Magna Carta

Holt, J.C., Magna Carta, (2^nd Edition), (Cambridge University Press, 1992)

·         Was a failure – ‘intended as a peace and it provoked war’ pg 1

·         Document of law – ‘ no free man is to be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled, or damaged without lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land’ pg 2 – longstanding.

·         The charter failed to produce peace because it was loosely worded and could be interpreted  in many different ways

·         New editions distorted the original text

·         Was called great just because of it’s size – not because it was actually great

·         It was not just law, it was propaganda

Government text as above

·         12^th Century England had no constitution

·         No general system of government – no checks and balance, not rights protected, no defined purposes

·         Operated in a society where privilege was everything

_______________________

There is a copy of the Magna Carta in Lincoln Castle which makes a great trip. You can do the Cathedral and the Castle which is a Motte and Bailey, so this would reinforce most of this unit of study. 

_______________________________________________________

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14835423
The above is a link to the proposal  of having a public holiday to mark the sealing of the 'Great Charter'

John

Turner, R.V., King John, (Longman, 1995)

·         King John was a loser – pg 1

·         Lost Normandy in 1204, lost a quarrel with the Pope, barons forced him to create a charter of liberties for them, and struggled not to lose his kingdom to an invading Prince = looooooser

·         Lastborn son – uncertain prospects

·         When King, he had the financial implications of his father and brother’s wars and crusades to contend with.

Tyerman, C, Who’s Who in Early Medieval England, (Shepheard-Walwyn, 1996)

·         When in Ireland, he spent all the money that his father had given him

·         When Richard was crusading, John tried to reinforce his position as heir – own court – seemed like a rival government

·         Betrayed his brother when he was in captivity – not good

·         -1204 – loss of Normandy– John was absent, 1204-1213 – amassing funds to recapture his lands. 1215-1216 – final challenge for his throne, civil war and French Invasion.

·         Personally supervised the exchequer

·         Magna Carta – most remembered for yet he did little to help draft it and he moaned about it.

 ____________________________________________

Now, I can't help it. I'm a Disney Fan and had to put this on. I think it would make a great end of lesson, obviously depending on the students and the lesson time. There's other stuff on the net too but this i couldn't resist

Richard I – The Lionheart

More historiography than events.

Tyerman, C, Who’s Who in Early Medieval England, (Shepheard-Walwyn, 1996)

·         The most harmonious and least challenged accession of medieval kings between 1042 and 1272. Pg 250

·         Needed an effective regency when he was off trying to recapture Jerusalem.

·         Was in captivity for one year.

·         Eleanor of Aquitaine was regent

Gillingham, J, Richard I, (Yale University Press, 2002)

Preface

·         Spent only 6 months of his 10 year reign in England

·         Crusades

·         French part of his empire, inherited from his father, was not kept – won by King of France

·         (Looks like a bit of a disaster)

·         Good to study because: ‘No other medieval king of England had so many enemies in so many different parts of the world and was, in consequence, commented upon from so many different and hostile points of view.’ Pg. viii

·         This makes Richard unique

·         Regarded as a model of good kingship

·         Played a vital role in the histories of England, France, Germany, Sicily, Cyprus and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Turner, R.V. and Heiser, R.R., The Reign of Richard Lionheart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189-1199, (Pearson Education Limited, 2000)

·         ‘Presented... [as] a model of kingly virtues because of his military exploits, chivalric courtesy and crusading ardour.’ Pg 1

·         Not necessarily seen by serious historians – different to his contemporaries – different time with different values.

·         Contemporaries see the Third Crusade as ‘the highest goal of the chivalric lord’. Pg 2 –liberation of Christian holy places from the Muslims was seen as amazing to the chroniclers

·         Seen as chivalrous

·         From the seventeenth century, historians have seen Richard as being in the bad-rulers category

·         ‘Richard was an attractive man and a thoroughly bad monarch...War was his one delight, and his only interest in England was as a source of funds for his crusade and his bitter war with Philip Augustus.’ Pg 5

·         Now starting to value him on the value of his own age rather than imposing modern day standards on his reign

________________________________________________________________________________

To teach this I would probably get the students to examine the different points of view of Richard and come up with their own conclusions. This could involve having a picture of Richard on the Board and getting them to talk about it in groups and writing these down.

