Tag Archives: Magna Carta

People and Power part 4 – Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act of 1832

Posted on by
Reply

So I had a nice cup of tea and a think – this is the result!

Both Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act of 1832 were landmarks in the development of democracy. Both Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act did give more people a say in the decision making process. However, in the case of Magna Carta it was only the barons and the Church who benefited from the 63 clauses that sought to limit the king’s power. In the case of the Great Reform Act, it was the wealthy middle classes who benefitted – only 1 in 7 men received the vote after 1832. The working classes were excluded from the plebiscite.  

In both cases, the changes were a response to years of criticism about the way the system operated.  In the case of Magna Carta the barons had come to distrust King John who misused feudal dues such as scutage, the entry of heirs to their estates, and the remarriage of widows as well as other taxation to extort money from his barons, all of which is reflected in the clauses of the charter.  In addition he imprisoned  men or their families without trial and confiscated their land without redress to the law.  Infamously, in 1210 he imprisoned Matilda de Braose and her son and left them to starve to death in Corfe Castle when her husband William fell from power. Magna Carta sought to bring royal abuses to an end, limit the number of taxes levied and ensure that the barons had access to judgement according to the laws of the land administered by men qualified to be judges and juries of their equals.  New taxes were not to be levied unless they were agreed by the important men of the kingdom beforehand.  Clause 61 wanted to ensure that a council of 25 barons could monitor the king’s behaviour.  The charter limited royal power in some ways, brought greater freedom and justice the barons but it did not change the lives of the vast majority of England’s population who continued to labour in a feudal society. What it did was introduce the concept of ‘every man’ and ‘free men’ as well as the ideas of habeas corpus exemplified in clauses 39 and 40 of the charter and which are still enshrined in British law today.

 In the case of the Great Reform Act of 1832, there had been many years of criticism about the electoral system which was neither fair nor representative, a bill passed in 1831 by the House of Commons was rejected by the lords and the Tory prime minister, the Duke of Wellington. As a consequence there were riots across the country.  In some ways  the discontent and its longevity were a reminder of the discontent prior to the First Barons War and certainly an echo of fears experienced by Britain’s elite associated with the French Revolution of 1789. The Reform Act which became law a year after the riots sought to reform electoral abuses. It removed rotten boroughs, like Old Sarum, which only had a few voters but two MPS, increased the number of constituencies to reflect the change in population in places like Manchester and Birmingham which previously had no representation and extended the franchise to men who held land worth more than £10 a year. This included tenant farmers, small land holders and shopkeepers – so that more people had a say.

Like Magna Carta, the Reform Act was also significant for what did not change.  Only 1 in 7 men were allowed to vote because of the land holding qualification. Women were formally excluded as voters were now defined as being male. The vote was still not a secret which meant that men could still be intimidated or their votes brought (voting only became secret in 1872 with the passing of the Ballot Act).  Just as Magna Carta did not answer the needs of everyone and King John’s son, King Henry III, failed to abide by the charter leading to further resentment among the aristocracy and the Second Barons War, so the working classes were denied the franchise by the 1832 Reform Act. This led to further unrest and the growth of the Chartist movement during the late 1830s and more demands for reform.

Note for any G.C.S.E. students – plebiscite is a really good word for this unit of study – it means the direct vote of all the members of the electorate. Franchise – the right to vote.

Power and the People part 3 – still Magna Carta

Posted on by
1
Buchel, Charles A.; Herbert Beerbohm Tree (1852-1917), as King John in ‘King John’ by William Shakespeare; Theatre Collection; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/herbert-beerbohm-tree-18521917-as-king-john-in-king-john-by-william-shakespeare-30514

The dissatisfaction of the barons with King John led to the Magna Carta in 1215.  There are 63 clauses setting out what the king could and could not do.  Most of them are about regulating feudal customs, taxes and finances of one kind or another. 

There are four main provisions of Magna Carta that anyone doing G.C.S.E. History needs to know and its quite handy for everyone else rather than remembering 63 points – 1) church rights, 2) protection from illegal imprisonment, 3) swift justice for free men according to the laws of the land and 4) a limit to taxes and feudal dues ( or no making up new taxes without asking the important men in the kingdom first.)

Of the 63 clauses 4 are still enshrined in the law -clause 1, 13,  39 and 40.   The words ‘no one’ and ‘no free man’ gave the clauses a universal quality that did not apply at the time as the barons were only thinking of themselves- but by the 17th century they were very important indeed.  In effect Magana Carta was a treaty between the king and his people and it meant that the king was not above the law.

Clause 1:  The king was not to interfere in the Church.

Clause 13:  The City of London must be allowed to enjoy its liberties and customs without interference. The clause went on to grant all other cities, boroughs, ports and towns the same right to enjoy their liberties and customs.

Clause 39:  no free man could be arrested, imprisoned, disposed, outlawed or exiled until he was judged by a court according to the laws of the land by his equals – this establishes the principle of Habeas Corpus

Clause 40: No one was permitted to sell, delay or deny a man justice and no force was to be used against him until such time as he received a judgement according to the law.  This is about due process.

