Nth in line to The Throne

[DRY]

*Originally posted by %MJH2% *
** However, it is not the case that the Normans and Angevins were historical rivals and/or bitter enemies prior to the death of Henry I. Chibnall herself notes: “It was only after the brutalities committed by Angevin troops when they invaded Normandy in the early years of Stephen’s reign [the late 1130s] that Norman chroniclers began to write of them with loathing.” So it cannot be said that widespread anti-Angevin sentiment among the Normans made Stephen preferable to Matilda in December 1135/January 1136. Of course, Geoffrey’s activities in Normandy probably did not win Matilda many friends among the Normans whose lands felt the effects of Geoffrey’s endeavors.
**

Good point. I stand corrected.
**

John, Bishop of Salisbury, expanded on the Gesta to say that Henry absolved his nobles from any obligation to keep the oath. But later John is also credited with claiming that the oaths had originally been given on the condition that Henry would not marry his daughter to someone outside England without first consulting the barons; thus by marrying her to Geoffrey, Henry had violated the terms of the agreement. There is an implicit contradiction in John’s accounts: was the oath forced or merely conditional? If the latter, why were objections not made in 1128, instead of 7+ years later? This is, in part, why the “cover story” for Stephen’s claim was suspect.
**

Assuming the latter, I imagine it would be because Henry was not one to tolerate such objections. I suspect that the oath was NOT conditional as Henry was a very powerful monarch and an absolute ruler who would (IIRC) did have the power to force such an oath upon his nobles.
**

Anyway, DRY, I think you and I would agree that the succession (at any time) was determined by a combination of “right” (by the late king’s will and/or established precedents of succession, etc.) and practical “might” (military and political) provided by those who will back the claimant for whatever reason. Cause-and-effect flows both ways between right and might. Henry IV and especially Henry VII are good examples of this. Richard III did a pretty good job of creating right through might himself.

To me, Matilda’s story is an important chapter in the development of the concept of the English succession, and illustrates the accompanying “growing pains”. If Matilda had been less steadfast and persistent in pressing the rights granted by her father, if she had gathered less “might” to herself or been perceived as less “rightful”, the English succession might have developed quite differently. Her efforts set a precedent for the right of royal inheritance through a woman, if not rule by a woman. So that in Richard II’s reign, his acknowledged heir (at least until 1398) was Roger Mortimer, grandson of Lionel of Antwerp (second son of Edward III) through Lionel’s daughter Philippa. The Yorkist claim to the crown was based on this and a second matrilineal descent from Lionel. Henry VII bolstered his claims by marrying the Yorkist heiress, Elizabeth. I could go on, but you see what I’m getting at.
**

I absolutely agree with all this. Except a minor quibble about Henry VII. He may have bolstered his claims by marriage to Elizabeth, but he was very careful to stake his claim on his own behalf. He did NOT marry Elizabeth until he was repeatedly asked by his supporters to carry out his promise to do so, and he did NOT attend her coronation as queen.
**

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I recommened Chibnall’s book to you; it is well-done and does not come across as an overly sentimental or romanticized account of Matilda’s life, nor is Matilda painted as some kind of heroine.
**

Thank you, too. And thank you for the recommendation as well.
[partial hijack]
There is a FICTIONAL work that I thought was very well done and a good read: Sharon Kay Penman’s “When Christ And All His Saints Slept” (About Stephen and Matilda)

Just as good, if not better, was Penman’s “The Sunne in Splendor” (About Richard III)
[/partial hijack]

[APB]

MJH - There is one complication to the ‘might’ v. ‘right’ issue. Of course many monarchs gained the throne because they had more support or power than other claimants. However, claimants had always to maintain that they had some ‘right’, no matter how implausible. This was more than just a matter of ‘they would say that, won’t they’.

Everyone agreed that ‘conquest’ would give a new monarch an absolute right to the throne, even if he (or she) had no pre-existing claim. Medieval theorists knew all about political reality. The problem was that everyone also agreed that such a conqueror would thereby not to be bound to respect any of the existing laws. This may not have been clearly articulated in the twelfth century (I don’t know), but it certainly became important later on. Henry VII and William III both went to great lengths to avoid the accusation that their claims to the throne rested on military victory alone. That would have been seen as the first step towards tyranny. In formal terms, Henry VII did claim the throne as the putative senior heir to Edward III and that claim was endorsed by Parliament.

