William Ru

myth and reality;

porclblr

the

more

finallclal

developments,

publtclzed
but es ~entpal!v
imnlt&lClt.work of Henry I. W~ll~amr e.ypanFton
and consolidation of nationalfr-antlers, hts legal and

and hts malntenanct of

royal conh(Jl over the Church are revealed under
the distortions of ecclesiasticai
and Henmian
hi ctrjrtrqra,bhy.

Emma Mason

Tht common!y accej?ted stew of the rep of Wllham [I t 1087-I

100) is a political myth, Pnrnart(~~
the work of Eadmer,

who depcted

the kmg as the

villain against whom St Anselm strove to impose

the re~~olutlonary Gregorian rtlform programme ln
England.
Henry I, moreover,
denigrated
his
brother 5 regime as a couer/ar,furthenng
Wtlltam r
harsh hut conctructtve poltcie! . Eadmr !s writings
741~7-e quarned
by srlbsegupnt
twelfrh-centur?,
writers in the matnstretzm oJ.he English monastzc
hl\torlml tradition, who ad&d their own literary
embelh~hments Mneteenth-rt)ntury hzstonant unrnttmlly accepted theie accorrnts and Henr;l SF
glotr on the retCgn. They ther rontrzbutt~d moral
pcdgement F of their own, whrch passer wrthortt
qualifirntlon into modern secondary workh.
Thit paper re-evaluate< I illiam II{ political
and governmental
achievements,
and hzs ecclesiastical policy. His character is considered iz
the 11,ghtof recent work on twelJh-century
intellertunl and ,i)t_,(
hological attttude$, and the account 5
of more favourable chroniclers. It I$ concluded that
the krng developed hlr father? strong policrei 111
e lers direction with constderable tucce\F, maklq
-ml\

I\ I I('\ IWI

(~III~I

of

College
field.
during

IWI~~~~I~

\<'1~1011

of

ot

n7 pnpc1

t IC Arts

In API-II 1976. I wtish to thank

Anrfrcw

rxxlrl at

Facultv

of

Michael

I cdl0

BII kbccU,
Bioom-

S,~ndc~ P and

other\ for their comment 3

the discussron which followed.

JOUI ILII of Mc*dicv,ll

Historv

( IO7 7) : l-20. 0 North-Holl,lnd

Thts tradltionai
view of King William II,
probabiv the supreme achievement
of mythmaking
ilr7 English history,
is the &ore
tenacious in that the primary q:jurces for his
reign wcrc largely the produc-t5 r>f the mvthmakcr$ themselves. The rqxrta t ion of la tcr
bad kings has been modified
bv I-Oappraisal
in recent years of royal records
and chronicle
sources,
but the formal
record5 of William IIs reign amount to iiitie
o\ver two hundred writs and charters which
have chanced to survive (Davis and Nhitweii
19 13 : no$. 289-487), and Eadmer, the mc
5trictiv contemporary
writer, was unif0rmiv
hoctiie. In Williams time the writing of contemporan
history was a monastic
monopoiv.
co that
tier icai interests
wcrc
cmp hacked while those of the emergent
secular litate were iargeiv ignored. Works extolling royal achievements were occasionally
produced
in the eleventh century and eariicr, but not on the scale found from Henry
11% reign onwards
(Gransden
1975 :3638 1). William did not, apparently,
commis&-NI
w-h
a work, and his successors
t hcoretical
repudiation
of his xhievements
prcrludcd
the writing of a posthumous
ofFavour able accounts
of
ficial bin,qaphy.
Williams
reign were produced,
but in
centreq ~~11 away from the Anglo-Norman
~~o~lt-t.Hi5 achievements
were considerable,
been
largely
ignored
owing to this
but haval
bia5 in t?7e tnoqt accessible sources.

Publishing

Company

Con tri utors to this

issue

the Department
entitled The

of HistorJl. An article of hers

articles on St Anselm
include those published
in the
Journal
of tkological
studies and
Studia
Her book, Learning in medieval
nwuzstica.
times, was published in 1974.
Dr Gillian
IR. Evans,
POttal address:
Department
of History, University of Beadin;:, Whiteknights,
Reading RG6 2AA, England.
graduated
at the University
followed up her B.A. with an
of Georgia;
M.A. at the same Universlay,
and then
researched
for her Ph.D. uniter Professor
Brvce Lyon and Anthony Molho at Brown
rJniversity. She is now a Teaching Assistant
at the University of FIorida. The paper published in this issue of the Journal is her first
publication.
Pottal address: Dr Jane K. Laurent, History
Department,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 326 11, U.S.A.

JANE

IEVV.~A
VASON, who gradr_tated at Bedford
Grllixe+ Univc~4t-v of London,
held a
WV ~15h fellowship at the Institute of HisRr~~earch in 1966-8. Since 1969 she
lecturer
in medieval
history at
kbeck College,
Universit)
of London.
er publications on English lbociety between
d-eleventh and the late thirteenth cent ur ic.5 include articles in the Bulletzn of the
Iractttute /Jf Hrstorical Research; tile Journal
of
arkal hrstoq., and Midland histoy, while
ctlirion of the Beauchamp cartulary is
ming in the Pipe Roll Societys new
wries. She is now continuing
the work of the
late D. J. Murphy on the early charters of
inster Abbey, as a volume for the
n Record Societv.
BCF!Q/a4dress: Dr Emma Mason, Birkbeck
Valet Street, London WCJE 7HX,
.

K. LAURENT

read 1istor-y at Quee&

College, Oxford, gradu;,t&
n-t 197 1, and
then unc:ertook research for a Ph.D. at the
University of Hull on th(b relations of Duke
Charles the Bold or Burg mdy with Iidly. An
article of his entitled The comtng of humanism
to the Low Counirtes: some Italian infiruencer,?t the
court of Charles the Be/d appears in the 19 76
volume of Human1 _ttca fovaniensa. Since July
1974 he has been editor of the Intenratzonal
medieval
bibliogra@_y
he also teaches medieval history at the University of Leeds.
Poqtal addrew
Mr R. J, Walsh, School of
History, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT,
England.
RICHARD

,[I.
WALSH

LELLE.~

a4

took her first degree at Oxher Ph.D. at the University of

et-e she is a Research Assistant in

EVASS

1973 : 173), and the recent civil war in the

Empire provided
#In example
of the fate
states
in which
one
faction
1r11t Irll cd il\ intcrcyty while ostcncibly championi ng the papal power.
The chroniclcr~
dcqignation
of ;I good
king was governed bv three criteria (GalbAth 194.5 : 12-U. First, he must be generous
in hiq treatment
of the clerical hierarchy,
[I hi& William certainlv wac not - nowadav5,
\I( might think, with good reason, for the
illc r(btlqing power and wca It h of clerical paswww~
brought no pastoral benefit to those
\VhO ul t ima tch
provided
t heil
incom r
UVLIWI~ 1976 : 2 1L The king5 own
rcaqoning
wa\ \t rict Iv practical. Clc~ ical baronie+, a\
mwh
as thoie of laymen, were qubixt to IhiT
o\~erlordchip,
dnci &ice thev gained bv the
stabilim ofSthe realm, thev mu$t take their
share of the cost. This brings us to the second
criterion, that the king ThouId be ~~ncce~~ful
in war, which William was, even in the eve5
of his ~trongc~t critics, but the chroniclers
constantlv l)cn;oaned the fimd -rsib ing which
waq eyyential if armies were to be put in the
field. EWII in the heyday of feudalivn, king5
depc~tcd
to a con~iderablr
extent on mer(enarv filrceq, and William could afford the
be$t, thanks to the financial -levelopmentq of
his reign. but thr best cod I demand something
over
the going
rate
(Prestwich
l9Fi4 26-71, and the exactions required to
finance them c-au5ed much S:esent&ent. The
kings subjects were willing enough to share
the benefit? of his territorL.1 gains, but le5s
willing to help pay for the cnmpaigns which
made them possible. This d#Juble-think over
the raiqing of war finance was not peculiar to
William5
biographers.
Throughout
the
medieval period and beyo!!d, it was almost
the biggest single cause of political crises,

