There we have the story of 741 turbulent years in English history told through the eyes of the people who ran the kingdom on behalf of their kings or queens. It charts the many changes which started with William the Bastard of Normandy invading the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in 1066, over a broken promise. It ended with a nation called Great Britain which had emerged from the union between England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland in 1707 brought about by the failure of a Scottish colony in Central America.
The story started with invasion and conquest and it continued with unrelenting violence. Sometimes there was war between the king and his barons and sometimes it was against other countries. It has charted the conquering of Ireland and Wales and the acquisition and loss of territories in modern-day France. It has chronicled challenges to the monarch’s power, like the twelfth century Anarchy, and early attempts to establish democracy for the chosen few, like the Barons’ Wars.
More than a hundred years of war between England and France dominated the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries before England was plunged into a prolonged civil war between the warring factions of the Houses of York and Lancaster in the Wars of the Roses. Then there were the power struggles between the monarch and the Church in the sixteenth century, starting with Henry VIII creating a new Church of England and continuing with his children’s different attitudes to religion.
There was another series of civil wars in the seventeenth century stemming from a difference of opinion over the governing of the kingdom in a struggle over how to rule the country; either by the monarch’s absolute rule or through democratic discussion. But democracy had a strong grip on the country by the start of the eighteenth century and factions were content to decide matters in parliament rather than on the battlefield.
A monarch had to rely on strong, capable and loyal men to rule his kingdom on his behalf. It was far too big for him to keep visiting all the areas, especially when they also controlled a large part of modern France. He would either be busy in court or campaigning on the borders.
A king could buy loyalty if he carefully appointed the right men to be his earls. But newly appointed nobles were expected to manage their new acquisitions well, earning themselves and the crown revenue. A monarch could also hand out influential appointments, either political, administrative or military, to those who pleased him. But men were not always chosen for their ability, and a king often regretted choosing someone just because he was his favourite or because he was a yes-man. But a poor choice could cause resentment amongst the established families, especially if the newcomer used their new position to promote their family and friends.
Monarchs often relied on their favourites too much, rewarded them richly, to the disgust of the other nobles. Edward III made a poor choice in Piers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, while Elizabeth’s choice of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, upset many. James I entertained a string of favourites, each one pushed in front of him by the men trying to influence court.
Titles and appointments could also be confiscated if a noble did not do what was expected of him. They could also be cancelled if there was a change of monarch or if he changed his allegiance. They were often replaced by the worst punishment a noble could face, apart from death. That was an attainder, the cancellation of a title, and poverty, either temporary, for a generation, or permanent.
Some families lasted for many generations. Aubrey de Vere was created Earl of Oxford by Empress Matilda in 1141 for giving her support during the Anarchy. His namesake, the 20th Earl of Oxford, died in 1703 leaving no heirs, ending the unbroken line of the family after 550 years. But families could rise quickly into favour and then fall equally rapidly and spectacularly, none more so than the ambitious Thomas Boleyn. His family rose rapidly to great things in a short time as Henry VIII pursued his daughter Anne. But it ended quicker than it started with false accusations: the father was left with nothing, two of his children were executed, and his third was mother to the king’s illegitimate child.
Whether the country was ruled by a monarch’s absolute rule or if it was tempered by democracy was a long-running issue which sometimes flared into violence between the king and his subjects, especially if the monarch overtaxed his subjects to pay for foreign wars or introduced new laws to limit the power of his nobles. The Magna Carta in 1215, the Oxford Provisions in 1258, and the Lords Ordainers in 1310 are just three examples. Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, rallied support for his attempt to introduce democracy but it ended with the Baron’s War in the 1260s and his gory death.
Plans to impose control on the king’s unwise spending and diplomatic moves resulted in a split of opinion over how the country should be run; by absolute royal rule or democratic rule. It ended in a bloody Civil War in the 1640s and the only ever public execution of a monarch.
Family feuds played a big part in the uprisings and civil wars across the kingdom and they could start over anything. Territorial disputes, marriage issues, allegiances and the smallest slights of honour could escalate into bigger problems. Feuds were particularly prevalent in the border regions where tensions were often high. The famous example was the long-running rivalry between the Nevilles and the Percys along the Scottish borders. Several kings tried to keep the peace between these two powerful families, where a switch in loyalty could leave the north exposed to attack.