Clauses 7 and 8 are specifically about women’s rights – that’s wealthy women not the unwashed masses.

Clause 7:  Widows are not to be treated badly by their husband’s heirs – they are to receive their dower (one third of all their husbands estates at the time of marriage) and any jointures (property held by both husband and wife) without argument and they are allowed to stay in their husband’s home for 40 days before having to find somewhere else to live.

Clause 8: No forcing widows to marry against their wishes.

Clause 11: No impoverishing widows and orphans by making them pay their late husband/father’s debts.

For those of you who are feeling brave – in 2022 G.C.S.E. students were asked to explain two ways in which Magna Carta and the Great Reform Act of 1832 were similar. The question was worth 8 marks. And there’s something to ponder over a nice cup of tea! May be I’ll even have a stab at answering it next time.

People and Power -part 2 – road to Magna Carta

Posted on by
Reply

Medieval society, in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest, was based on the feudal system. The king, was essentially owned his kingdom. Society worked on the basis that the king gave land and privileges to his tenants in chief, whether they were barons or bishops, in return for their loyalty and service. The tenants-in-chief then provided their knights with land. At the bottom of the heap were the peasants, who came in two varieties – free and serf. They had to work for their lord of the manor as well as paying fines and fees.

So far, so good. Ideally a medieval king was supposed to win battles, ensure that the country was peaceful by maintaining order, have good relations with the Church and the Pope, put down rebellions and have a good working relationship with his barons. Unfortunately, King John succeeded King Henry II who expanded his empire and Richard the Lionheart who was an excellent warrior and commander. John, on the other hand, lost his father’s empire when the French invaded in 1204 , ran out of funds trying to win back his territories and caused the barons to rebel. In fact, John had such a poor reputation as a warrior that he was nicknamed ‘Softsword’

In no particular order:

John quarrelled with the pope over the appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and ultimately got himself, and as a consequence, his country excommunicated.

Chronologies were written by monastic foundations and as a consequence of John’s poor relationship with the Church he was rarely written about in a positive light.

Richard the Lionheart left the country in debt in order to pay for the crusades but John needed even more cash to pay for the soldiers, equipment and transport to try and win back his European lands.

The barons were not pleased to have lost their territories in Normandy, less pleased to have to pay feudal dues including scutage, or shield tax, to fund a military campaign to try and retake the lost territories and did not appreciate John being permanently in England looking more closely at what was happening within the realm. Ultimately they would present him with the Magna Carta, a charter composed of 63 points based on King Henry I’s coronation charter.

GCSE Students – its really important to know this bit!
King John not popular especially as he did not live up to the medieval model of a king – he lost Normandy and most of the Angevin Empire.
He levied too many taxes including scutage.
The barons raised an army and threatened to rebel.
They presented him with the Magna Carta, or Great Charter, that identified 63 rules that they wanted John to abide by.  
 Clause 61 stated that a council of 25 barons would be created to ensure that John abided by the agreement which he signed on 19th June 1215 at Runnymede.
The Magna Carta did not mean that everyone would have a say in running the country- only the most important barons.
John applied to the pope to have the agreement annulled. As a consequence, the Barons’ declared war and invited the French Prince Louis to be king instead. The First Barons War started.

Power and the People – the beginnings

Posted on by
3

Part of the GCSE syllabus is a module focusing on power and the people. We tend to think of Magna Carta as our starting point but nothing happens in a vacuum, so without getting too carried away we need to head back to 2 August 1100. William Rufus, the king of England is hunting in the New Forest. After a rather rocky relationship with his elder brother, Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, the two brothers have come to an agreement. If one dies the other will inherit his throne. Unfortunately for Curthose, when Rufus has a hunting accident on the 2 August, it’s their younger brother Henry who is on the scene.

Henry dashes off to Winchester, leaving William’s body where it lays, in order to secure the royal treasury. Three days later he is crowned King of England. Curthose is still on his way back from the crusades, having stopped en route to marry Sybilla of Conversano, a wealthy heiress whose dowry will go some way to paying his debts. (Curthose was eventually beaten by Henry at the Battle of Tinchbray in 1106 and spent the rest of his life in captivity. He’s buried in Gloucester Cathedral.)

Henry has claimed the throne but now he needs to keep it.

King Henry I’s hold on the throne relies on the support of the Church and his barons. In order to bind them to him he issues a coronation charter, sometimes called the Charter of Liberties, that promises the church and individuals certain rights. Henry was an admirer of Edward the Confessor, he sought to make Edward’s law the common law of England (with a Norman firm hand) and to tell his new subjects that he was returning to the ways of his own father – ie he would be a strong king and there would be peace in the realm…or else. But that also the corruption of William Rufus were at an end. Henry was promising a return to the good old days.

Of course, Henry ignored his own coronation charter but the point had been made and the promises it contained would be the precedent for Magna Carta. King’s after Henry issued similar coronation charters to Henry I. His successor, King Stephen issued a similar ‘deal’ between king, people and Church. A copy can be found at Exeter Cathedral.