and unlike the majority of hi5 successors,

William waq not forced into a showdown
o~ei it.
The third
critet ion of the chroniclerr
derived from their envisaging royal government as even more personal thanit was. The
king5 doing5 were largely , recorded
as a
series of encounters
with his magnates
or
Church and state, and there waq as yet
vir,
tuallv no attempt to discern the underlying
policies which led to particular
clashes.
Since each reign FL.>
depirted in the$e terms,
the king5 personal morality was tAken into
nlreadv hoqtilc for ot bet reapon (Zalbruth
194.5 : 122, 1SW Received opinion
on the
chm acter
of Fuch
Sad
kinp
tGl\
originated
in casual emotional
jL,dgvnients
on the part of one or hs.0 writ rs who were
~ubscqucntlv
copied, u Iihour acknowledgment, bv chronicler\
u ho were themselves
accepted in turn as authoritative
(Galbraith
1945: 125-6).
When
textbook
invective
aIr;ainqt Will iam I :F fo1lBwed up in the footnote+, it iq qeen that the charges brq.$r
rlgainCt the king in perqon depend p,jrtly XI
Arnd~ns
insistence that 6 hurch reform on
his own terms was eFsentia1 to improve the
(Chibnall
of the
nation
moral
tone
1973 : 179, and partlv on the criticisms of
the qcf,*ond generation of chroniclers that the
younger courtiers in his time were no longer
the austere warriors of the Conquest era, but
instead wore long hAr and trendv $hoeq
(StuLbs 1889:370; Chibnall 1973: 186-90).
Thic is somewhat
tenuous
evidence
for
Freemans allegations against the king himself (1882b :49?). There is no positive evidence that the king was a homosexual
(Brooke 1963 : 162). His being unmarried
at
his death is not circumstantial
proof of this,

since a$ &at period men of royal and

baronial houses often postponed marriage
until rhey were middle-aged.
Marriage was
tlot a matter of personal inclination, out of
dynastic significance, and could most profitnegotiated when a man had reached
eak of his political strength. The same
consideration
influenced
both the kings
erc. Chronicleu-s who were hostile to
ing considered innuendo a legi timate
wcap~n &Mhern
I966 :304).
In contra9 ,
chronicle, the Brut y Tyzqycogzo7;1,
took a dispassronate view of life at the
Is,-Norman COUPI,related that the king
rm heir because
h(n u$ed concubine5
I 860 : 64-6

I.

roniclers w ho designated a king as

~cjotI or bad were normally I rlinor obedien rirs,
often the librarians of their comrat her t ha n senior office- holders
rn tidbs*+
ot or prior, whose work at leasr
m up against the realities of
tc~%
al government . Their distorted repretar ion of the facts was not checked by
tCro,re who copied them. It was at mo(;t
tlv adapted in the course of time and
t;-accidents of manurkcript transmission, ais
dar feeling
vet7; gradually changed.
lx prejudices, however, were retained
for the most pt.
as history slowly turned
nto rornanc-e. Chroniclers were not fond or
mt eauw,
ad z_I~+-v
verdicts survive
onlv bv accident Kaibrdtth 1945 : 126).
c- intellectual developments of the time
a profound effect on the chroniclers
on King William. The conservatism
onartic institutions, and hence of their
iclerc. was in part due to their being
rcuduct of a much earlier and more
age.
Primitive
societies
are
genc=allv conformist, m the sense that they

are not aware of alternative patterns of conduct (Morris 1972: 121), and whilegreat
upheavals. both intellectual
and social, were
taking place from the mid-eleventh
centurv
onwards,
the monasteries
remained
out of
the mainstream
of these developments.
William II, on the other fland, was in some
important
respects a product of the new age,
certainly to a much greater extent than were
hi% biographers.
In the changing climate of
opinion,
men increasingly
found that there
was no ethical
certainty.
Realizing
that
valuer 50 often conflicted,
they were forced
to make their own deckions and to question
cqtablrqhed
codes
of conduct
(Morris
1972: 122, 160, 166). We can discern such
forces at work even in Eadmers biased account or the ronfrontation
between king and
archbishop.
The
new
uncertainty
was
increclsinglv
expressed
in 5atircl (Morris
1972 : 1221, which again we can glimpse in
the king5 convet-5ations as Eadmer reports
them.
Eadmer
himself
may not -have
rccogniyed when the king was speaking it-onicaliv, but it was no part of his purpose to
understand,
let alone to represent, the kings
viewpoint. William was ahead of his time in
haGng lost, or abandoned,
all but the n:oqt
flrndamental
of a received set of vaicles
(Southern
1966: 1456), a spiritual phenomenon
rlore common
in the mid-twelfth
century,
but his cir,-u nstances
largely
account
for
this.
Although
the rival
ectlesiactical hierarchv was not vet the exceskclv bureaucratic
c&poratioi
attacked 3)
the Goliard poet+ (Morris 1972: 130), ii wai
well on the Mav to becoming
so, and there
waq alrcadv an increasing
divergence
bctwc~n the pretensions and the practices of the
wwrdr~twn.
William, well aware of the needs
of the rqn~tm, which itself was very much a
1

product of his own times, saw no reason to

pav lip service to the increasinglv
strident
claimc of the rival power. with his own
graq:) of the realities of political
life, hp
rccoignized thnt the simpler codes of tllr past
wet-e inadequate, and, like others, develcqecl
hi5 own abilities to evaluate, to criticize, an,l
to take the initiative. Like others caught up
in the whirlwind
of c!langing and incompatible values, 5e expressed his inner conflict in blasphemv
(Morris 1972: 160, 1621.
The chroniclers deplored
the Fymptom, but
in their limited experience, were ignorant of
the cau~c. WC can see ref?ected in the king
not onlv the spiritual developments
{If his
own times, but also thL> revolution
and
I adicalism
which marks out the leader in anv
age, and the pessimistic determination
of the
isolated individual which was a legacy common to the Germanic
peoples (Alexander
1966 : 70-7).
Individualism
was not welcomed by the
ecclcsiaqtical establishment,
which Taw it as a
threat to itq own spiritual and intellectual
monopoly,
and this in turn is an adcJed explanation
of the chroniclers
reaction
to
William I I. The king was certain11 1x-J lone
radical voice in his realm. People Lo not
develop
ideas in a complete
intelyctual
vacuum. As an instance, and one need not
postulate anv I,iirect contact, the Anonvmous
of York wa, at least a precocious
stui-lent
during Williams reign. The king5 public
image might have 1 ten vet-v different if the
ho~vmol~~
had 111rblished his rcvolutionalt cupoqition of trt\e regnum'$claims rather
earlier than he <iti (Tellenbach
19519: 146).
Instead, he gave respectabilitv
to Henry Is
church policy, wI ich was simplv Williams
writ large (Howell 1962 229).
The chroniclers
reflect the opposite Tide