Monarchs often came into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church as they tried to assert control over the clergy. It must be remembered that the Church owned huge estates, raised large amounts of money for its own benefit and it influenced the people through its doctrines and ceremonies. There is no doubt about it, the crown and the church had to work hand in hand or there were problems.
The question over who wielded the power in great matters resulted in arguments over the rights and privileges of the Church. Henry I was excommunicated for attempting to undermine the power of the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett, was murdered when he opposed Henry II’s Constitutions of Clarendon.
Going on crusade was a popular choice in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Some nobles decided to go on the long journey as atonement for their sins but others were ordered to go as a punishment. They faced travelling hundreds of miles, sometimes across hostile territory, to reach the Holy Land. They then faced more dangers as they fought the infidels in fearsome battles.
Religion in England came to a head during the reign of Henry VIII when there was a religious reformation sweeping across northern Europe. The king needed more money and his desire for a divorce led to the establishment of a new church, the Church of England, with Henry at its head. The new religion introduced a new fault line in the nobility as they had to choose between supporting their monarch or their established church. Many a baron struggled with their conscience and a few lost their lives because they chose the wrong side. The problems continued even after Elizabeth I introduced the compromise of the Anglican Church, as successive monarchs favoured Catholics or Protestants.
The era discussed in this book was, for the main part, a male dominated world. Men ruled, fought, taxed and died in the pursuit of their desires. There were few countesses in their own right because titles were passed through the male heirs. The few were sought-after brides who owned huge estates left to them by their deceased fathers or husbands. Countesses were rarely allowed to keep their inheritance for long because a king would marry them off to secure a man’s loyalty. But some were so desirable that dishonourable nobles would use trickery and abduction to get their new bride and her inheritance.
Marrying for convenience rather than for love often brought its problems. Lustful husbands would seek pleasures with other women and their illegitimate children would cause problems of inheritance as often amongst the dukes and earls as it did amongst the kingdom’s monarchs. While some long-suffering wives wanted to divorce their errant husbands, it was a man’s prerogative and one which required the approval of the Church.
Throughout the period covered, the understanding of medical science was limited. Matters like infertility, miscarriage and infant deaths were seen as divine intervention rather than medical situations. Even so it did not stop the nobility trying for more children because each one held the promise of riches. Healthy sons could be used to marry wives who could bring a rich dowry while daughters could be used to form useful allegiances.
Noble children had a privileged life compared to that of the peasant classes but they rarely had a childhood. They were often married at early age and the child brides would be expected to be giving birth to strong sons and beautiful daughters as they entered their teenage years. It was quite common for nobles to be more loyal to their monarch than they were to their children, enjoying the rewards on offer rather than their offspring’s happiness.
Several monarchs came to the throne when they were children, and the kingdom needed a regent until they came of age. The choice of regent was often a difficult one as the deceased monarch’s close relatives struggled for control of the child. Two famous examples are that of Richard II and Edward VI. In the first it was the king’s uncles who argued and in the second it was the young monarch’s father, Henry VIII; he had chosen the Governor of the King’s Person, executors of his will and a council. Richard III was more direct, arresting and then murdering his nephews so he could seize the crown. The young monarchs would often change policies as soon as they came of age and took control. The same problems occurred if a king became incapacitated through illness, as in the case of Henry IV. The argument over who would rule in his name was a major issue in the start of the Wars of the Roses.
The number of usurpations of the throne of England was high. For example, the Anarchy involving Matilda by Stephen, Richard II by Henry IV, Edward II by Edward III and James II by William. And these are just some of the successful ones, there were many more unsuccessful rebellions. All of them involved a group of England’s nobles looking to either further their careers or get revenge against a spiteful or incompetent king. They faced another group of nobles who felt the same way about their man. More often than not, the monarch was little more than a figurehead in the revolt.
The number of premature deaths amongst England’s monarchs was also high. For example, William II died in a hunting accident, young Edward V disappeared in the Tower with his brother, Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth, and Charles I was executed. Nobles were either involved in their deaths, or were accused of being involved in them.
