Paul Marks takes an interesting look at the relevance of Britain’s bloody history
How can a civil war, in the 12th century, between rivals for the throne of England be relevant to libertarians today? Surely the war was simply as it was presented by the contemporary (pro Stephen) writers – a lot of needless bloodshed brought about by the lust for power of wicked women?
However, I think the war is of interest.
First some background. Henry I was the youngest son of William the Conqueror, he based his claim to the throne of England (after the ‘hunting accident’ death of his brother William II) on the grounds that he was the only son of William I to be born after the conquest (i.e. after William I had been accepted as King of England) and in England itself.
To some people (such as Robert of Normandy – Henry’s older brother) such a claim appeared weak. However, by a combination of diplomacy and war Henry I made good his claim.
Henry had issued a charter of liberties limiting the lawless power of the Crown (in such matters as taxation and the security of property), he appealed not just to the Norman but to the Anglo Saxon (English) population and married Matilda (formally Edith) – daughter of the King of Scotland, but also direct decedent of the Anglo Saxon Kings of England going back to Alfred the Great. Henry I ruled for 35 years, but faced with the death of his son William (in the “White Ship” shipwreck) he had made his daughter Matilda his heir.
Worried that the Barons might not accept a female ruler Henry had made sure that they had all (twice) sworn a sacred oath to be loyal to Matilda.
However, as soon as Henry died Stephen of Blois took control.
Stephen is not supposed to have been a bad man (as Barons of the period go) and he was of the line of William the Conqueror (he was the third son of the fifth daughter of William I actually), but there are a few points to be thought about.
Weakest first, Stephen (unlike Henry or his daughter) was not born in England – so what (perhaps), after all Henry and and Matilda spoke Norman French as their main language and Matilda was first married to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V (hence the name “Empress Maud”) and then (after the death of Henry V) to Geoffrey Count of Anjou.
But there are two other points. Stephen was not the rightful claimant by ancestry to the throne of England (even if one only considers the Norman line of William I and ignores the Old English Kings and the English in general), and the supporters of Stephen (and Stephen himself) were oath breakers.
In short if Stephen could take and keep power without opposition then inheritance and contract meant nothing in England and the English people were just the slaves of lawless warlords.
One does not have to be a supporter of ‘women’s rights’ (although women should have the same basic rights as men) to see that Matilda’s supporters were right to fight under the standard of the person they proclaimed “the Lady of the English”.
Certainly Matilda made mistakes in the war (such as her failure to have Stephen executed when her army captured him), and indeed the conflict finally ended in compromise (Stephen to rule till he died and Matilda’s son Henry Plantagenet “FitzEmpress” to rule after him) – but the war had to be fought.
Paul Marks
I take Paul Mark’s point as a good one, but I think it is somewhat undermined by two factors.
The first, and perhaps weakest, is that I doubt very much that the noble ideals of preservation of inheritance and contract, as principles, were the real reason Matilda fought Stephen. I suspect that it was actually the finance/power motive, which was secondarily supported by principle.
The second, and more indicting, factor is that neither inheritance nor contract, as principles, were the validating elements when Guillaume le Battard took power in 1066; rather, it was the use of force. So the idea that Matilda was championing a system of government based upon principled succession is flawed at its core.
Logically, if her own claims to the throne were valid because the principles of inheritance and contract are paramount, then William I’s claim to the throne was invalid for the same reason (and therefore, those of his heirs who based their right of succession on these principles). Which makes Matilda’s own claim, asprinciple-driven, logically inconsistent.
As unpleasant and predatory as it may be to consider, it really comes down to whomever can grab power however they can, justifying it later however they may. Or not, as they wish. After all, dissenting opinions authored by the defeated are pretty much irrelevant. Witness Gore and the American left’s whining about the “theft” of the Presidency.
But I hold as true Marks’ implication that, if we are to have any presumption of being civilized and honorable, then principle must dictate our behavior (and sometimes even dictate armed conflict). I only lament that it is a concept which is often applied selectively, with nefarious consequences, in the realpolitik of world governments.
Many thanks for this post, Paul (and Samizdata). It is indeed refreshing to see the lessons of history applied to the modern context like this.
Also, the 12th Cty is my favorite British era (present one excepted, of course) and I was tickled pink to see it treated here.
You know you’re a Brit when: you’re still vaguely irritated with the frogs for the norman conquest.