of
the
n ew
mtellectual
movethcnts.
Although thev, weI = more static in their outlook, vet thev reflected the currcrt
uneayc
and saw their own age a(; a time ot troubles.
There was a tendency to expect the imminent arrival lof Antichrist (Morris 1972 : 143,
and while it would be untair to sav that anv
of the Anglo-Norman
chroniclers
conTciouslv identified
him with William, yet
the\ portraved
the king so crudely
15 to
leave an alieadv impressionable
aud%ence
with thar assumption.
Again, in the ct,ronicles, we see a reflection of the in<re.\sing
interest
in psvcholog7r
(that wk7ir-h disI
tingui&e~ each indiv&al
from cven~ other)
and
the personal portrait (MOI ri5 1972 : 15?0.
A distinctive and outspoken
subject guch as
William 11 tempted writers to *,how off their
budding literary skills, so that their end product iq just as much a fictional villain as the
1.hirtccnth-century
chroniclers made of King
john (Galbraith 1944 : thrc,ughoutL
The.
clerical
waq
bccom ing
world
incrca4nglv
verboqc and artificial when it
put pm to parchment,
and in contrast the
kings alleged sayings - for medieval writer5
alsed direct speech to indicate
attitudes,
I:,Ithcr than verbatim conversations
(Smallev
19 7 1: 19) - appear all the more abrasive. His
rcportcd q&p, quggc5t both that he enjoyed
shocking ean nest clerical note- takers, and
that thev in turn secretly cnjovcd
being
qhockcd (Brooke
1963 : 167-s). Moreover,
the audience for which thev wrote expected
to t-v entertained
(Smalley 1974 - 13). Wil&.I
9
Ii
biographers
cert,Cnlv achieved
this
c.~t dltllough the picture of the king which
thcv trancmitted
to the next generation
do11 )tlesq owed as much to their roI*e of
voice and caurtic a5ideq during redd;iigS to
tFc -hapter as did their actual text.

As we know all too well today, an inclividualc, public image depends entirely on
its rcfkc.tion, or d stortion, in the news
ia, ~.~~hcrethe mopt unlikelv people acuire haloes, or horns anti tail. S&h -distor-more lilkely in the case of hisres, since there is less chance of a
image being presented, for we are
v dependent on a diminishing numof first-hand sources the further back in
son lived, !Vhen reading modern
iography, we are amused at the
611~c~rnpkak which two or three men
g;w to the same trivmal episode - let alone
e&ion:: a Much more
the bitts of medieval
r hronir-fers. No writers who played a major
part in the English historical rradSsion were
~rirt ccrntcmpotarics of Eadmer. We have
no ;~~ruunf o1 William Ilr reign which ik

Purina_so that the problem of evaluating the

F achievements ir all the greater. His
w faras ow can see, had much in
with that of his contemporary, I
cd
of Taranto. Unforl: una tely fou
reputation, he had no Anna Comrk out her love-hate fascination
rose 6ewter 1969: 141, and ncc
to revamp a Gesta Willelmi as
Bohemond
with the GeJ,di
FWW~~WIIHill 1962:x, xxxvii-viii).
Both
heir enterprise and irony, resemeir Viking ancestors of six Or seven
erarions earlier, but we see them through
riot onlv of difterent civilizations.
writ&s with very diff&rent prenna at her most vehement still had
t respect {or Bohemonds political
To Eadma, the very concept was
thc~~~ f966:302r.

The members of the society in which William matured

saw themselves, in the words
of Bernard cf Chartres, as dwar% standing
on the Thouldcrs
of giants - .&le to see
further than, but owing
most of their
achievement
to, those who IifteJ them up
(Brooke 1955 :xli). The kings policies were
in essence those of his father, but in several
respects, particularly
in the expansion of his
frontiers,
his own abilities and ambitions
drove him on, while in others, notably in hi<
dealings with the sacerdotium, he was driven
to extremes
by the intransigence
of hi:
0l:ponents.
William I and William II had a rcadvmade base for their programme
of strong
government
in the achievements
of their
terlth- and eleventh-century
English piedecessors, who bequeathed
them a unified
kingdom and a legal and financial apparatus
which,
although
rudimentary,
had great
potential icampbell
19X:39-54).
William II
governed the rountry more thoroughly
than
previous
rulers had found
poF&le,
and
paved the way for ehe more publicized effort5 of his broth<br- along the 5ame lines, yet
he himwlf earned nothing hut abuse for his
achilr\pement. Ground gained for the monarchy was ground
lost for other interests,
hence the sense of outrage which is reflected
in the chroniclers.
Henry Ts subjects - and
chroniclers
- had come to accept that the
clock could not be put back.
Even hostile accounts of the reign admit
among it5 major successes the strengthening
of
the
northern
frontier.
Natives
of
Northumbria
and Cumbria
owe their undoubred
English nationality
to William II.
Of course he himself owed something to his
fAthcr5 effort5 in the same direction,
and
also to the fact that Malcolm
Canmore
repeatediv
played into his hands, but Wil-

lia n ~~WI-VC~the credit for establishing

the
bodcr
with Scotland virtuallv
a~ it runs
IOC!,~V,15well a5 f-or reinforcing
earlier tcnr,\tivct t Iaims to overlordship
(If the Scot&h
kmgdom
( Duncan
197.5 : 1Xl- 1 ; Barrow
lG6 25).
His stabilization
of the West
blnrch (Duncan 1975 : 120; Barrow 1966: 28)
b) planting colonists in IMP rteighbourhood
of hi5 new castle of CarlisLe was later copied
bj Henry I in Pembrokeshire
(Darlington
1968 : uxxi), but it is usual y Henry, not William, \I ho iq cornmender
for hi5 imaginati\*e
frontict- plicv.
Judicic 1; help for Edgar
Act Ming
md
hi5 rr)xl
nephews
gave
politi<J backing to Uil;dams milutarv gains,
end prcp,n-cd the wa\ ior the more rvplicir
alliance of the next re&n(Duncan
1975 : 1256, 2 17). Henry I is properly commended
for
his ctatesmanship
in contracting
a marriage
with the Anglo-Scottish
princes5 (Edith)
Matildn, but he carried out a plan earlier
fol mcri t)v William II on his own account
(Grin~,ell-Milne
1368- 142). Herman, abbot
of Tomnai, heard fi-om Anqelm that William
G+cacl the princes5 at her aunt3 coment,
but fir-ding her veiled as a nun, he left without fi:rthcr conversation.
Anselm, a con~unmiate politician (Vaughn 197.5: Li9-303),
( ertarnlv
grasped
the implications
of thi$
irigit, which he mentioned
to Herman when
c conversatiorl
with Matilda
recountmg
ht_
about allegations
that she was a nun. Her
expln;i:,!tion cleared the way< for her mdrGage 90 Henry I (MPL 1Ji9:427-30), but
or-x Iha: event took place, it war9 no longer
tat tful to speak of earlier off-rs for her
haml.