This was one reason why, in retrospect, the status of William I became a problem. Historians who wished to claim that Parliament dated back to immemorial antiquity, in effect before 1066, had always to deny that the Norman Conquest was a conquest. To do otherwise would have been to open them to the objection that post-1066 monarchs had not been bound by earlier precedents and had created Parliament from scratch. Parliament would therefore have lacked the institutional pedigree the monarchy itself could claim (from 1066). This view existed in tension with the separate, more radical tradition of the ‘Norman Yoke’, which regarded the Norman Conquest as having been a real conquest which had suppressed the true liberties of Englishmen.

[MJH2]

*Originally posted by DRY *
Assuming the latter, I imagine it would be because Henry was not one to tolerate such objections. I suspect that the oath was NOT conditional as Henry was a very powerful monarch and an absolute ruler who would (IIRC) did have the power to force such an oath upon his nobles.

I agree that Henry was probably a very intimidating figure, and one would not wish to challenge a forced oath while he was still alive. Of course, in a sense this point is moot because it is doubtful that such an oath was forced – so the nobles knew that they had given their bond freely, even if they claimed otherwise.

(BTW: what does “IIRC” mean?)

Later (in the 1140s) it was argued (I don’t know quite how successfully) that Matilda had natural rights as her father’s heiress. That is, Henry’s acknowledgement in 1127 helped but it wasn’t necessary; she was still his heiress. It was further argued that even a king had no power to disinherit his own child, except in extreme cases e.g. if the child had plotted to kill him. Therefore, even if Henry had willed his crown to Stephen on his death-bed, he had no right to disinherit his daughter that way; likewise, a forced oath of loyalty did not abrogate Matilda’s rights because the nobles owed her loyalty as her father’s rightful/natural heir anyway. Basically, it was a big mess that was examined from every angle before it was sorted out.

I absolutely agree with all this. Except a minor quibble about Henry VII. He may have bolstered his claims by marriage to Elizabeth, but he was very careful to stake his claim on his own behalf. He did NOT marry Elizabeth until he was repeatedly asked by his supporters to carry out his promise to do so, and he did NOT attend her coronation as queen.

True, but that of course wouldn’t stop other people from justifying his position to themselves by viewing Elizabeth as the “rightful” heiress. Certainly the remaining Yorkists didn’t accept Henry VII’s claim; marrying Elizabeth obviously helped in this regard, even though Henry was careful not to state it that way.

[partial hijack]
There is a FICTIONAL work that I thought was very well done and a good read: Sharon Kay Penman’s “When Christ And All His Saints Slept” (About Stephen and Matilda). Just as good, if not better, was Penman’s “The Sunne in Splendor” (About Richard III). [/partial hijack]

I have read the latter, plus another of hers called “The Reckoning”. I have the former, but have not yet read it.

Originally posted by APB
MJH - There is one complication to the ‘might’ v. ‘right’ issue. Of course many monarchs gained the throne because they had more support or power than other claimants. However, claimants had always to maintain that they had some ‘right’, no matter how implausible. This was more than just a matter of ‘they would say that, won’t they’.

Oh I definitely agree – in fact that’s what I thought I was saying in my last post, that some sort of credible “right” had to be established for any application of “might” to be viewed as legitimate. Otherwise you do have a conquest. My point re: Matilda was that it is overly-simplistic to characterize her merely as convenient focus for self-serving opposition to Stephen’s reign. She had what her supporters regarded as a truly legitimate right; therefore, application of “might” on her behalf was justifiable. Not everyone agreed with what was “right”, but that’s what makes life so interesting.

Everyone agreed that ‘conquest’ would give a new monarch an absolute right to the throne, even if he (or she) had no pre-existing claim. Medieval theorists knew all about political reality. The problem was that everyone also agreed that such a conqueror would thereby not to be bound to respect any of the existing laws. This may not have been clearly articulated in the twelfth century (I don’t know), but it certainly became important later on.

I’m not sure myself. But given that the rules of succession were not clearly established (beyond father-to-son or even more generally king-to-close male relative) in the twelfth century, I think it is likely that the conundrum of conquerer vs. existing laws had not been clearly worked out either.

This was one reason why, in retrospect, the status of William I became a problem. Historians who wished to claim that Parliament dated back to immemorial antiquity, in effect before 1066, had always to deny that the Norman Conquest was a conquest. To do otherwise would have been to open them to the objection that post-1066 monarchs had not been bound by earlier precedents and had created Parliament from scratch. Parliament would therefore have lacked the institutional pedigree the monarchy itself could claim (from 1066). This view existed in tension with the separate, more radical tradition of the ‘Norman Yoke’, which regarded the Norman Conquest as having been a real conquest which had suppressed the true liberties of Englishmen.