Key words: coronation charter, Charter of Liberties

Key people: King Henry I

Key date: 5 August 1100

Guestpost Monday: Sharon Bennett Connolly- Nicholaa de la Haye and me

Posted on by
1

It’s a real delight to welcome Sharon Bennett Connolly to The History Jar as my first guest blogger. I love her blog, History the Interesting Bits and her books. Those of you who have attended my medieval classes will probably have at least one of her books on your own shelves including Heroines of the Medieval World and Ladies of the Magna Carta. I recently posted on History the Interesting Bits (https://historytheinterestingbits.com/2023/10/07/guest-post-the-kingmakers-women-by-julia-a-hickey/) and it turns out that we may have a bit of a mutual appreciation society going on which leaves me feeling very honoured as really do admire the way that Sharon has drawn women previously left to languish in the footnotes into the limelight. So without further ado over to Sharon…

Well, it has been quite a journey, but King John’s Right Hand Lady, my biography of Nicholaa de la Haye is now out in the world. My journey with Nicholaa started with a blog post in 2015, shortly after a day trip to Lincoln Castle with my son. Nicholaa’s story really caught my attention. From that day on, I devoured everything I could find on Nicholaa, scouring the internet for details of her life and the events in which she was involved. I bought a copy of Louise Wilkinson’s excellent study, Women in Thirteenth Century Lincolnshire, which included Nicholaa’s story. And when I started thinking about writing a book, Nicholaa came to mind. In 2016, I entered a competition with a publisher, to have my first book published and Nicholaa was one of the inspirations. 

In Heroines of the Medieval World, I wanted to tell the stories of the most incredible women in medieval history and Nicholaa was certainly in my Top 10. And from that book, I started thinking that there was more scope to examine the women related to the Magna Carta story, especially Nicholaa and her contemporary,  Matilda de Braose. The conflicting lives and experiences of these two women inspired Ladies of Magna Carta: Women of Influence in Thirteenth Century England; while Matilda became King John’s bitter enemy and ultimate victim, Nicholaa was a loyal ally, trusted to hold Lincoln Castle against the rebel barons, despite being a woman. 

As I was researching Nicholaa’s story for Ladies of Magna Carta, I got very excited as I realised that I may have enough material for a full biography. I contacted my editor, expecting her to shut me down and say ‘no thanks, no one will be interested.’ But, instead, she said ‘go for it!’ And the project was born.

Nicholaa’s career spanned sixty years, four kings and two husbands and, in a time when men fought and women stayed home, Nicholaa de la Haye held Lincoln Castle against all-comers. In 1191, 1216 and 1217, it was Nicholaa who defended the besieged castle, earning herself the ironic praise that she acted ‘manfully’. Nicholaa gained prominence in the First Baron’s War, the civil war that followed the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215. 

On one of King John’s visits to inspect Lincoln’s defences in 1216, a recently-widowed Nicholaa met him at the gates and presented the king with the keys to the castle, claiming she was too old and weary to continue in her duties. John refused to accept her resignation, instructing Nicholaa to keep hold of the castle until he ordered otherwise. Whether Nicholaa ever intended to give up Lincoln, or the event was staged so that John could demonstrate his continued trust in Nicholaa, is open to debate. I suspect it was the latter. John was in the midst of civil war and running short of allies. Nicholaa had already demonstrated her abilities at defending Lincoln, and her loyalty to John – he would have been hard put to replace her. However, the event gave John the opportunity to reinforce his trust in Nicholaa in front of his barons.

Intent on continuing the civil war, the rebel barons invited the king of France to take the throne of England. The king refused, but his son, Louis (the future Louis VIII), accepted the offer and was hailed as King of England in London in June 1216.

That summer, Nicholaa prevented another siege of Lincoln Castle by paying off a rebel army, led by Gilbert de Gant, who remained in occupation of the city of Lincoln but lifted the siege of the castle. As Louis consolidated his position in the south, John fell desperately ill, probably from dysentery and halted at Newark Castle, where he died on the night of 18/19 October 1216. King John valued her so much that, from his deathbed, he appointed her sheriff of Lincolnshire; Nicholaa was the first woman ever to be appointed as a county sheriff.

Shortly after John’s death, the rebels returned to Lincoln.

Although now her 60s, Nicholaa endured a siege that lasted close to seven months, resisting the English rebel barons and their French allies with all she had, and giving the regents for the new king, nine-year-old Henry III, time to gather their forces and come to her aid. 

The siege ended in the Battle of Lincoln, also known as the Lincoln Fair, when 70-year-old William Marshal, known to history the Greatest Knight, spurred on by the chivalrous need to rescue a lady in distress – and to send the French packing – marched on Lincoln. The six-hour battle, fought in the tightly packed medieval streets of the city of Lincoln, was the turning point in the war. Within months of Marshal’s victory, the French had gone home, and the English rebels were swearing allegiance to Henry III.

The French chronicler Anonymous of Bethune described Nicholaa as ‘a very cunning, bad-hearted and vigorous old woman.’ Perhaps they were sore losers!