The Norman drive into Wales was carried

on largely bv private enterprise,
on a piecemeal ha& (Edwards 1956 : 1681, but William
himself led the recovery of ground lost in
the south during
the revolt of 1094. A

national
enterprise
called for a national
effort by, all tenants-in-chief,
including
the
m-t lc4ia~tlc+, and the king waq iustifiablv anno~d when Angclmq ill-equipped
contingent failed to meet the minimal
requirerncntq (Stenton 196 1: 148). It is possible to
discount Stcntonci hypothesis that Anselmq
contingent comprised anachronustic
English
,irr)l,~~ (Southern
1966: 159)
without
necc(;~arilv concluding
that the kings complaint was spurious.
The archbilihop
was
<:qyr
enough to claim jurisdiction
over the
W( Ish clet-gv (Richter 1973 : Ixxxvin--viii) but
this could onlv be trulv effective as a followup to riiilitarv victor-v. It waq disingenuous
01
his biographer
to &present the kin,+ coniplaint a$ an unjurtified
atrack on an innocent victitn who was totallv above 5uch mundane concerns. ThiT was onlv, one of ~evc~tl
episodes involving the king and the xx-nbishop whit-h Eadmer
recorded
ten&nt ioulrlv, to s;!v the IeaFt (Sour htrn 1dIGh: 1.5I8 ; compare
Southern
1962367 ). Similarlj
An~elnl,~ in 1existing royal dernanci~ lor TV
wil h
contribution,
conimen~uf-a te
dllr
re\ourceq of hi? tcmporalitl<ls, toward5 the
1~111,~s
Norman <ampaign of 1094, was a( UI~II~I 11101e conccrncd
not to a( :;uirr 1
reputation
for simony than ta.3meet his obligations
as a tenant-in-chief.
Eadmcbr
naturdllv
implied
that the failure of this
campaign cva5 due to the kings hatassment
of the archbishop (Vaughn 197.5: 287 I.
Williams recovers of Normandy was welcome to his clerical magnates as well as L 1
hi5 lav barons, fot both had a vested interest
in the unity of kingdom and cluchv, and it
was certainly the wish of William I that his
moqt Ioval con who& rule over bo!h ILc
Patourel 197 1 :5, B-3). The achievement
01
William II was due equally to military skill
and to recognition
of a good bargain when

Figlu-c 1. POI~I,III ( OIII

to him by the papal legarc

liaskin5 1918:78-g;
Le Patovt-cl 197 1:5).
Hi\ rule was consolidated
by go*cerntnent fat
\up<t-ior to his elder brothers
(Haskins
1918:80), coupled with quick thinking and
faqt footwork
in subsequent
etnergencies
(Freeman
f 882b:282-4;
645-X!). William
revived his fathers governance
of Normandy as rex Anglontm, in place of Roberts
:veak &caI rule as a vassal of the French
Crown. Williams treatment of England and
N lrmandv as a united, independent
re~~~?N
waq vet another of his policies later followed
bv Hcnrv I (Hollister,
1976:213-14,
216171, Mhich
effectively
predetermined
evelopl:lenrs
in the t&elf& century
and
:t

Mil5

01

WIIII,II~

II

put

The king\ ambitions

apparenlv
did not
stop at rounding off the familv la&,
for he
rcpu~cdlv had designs on &land,
Poitou
Brewer 189 1 :290; Stubbcl 1880:370~, ,tnd
C\<II Franct~ it+cll (Hol%i~fer 1073 :6&V.
When Henry , II had ide;tq ;tlotI
lines, he IVilS admired
for hi5 ctttetpri\e,
ho\tilrb
( hrot~ic~lct-\
11hct~;t~ Williitttlr;
t~tot~;tlirc~d ,tbout prirlc~ (otitittg Mote a fit11
18) 1 L))O;
1880::~70).
( Rtxrv~~t
Stdh
L,t\tnr~tt, who \si-otc politicA
Iti\~otl: onI\
I1ndct
(SCCptiOttil1 circutr~~,t,tn~~~~ (Hill
1962 :xiv), held ambition in great respect, as

L.

+2.

?1

5
_.
=

n*

2:,

_.

3,

a.

..

.I

f
3

?I!

5.
/

CI

Z*

G:

-I

=i

-P
,

57
0

3,

I?
-0.

;r
..

-4

P.

P.

<
0
=

,*
,:

=:

o-,

z
pl

anticipating

the better-known

1~ time 6oidlel
Mimi t,ltion\

eVres of Hen7

G 1933: 105).
1966 :4 92).

Rccdv

Dppe

their

their

long-

wcjs cons, lerable. Elfkctivc

t hi wghmt t ht Iand was essen1111if rtlclo alit\ to bcba llnificd kingdolrl
ThtA
oi IgIll\ of thrb jidic ial pi ~)ww\ 01 w I( ot
tel in significance
i 0~11 jmfw~

~~Y~-~~I~~
and

i ight.

wwd

II dccd in Willidins

1 cgilldr

practice

on I hc
b\ writ

writs,

(?vuthern

a stagger ing fine

( Irclcrs

!SiO:

189). The

dC~dOplll~?liS

bc

ir now bcc;irnc

and

to iinpo~e
divegdrded

ivh

lintincicil

d~n~~w2, can

coin eyed
legal and

Williams

0t

reign

lmpw1
the \zx for the wet k of the Euchc(piin t ho hvellth tenturx,
and perhaps
Eden initl,ltcd
It (Southern
1933 11 1). Royal
01 over the resource\

( mti

~~kt(~11~1cd

into
tar

hv

the tie6\\ur\. This

ar~c4ng

porai7

shire

hxl

and

its

r~luivnlent

cd the adoption
times.

as a cnntem-

impact

of the national

modern

gi eat lx>tential

revenues,

ploitation

wa$

;,f the ill)clCll\

demonstrated

treatise

1924: 328-35),

of the realm

iritroduc~io,rl

ttlc

(&skins
on

the

rfxcnues

ex-

sv;19 the

of romputsrr

in

proportion

oi

An increasing

the nti~iOnril weaEth came from

town<,

11hit h

vei-e now entering

a long period of cupanWilliam iI~)peciatctl

that
civil order
,mA
\l,ll)lc urban communities
enhanced his
and Kcir 1975.3 I),
t wii
pcGtir>ri (Brooke

\ioii.

hi

11 torn

ww

to prospci

th:-ough

then

England needed the rcyitation

t t)llilll
i in which foreign
merchants
do business

without

hindrance,

in\tanccd by his extension

pI1c101tc

term5

to

n-de,
of a
could

an attitude

ofr(d

Scandinavian

JusIIcc 011
traders

(~~Jli~)llilll 1973 128 1).

The furtherance of royal power was large1: entrusted to a picked group of clerks and
l;,~ officer-s of comparatively obscure origin,
wll() were administrators,
but not policy

11

advisors on a par with rhe great tenants

in chief. The team Included Robert Bloett,
Urse dAbetot and, pre-eminently,
Ranu,lf
Flambarcl (West 1966 : lvillain in
mythology
William II is commonly refe..red to bv a nickname which was rendcrc:d
derogatory only by the pen of E. A.
(Grinnell-Milne
1(,)68:39), so Ranulf
the
kings clerk, the exactor or executor o\ the
kings
will,
is usually
known
by a
p\cudonym
which ;)eau-s no relationship
to
the real status or personality
of the man
who, from 1099 o:Iwards, was the mightv
I)f Durham
(Southern
pala t inc bishop
1933:98, 100, !25; Scammell
1966:4X-4).
The massive solidity of its Norman cathedral
reflects the status of its occupant. Tenure of
the bishopric
in the twelfth century was
synonymous
with command
of the Scottish
March (Scammell
1966:453). Ranulf, with
his great organizing ability and cool head,
even when his OWVR life was at stake
!Southern
1970: 187), was just the man for
this role. What is perhaps more surprising, in
view of his pi?pular reputation,
is that the
Durham
monks commemorated
his acts
performed
as their bishop (Southern
1970:
n
A\
20 L-l,.
thu darting
The cognomc 9 Flarnbard,
flame, was coirit \. I& Ranulf by Robert
Dispenser, a fellol . mritzlis and bro&er of
Ranulf t colleagut
s Jose dAbetot, in token
that he was hclrc Rhcnre and everywhere
Khibnall
I973:I S , whether
on judicial
visitations,
financial lilquests or executing
routine business. The chroniclers
were f&+
cinated by his IrbTcluitv, ;:nd by the novelty
of his po+orb
1 naiional
life. Extended
royal g&rnment
naturally made increasing
demand5
on mens
Ipockets, hence
the