Interesting. In your opinion, were the attempts to paint William as some sort of legitimate successor to Edward the Confessor meant to reconcile this problem you have outlined? That is, at the time did William himself consider he had some legitimate, supportable right; or did he see himself as primarily a conquerer, and only retroactively were attempts made to portray him otherwise? I have no opinion and wonder what you think.

Please explain something else to me, if you would. In my understanding the concept, if not the existence, of Parliament begins with the Magna Carta in 1215. Is this not so? If it is, why was it necessary for Parliament to establish an “instituional pedigree” that pre-dates the Magna Carta, let alone the Conquest?

[APB]

The attempts to paint William as some sort of legitimate successor to Edward the Confessor were indeed taken seriously by later historians mainly in order to solve this problem. They were also able to point to the evidence that William had promised to preserve the existing laws, although the fact that such a promise was necessary could be used to support the opposite position.

Magna Carta is only very loosely connected with origins of Parliament. Almost all historians now agree that the English Parliament does not predate the reign of Henry III. The first assembly which is called a Parliament seems to date from 1242, although there is some scope for argument as to what exactly was meant by the word. The debate about its Anglo-Saxon origins was therefore entirely misconceived. What complicated the question and made an earlier origin seem possible was that earlier kings, before and after the Conquest, had often assembled their nobles to consult with them. Magna Carta was one expression of that tradition and the subsequent summoning of the first Parliaments can certainly be seen as a further development within the same tradition.

The question of the antiquity of Parliament ceased to matter only once antiquity alone ceased to be thought to confer political legitimacy. That happened only with the rise of mass democracy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. By then Parliament and the monarchy could happily co-exist.

[MJH2]

APB I see, thank you.

I did know that although the Magna Carta was signed in 1215, it was many years before the principles laid out there could be put into effect. But I did not know that Magna Carta reflected earlier Anglo-Saxon traditions.

[/slight hijack to tangential topic]

[APB]

I didn’t quite say that Magna Carta reflected Anglo-Saxon traditions, just that there was a tradition that kings consulted their nobles from time to time and that that tradition can be traced back before the Conquest. Whether the nobles in 1215 saw themselves as part of such a tradition is difficult, if not impossible, to establish. What they would probably have said is that they stood for the principles which represented good government for as far back as anyone could remember - the programme of all rebels down the centuries.

[MJH2]

Understood now. Thanks.

[DRY]

*Originally posted by MJH2 *
**I agree that Matilda was successful largely because she had nobles who backed her for various reasons – not the least of which was Stephen was not an effective ruler.
**

One HUGE mistake he made was not to carry through on his promise to make his brother Henry the Archbishop of Canterbury. This caused Henry to undermine his brother at one point, giving Matilda the upper hand in their conflict. And even after Henry returned to being loyal to Stephen, Stephen’s choice as Archbishop later became his political opponent, refusing to crown Stephen’s son Eustace as co-king and heir during Stephen’s lifetime.

Not making Henry Archbishop of Canterbury was quite possibly the biggest mistake Stephen ever made.

**

Her efforts set a precedent for the right of royal inheritance through a woman, if not rule by a woman. So that in Richard II’s reign, his acknowledged heir (at least until 1398) was Roger Mortimer, grandson of Lionel of Antwerp (second son of Edward III) through Lionel’s daughter Philippa. The Yorkist claim to the crown was based on this and a second matrilineal descent from Lionel. Henry VII bolstered his claims by marrying the Yorkist heiress, Elizabeth. I could go on, but you see what I’m getting at.
**

Actually, it occurred to me (after I’d logged off for the night) that STEPHEN’S claiming the English crown set the precedent for right of royal inheritance through the woman, if not to a woman. Stephen’s claim was based on his mother, Adela, countess of Blois, who was Henry’s sister.
**

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I recommened Chibnall’s book to you; it is well-done and does not come across as an overly sentimental or romanticized account of Matilda’s life, nor is Matilda painted as some kind of heroine.
**

Another recommendation: Thomas Costain’s four book set, which covers the period of William the Conqueror on through Richard III. This was the first non Shakespearean source I had for the Wars of the Roses period, and it really fueled my interest.

**
(BTW: what does “IIRC” mean?)
**

If I Recall Correctly.
**
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. In your opinion, were the attempts to paint William as some sort of legitimate successor to Edward the Confessor meant to reconcile this problem you have outlined? That is, at the time did William himself consider he had some legitimate, supportable right; or did he see himself as primarily a conquerer, and only retroactively were attempts made to portray him otherwise? I have no opinion and wonder what you think.
**
[/QUOTE]

The story I heard was that Edward the Confessor DID name William the Conqueror as his ultimate heir, and, further that after Edward did this, Harold of Wessex fell into William’s hands and became his “guest”. William released him upon Harold’s promise that he would uphold William’s right to the throne.