And how was Nicholaa thanked for such a stalwart defence of Lincoln Castle? Within four days of the battle her office as sheriff of Lincolnshire was given to William Longspée, Earl of Salisbury – the king’s uncle. Salisbury then seized the castle, evicting Nicholaa. Why? Because Salisbury’s son was married to Nicholaa’s granddaughter and the earl thought he should control the young couple’s inheritance. Did he really think Nicholaa would give up without a fight? Did he think seven months of siege had taken the fight out of her?

He should have known better.

Nicholaa appealed to the king and the privy council and got herself reinstated as constable of Lincoln Castle. She never got to be sheriff of Lincolnshire again, but at least she got her castle back. Not that Salisbury was one to give up either and there are various instances throughout the early 1220s of Salisbury trying to take the castle, through siege, subterfuge and persuasion. He tried everything! But Nicholaa would not give up – Salisbury would die first, which he did! And three months after Salisbury’s death, Nicholaa finally retired, resigning her custody of Lincoln Castle and settling on her manor at Swaton, Lincolnshire, where she died in 1230. She was buried in the local church, St Michael’s, where her tomb can still be seen today.

Nicholaa de la Haye was a staunch supporter of King John, remaining loyal to the very end, even after most of his knights and barons had deserted him. And I wanted to know why. Why did Nicholaa support John? Why did she not rebel like the rest of them? She must have known how heavy-handed and brutal John could be. She must have known the dreadful fate of Matilda de Braose – starved to death in one of John’s dungeons. So, what made her stay loyal?

To both King John and Henry III, she was ‘our beloved and faithful Nicholaa de la Haye.’

A truly remarkable lady, Nicholaa was the first woman to be appointed sheriff in her own right. Her strength and tenacity saved England at one of the lowest points in its history. 

It is often said that the best thing John ever did was die when he did. 

No. 

The best thing he ever did was appoint Nicholaa as sheriff!

Nicholaa de la Haye is one woman in English history whose story needs to be told…

About the book:

King John’s Right Hand Lady: The Story of Nicholaa de la Haye by Sharon Bennett Connolly

In a time when men fought and women stayed home, Nicholaa de la Haye held Lincoln Castle against all-comers. Not once, but three times, earning herself the ironic praise that she acted ‘manfully’. Nicholaa gained prominence in the First Baron’s War, the civil war that followed the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215. Although recently widowed, and in her 60s, in 1217 Nicholaa endured a siege that lasted over three months, resisting the English rebel barons and their French allies. The siege ended in the battle known as the Lincoln Fair, when 70-year-old William Marshal, the Greatest Knight in Christendom, spurred on by the chivalrous need to rescue a lady in distress, came to Nicholaa’s aid. Nicholaa de la Haye was a staunch supporter of King John, remaining loyal to the very end, even after most of his knights and barons had deserted him. A truly remarkable lady, Nicholaa was the first woman to be appointed sheriff in her own right. Her strength and tenacity saved England at one of the lowest points in its history. Nicholaa de la Haye is one woman in English history whose story needs to be told…

mybook.to/Nicholaa

Sharon Bennett Connolly FRHistS is the best-selling author of 4 non-fiction history books, including Heroines of the Medieval World and Ladies of Magna Carta: Women of Influence in Thirteenth Century England. Her latest book, a biography, King John’s Right-Hand Lady: The Story of Nicholaa de la Haye, was published in May 2023. A Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, Sharon has studied history academically and just for fun – and has even worked as a tour guide at a castle. She writes the popular history blog, www.historytheinterestingbits.com and regularly gives talks on women’s history. Sharon is a feature writer for All About History magazine and her TV work includes Australian Television’s ‘Who Do You Think You Are?‘

Links:

Blog: https://historytheinterestingbits.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thehistorybits/

Twitter: @Thehistorybits

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sharonbennettconnolly/?hl=en

Amazon: http://viewauthor.at/SharonBennettConnolly

Podcast: A Slice of Medieval (https://soundcloud.com/user-142525904)

The coronation of Henry I

Posted on by
Reply

henry iiiUpon the death of William Rufus, Henry hastened to Winchester where the royal treasury happened to be located.  Henry was the fourth son of William the Conqueror and he had inherited no land from his father although under the terms of the Conqueror’s will he had been left money.

Under normal circumstances it would have been William and Henry’s older brother who inherited England.  Robert Curthose inherited Normandy from William the Conqueror and after some nastiness with William eventually came to terms with his younger sibling and took himself off on crusade.  When William died in the New Forest Robert was on his way home from the Holy Land.

Henry on the other hand was in England and able to seize the opportunity that presented itself.  Having taken control of the treasury he then ensured that some barons elected him as their king in a nod to the Anglo-Saxon practice of the Witan electing kings and arranged for his coronation to take place as soon as possible.  This took place in Westminster on 5th August 1100.