chroniclers
representa, ion of Ranulf and
hi5 colleagues as nothl
r more than a pack
of licensed robbers. In reality, they wcrc extending the kings power so that he was now
merely
head
of the feudal
no longer
pvramid,
but ruler
of alI increasingly
ccntrali7ed state (Southern
1370: 186-g), fkr
more disciplined
than Nonrnandy was - if
onlv in popular
memory.
once William
gained control of the duchv. The activitic\ of
the team of administl-ators,
rather than
those of Ranulf as an individual, anticipated
in some important
respect5 the scope dclcgated to the justiciar in the twelfth centu?
(West 1966: 1 1).
These
men naturally
expected
to !>e
rewarded
for services r-et dered. Much has
been made of Henry 13 exploitation
of
patronage
as a means of encouraging
his
subordinates
to strcngther, his own position
(Southern
1970:206-33),
bitt in t;rct this wan
no i! InovatL,n in hi5 time - a difrcrencc in
rlq$cc, per haps, as the team wan cnlargcd,
but not a diffixrcncc in kind. The concept of

$uppoFed inspiration
is simply due to tht
fact that his reign is much better documented than those of hi?* predecessors.
In William IIs reign, as in earlier t irnc5, fpki /m
po grants
:cft little or no trace, fbr the
recipients usually failcad to preserve I hc rare
confirmatory
charters which t hry 1cx-civcd,
whcrca~ that much-misinterprererc
docume1 fit, the 1 130 Pipe Roll, ma kcr it appear
that Hcnrv I was the tint king to plan cfl&tivclt on his seivants greed and ambition to
turl: hci- his own cnd5. Williain~
iiwn would
have been astounded
thev

at the suggestion

that

were in the kings service for any other

rea Fan

than
g00d
old-fashioned
selfinterest. Robert Bloett ended his days as
bishop of Lincoln, Ranulf Flambard as palatine bishop of Durham, while Urse dAbetot
was granted
lands and delegated
royal
powers in the west Midlands which formed
the basis of his Beauchamp
descendants
virtual
state-within-a-state?
William5
highly motivated
team of administrators
waq 50 efTicient that it was taken over PU KM
by Henry 1. Ranulf Flambard, of course, had
to bc made a scapegoat
for propaganda
purpo~c5, but he soon reappeared
at court,
now no longer an energetic royal
clerk on
,
the make, but a rear tenant i-n chief and
weighty political
advisor CSouthern
1933:
117. 124-5).
In his judicious patronage
of the great
tenants in chief, too, William II cr.xnpares
filvourablv with the supposedlv mot f Ttatesmanlike
Hcnrv I. Valuable
wppc
t in a
(*t-i& wan gcncrouslv rewarded - at ilo coqt
to th(a king him41 i bv the creation of the
(m-hhn of Warwick for Hem-v II Ncwburgh (Stcvcn~on 1WX:2 1, 137 ; DoJ)lcdav
1904 277-B. 3 10-25, 332-5; Hall I 6 :325).
The Montgomery
brothers were L. 4rlering
u(;cfi~l qcarvice in extending
the king% frontiers, but would turn dangerous
if their <trnbitionP were thwarted. They were given moqt
of what thev asked for - but at a price
1Ma+on
1963 : 1+2OL The land+ of r&cl5
must 01 courts be confiqcat(xl, but the king
C;IMno need to alienate a whole powerful
( Iar, bv dismembering
an escheated honour,

intact. It did not do to push mighw subjects

too hard. Hem-v I ignored this pre&pt, and
held his pcople*down
by fear, which waq all
vcrv jvell for him, but his dismemberment
of
$0 manv honourg was a major contribution
to the troubles
of his successor
(Davis
1964: l-12).
William IIs policv to\+ards the Church
has frequentlv been attacked, but our only
records of it are those made by churchmen.
Hc was, moreover, fighting a ;-evolution on
the part of the sacerdotium, and could not
afrord to be over-nice in his methods.
He
knew as well a5 anyone th,lt Anselm, fat
II on1 x ring out hi, self-Twled role as an old
and feeble sheep yoked to an untamed bull,
was already a past master at ecclesiastical
politics before he became archbishop,
and
thoroughlv
understood
what he must do to
further tl-i claims of the sacerdotium in England (Vaughn
1975: 279-93). Anseim was
perfectlv Tincere in his beliefs, but totallyoblivious of the outcome
for secular government if he succeeded t Southern
1966 - 162,
<02L Thrcxqqhout
the reign, he rcpeatedh
111 <wd
ftT!. church
rcforrn
at times of
political critic. Ho usually brought pressure
on the ki y, r,nlj when he had public qympat+v and whtbn William needed his support
for hi5 projects. Confronted by what AnFehn
c~~lp;lc~rnisticalI\ called holv guile, the king
h;ld other wordy for it, and it iq not surpriqing that hc wan driven to cxprecq public Iv his hatwd of the arrhbichop
(Vaughn
197 5: 288,293).
William wa$ just a5 entitled to uphold his
the authority
of the
O\\II
W-Id
trurt
\c( u1;11-mon;u-chv a$ he had rec4ved it fi-om
hi, fath(bI (Southern
1962:8-l-5),
and he
came ~4 out of the battle. His only, COW
ccqcion
MF
to acknowledge
a pope whom,

13

c_ven before the conflict with Anselm, he

had already realized he must eventually
recognize
(Sout hex-n 1966: 154-5). During
Williams reign, Anselm could not make
headway on the scale he achieved in Henry
1975 : 293). Williams
Is time (Vaughn
bishops did not in general accept Anselms
cause as their own. At most we discern one
hesitant Gregorian in Herbert Losinga, for
William of St Calaiss cynical rejection
of
secular jurisdiction
can be discounted,
as
Lanfranc himself pointed out. At the council
of Rockingham,
the bishops stood firmly by
the king (Arnold 1882: 1.79-SO), as might be
expected of royal servams at the peak of-the
career-ladder
(Soother; 1 1966: 146). With
their training, they appreciated as weal as the
king and his lay barons that Anselms claims
on behalf of the sacerdotium encroached
on
the roval sovereignty, and they were equally
ijldignant
(Vaughn
1975286,
289, 29%
Besides, they were also determined
to preerve their own authority,
for the stronger
he popes jurisdiction
became, the weaker
their own position.
Throughout
William5
reign, the bishops ar-thority was largely
safeguarded byI his own attitude towards the
but
their
stat us
percept ibl)
papacy,
diminished
over the next fifty years as the
jurisdiaion
of lthe papal court widened
(Brooke 1955 :xxxi, nos. 168 74,83,91). For
Anselm, there were different h-onsiderations.
He had secured I ;is election by adroitly
building
up a r:ettvoyk of influence,
and
once installed, made it his business to subdue
the other British bishops to his obedience
(Vaughn
1975285,
ZFS), while the kings
5ucceqsful resistance to the activitic,s of the
papal legates mealIt th;lt Anselm himself drd
not become a Ini re co_; in a wheel. In the
upshot, William maintained
his right to take