Or so the story I heard goes, anyway.

[MJH2]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DRY *
**

*Originally posted by DRY *
Actually, it occurred to me (after I’d logged off for the night) that STEPHEN’S claiming the English crown set the precedent for right of royal inheritance through the woman, if not to a woman. Stephen’s claim was based on his mother, Adela, countess of Blois, who was Henry’s sister.

Well… that’s debatable. For one, Stephen’s claim to the crown was based primarily on Henry I’s alleged “deathbed wish”; he needed this to lend his usurpation of the crown an air of legitimacy. And since it was a usurpation, I’m not sure whether that sets any precedents regarding inheritance. Secondly, Stephen’s older brother Theobald, Count of Blois, lived until 1152. That would take some complicated explaining: I’m claiming the crown through my mother but over-riding my older brother’s claim? Mind you, there certainly was a “tradition” of that in the royal family, but I don’t know that Stephen’s case sets a precedent for royal inheritance through a woman. Matilda’s case was argued on the basis of her inherent rights, irrespective of Henry’s wishes. I think that makes a clearer precedent.

Another recommendation: Thomas Costain’s four book set, which covers the period of William the Conqueror on through Richard III. This was the first non Shakespearean source I had for the Wars of the Roses period, and it really fueled my interest.

Been there, read that. His works got my attention too, made the history accessible to someone with (at that point) little historical background. The other works which got me very interested in medieval history were Katherine Kurtz’s first trilogy “The Chronicles of the Deryni”. As I’ve studied more and more medieval history, my appreciation of the accuracy with which she details medieval life and, especially, the medieval mindset has grown enormously.

If I Recall Correctly.

Thanks. One mystery solved!

Well, nice chatting with you. I think this thread is about worn out…

[DRY]

*Originally posted by MJH2 *
**
Well… that’s debatable. For one, Stephen’s claim to the crown was based primarily on Henry I’s alleged “deathbed wish”; he needed this to lend his usurpation of the crown an air of legitimacy. And since it was a usurpation, I’m not sure whether that sets any precedents regarding inheritance. Secondly, Stephen’s older brother Theobald, Count of Blois, lived until 1152. That would take some complicated explaining: I’m claiming the crown through my mother but over-riding my older brother’s claim?

**
Good point–I believe the argument would have been that a female could “transmit” such a claim, but not rule in her own right. I am not sure exactly what legal arguments were made by Stephen or by others (his brother Henry?) on his behalf (aside from claiming that Henry I had made him heir).

I do believe that Theobald specifically resigned any rights he had to his brother.

**
The other works which got me very interested in medieval history were Katherine Kurtz’s first trilogy “The Chronicles of the Deryni”. As I’ve studied more and more medieval history, my appreciation of the accuracy with which she details medieval life and, especially, the medieval mindset has grown enormously.
**

I’ve never heard of the Kurtz trilogy. Are they out of print? When did they come out? I’m seriously interested in knowing more about these.

[MJH2]

*Originally posted by DRY *
I’ve never heard of the Kurtz trilogy. Are they out of print? When did they come out? I’m seriously interested in knowing more about these.

Katherine Kurtz has written a total of thirteen books set in her medieval fantasy world known as the “Eleven Kingdoms”: four trilogies and a “final” booko which just came out in hardback this summer. The setting is pseudo-11th- and 12th-century kingdom called Gwynedd, reminiscent of the British Isles, where the Catholic Church is a major power. The core stories center on a race known as the “Deryni”, who are born with mental/telepathic/psionic powers and for which they are feared by humans and condemned by the Church. All of them are still in print, if not at your bookstore then I know they are available on-line through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, et al.

The first trilogy, “The Chronicles of the Deryni”, was written in the early 1970s: Deryni Rising, Deryni Checkmate, High Deryni

The second trilogy, “The Legends of Camber of Culdi”, are set two hundred years earlier than the first series: Camber of Culdi, Saint Camber, Camber the Heretic

The third continues in the first timeline: The Bishop’s Heir, The King’s Justice, The Quest for Saint Camber

The fourth continues in the second timeline: The Harrowing of Gwynedd, King Javan’s Year, The Bastard Prince

The latest book, King Kelson’s Bride, follows series #1 and #3.

Anyone who has an appreciation of medieval history will enjoy her work – not just for the fantastic stories themselves, but for the rich history she has developed for them and the accuracy with which she depicts the medieval world.

Can you tell she’s one of my favorites? Enjoy them.