Angevin king/Angevin Empire

Henry II and Thomas Beckett

 Appleby, J.T., Henry II – The Vanquished King, (G. Bell and Sons, 1962)

   

Formally chancellor and a knight

·         His appointment to archbishop was not much liked by the monks – Becket was secular which was unheard of – only went along with the appointment to please the king

·         Becket undertook all of his good work in the public sphere – no privacy when at court

·         Opposed the King’s plan to increase revenues – the King did not like this – thought ill of him

·         Also opposed the plan for William, Henry’s brother, to marry Countess Warenne – widow of King’s Stephen’s son William – as the William’s were cousins, Thomas would not allow it

·         Thomas held responsible for the death of William as he died of a broken heart

·         Another thing the king did not like was Thomas’s energetic efforts to reclaim all the possessions of the archbishopric. Pg 81

·         Henry decided in favour of the Earl Roger of Clare after the case of his castle was passed to him. Thomas wanted it - the earl said no, I got it from the King.

·         Anger increased over what was thought to be Thomas assuming unlawful power over subjects belonging to the King and ‘encroaching on the King’s prerogatives’ pg 83

·         Thomas refused to change his ways in punishing the King’s subjects

·         Henry made Thomas to take an oath ‘I will observe the customs of the realm in good faith, and, as it is fitting and proper, I will obey you in everything else that is good’. Pg 88

·         THIS DID NOT HAPPEN – Becket refused

·         Thomas went out of his way to defy the King and to irritate him

·         Henry wanted Thomas stripped of his assets

·         Thomas was sentenced to death – with no trial

·         In 1169, monks wanted a reconciliation between Thomas and Henry

·         In 1170, after many attempts at being reconciled and sorted out, Henry’s men who had been excommunicated by Thomas decided to act for the King and kill him. They scalped his first and then they killed him

·         Reginald Fitz Urse, William of tracy, Hugh of Morville and Richard of Breton.

Barlow, F, Thomas Becket, (University of California Press, 1990), Pg 246

·         Not their original aim to kill him – were just going to restrain him and use force if necessary

 _______________________________________________________________________

Probably would teach this with CSI music. I think role playing. Split into groups after doing a story board of 6 points, and act out the story. Could even make it modern day. – i’ve done this – works quite well.

Henry II

Appleby, J.T., Henry II – The Vanquished King, (G. Bell and Sons, 1962)

Foreword  - Quick notes

·         ‘Empire stretched From Scotland to the Pyrenees. No King of England before or after his wielded such power over so vast a territory as did Henry II’ p. Vii

·         Died alone – wife in prison, best friend had been killed at the word of Henry, 4 sons reached maturity – 2 of whom had died while rebelling against their father, 1 had joined France, the youngest had also betrayed him at the end of his life. His barons had deserted him and his servants had even taken his clothes and left him naked while he was dying!

·         Father of English Law

Tyerman, C, Who’s Who in Early Medieval England, (Shepheard-Walwyn, 1996), pp. 182-194

·         Henry accession had to be won – ‘personal fulfilment rather thanb an inevitable progress or political epoch’ – pg 182

·         Excellent education – academically and militarily

·         Wanted to protect the royal claim- got rid of many titles i.e. Sheriffs and Barons as hereditary titles

·         He was interested in his rights and not tradition

·         ‘creator of new laws and a ruler who governed by selfish caprice’

·         Only interested in himself

·         This can be seen in the famous dispute with Thomas Beckett – personal vendetta and to safeguard royal rights to justice and ecclesiastical patronage

·         Henry’s reign compared to the uncertainties of Richard’s and the disasters of John’s – in retrospect his reign was a good government