Henry I’s Coronation Charter is the earliest one to survive.  It is thought that the charter was part of the process by which a king came to the throne in Anglo-Saxon times.  The new king would essentially say to his barons this is what I’m giving you in return for your support of me. More than one copy of the charter exists suggesting that is was circulated in the shires. Basically he condemns William Rufus’ rule “the kingdom has been oppressed by unjust exactions” and then claims that by becoming king Henry has brought peace to the English Nation.  It is said that Henry I’s Coronation Charter is the basis for Magna Carta.  The charter is also called the Charter of Liberties in some sources.

Henry promises that he will not take property that belongs to the Church.  He also says that whilst he expects his barons to consult the monarch in the matter of their daughters’ marriages that he will not exact a tax for them being allowed to marry.  He also explains that if a baron dies with underage heirs that Henry will determine who those heirs will marry but that he will consult with the rest of his barons in the matter.  He also recognises that widows shouldn’t be required to remarry without their consent in the matter.

As well as dealing with feudal matters and wardship Henry also tackles the royal mint.  He makes it clear that it is the king who mints the coinage – no one else is permitted to do so.  He also makes sure that all the royal forests used by William the Conqueror remain in his own hands.  This is a rather clever wheeze of ensuring that if anything had been given away or sold by either William the Conqueror or William Rufus it now returned to the Crown – an veritable example of “having your cake and eating it.”

Essentially the charter places Henry and his successors under the rule of law.  Henry was aware that there had been recent rebellion and resentment of William Rufus.  There was also the small matter of the difficult relationship with the Church.  At a stroke Henry sets the clock back to zero and in so doing gives the barons president for Magna Carta and in turn for the Provisions of Oxford which Henry III was forced to accept by Simon de Montfort in 1264 and which Edward I was prudent enough to adapt in the Statute of Westminster.  It is perhaps not surprising then that Henry’s by-name is Beauclerk – or good scholar.

Henry I would reign for thirty-five years.  He set about bringing unity to his kingdom  not only with his barons but also with his Saxon commoners by marrying Edith of Scotland, the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland (i.e. niece of Edgar the Aethling and granddaughter of Edmund the Exile, the son of King Edmund Ironside, who arrived back in England on the invitation of Edward the Confessor only to die in unexpected circumstances.)  Edith was too Saxon a sounding name so it was promptly changed to Matilda but it was said of Henry that his court was too Saxon.  Certainly his son William who was born in 1103 was called the Atheling in an attempt to weave two cultures together.  So we can also see movement of a wise king towards the unification of his people.  Of course it wasn’t as straight forward as all that not least because William was his only legitimate male heir and he was drowned in 1120 when the White Ship sank.

After the death of his son, Henry remarried to Adela of Louvain who I have posted about before.

It was just as well that Henry had been so conciliatory to his barons and the wider population because in 1101 big brother Robert did invade England.  But, possession is nine tenths of the law and Henry gave him his properties in Normandy as well as an annuity to go away and leave England alone.  In 1106 Henry took advantage of the political turmoil in Normandy and beat Robert at the Battle of Tinchebrai – no more annuities and an entire duchy to add to the list of things that Henry owned although Robert’s son William Clito was unhappy about the outcome for obvious reasons.  Henry drew the line at killing his older brother but Robert would remain a prisoner for the rest of his life.

https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/coronation-charter-of-henry-i

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/MDVL%202130/Texts/1100charter.pdf

The Battle of Evesham

Posted on by
1

simon de montfortI am leaping around historically speaking at the moment. The Battle of Evesham was fought on the morning of the 4th August 1265.  Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester was in Evesham when news arrived that the royal army under the leadership of Prince Edward had been sighted – probably from the abbey.  Despite holding Henry III captive, De Montfort was outnumbered by as many as three to one which is why he started the battle with a cavalry charge which had it succeeded would have split Edward’s army and given de Montfort an opportunity to escape from Evesham with most of his men.  He had to charge uphill which was never going to be tactically satisfactory.  Unfortunately for de Montfort Prince Edward was going to turn into King Edward I – probably England’s most effective martial king. Edward learned much from de Montfort regarding tactics when he’d been at the receiving end of them at the Battle of Lewes. Now he employed them against de Montfort himself. The royal army swung in from both sides on de Montfort’s flanks and after several hours fighting it became a rout.  Henry III barely escaped with his life so eager was the royal army to let blood.

Henry III

 

There was even a thunder storm to add  some atmosphere to an already bloody battle.  As many as 4000 of de Montfort’s 6000 men were killed. Many of the nobles that fought on his side were slaughtered including de Montfort and his son Henry.  Prince Edward did not offer any quarter regarding de Montfort as a rebel who needed to be extinguished. This was unusual at the time as it was generally accepted that quarter would be given and ransom obtained.  De Montfort was killed by Roger de Mortimer.  It proved to be the decisive battle of this particular Barons’ War –the Second one- but it would be another two years before peace was restored to the kingdom on account of many of the rebellious barons having well defended castles.

 

Almost inevitably the town and abbey of Evesham suffered in the aftermath of the battle.  Simon de Montfort, whose body was badly mutilated, was finally buried near the high altar in the abbey.  Only the bell tower remains today.