Actually, William of Normandy avowed
a claim to the English throne almost
as good as Harold’s, especially if
you discount the Witan’s acclaiming
Harold when its members were all at
his mercy. Even Harold’s brother,
Tostig, called him a usurper (though
of course, Tostig also pretended to
the English throne).
Great post. Very interesting. Some of us Americans care about these issues of English history too, still working to keep in touch with our Anglo-American heritage of liberty and the rule of law.
Everyone knows that Harald Hardrada should have been King of England in 1066. Vikings rule!
To those people who think (with some justice) that William “the Bastard” had a rather weak claim to the English throne.
I did write that Henry I married a direct decendant of Alfred the Great. That was a part of Matilda’s appeal to some people – the lady was decendant of the Old English Kings.
On the point that such abstract things as Henry I’s Charter of Liberties or the basic principles of INHERITANCE and CONTRACT were not what really motivated Matilda. Well perhaps they were not (although it is hard to tell – with the contempory writers being in the other camp), but people’s MOTIVES for doing the “right thing” are often rather mixed – what matters is to try and do the right thing.
To leave Stephen unopposed would mean that indeed might was right and that no one in England (from the highest to the lowest) had any hope against it.
“To leave Stephen unopposed would mean that indeed might was right and that no one in England (from the highest to the lowest) had any hope against it.”
I appreciate your counterpoints, and I agree that this is the take-home lesson. It’s application to today might be that, “to leave Saddam unopposed…”
Good heavens.
“It’s application…” should be “Its application…”
Quelle horreur!
Julian,
Hey the Norman conquest wasn’t the Frogs! It was the Normans. The Normans, meaning men of the North, were from what is now Norway – basically Vikings. They only passed through Northern France long enough to pick up French as a court language before looking back North again – this time to England where their Viking cousins had settled.
Mmmm, my favorite era. Of course, immediately after the Matilda-Stephen extravaganza, we get into saucy Henry II and his infamous wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Modern political scandals have nothing on her: incest (with an uncle who was ruling in Acre — how’s that for Middle Eastern policy?), cheating on her first husband Louis (King of France), playing her own sons off against her second husband (most notable Richard the Lionheart and John of Magna Carta fame), mistress-torturing (the fair Rosamund was fair game for ol’ Eleanor) and much much more…
I can hardly believe I read something ahead of
Dave Kopel. Wow.
Anyway, I think Eleanor’s dalliance might deserve
the term fornication but not incest, under the
rules of the East then.
Eleanor of Aquitaine is one of my favourite characters in history.
Did you know that her tomb survives – alongside those of her husband Henry (II) AND her son Richard (the Lionheart)? You can see them all at the Abbey of Fontevrault in Normandy. The rest of it is “restored” in the usual French way (read rebuilt unrecognisably) but the tombs are real. A visit is a moving experience for any mediaevalist.
btw, Geo, “dissenting opinions authored by the defeated are pretty much irrelevant” – yes, and this has often seemed to me to be a major problem with “war crimes trials”.
Hmmm. Fornication or incest. May be a shade-of-grey distinction. Raymond of Acre was her uncle, no? It’s been a while since I’ve read any of the big works on Plantagenet history, with the exception of a recent Richard bio…I’ve been on my Ottonian Germany kick instead. (More Matildas than you can shake a stick at!)
I’d love to make it to Fontrevault one of these days, Andrew. At least it’s still around, which can’t be said for many of the German sites I wish were extant.
Interesting analysis, but to point out two things: the Normans were Viking-Franks, not Vikings. If they hadn’t learned from Frankish politicians and Frankish history, they would have ended up like Harald Hardraada who was the quintessential Viking. Also, Matilda did not consider herself desceded from Alfred the Great. That was the Conqueror’s wife, Queen Matilda, and her descent from Count Baldwin of Flanders.
Regarding the Civil War. this can be traced to the assassination of William the Red in the New Forest on August 2nd 1100 which was all about stopping the spread of The Norman Revolution 1066-1100 to the Frankish Kingdom and stall the radical advances made in Sicily, Apulia in southern Europe by the Hautevilles and their descendants. Matilda’s Angevins were not the successors of the Norman rulers, as conventional accounts would posit, but their gravediggers. In 1204, the last of these wholly incompetent adventurers, John, finally succeeded in losing Normandy itself to the French Kingdom. Stephen was the politically correct choice to restore the vigor of 1066-1100. His abilities,however, although much slandered by conventional accounts, were not seriously comparable to those of the Conqueror or the Red.