·         Legal innovator – created possessary assizes

·         Legal revolution – though not a novel idea in reality – no real reform – still the same as previously organised

·         1158 – 1163 – left to his proxies

·         1160s – Becket dispute

·         1170 – coronation of the Young Henry – in order to show his eagerness to not go the same way as Stephen (Stephen failed to have a coronation ceremony for his son during his lifetime)

·         Every English monarch from 978 to 1189 either possessed a disputed title or was establishing a recent claim

·         Hi rule works because of physical energy – always on the road, so fast it was said ‘the King of England seems rather to fly than to travel by horse or ship’ pg 190 Louis VII

·         ‘Henry did not govern his people, he governed his interests’ pg 190

Appleby, J.T., Henry II – The Vanquished King, (G. Bell and Sons, 1962)

·         His wife was previously the wife of King Louis VII of France – Eleanor of Aquitaine – this duchy was given to Henry on his marriage to her – she’s a prominent figure in her own right

__________________________________________

This is important to know because of Becket's murder. I suppose a profile of the King would be useful in setting up the murder of Becket. This could be as a spider diagram or around a picture of the King, printed or drawn

Stephen

Tyerman, C, Who’s Who in Early Medieval England, (Shepheard-Walwyn, 1996), pp. 120-126

·         Unsuccessful King

·         Events were out of control and he was not good at controlling them

·         This may not have been Stephen’s fault – events were worse for him then they were for other monarchs which have been said to be more ‘effective’

·         Faced with Civil War

·         Faced with the same challenges as other new kings in this period – ‘how to secure his position and to manage his kingdoms and magnates’ – pg. 122

·         He was not able to succeed in this – shows that he was not equipped in order to carry out this duties

·         Grandson of William the Conqueror

·         Educated by Henry I

·         One of the richest magnates in the realm in 1130 – married and heiress of Boulogne and was given many titles and land by his uncle Henry I

·         Within 3 weeks of Henry’s death, he had support in London

·         Crowned – 22 December 1135

·         Quickness can be described as similar to Henry I’s quickness at gaining power

·         Lacked the strength to and resources to quell his opponents

·         Captured at the Battle of Lincoln and taken to Bristol where he was kept prisoner

·         Succession argued by Matilda – She had a stronger claim

·         Lost Normandy to Geoffrey of Anjou – strained relations between him and those who were loyal

·         Relationship with the Church became sour

·         Lacked ruthlessness

·         Deemed to be ‘rather colourless, unimpressive in an age when personal impressions counted for much’ – even had to have a spokesman on the battle field – he was not able to speak very loudly.

Henry I

Tyerman, C, Who’s Who in Early Medieval England, (Shepheard-Walwyn, 1996), pp. 69 – 84

•  Demanding – prompted awe, respect and nostalgia.
•  Basis for propaganda and Henry II’s rule
•  Cost was great – ruined houses, destroyed dynastic rivals, taxes for his subjects.
•  Harsh his actions may have been but he was appears to have understood the cost of success and the fragility of his achievement. – suffered nightmares and worried about being murdered in his own bed.
• Given £5000 but no property on his father’s death – had to make his own way.
• 1091 – brother’s against him  - 1096 – re-established his relationship with Rufus.
• ‘Henry had gained experience of war, diplomacy and the subtler political arts of managing men, winning people to his causes, exploiting the weaknesses of rivals and calculating his own long term advantage.’
•  Able to pick men to serve him
• Capacity for affection
• Conspiracy to murder Rufus? – historians don’t think so but it did give him the advantage – showed how fast he was at acting and energy
• Married – Edith (Matilda) in 1100 – 3 functions – heirs, united the new dynasty with the old, secured the Scottish Frontier.
• Had many affairs – ‘driven not by lust but his desire for children’ - many bastard children
• Biggest weapon – fear. 

_______________________________
Again, this is just to fill in the gaps. If this was taught, then a contrasting profile could be made about William II and Henry I. maybe some kind of dating advert or some such format for the students to do.