Our story actually began when Henry III tried to turn the clock back.  The Provisions of Oxford in 1258 had led to reforms from which many would argue parliamentary democracy had its foundation.  Henry III tried to undo the reforms and in 1264 had fought the Battle of Lewes.  In that battle de Montfort captured Henry III and Prince Edward, effectively allowing de Montfort to rule England for a year and to summon Parliaments thus drawing on Magna Carta which was about fifty years old at that point as well as the Provisions of Oxford.    De Montfort ensured that barons loyal to the Crown were fined or incarcerated – the Earl of Derby found himself in the Tower for instance.

However, things did not go all de Montfort’s way.  In May one of de Montfort’s supporters, the Earl of Gloucester (yup – that’s right he was a de Clare) suddenly changed sides.  The so-called Red Earl on account of his hair colouring and temper helped Prince Edward escape and put an army together.  He drew on his extended family and affinity – many of the Crown’s army came from the Welsh marches.  The outcome was the slaughter on the 4thAugust 1265 but ten years later in 1275 the Statute of Westminster accepted many of the Oxford provisions and there was reconciliation between Crown and barons.

A first hand account of the battle may be found at the National Archives. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/battle-of-evesham/

 

 

 

 

A beginners guide to the Earldom of Northumbria and the Percy family (part one of four)

Posted on by
5

IMG_0241I always associate the Percy family with the earldom of Northumbria in the centuries following 1066 but it isn’t true that the family have held the title throughout the whole period since the conquest.  There was an interlude during the Wars of the Roses when the Neville’s got their paws on the title.  It’s also true to say that they weren’t elevated from earls to dukes in the first instance – John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland stole a march on the family – and let’s face it Dukes were normally required to be of royal blood whereas Dudley was the son of a Tudor administrator.  Before they reached the elevated social heights associated with dukedoms the Percy family spent a long time as barons.

Generation 1 – Baron Percy of Topcliffe:

Setting aside Saxon earls let us start with the Normans. William de Percy arrived with William the Conqueror in 1066. The first written record of his presence in England dates from 1067.  He owed part of his fealty to Hugh of Avranches who gave him land in Yorkshire in the years following 1072 – by which time Hugh had become the 1st earl of Chester.  Hugh was hugely wealthy.  He was one of the men who bankrolled the Conquest.  History sometimes calls him Hugh the Fat although I suspect he preferred the name Hugh Lupus or Hugh the Wolf.  Whilst William de Percy was undoubtedly a Norman there is some evidence to suggest that he held lands in England during the time of Edward the Confessor but may not have done so well under the auspices of Harold.  I read somewhere that the name Algernon which turns up frequently in the Percy pedigree comes from a derivation meaning be-whiskered.  The text suggested that William was unlike many of his Norman contemporaries because he had facial hair which was more associated with Saxons. He turns up in the Whitby Abbey Cartulary and in the Domesday Book holding lands directly from William I.  It was in response to his landholdings in Yorkshire that he was one of the patrons who re-founded Whitby Abbey in the years following the Conquest.  His brother appears to have been its first prior.  And let’s not get carried away with the idea that William was all set to be northern.  He also held lands in Essex and Hampshire.

 

Generations 2, 3 and 4:

William had a son Alan who had a son called William but he died in 1174 (possibly 1175) leaving two daughters.  Adeliza of Louvain, the widowed second wife of Henry I arranged for one of them, Agnes Percy, to marry Joscelin of Louvain who just so happened to be Adeliza’s younger half-brother. Joscelin who was a son of Godfrey, Count of Louvain. He was noble from Brabant.  He took his wife’s name and settled in England at the family’s seat of Topcliffe in Yorkshire.  In return Joscelin gave the Percy family the lion rampant for their crest.  Adeliza also gave her brother Petworth in Sussex.

 

Generation 5:

Joscelin and Agnes had several children.  Richard de Percy was born in 1170 and died in 1244.  He is the fifth Baron Percy of Topcliffe.  He was one of the twenty barons assigned to enforce Magna Carta.  Unfortunately having signed it King John changed his mind so our Percy found himself knee deep in the Barons’ War.  Inevitably John confiscated his lands. As soon as John popped his clogs, having mislaid his crown in The Wash, Richard sought pardon from young Henry III and retrieved all his property. Richard had no children.  The barony should have passed to Richard’s younger brother Henry.  He married into the Bruce family but died before he could inherit the barony of Topclife.

 

Generations 6, 7, 8 and 9 – or should that be 6,7,8 and 1:

William died in 1245. He was the nephew of Magna Carta Richard.  We then have Henry, John and another Henry.  Henry Percy (the last one on the list) was born in 1273 and died in 1314.   Henry, born at Petworth, was a posthumous child which was just as well on account of the Percy family running short of males once again.  He fought during on the Scottish Wars of Independence in the army of Edward I.   Like all his forefathers he fulfilled various local duties and roles associated with the northern wardenry.

