and clergymen alike. The Merfolds gave a public speech where they demanded that Henry VI be deposed, calling him a fool in the process. Unlike the Cade rebellion, the Sussex uprising overly threatening to the king as it was put down with relative ease although the scenes were still highly concerning and very much in keeping with the mood across the country.

By 1452, it was obvious that Henry was sitting uneasily on the throne as Richard, Duke of York became an ever more prominent figure in English politics. To many, he looked like a natural born king. He had conducted himself well in France and Ireland, proving himself a capable military leader and administrator. Whatsmore, he was a descendant of Edward III, meaning he certainly had a claim to the throne and he was certainly ambitious. But what were those ambitions? For the time being at least, Richard maintained he was loyal to Henry and his only desire was to remove the traitors surrounding the king, namely the Duke of Somerset. However, the king clearly didn't believe him and when he heard the Duke was marching on London again, Henry hastily retreated to Northampton rather than face him. However, in March 1452, the two were reconciled at Blackheath where the Duke swore loyalty to the king. He repeated his vow at St Pauls Cathedral in a more formal ceremony where he stated that rebellion had never entered his mind nor would it in the future. Across the channel, England had been given some brief hope by the actions of John Talbot in Gascony. In a lightning raid, Talbot had swept up a number of towns and castles which had fallen to the French and he even briefly reclaimed Bordeaux. However, he was defeated and killed at Castillon the following year and with him went the hopes of the English in France. With no foreign enemy to fight, England now turned on itself.

 

Henry II's Horrified Reaction To The Death of Thomas Becket

 

One cold night in January 1171, King Henry II of England could be found residing in Normandy, at Argentan. The king would have had a lot on his mind. His relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket had, once again, turned sour after a period where it looked like things had been improving. Henry, famously, had been driven into a furious rage against the Archbishop, demanding loudly that he wished to be rid of this stubborn and headstrong priest. 4 knights had overheard the king’s outburst and took it literally. After feeble attempts to negotiate with Becket, the knights struck the Archbishop down in cold blood on the night of 29th December 1170. After ransacking the cathedral, the four murderers fled. Their judgement would come. In the days that followed this horrific crime, Henry’s rage would have cooled. After all, at this point, Henry would have still been ignorant of what had happened. He was a king who had a furious and, at times, a bizarre temper. On one occasion, he had become so enraged that he threw himself to the floor and started chewing hay. It’s probable that he thought nobody would be stupid enough to put such value on his words, obviously spoken in anger and without real meaning, that they would actually harm Becket.

 

Whatever the king’s mood on that January night at Argentan was, it was about to take a serious turn for the worse. A group of men arrived to speak with the king. They came bearing the terrible news of Becket’s demise. According to Ralph of Diceto, as soon as the messengers started talking, the king, almost as though he had been expecting such news, began to despair. Henry cried out to God that he had never wished for the murder to happen and he fell into a state of deep sorrow and misery. Undoubtedly, Henry certainly didn’t want Becket dead. Thomas had, at one time, been his good friend. But there was also probably a hint of self pity in his wailings. Henry knew that this was a political disaster from which he may never recover. For him, it was now a matter of damage limitation. In a immediate show of remorse, Henry removed his royal robes and, in the manner of Becket himself, adopted a sackcloth shirt. He then sent envoys to the Pope, pleading his innocence.

But, predictably, the envoys did not receive a warm welcome in Rome. Pope Alexander III was still, understandably, furious at the murder of a man of God. The envoys tried to arrange a meeting with Alexander but the Pope initially refused to have anything to do with them. They tried again and, on this second occasion, some cardinals were sent to speak with them but little action was taken. Eventually, after a period of confusion, two of the envoys, an abbot named Robert and a archdeacon, also named Robert, who seemed to have been more trusted then the rest of the diplomatic party, were granted a hearing with Alexander. This first meeting bore little fruit when, as soon as the envoys began to plead Henry’s case, the cardinals began to jeer and heckle them. The two Roberts were forced to leave and return, later that day, to speak to Alexander in more subdued surroundings. It was made plain to the Pope that the fractious relationship between Henry and Becket was not only the fault of the king. Henry, after all, wanted to rid the English church of corruption which, under Becket’s watch, was as bad as ever. This meeting turned hostile when the envoys were confronted by two of Becket’s clerks. Matters between the King of England and the Pope were extremely tense and the threat of excommunication hung over Henry’s head.

