Tuesday, 30 August 2011

Teaching resources for the Magna Carta

The TES website has some really helpful resources which I could use to help teach the Magna Carta to a year seven class. 

The first worksheet has a flowchart which depicts the events which contributed to the formation of the Magna Carta, making the various grievances of the barons easily decipherable.  There are then questions which help the students to engage with the material which will have previously been discussed in class:


Another worksheet which I have found helps to easily divide the effects of each part of the Magna Carta up in a tick-box table:


 
I think that this is quite useful in highlighting the intentions and effects of the Magna Carta, making the information more accessible and more easy to understand.  It would also be pertinent to highlight the influence of the Magna Carta here, as by identifying its role in the formation of the American Constitution and the myth of Robin Hood as representative of the turmoil of King John’s reign, the relevance of the document to the present day may make the information more engaging for the students.

King John (r. 1199-1216) and the Magna Carta

In contrast to his elder brother, John is not seen as a military hero but is often viewed as incompetent and notorious for making bad decisions.  Even upon his coronation at Westminster Abbey on 27th May 1199 there were doubts as to John’s right to rule, many arguing that Arthur, Duke of Brittany and the son of his late brother Geoffrey, was the next in line.  Traditionally, the crown would have passed to Arthur if Richard had not named John as his successor and consequently, Arthur refused to recognise John as the lawful King of England and Duke of Normandy.  This post will explore the various events which led to the formation of this perception of John, resulting in the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

The loss of Normandy
John is often attributed to having lost the kingdom which was established during the reign of William I, in which the King of England also held the position of the Duke of Normandy.  This position was strengthened by Henry II and his addition of the lands of Aquitaine in Southern France, yet by the end of John’s reign, he had lost his French lands in Normandy.
 
Phillips suggests that John’s marriage to Isabella of Angoulême in 1200 was the first factor which aided this loss of land.  Isabella was just twelve years old when she married John and had been betrothed to Hugh de Lusignan, a French baron.  Lusignan appealed to King Philip of France for help, but when summoned by Philip to answer the charges levelled against him, John refused to attend.  As the Duke of Aquitaine John was answerable to Philip, although Ibeji suggests that John would have viewed this relationship as a ‘mere formality’ rather than a power which could actually be put in to use.  Philip did exert his influence, however, in 1202 naming John a “contumacious vassal” and stripping him of all his French lands.

The murder of Arthur
During the dispute between John and the French nobles which resulted from this, Arthur was captured at Mirebeau Castle by John’s men, which Schama argues proved John to be as capable in military action as his brother despite his nickname ‘Swordsoft’.  Arthur, only twelve years old at the time, was murdered whilst being kept hostage.  Contemporary accounts suggest that John ‘slew him with his own hand’, but the reliability of this is uncertain.  Nevertheless, the rumours of John’s brutality meant that John lost the support of the barons of Normandy and Anjou and the inhabitants of Brittany.

Dispute with the Church
Following the death of the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1206, John refused to accept Pop Innocent III’s  choice of Stephen Langton as his successor.  The result of this dispute was that John was excommunicated by the Pope in 1209.  This placed him in precisely the position of inferiority and vulnerability to the Church which his father, Henry II, had wished to abolish.  English people were held under Church Law, which stated that no marriage or Christening would be deemed legal until the Pope removed this constraint.  John retaliated by taxing the Church and confiscating some of its lands. 

John consequently agreed to give England to the Pope, declaring it a fiefdom of the Church, meaning that England was now a vassal to Rome.  Schama suggests that rather than viewing this as a failure of John’s reign, it mean that he now had the support of the Church, therefore in actuality strengthening his position.

The angering of the Barons and the Battle of Bouvines
With the Pope on his side, John decided to invade France once more.  In order to do this he needed the support of his Barons to either fight or pay towards the cause.  This angered many who disagreed with John’s intentions and did not want to support him.  John’s campaign at Bouvines in 1214 was unsuccessful and returning from France, John found that many of the Barons were unwilling to pay further money towards his exploits.

John and the Magna Carta

The Magna Carta

In 1215, the Barons launched a revolt, presenting John with a list of reforms which they wanted to enforce so as to avoid a full scale rebellion against the King.  They saw it as a peaceful rather than revolutionary move, intended to allow negotiation between the disillusioned Barons and the King.

John gave his seal to the Articles of the Barons at Runnymede in 1215.  This was a list of demands which were then used to form The Magna Carta (which means ‘Great Charter’) on 15th July and was most probably drafted by the Archbishop Stephen Langton.  The Magna Carta consisted of 63 chapters which were intended to rectify what were perceived as Royal abuses of power towards the Barons, the Church, merchants and ‘free-men’.  Rather than giving Englishmen more rights, however, the Magna Carter intended to greatly diminish the ability of the King to abuse his position, making the monarch subject to law just like everyone else.  It was certainly not an attempt to overthrow the monarchy.