And this is where it becomes complicated.  Henry was the 9th Baron Percy of Topcliffe.  He inherited in 1293.  However in 1309 he purchased Alnwick Castle from the Bishop of Durham (Anthony Bek).   The barony of Alnwick was different from the Barony of Topcliffe and Henry was created baron of Alnwick by writ – so he became the first Baron Percy of Alnwick.  From henceforth the head of the Percy family would be referred to by their Alnwick title meaning that the clock was rewound on the numbers – not particularly helpful.

Henry was not keen on Edward II. He ultimately rebelled over the issue of Piers Gaveston. He also declined to fight at the Battle of Bannockburn.  He died at home in his bed at Alnwick pictured at the start of this post.

And I think that is more than enough for today.

King John Crossword

Posted on by
2

knigh2King John has been much talked and written about in this eight hundredth anniversary of Magna Carta.  The British Library held an exhibition. It’s website still has videos, interviews and documents.  What more could you want?  Click here to open a new window http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/800-years-of-magna-carta.  His effigy, along with various bones and his will, can be viewed at Worcester Cathedral whilst one of the original copies of the Magna Carta is on display in Salisbury.  There have been articles about him in History Today and several of the broadsheets have considered just how bad John actually really was…the conclusion being not as bad as Shakespeare might have liked.  Marc Morris’s book Treachery, Tyranny and the Road to Magna Carta offers a clear oversight into the derailment of Henry II’s youngest son from monarch to man who lost his baggage. For younger readers of history, much to my delight, the Ladybird Adventure from History about King John is once again available – although possibly not presenting him in a particularly balanced light.

Lack of balance is certainly true of the Jean Plaidy novel about King John entitled ‘The Prince of Darkness’ which gives an unfortunate hint of the direction of John’s character as interpreted by Ms Plaidy. John was undoubtedly a much more complex man than that of out and out villain.  Those complexities and ambiguities can be found, for those folk who like their history in novel form, in Sharon Penman’s books about Justin de Quincy – the first in the series is called The Queen’s Man.  Inevitably novels containing Robin Hood feature John somewhere along the line – for fans of the outlaw, Angus Donald books are not to be missed.  I know that there are many more – there is something about John that draws writers in, perhaps because he is much more than a cardboard villain.

The Angevin monarch is not without a future either.  King John, is taught at Key Stage Three in schools and is also currently part of the AQA A level history syllabus (HIS3A: The Angevin Kings of England: British Monarchy, 1154–1216) as well as an OCR A level history qualification which will be examined for the first time in 2017.

Having recently taught a day school on King John I finished with a crossword.  Here it is along with the answers:  Click on the word puzzle to open up a new window.  Some of the clues are straight forward, others require slightly more knowledge.  None of them are too difficult.

puzzle

Across

2) Pope who tore up Magna Carta and triggered civil war (8).
6) Adrian IV’s surname before he became pope (10).
9) Fine issued by the court at the will of the king (10).
10) Chronicle which probably tells the tale of the death of John’s nephew accurately (6).
12) Keep where Eleanor of Aquitaine was besieged by her grandson (8).
13) Powerful Lower Poitou family (8)
14) Niece from Castile to be married to Prince Louis and fetched for that purpose by Queen Eleanor (7).
15) Prior sent by Canterbury monks to Rome as archbishop. (8)
17) John’s tutor (9).
18) John had two daughters by this name (4).
20) Place of John’s birth (6).
29) Scottish king who joined with the barons (9).
30) John sent ship loads of corn to Norway in return for these (7).
31) John was prone to demanding these of his enemies and his barons (8).
32) The son of John’s brother Geoffrey (6).
33) Count who dined with John on the same day that he switched to the french (7).
36) One of the causes of the dysentery said to have killed John (5)
41) As a consequence of the fall of the Angevin Empire John built one of these (4).
42) There was a Bishop of Durham and a Bishop of Lincoln who played active roles in John’s life (4).
43) Nickname of John’s early years (8).
44) What did Roger de Cressi do that earned him a fine of 12,000 marks and 12 palfreys in 1207 (7).
45) Matilda FitzWalter is said to have been poisoned by one of these having spurned John’s advances (3).
46) Town where John died (6).
Down

1) Abbey founded by John (8).
3) Castle where 22 Bretton captives were starved to death (5).
4) Castle given to John by Henry II and where Welsh hostages were executed (10).
5) Bishop of Norwich selected by John as Archbishop of Canterbury (4, 2, 4).
6) 1214 battle that saw John defeated in France (8).
7) Chronicler writing many years after John’s death who was hostile to John (5).
8) Gossipy chronicler who travelled with John to Ireland (6).
11) Unfortunate chap called Henry whose wife was John’s mistress and who was used as an excuse to fine another man for the same offence.
12) Castle where John married his first wife (11).
16) Earl of Essex who paid 20,000 marks for his second wife (8, 2, 10)
19) Ambitious Justiciar (9).
21) Abbey where John stayed after losing his baggage in The Wash (10)
22) Castle besieged by John in 1215 (9).
23) Isabella of Angouleme’s father (5).
24) Cathedral where John is buried (9).
25) John’s daughter who married Simon de Montfort (7).
26) Eustace d’_ _ _ _ _ substituted another woman for his wife when John demanded her in his bed (5).
27) Hugh de Neville was responsible for administering it and it extended during John’s reign until Magna Carta (6, 3).
28) Another word for excommunication when applied to a region or country (9).
31) Anglo Norman baron granted kingdom of Meath (4,2,4).
34) 1200 treaty that saw John accept the overlordship of the French (2, 6).
35) 1209 treaty that saw peace between England and Scotland on John’s terms (6).
37) Lands in Normandy by which John was known after Richard’s accession (7).
38) Marcher earl who was often the victim John’s paranoia about treachery in 1203 and 1204 (7).
39) Dacus, danish merchant, who sailed tax free on condition he bring one of these whenever he came to England (4).
40) King who succeeded John (5).