14

the homage
of his ecclesiastical
tenants in
chief, and his right to invest them with Ftaff
and ring. It was accident,
not principle.
which resulted in Angelms not receiving investiture at the kings hands. William has often been charged with a tactical mistake in
appointing
him to CAnterbury
in the first
place, but the choice Nas e3 Fentiallv that of
influential
barons
p lthered
at what was
believed
to be th:* kings
death
bed
(Southern
1966: 152 3). In the confusion,
they imposed
aheir own candidate
and
gained
spiritual
meI it for the king. tin
neither count could they hcsitatc for ttiar of
future consequences.
The kings cnfor( cmtlnt of rq$m
I ighr.
his enjovment
of the revenues of a vat ant
benefice, agitated the chroniclers a9 much as
did hiq quarrel with Ansehn. The king ccrtainly did not invent this right, ds imulal
chroniclers
implied, but he did dcvclop tcntatile preccoehts
into a highlv pl&tablc
qourcc of revenue
(Howe11 1962: 1O- 13
gro:lnd by taking a feudal relied from tenants of the vacant see of Worcester. Rather,
at a time when his militarv and diplomatic
he was cxtcndmg
all feudal rights - over
ccclcsia(;tical as well a$ lay property (Howell
1962 : 1% Episcopal and monastic establishrncnts WI c' highlv pi ivileged corporations.
Thcv gained fix~rr; the kink+ achievcmentq,
and
cordd
reasonabl-; be expectcad to help
linawc
them. The Canterbury
monk5 grumbled at their treatment, bait Canterbury was
a special case. Othei, inore co-operative,
houses
which undcrv\~ent vacancle5 were
tl (xtcd with considerxion
(Howell 1962: 16,
19 . Henry I, in hi5 coronation
charter,
astutely plaved on tllfl re!.entment
aroused

bv Williams
a ;,lrtion
of rcgaIial.
right
(Stubby 1966: 1 1 I-19). He won clerical suppot t bv promising
to abolish It. and then
pi o~eeded to e+oit
the right far 11lo1 c than
hiq brother had ever done (Howell 1962:FN.
What the chrotdm
do not qav, is that Wil-

policies. He lightlv disguised them under a

veneer of bureaucracv
and custom, while
implving
that his brothers
methods
were
a thing of the past. The conventional
reqponse to this, that Henrys government
waq acceptable and laudable because it was
ham5 approach towards clerical juri) +tion
backed by legality and urbanity (themselves
,md yropertv was fi,llowed bv his FucceSTorc,
prmhrcts of the twelfth century), would have
,mcl th,tt (oritelllf)ol-;tt.v ContimBntal pr,lcti( c
been I black joke to those whb sufrered under hi5 reign of calculated
terror. By, the
titw
the true nature of Hcbnrvs
government
1
\\ ii4 (*lChill* - ;111d that was not long in cornin .
- t hc ml th of the tvrant Rufils was too fit-ml\
e\t,J)li4led to eradicate.
7 he nxth was enhancecf bv the deliberate
\pt eclding of 1umour\
concerning
prcnroni t ions of Williams death, as though
good men were forewarned
that a bad king
coherent
(rtcite, then tenants of theqc qubwars about to meet his deserts (Grinnellrtantial baronie\ muqt acknowlcclgc~ that the
Milne 1968:,5.5-7). Naturallv all accounts of
king was the lord of their lord. In this rethese yremo!+ions
were written after the
c;pect, the assertion of regalian right was a
king h,~d in f,p(t died. Most of thecc TtorieT
filll(iilIllCIlt2~
component
ofWllliani(; polic\
uhimatelv derive from Eadmcr, and the one
olwelding his rc,~\in together.
i ndependen t source
for the rumours
is
Willi,nn 114policies itpp(bared $0 qhocking
Ghx~r*c\ter Abbey (Southern 1962: 123n). 11%
to (.I~iit(iii~~o1;iI.ies beca1u9e i+ev were new
,hht
tried to speak to the king about a pro(SoutIlerrl
1970: 1IYG-8). Late1 generations
phetic
dream, but he txu$hed it aside as
l;)\rilcI 1.01,il g0vernment
f ii\ more demandmei e qxr\tition.
The ,Ibbot way possibl)
irIg. but 1)~ th( n peq+
had come to fyec t
tiTii\g to hint that there way a plot ayxinst
tllitt it would be. He was not appre-iated
the kings life, but did not dare to be too exbecause he stood at the dawn of a nefu: era,
plicit in public, qince vet-v important
people
whit h cnviqed
cohesion in place ofct ntriwere
involved,
some
of
whom
were
actualh
t\lg;tlis~l!l. This threatened
too nI;Inv bested
pre+ent (GrinnelI-M ilne 1968 : <57,6 1).
interest\, did it is mgwhlc
that
the act*Vities
The mvt h of Rufus was created
imthe
01 hi\
at1 d
medititelv
(
,n
the
death
of
William
I
I.
There
Of
fil( rion5
ii~llO~lgw
ttlCIl1,
ing1 (I\\1 h
CldWl IWIlV
crwd
iI Vlll( Icw
01 ~Y\p~~(tet~ were three $trandq in it, making. First, the
11I itings of Ep~dniei , wtro fi-om 1ON93Uas
fOl ill1 iIltCr*llilti\*V
OC(U~~illlt
(II It It 1tlOIlC
(ompo4ng
a bl.)gr-aphv of Anselm. He was
(So~dlcv
11 1933: 1 17). II 90, thev would
Iave
~p~k~~wwn
both for his hero and for one of
l)ut
(I()II( \~eil to t>it(.k the (hivah-out,
the
gre,l[c$t
Engli ,h monastic communities
y)litic,tllv inept Duke Robe1 t. In the c sent,
of the (Slav (Southern
1966:229, 299, 329),
HemTP 1 reaped the benefit of WilI t ms

15

notoriously
unwhose
members
were
in defence
of their interests
scrupulous
(Southern 1958: 193-226; Johnson 196 1 :xvi,
I b-i- 13, and hc tells his story gf the conflict
between king and archbishop
entirelv from
Anselms point of view. Hir acco&t
of
rvents in his Hkstoria novorum is openly prejudiced, for he states in the pwface that the
ihief nova ITSof his time was the resistince of
the archbishop
to royal authority
over the
Church. This clash of principle in churchstate relations was essentially new, as Eadmer was the first writer to realize (Southern
1966:303--4, 310), but he ignored
its impl ications for secular government.
The Tecond contribution
to ;he myth
came from the monastic
chroniclers
of
Henry I!I reign, who accepted Henry as the
good king whose coronation
charter prornised to sweep away the bad old days of his
predecessor. Their facts are essentially , those
of Eadmcr : their literary embellishments
are
their own work. The frequent tendency to
treat the mid-twelfth-century
chroniclers
as
corroborative
of Eadmer
ignores
the
elementary
precaution
of evaluat ing such
evidence according to the vested interests of
the house which produced
the work, or
those elf the house from which a chronicle
derived its source-material
on earlier reigns.
The works which derive from Eadmer reflect
Canterburys
jaundiced
view of William
while they are dealink with the church-state
controversy,
but when they turn to secular
matters, they admit, half grudgingly
and
half admiringly,
that the king had exactly
the talents required at that particular
time a judicious bl end of severity, generosity and
ebullience.
CIrderic , summing
up of the
king5 flair fc r government
would in fact
serve elqually well as an appraisal of Henry I
Khibnall
1973: 179; Stubbs 1889:373), ex-