While these awkward negotiations with the Pope were ongoing, Henry, still feeling the heat, decided to go on campaign to Ireland where he landed in October 1171. Things went smoothly for the king in Ireland but, elsewhere, more trouble was brewing. Henry II’s son and heir, Henry The Young King, was beginning to fall in with the wrong crowd who were encouraging him to rebel against his father. The murder of Becket had begun a chain of events that would dominate the rest of Henry’s reign.

 Whilst the Young King’s resentment against his father simmered, Henry, in 1172, began to finally make amends with the church. In late September of that year, at Averenches in Normandy, Henry swore, in front of the clergy and public, that he had never intended for Becket’s death. He then made a series of vows. These vows included a promise to go on pilgrimage (or crusade) to Jerusalem. If he was unable to do so, then Henry would support the Christian cause in the Reconquest of Spain, or Reconquista. Unfortunately for Henry, matters closer to home would prevent him from doing so. Henry The Young King, aided by his mother Eleanor, his brothers and the king of France, began his revolt soon after his father had made these promises. At the very least, Henry was able to make generous donations to the Knights Templar meaning he at least did support the Crusade in some capacity.

Before he obtained absolution for his greatest sin, Henry also had to forgive  those who had aided Becket and who had joined him in exile in France. These men, both clergy and laymen alike, were allowed to return to England in peace. Henry also promised to restore any valuables that had been looted from Canterbury, of which there were a large amount, by the murderers of Becket. Henry was eventually absolved but still the spectre of Becket lingered. In 1173, Becket was canonised by Alexander III and, with the revolt of his sons, it’s likely that Henry still thought he was being punished by God. So, in July 1174, he made another, very public, act of penance. 

Riding to Canterbury, Henry, on approaching the city, lept off his horse and walked to the cathedral barefoot. With tears falling, Henry made his way to Becket’s tomb where he fell to his knees. He remained there, for a long time, in silent prayer. When he rose to his feet, Henry, again, protested his innocence. He then stripped away his garments and stood bare chested, ordering the monks to flog him. Three to five blows were given from each monk, of which there was quite a crowd assembled. After receiving his punishment, Henry, dressing himself, alloted £40 of rent to be given to the Cathedral, annually, so candles could be lit around Becket’s tomb. The king would spend the rest of the day, praying, weeping and enduring a restless sleep. 

Henry II’s reign, until 1170, had been a promising one. He was a remarkably energetic man who ruled his vast lands enthusiastically. However, the souring of relations with Becket had ultimately brought about his downfall. It can be argued that it wasn’t really Henry’s fault. Since the days of King Stephen, the English church had become rife with corruption and Henry had been determined to put a stop to that. Once Becket had become Archbishop of Canterbury, that task was made significantly more challenging. Henry’s outburst in December 1170 had come after 8 years of arguments with his Archbishop. Although he could be a bad tempered man at the best of times, I don’t think Henry should be condemned too harshly. It was a combination of the King speaking carelessly, Becket’s inflexibility and the actions of 4 knights desperate to please the king which had brough about one of history’s most famous murders.

The Coronation of Richard The Lionheart

 After the death of his long suffering father, Henry II, in July 1189, Richard The Lionheart was crowned king of England at Westminster Abbey on 3rd September, 1189. The great and good of the English nobility flocked into the Abbey and among them included the great knight William Marshal who had, only months before, scared Richard straight during his rebellion against his fatherl. Also in attendance were innumerable bishops as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin of Forde, who crowned Richard as well as the Archbishop of Dublin, John Comyn. With the abbey now full, the ceremony begun.