To reveal the answers click on the word puzzle below.

puzzleanswers

Matilda Fitzwalter a.k.a. Maid Marian

Posted on by
4

57457680_1404498519This effigy can be seen in Little Dunmow Church – It is said to be the effigy of Matilda Fitzwalter.

Robert Fitzwalter, holder of Castle Baynard and Lord of Little Dunmow was a revolting baron during the reign of King John and little wonder if the stories are anything to go by.

Robert’s daughter Matilda was a bit of a stunner– men threw themselves at her feet, jousted for her favours etc and dear old King John fell head over heels in lust. Matilda, being a good girl and not having heard that when a medieval king does his best Lesley Philips impersonation that all the usual rules are out of the window told him to be on his way.

John did not take personal rejection well – his penchant for white satin, large collections of jewels and regular bathing, not to mention him being a king, should have made him a hit with the ladies but at no more than five foot five inches, having an inclination to fat as he got older, and an interest in the wives and daughters of his barons was not always as well received by the aforementioned ladies as he might have hoped. Rather than chalk Matilda’s refusal up to experience he tried to cajole Robert Fitzwalter into handing his daughter over: Robert refused. Perhaps John should have had a word with Matilda’s husband rather than her father but more about him shortly. In the stories John sets about destroying Fitzwalter and his property. Fitzwalter was indeed banished in 1212 but was later reconciled to John only to revolt in 1215 as a leader of the ‘Army of God’ that massed against the king. Fitzwalter is one of the Magna Carta barons and Matilda’s sad story is often given as part of the rationale for Fitzwalter’s rebellion.

Presumably because he could, John imprisoned Matilda in The Tower before sending her a message reminding her that all she need to do was to look upon him more favourably. When Matilda persisted in rejecting his advances John sent Matilda a poisoned egg, in some versions of the story a poisoned bracelet, which she promptly ate/put on and expired as a result presumably because she was a) hungry or b) it was a very nice bracelet. The corpse of Fair Matilda was then sent home for burial (very considerate). Elizabeth Norton’s book addressing the life of Isabella of Angouleme says that John forced Matilda to become his mistress – and you would have to say why go to all the bother of locking her up in the Tower to force compliance? Norton uses Matilda as but one example of John’s rapacious tendencies.  What is clear is that by 1212 Matilda was dead.

Matilda Fitzwalter’s story is told by Mathew Paris and the Anonymous Chronicler of Bethune. The criticism of John made by the chroniclers was not that he didn’t know how to take no for an answer but that he had dishonoured the fathers and husbands of the women concerned in the tales of lust that they recounted. Anonymous makes the point that John was devoted to good food and to pleasure – if he’d taken an interest in serving wenches then no one would have batted an eyelid.

From the threads of truth, of which very little actually remains to history, the tale of Matilda becomes steadily more romantic. According to lore Matilda Fitzwalter spurned King John’s advances because she was actually smitten with another – a chap called Robert, Earl of Huntingdon a.k.a. Robin Hood who was at that time away on crusade – making Matilda the fair Maid Marian. The chronicler Mathew Paris called her “Maud the Fair” or “Maid Marian.”  It wasn’t until a couple of centuries later though that Matilda Fitzwalter escaped to the Greenwood to live happily ever after…making Maid Marian an Essex girl.

In this case, however, truth is even stranger than legend. Matilda had actually been married to Geoffrey de Mandeville, the Earl of Essex. After her death de Mandeville married, at vast expense, Isabella of Gloucester – none other than King John’s first wife.

John was able to get his marriage to Isabella annulled because they were half-second cousins which was well within the prohibited degree of consanguinity. At the time of his marriage the Pope had been furious and Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury had placed John and all his lands under an interdict until an ecclesiastical council reversed the decision. At no point in time did John apply for a papal dispensation and it soon became clear that he was looking for a better placed wife with plans afoot fir him to marry Alice, sister of Philip Augustus – rejected fiancée of brother Richard and if stories are true mistress of Henry II and mother of his child. The divorce occurred almost as soon as John became king. Isabella led a half-life for many years neither a captive nor free until John, desperate for cash for a continental war effectively sold Isabella to the highest bidder – Geoffrey de Mandeville. It will perhaps come as no surprise to find out that Geoffrey and Isabella revolted against King John as well.

Norton, Elizabeth. She Wolves: The Notorious Queens of England