The same applied to heirs to the throne. They were prone to being imprisoned, executed or assassinated, whatever their age. An insecure king would go out of his way to track down all of his opponents, as was the case with Arthur and Eleanor, the Fair Maid of Brittany, at the beginning of the thirteenth century.
There were also a lot of failed attempts to change the way the country was run. The Epiphany Rising against Henry IV in 1400, the Southampton Plot against Henry V in 1415, the Gunpowder Plot against James I in 1605, and the Rye House Plot against Charles II in 1683 are just a few. Disgruntled nobles had a hand in all of them and they knew full well what would happen if they failed. Many a noble was imprisoned, exiled, tortured or executed for plotting against their king or queen.
Death was commonplace for everyone, especially during the early period. There was illness and disease to contend with but there were added dangers for the nobility. It was normal for a noble to lead his men into battle, which left him exposed to death in combat. But he would also face imprisonment or summary execution if he was taken prisoner.
Monarchs could execute their nobles at will if they thought they were conspiring against them. They usually stuck to the law when administering justice because few supported an unfair king, unless they were bribed to do so. But kings had it in their power to change the law or create a new one to suit their needs; Henry VIII was the master at using the law to his own benefit. Lawyers often used their knowledge of the law to give the monarch the decision they wanted. For example, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, was accused of felony for raising an unlicensed army when a charge of treason was dismissed. A different charge but the same outcome: execution.
But there were other ways of disposing of an unwanted noble. They could be declared insane and committed to prison where they could be dealt with at the king’s pleasure, like Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, who Henry VII had executed when Perkin Warbeck led a rebellion.
A noble could be accused of being a traitor and locked away where he could be offered the chance to change his opinions in exchange for his freedom. Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel, was made a saint because he stuck to his Catholic religion rather than attend a Protestant service. Anyone held in the Tower dungeons knew they could face torture to extract the answer their king was looking for.
Once the death sentence had been passed, the king could choose how his prisoner would die. Would he face a swift, almost painless death or would he be made to endure a cruel, drawn-out affair? Beheading was the humane choice because it was quick, or at least that was the idea. If a poor executioner was employed or a blunt sword was used, the condemned man’s end would be an unpleasant one.
Most nobles were beheaded on Tower Hill in the early days but a few were hung like common criminals at Tyburn where they were subjected to the howling mob. A traitor who was hung, drawn and quartered would experience an agonising end. He would be hung until nearly dead, then castrated and his guts torn out; once dead, his corpse was cut into pieces, his head presented to the king and displayed in a public place, and the parts of his body distributed to the four corners of the kingdom. Burning at the stake was the agonising death reserved for heretics and there were many when the kingdom struggled to come to terms with the switches in religion of the sixteenth century.
Sometimes nobles would be imprisoned or assassinated in the name of the king, to stop them making a challenge. Trumped-up or made-up charges were then invented, and cover-ups would take place to stop the king’s name being associated with a mysterious death. For example, Richard II had Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester, murdered in Calais; William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk, was assassinated on Henry IV’s orders; and Edward VI had Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter, drowned.
Of course the famous example of a mixture of the above methods is that of Richard III. He had his brother’s marriage declared bigamous, his nephews’ protectors executed on trumped-up charges, and his nephews imprisoned and murdered. All in pursuit of the coveted prize, the crown of England.
A king had to hope his subjects were blessed with the seven virtues: humility, kindness, virtue, patience, charity, diligence and sobriety. But the human frailties summarised as the seven deadly sins interfered in the running of a strong and stable kingdom. The monarch often found himself dealing with men who were driven by pride, greed, envy, wrath, sloth, gluttony and lust. All he could do was to reward the good, limit the powers of the bad, and execute the really bad.
All together the nobles of England were an eclectic mix of characters who needed careful handling if the monarch was to get the best out of them. They ranged from strong, loyal and brave men, through rebellious and unruly characters, to sex-mad drunks and gamblers. All the human weaknesses were displayed in the kingdom’s nobility over the centuries, when rich rewards were promised for the right man and an agonizing end loomed for the wrong man.