16

cept that not even Henrys greatest admtre.s

could call him dashing.
William was given less qualified appraisal
by houses which remembered
him a$ a
benefactor.
Battle Abbey, for instance, was
founded
by his father, who left its endowments in a precarious
state. William II put
Battle\ finances onto a sounder
footing,
and the monks
were duly appreciative
(Brookc 1963 : 165), but their chronicle was
not in the mainstream
of the monastic historical tradition, and was virtually ignored
bv the professional
historians
of the
ninctccnth
century,
who gave the Rulirs
mvth the form which has survived almost to
19k5: 127). The
the prc.5cnt (Galbraith
monks of Durham had a more ambiva!ent
attitude
towards William II. He wa9 theit
patron, whom they* could not criticize, but
thcv noted that hc treated other houres
badlv(Mcchan
1975:.53).
Writers who were able to take a detached
view of Williams poficies are much more
favourable
than the closely inter-related
monastic chroniclers.
Suger, abbot of Saint Dcniq, was no cloiqtcred historian, but chic1
minister of the king of France. His firm grasp
of the realities of political life led him to
recogniire Williams achievements,
and it is
here that we must look for their most objective appraisal
in the twelfth century
(Southern
1933 : 1LB; Prestwich
1954 : 27).
Geoffrey Gaimar, 1 clerk of Caen, gave a
glowing

account ,yf Williams

reign, hut
Gcofh ev was esscnt idly a wri tcr of romance

(Gransdcn
197.5:37 2). The kings militarv
skill and ebullient character maclc him an
ideal hero for a work of this sort, but it ip
scarcely sober history. Neither Suger nor
Gcofficy wa9 drawn on to any, extent by thtb
ninctt~enth-century
historians.
The third contribution
to the mvth came

fi-om Hem-v I. Following his accession to the

t hr-one
in dubious
circumstances,4
he
needed supper-iers,
including
the eminent
clerics, aid 11i 5 unprecedented
coronation
charter largely promised
to repudiate Williams treatment of the ~~~~~~o~iurn.To reinfix-cc his posit ion,

however,

he followed

Wi Iliamq prx tices, while fostering the myth

ofthc tvmnt Rufus, to lead people to believe
that these wele thing% of the past. William
\aid fi-anklv that no ruler once firmlv in
power ca11 ~wrt out everything he promised
while bidding fix $upporf (Rule 1884: 2.5).
Henr\ lvfi his subject\ to work that one out
lot Ihcm\el\es.
Bv the time thev did, the\
\\Yr( irl RITiI t i1\1< of hm1, as the Peterborough
c!ironicle
remind5
us, and his
\hcritl\ kept a sharp lookout for those whose
da\\*ning realization led them to criticize the
;tcti\ities of the king or hi% pror?rr~ior (Clark
1970154, Kealev 1972141).
Hcnn
Is
reign
was much
better
documt~nted
t ban
Wi I ham
1Is
simple
be(*,lu\~~ in the hvclfih centurv men were

used to veil the true inlent of royal policies

fi-om t hc popu1ace, a It bough royal clerks,

on the+- predecessors,
prejudices and all, fcllr
knowtdge
of events earlier than their own
lifetimes. Throughout
the middle ages in
England,
the sncerdottum fought a losing
battle against the demands of the regnum.
It
_
was consoling for monastic com:nunities
to
believe that kings did not have right on their
side, arId to depict this in vet bal battles between a clerical champion
and a bad king
who came to a Tuitahly bad end.
In the nineteenth
century both the myth
of Rufus the* bad king and that of his brother
Hcnrv rhe good king were revived in the
\VIiring\
c:f Stubbs
( 1884 :290-3 18) and
Fr~wnm
\!882a; 1882b). They uncl iticall\
,I( q~ccl 1tie chroniclers caricature of Will
fiam and, with no new evidence, enhanced it
with invectiv(a of their own. The obsession of
theqe Victorian writers, as much as of anv1
monastic chronicler, was with moral iudgemcnts. Thev had no tnore idea of the
realities of political life than had the monks
Mhoqe diatribes they uncritically
accepted.
In the Iast resort, therefore,
their judgemont on Williarnc reign, as on others, was
IIIOI al, a 11d even
religious
(Galbrai th
194.5: 127, 13 11, yet wa5 qcriouqlv accepted as
&I\*,ilid I&to1 ica1 apprCCqal.
The opinion of Stubbq and the even more
extreme views of Freeman were perpetuated until scholars began to examine the
f~t.ilnilr~ qourceq more critically. At the end
of the nineteenth
centurv, Round pointed
out the most glaring fallacies in their inof the reign
(1895:226-8;
terpretation
Sout heI n I 970: 1834,
t lrt the mythical
\ itbw of it \vil+ 11~1petu;lt( ,i +orou5ly
down
from
10 tflr 950~ deq3ire remonstrances
S1(bn1()n,who broke new ground in his interpl(q,ltil II of t~wcl,~l society ( 196 1 : 148-9) and
Gaff,till t,, in 115reappraisal of chronicles as
historic 11 sou, -e material (1945: 125, 127).
17

Most historians did not venture to reject the

myth out of hand? As each advanced knowledge in one particular
field, so Williams
stock went up in that respect, but the writer
hastily added that of course nothing could
be said in the kings favour on other counts.
ThtB major aspects of Willnam Rufuss
reign have no v been re-examined
and put
in their proper context. We have evidence of
a king who furthered the policies of his able
predecessor,
made important
advances of
his ol,un, and was forced to make no real
cone essions - something which can he said
for very few of Williams successors.
His
policies were assiduously
followed
by his
brother and the stronger among their successors, vet his own achievements
are rarely
given p lore than grudging
recognition.
There is no longer any place in historical
scholars1 ip for those pantomime
villains
Rufu:l and Flambard,
and their replacement in secondary literature by the resolute
and f&ward-looking
King William II and
his a!,tute minister Ranulf, bishop of Durham, is long overdue. No consideration
should be given to an equally unrealistic attempt F_;)whitewash
their characters.
SuccessfL1 jnedieval kings and their servants
wer: net nice people in the vulgar sense of
amiable and altruistic nonentities.
The rare
exceptions
were totally unsuited
for the
posit ions theT occupied,
and caused more
suffering by their ineptitude
I-han did the
hard-headed
majority.
P.s Orderic
Vitalis
said, the Nonnans
were a warlike people,
and needed a firm hand to control
them
(Chibn&
1973:82). Medieval
society was
turbu!en-, and presented many problems,
of
elementa y civil order and national defence,
to name only the most ,obvious, which we
are largely spared today. Recognition
is due

18

to those who met them head on, but is not

always given, such is the tenacity of myth.

Notes
I
ConverseI\,
the unorthodox
private life of a
popular hero su( h a?~,
Richard I would be plaved down
bv the chroniclel ).
2
Rlchardsoq
1955 268-9;
Rigg 1902.87. I am
heirs Sharon
Licbermar.
for
these
gra tefii 1 to
refererlces
3
bla\on torthc oming; the extent of Beauchamp
control over WorcestershIre is discussed at length in
the rntrodltctlon to this volume.
4
Brr)oke 1963. 170-l:
Grinnell-Milne
1968; but
compare Hollister 1973 :637-X% Most writers on the
pericld l)clicvr that Willinm II was murdetcd, etthel on
the ot4er.s of his brothel or by di\sidcnts who \upposed that their in7terests would bc better served with
Henry on the throne, although Profcqsor Hollister
maintains that the kings death was simplv due to a
hunting accident. In either ctlse, potential supporters
must bc pcrsldcd
that Ilenry had more to ofTer than
Robert.
5
Honournble
exceptions include
!-Iowdl
1962
and Southern 1933 and 1970 and, in a mow general
work, Barlow 195 5

Literature
Aleuandcr,
M
1966 (11an4 1. The erlt Ilest English
poems. London.
Arnold, T. (cd). 1882. Symconis monachi opela omnia, 1. RS. London.
Barlow, F. 1955. The fcudnl kingdom of England
1042-1216. London.
Barrow, G W. S. 1966. The Anglo-Scottish hot der.
Northern history 1: 2 l-42.
Bates, D. R. 197.5. The chtracter and career of Odo,
bishop of Ba\ruu ( 1049/50-1097)
Speculutn 50: f20.
Brewer,_J S. and others ted.) 1891. Gtraldi Cambrensis
opera, 8. RS. 1 mdm~
Brooke, C. N. L. and others ted.) 1955. The letters of
John of Salisburv, 1. London.
Brooke, C N L. 1963. The Saxon and Norman ktngs.
London.
Brocke,
C. N. I. and G. Keir.
197.5. London
SC%1 2 16 : the sh.+ping of a city. London.