The bishops and abbots, clad in purple and holding the cross and candles aloft before them, made their way to the altar whilst Richard was collected from one of the abbey’s inner chambers. Next came the nobles who had a role to play in the ceremony. John Marshal, brother of William, carried forwards two large spurs whilst Godfrey De Lucy, who would be made Bishop of Winchester shortly after the ceremony, carried forward the cloak that Richard was soon to be draped in. William Marshal then stepped forwards carrying the royal sceptre whilst the Earl of Salisbury, alongside him, carried the royal rod. Then came David, Earl of Huntingdon and brother of King William The Lion of Scotland, Robert Earl of Leicester and Richard’s odious brother, John, all carrying aloft three splendid swords.

The honour of carrying the crown fell to William De Mandeville, earl of Essex. This was a touch ironic. William’s father, Geoffrey, had rebelled against King Stephen over 40 years earlier, dying in the process. However, William was clearly sufficiently trusted by the king to be given such an honour and any past unpleasantness between the De Mandevilles and the crown was put to one side. William died weeks later, in November 1189. Now, it was Richard’s turn to make his way up to the altar with the Bishops of Bath and Durham flanking him.

First, the new king swore three vows. He swore to protect the church, to adminster justice across the land and to remove any bad or outdated laws and replace them with new and modern ones. Richard was then prepared for the crowning. Golden sandals were placed on his feet. The royal sceptre was placed into his right hand and the rod into his left. Archbishop Baldwin then poured oil onto three parts of Richard’s body; his head, shoulders and right arm. A linen cloth was then placed on Richard’s head before he was dressed in a fine tunic before he was presented with a sword as a symbol that the king would protect the English church. Another cloak was placed over Richard’s shoulders before he was made to swear another oath. Richard, resplendent in all his royal finery, from the tunics and cloaks to his golden spurs and sandals, was now ready to be crowned. Baldwin placed the crown on Richard’s head before he was led back to his throne, still flanked by the bishops of Bath and Durham. 

Richard was just a few days short of his 32nd birthday on the day of his coronation. He was tall, over 6 foot, handsome with piercing eyes and physically strong. The sight of him sitting on the throne for the first time would have left a lasting impression on those in attendance. Medieval coronations, as no doubt, they still are, were tiring occasions even for a man as robust as Richard and he was all too happy to remove all the royal garments that had been placed on him. He changed into more comfortable clothing and switched to wearing a lighter crown, ready for the celebration banquet.

There does remain a strong irony about Richard’s coronation. It was a very English occasion for a king who was not very English at all despite the fact he was born in Oxford and spent the first few of his life in England. Richard, famously, would only spend around 6 months of his decade long reign in the country and, from the outset, he had his eyes set on a land far away. Henry II had vowed to go on Crusade but never made it. Richard, whilst Prince, had also sworn to go on Crusade. Now, he was king he could make preparations for an expedition where Richard would prove himself to be one of history’s greatest generals. England, despite all the pomp and splendour of his coronation, was clearly not big enough for this remarkable man.

Eustace: The Forgotten Son Of The Anarchy

 King Stephen and the Empress Matilda are, of course, the two main protagonists in the 12th century English civil war that we refer to as The Anarchy. Other key players included Robert of Gloucester, Matilda’s half brother, her second husband, Geoffrey of Anjou and not forgetting Matilda and Geoffrey’s son, the young man who would become King Henry II. However, there is one figure who is often overlooked. In 1153, worn down by years of turmoil, Stephen agreed to make Henry his heir as long as he kept the crown until his death, which came the following year. Henry and Stephen were content with this arrangement. Matilda would have held some frustrations that she was unable to claim the English crown for herself but would have been appeased by the fact her son did become king. However, there was one young man who would have been furious at this arrangement. This was King Stephen’s son, Eustace. The Treaty of Wallingford had ousted him as heir to the throne in favour of Henry and young Eustace was irate at his fathers’ weakness. The treaty, in his eyes, was little more than betrayal.

