[1] It has already been shown that Norman, Saxon, and Dane were originally branches of the Teutonic or German race. (SS36, 62). [2] Professor E. A. Freeman, who is the highest authority on this subject (see especially his "Short History of the Norman Conquest"), holds the view that the coming of William was, on the whole, the greatest advantage to England. Nearly all leading historians agree with him; for a different view consult Professor C. Oman's "England before the Norman Conquest," pp. 648–651.
William Rufus[3]—1087–1100
[3] William Rufus: William the Red, a nickname probably derived from his red face.
127. William the Conqueror's Bequest (1087).
William the Conqueror left three sons—Robert, William Rufus, and Henry. He also left a daughter, Adela, who married a powerful French nobleman, Stephen, Count of Blois. On his deathbed (S124) William bequeathed Normandy to Robert. He expressed a wish that William Rufus should become ruler over England, while to Henry he left five thousand pounds of silver, with the prediction that he would ultimately be the greatest of them all.
Before his eyes were closed, the two sons, who were with him, hurried away—William Rufus to seize the realm of England, Henry to get possession of his treasure. Robert was not present. His recent rebellion (S124) would alone have been sufficient reason for alloting to him the lesser portion; but even had he deserved the scepter, William knew it required a firmer hand than his to hold it.
128. Condition of England.
France was simple an aggregation of independent and mutually hostile dukedoms. The ambition of the Norman leaders threatened to bring England into the same condition. During the twenty-one years of William the Conqueror's reign, the Norman barons on the Continent had constantly tried to break loose from his restraining power. It was certain, then, that the news of his death would be the signal for still more desperate attempts.
129. Character of William Rufus.
Rufus had his father's ability and resolution, but none of his father's conscience. As the historian of that time declared, "he feared God but little, man not at all." He had Caesar's faith in destiny, and said to a boatman who hesitated to set off with him in a storm at his command, "Did you ever hear of a king's being drowned?"
130. His Struggle with the Barons.
The barons broke the solemn oath which they had taken in the previous reign (S122) to be faithful to the Crown. During the greater part of the thirteen years of the new King's reign they were fighting against him. On William's part it was a battle of centralization against disintegration. He rallied the country people to his help—those who fought with bows and spears. "Let every man," said the King, "who would not be branded infamous and a coward, whether he live in town or country, leave everything and come to me" (S85).
In answer to that appeal, the English people rallied around their
Norman sovereign, and gained the day for him under the walls of
Rochester Castle, Kent. Of the two evils, the tyranny of one or the
tyranny of many, he first seemed to them preferable.
131. William's Method of raising Money; he defrauds the Church.
If in some respects William the Conqueror had been a harsh ruler, his son was worse. His brother Robert had mortgaged Normandy to him in order to get money to join the first crusade (S182). William Rufus raised whatever funds he desired by the most oppressive and unscrupulous means.
William's most trusted counselor was Ranulf Flambard. Flambard had brains without principle. He devised a system of plundering both Church and people in the King's interest. Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, died three years after William's accession. Through Flambard's advice the King left the archbishopric vacant and appropriated its revenues to himself. He practiced the same course with respect to every office of the Church.
132. The King makes Anselm Archbishop (1093).
While this process of systematized robbery was going on, the King suddenly fell ill. In his alarm lest death was at hand, he determined to make reparation to the defrauded and insulted priesthood. He invited Anselm, the abbot of a famous monastery in Normandy, to accept the archbishopric. Anselm, who was old and feeble, declined, saying that he and the King could not work together. "It would be," said he, "like yoking a sheep and a bull."
But the king would take no refusal. Calling Anselm to his bedside, he forced the staff of office into his hands. Anselm became the champion of the freedom of the Church. But when the King recovered, he resumed his old practices and treated the Archbishop with such insult that he left the country for a time.
133. William's Merit; his Death.
William II's one merit was that he kept England from being devoured piecemeal by the Norman barons, who regarded her as a pack of hounds in full chase regard the hare that is on the point of falling into their rapacious jaws.
Like his father, he insisted on keeping the English Church independent of the ever-growing power of Rome (S118). In both cases his motives were purely selfish, but the result to the country was good.
His power came suddenly to an end (1100). He had gone in the morning to hunt in the New Forest (S119) with his brother Henry. He was found lying dead among the bushes, pierced by an arrow shot by an unknown hand.
William's character speaks in his deeds. It was hard, cold, despotic, yet in judging it we should consider the woulds of that quaint old writer, Thomas Fuller, when he says, "No pen hath originally written the life of this King but what was made with a monkish penknife, and no wonder if his picture seems bad, which was thus drawn by his enemy."
134. Summary.
Notwithstanding William's oppression of both Church and people, his reign checked the revolt of the baronage and prevented the kingdom from falling into anarchy like that existing in France.
Henry I—1100–1135
135. Henry's Charter of Liberties.
Henry, third son of William the Conqueror, was the first of the Norman kings who was born and educated in England. Foreseeing a renewal of the contest with the barons (S130), he issued a Charter of Liberties on his accession, by which he bound himself to reform the abuses which had been practiced by his brother William Rufus. The charter guaranteed: (1) The rights of the Church (which William Rufus had constantly violated); (2) the rights of the nobles and landholders against extortionate demands by the Crown; (3) the right of all classes to protection of the old English customs or laws.
The King sent a hundred copies of this important document to the leading abbots and bishops for preservation in their respective monasteries and cathedrals (S45).
As this charter was the earliest written and formal guarantee of good government ever given by the Crown to the nation, it marks an important epoch in English history. It may be compared to the statements of principles and pledges issued by our modern political parties. It was a virtual admission that the time had come when even a Norman sovereign could not dispense with the support of the country. It was therefore an admission of the truth that while a people can exist without a king, no king can exist without a people.
Furthermore, this charter established a precedent for those which were to follow, and which reached a final development in the Great Charter wrested from the unwilling hand of King John somewhat more than a century later (S198). Henry further strengthened his position with his English subjects by his marriage with Maud, nice of the Saxon Edgar, a direct descendant of King Alfred (S51).
136. The Appointment of Bishops settled.
King Henry also recalled Anselm (S132) and reinstated him in his office. But the peace was of short duration. The Archbishop insisted, as did the Pope, that the power of appointment