Carnphcll.
J 197 5 Obscrvattons
on English governrntbnt Irom thin tenth to the twelfth ccnturv Tlansactions of the Roval Historical Soctety, fifth series
25 39-54

DUIIC,III, A. A. M

1075 Slotkind
the makmg ol a
F_dinl)tlt gh.
Fd\\mds. .J. G Ifih The Norma 15 and thr W&h
ma11 h. PIOC(~bd111g\01 the B~ttrsh Acadcmv 43 15%
77.
Ftcv~m,\n, F A X82,r ,\nd b. Tlic I sign of Willr,ml

kingdom

RU~II\ L\ols o\t:,lll.

G,tIbt,ltth. V. )I 194 1 Roger \r,;c~ldg lbcr and M,ltrhcw

P,\i i\ C,l,r\goll\
G,rll)t,tith
V H. 1915 Good ktngs ,111dl)a(: kmgs in
medic-v,ll Fn~~h\h hi\torv H~rtory 30 lI9-32.
GI ansdcn. A I 97 J. PI opdgatd,~ III English medic~.il
historiographv.
Journal of mradieval htstory i *3b3Xl.
GI mncll-Milnc,
D. l96:J The killing ofwilliam
Rufus
Newton Abbot.
H,t11, H. (tad ) 1896 The Red Book of thtn Eul hqwr,
I. Llmdlm
H,t\kins, C. H. I9 18. Not tnnn institution\.
Nc w York.
Hr\kin\. C. H. 1924. Studies in the history of medieval
\, icncc. C.imt)t itlfic (M,tss 1
Hill, R. (f d.) 1962. The Gestd Francorum.
London.
Hollrhter, C. W. 1973. The %trange death of William
Ruflts. Spccuhtm 48:637-13.
Holliwr,
C. W. 1976 Nlvmandy,
France and the
Anglo-Norm,ln
tqwm.
S,wcuh~m 5 1: 202-42.
Howell,
A. 1962. Regalian I ,ght In rncnclicval England.

LOI&
Jamison

Jn.

E. 1938. The Sicilian Norman kingdom in the

mind of Anglo-Norman
contemporaries.
Proceedings of the British Arademy 24.237-85.

Johnson,
C (ec ) 1950 The dialogue of the excheoucr bv Rtchard fit7 Nigcl London
Johllsm. C (cd 1 1961 Hugh the chantor. the history
ofthc( hurch >fYork 1066-I 127. London
Kcalcb, E. J. I97 2. Roger of Sallcbury, wceroy of Engh..nd Bcrkclel .
Le P,ttourcl, _J. I97 I Normandv and England 1066I 11-i Rcadtnp ,
M iFon, E 1976 The role of the English partshioner,
I Ic)c)-I 500 Journal of ecclestastical htbtory 27 I729.
Mason, E (c-d ! forthcoming.
The Beauchamp
cartularv Pipe RoI1 Society, new series. London.
Mason, J F. A 1963. Roger de Montgonlery
and his
\on\
(1067-I 102). Transacttons
of the Royal
Hlstortcal Soc~ct\.. fifth sertcs 13: l-28
Mcch,ln. B 197 i Out\idcrs,
Insiders and prol,crtv at
Durham ,lrou 1d I IO0 %udles in church h~~~orv 12.
(h111(
h. WC Irt . ,~nd politics
Ok ford
MOII I\. C 1971 The dr\co\cv\ of thv Indwtdua?l lO,O1200 London
Prcstwtch, .J 0 I954 War ,:I ai finance In the AngloNormnn st(tte Ttansactlorbs of the Royal HIstorIcal
Sorictv, lifth s-rics 4 l9- :.%.
Rccdj, W T , Iunlor
I9C\G. Ai-v origins of the general
c\re in rhlb rclgn of Hcnn
Speculum 4 I 688-724
Rlchard\on.
I-t G 1955 I cl rw of The sermons of
Thom<ls Brinron, bishop If Rochc<tct- ( I3 79- 1389)
(Camden Socilaty, third SCI es d5-6, I954). Speculum
30.268-g
Rlchtcr, hl (rd 1 1975 Can clbum professIons
Cantcrbur\ ,!nd York SoclctF, ~7 London
R~gg, J M (cd ) 1902 Seler pleas, starrs and other
t ccords from he rolls of : e cvchequer of the Jews*
I LLO128-I % Idcnn Soclctv, I i London.
Robinson,
I S 1573. GIC~OI v VII aild the soldlers of
Chrtst. Htstorv 58 : 169-92
Round, J. H. 1895. Feu 1, k:,gland. London.
R&b, M (cd ) 1184 Hlstorla novorum in Anglta. RS
London
Scamtncll, J, 191i6. The orrglns and limitations
of the
Lng:lish htstortcal
review
hberhl
of I)urham
x I 119-73
Scwtcbr, E. R A (tttnsl 1 1969 The Alextad of Anna
Comncnn
London.
Shepard, J. 1972 The English and Byzantium. a study
of their role in the Bvpantine arm4 m the later
elcvcnth ccntlilv. Traditto 29.53-92.
Smallrv, B 197 Historians in the tnlddle ages Lendon.
Southern,
R ),+I. 1923. Ranulf Flamb rd ar>d early
Anglo-Norm
in administration.
Tran actions of the
Royal Histori -al Society, foulath series 16:95-128.

19

Southelfn,
R. W. 1958. The Canterbury forgeries.
English historical review 73: 193-226.
Southern, R. W. ted.1 1962 Vita sanctl Anselmi. London.
Southern,
R. W. 1966. Saint Anselm and his biographer. Cambridge
Southern, R. W. 1970. Medieval humanism and other
studies. Oxford.
Stenaorn, F. M. 1961. The first century of English
feudalism 1066-l 166. Second reviwd edition. Oxford.
Stevenson, J. ted.1 1858. Chronicon monastcrii
de
Ailingdon, 2. RS. London.
Stubbs, W. !884. The constitutional
histay of England. 1. Oxford
Stubbs, W. :c*d.) 1889 Ge5ta legurn, 2. RS. London.
Stubb\, W. e-l 1 1966. Sek,t ch,lrters and other IIlu~t:,ltionf of English constitutional1 histor\. Ninth
edit1 In Oxford
Tellen Bach, G. 1959. Church,
state and Chrlstwl
socwtv at the time of the Investiture Contest. Third
impklon
Oxford
Vaughrl, S. N. 1975. St Anselm of Canterbury:
the
philr>sopFer-saillr
as politician. Journal of mrdieval
historv 1. 79-305.
West, I; I9C3. The iusticiarship
in England
Cambridge
Wightnlan,
4. E 1966. The Lacy family in England
and rJorm,lndy 1066-l 194. Oxford.
Willianls, J , ab Ithel led.1 1860. Brut y Tywysoglon.
RS. Londo*1.
Wright, D (transl 1 1957 Beowulf London.

20