On becoming king of England, Stephen would also hold the Duchy of Normandy. However, in 1144, he would lose Normandy to Geoffrey of Anjou who passed the Duchy on to Henry in 1149. That same year, Eustace launched a fierce assault on Normandy, taking advantage of the absence of the local barons who were meeting their new duke. In 1151, Geoffrey of Anjou, still only in his late 30s, died suddenly with Henry inheriting the county of Anjou; the young duke was growing steadily more powerful. That power only increased in 1152 with Henry’s stunning marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine who had , until recently, been married to King Louis VII of France. The marriage stunned Louis and undoubtedly, caused some serious resentment for Eustace. In 1137,as Stephen’s heir, he had paid homage for Normandy to Louis VII. Now, not only was Normandy totally out of his grasp, its young Duke was fast becoming one of the most powerful men in Europe who controlled much of France. An alliance between Louis VII and Eustace now seemed inevitable.

Not only did Eustace and Louis share a common foe, they also held a closer, more personal connection. Eustace was married to Louis’ sister, Constance. Soon after Henry’s shock marriage, Eustace and Louis combined to launch an assault on Normandy. They were met with stiff resistance from Duke Henry but Louis did capture a castle named Neufmarche which he handed to Eustace. Meanwhile, in England, Stephen was entertaining the idea of having Eustace crowned. This would be a public demonstration that Eustace was to succeed him on the throne of England and nobody else. 

But Stephen was kidding himself. After Eustace had crossed the channel to join him, Stephen gathered all the key religious figures in England together and proposed that they anoint Eustace as king. Stephen and Eustace were not pleased with the answer they were given. The clergy absolutely point blank refused the request, stating, correctly, that Stephen had unlawfully taken the crown. This point was supported by letters that had been sent to England by Pope Eugene III which made clear, in no uncertain terms, that Eustace was not to be crowned. Stephen, a usually calm man, was absolutely livid. He ordered the bishops present to be locked in until they gave in to his demands but they remained steadfast. Seething, Stephen and Eustace stormed away from the disastrous meeting and laid siege to his enemies’ castle at Newbury which he took before moving on to Wallingford.

It was here that Stephen and Eustace would be finally forced into submission. Duke Henry crossed the channel from Normandy with a small band of men to campaign in England. It was regarded by some as being rash when the size of Henry’s force became known. Henry, in his youth, had launched similar expeditions on behalf of his mother but had been paid off by the king. Stephen must surely now have wished that he had instead taken Henry prisoner. On landing in England in 1153, Henry marched on Malmesbury castle and assaulted it. Stephen and Eustace marched out to meet him but were instead driven back to London by the dreadful weather. Having taken Malmesbury, Henry then went to relieve Wallingford castle, loyal to Henry and Matilda, which still remained besieged by Stephen’s forces,. 

During his short time in England, Henry’s support had grown significantly and Stephen’s will, not strong at the best of times was beginning to break. The king was eventually persuaded to come to terms with Henry and, at Wallingford, the outline of a general agreement was reached which would be made more formal in Westminster, towards the end of 1153. It was clear that Eustace, to the last, still harboured hopes of taking the crown but those hopes were dashed and, after his father had made peace with Henry and made him the heir to the throne, the distraught Eustace, disinherited, stormed away from his father’s camp. Just weeks later, in August 1153, Eustace died. It’s uncertain how he died but given Eustace was only a young man in his early twenties, foul play can’t be ruled out. A supporter of Henry, or perhaps Henry himself, may have recognised that Eustace had the temperament of somebody who would not take defeat lightly and still posed a threat to Henry’s potential succession. However, that is merely speculation. Eustace was buried at Faversham abbey where his father, who was devastated at his son’s sudden death, would join him the following year.