What did the Magna Carta contain?
The Magna Carta gave protection to the Barons, aided the creation of English law and secured the position of the Catholic Church as separate from the monarchy in England.  Some of the main points were:

-          the King needs to consult his Lords if he was to raise taxes
-          all freemen are to have a trial by Jury
-          the King cannot interfere with the Catholic Church

Why did John agree to it?
John did not intend to abide by the Magna Carta in the long term, but agreed to it so as to ‘demonstrate his reasonableness’ to those barons who were undecided as to whether they were going to support the King or join the inevitable uprising against him.   

Just three months after the Magna Carta was signed by John and declared void by the Pope, the King reclaimed Rochester Castle from the barons.  In response, they rallied around Prince Louis, the son of the French King Philip in the hope to establish him as the next King of England once John had been overthrown.  These plans were rendered void, however, when on October 18th 1216 John died of dysentery.  The barons then rallied around Henry III, John’s son, supporting him instead of Louis as the next King of England.

Tuesday, 23 August 2011

King Richard I (r. 1189-1199)

Both Ibeji and Schama highlight the traditional tendency of historians to divide King Richard and King John into opposite categories which portray Richard as the ‘good’ King and his brother John as ‘bad’.  The perception is somewhat limited, however, as each King can be argued to have possessed different strengths and weaknesses.  This post will focus on King Richard and the next will focus on the reign of King John.

King Richard is often referred to as Richard the Lionheart, making reference to his extensive military campaigns whilst on Crusade: he actually only spent six months out of his ten year reign in England.  Ibeji suggests that this removal from courtly life enabled Richard to develop the persona of a ‘warrior King’, whilst also ensuring that he was far enough removed from governance that unpopular measures could be distanced from his own hand, making him a popular figure.  There is evidence to suggest that Richard did not speak a great deal of English, suggesting that one of the country's most celebrated monarchs in actuality had little interest in the role of King of England himself.

Following his coronation of 3rd September 1189, Richard stipulated that John was to remain in France for three years whilst he was on the Third Crusade (1190-92), fearing that his brother might attempt to take advantage of his absence.  On his mother’s advice, Richard retracted this command, allowing John back into the country.  John consequently acted as Richard had predicted.  He drove William Longchamps, the Bishop of Ely who had been appointed Chief Justiciar in Richard’s absence, into exile, scheming with King Philip of France how Richard’s empire could be divided between the two of them.  As Ibeji describes, John aimed to ‘set himself up as King in all but name’. 

Eleanor of Aquitaine prevented John from carrying out his plans and upon hearing the news, Richard returned from the Holy Land.  He was captured by Duke Leopold of Austria upon his return but was freed in 1193 after paying a ransom which equated to a quarter of each worker's yearly salary.  Richard forgave John’s attempts to usurp him, possibly viewing John as a weaker, somewhat piteous man who had failed in his efforts to match his own prowess and in 1194 returned to the Holy Land.  Richard died in 1199 in France after having been shot in the shoulder with an arrow. 

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Teaching Thomas à Becket


I think that there are many ways in which I could teach this topic to a year seven/eight class which would help them to engage with the information whilst also helping to build analytical skills when approaching sources.  I have found some sources which I think would be really useful to explore in class:

1.       Extract taken from ‘The Life of Thomas Becket’ by Edward Grim (1180)

“After the monks took [Thomas] through the doors of the church, the four aforementioned knights followed behind with a rapid pace. A certain subdeacon, Hugh the Evil-clerk, named for his wicked offense and armed with their malice, went with them - showing no reverence for either God or the saints because by following them he condoned their deed. When the holy archbishop entered the cathedral the monks who were glorifying God abandoned vespers - which they had begun to celebrate for God - and ran to their father whom they had heard was dead but they saw alive and unharmed. They hastened to close the doors of the church in order to bar the enemies from slaughtering the bishop, but the wondrous athlete turned toward them and ordered that the doors be opened ... Without delay the sacrilegious men entered the house of peace and reconciliation with swords drawn ... "Where is Thomas Becket, traitor of the king and kingdom?" No one responded and instantly they cried out more loudly, "Where is the archbishop?" Unshaken he replied to this voice as it is written, "The righteous will be like a bold lion and free from fear," he descended from the steps to which he had been taken by the monks who were fearful of the knights and said in an adequately audible voice, "Here I am, not a traitor of the king but a priest; why do you seek me?" And [Thomas], who had previously told them that he had no fear of them added, "Here I am ready to suffer in the name of He who redeemed me with His blood; God forbid that I should flee on account of your swords or that I should depart from righteousness." ... The murderers pursued him and asked, "Absolve and restore to communion those you have excommunicated and return to office those who have been suspended." To these words [Thomas] replied, "No penance has been made, so I will not absolve them." "Then you," they said, "will now die and will suffer what you have earned." [and] ... With rapid motion they laid sacrilegious hands on him, handling and dragging him roughly outside of the walls of the church so that there they would slay him or carry him from there as a prisoner, as they later confessed. But when it was not possible to easily move him from the column, he bravely pushed one [of the knights] who was pursuing and drawing near to him; he called him a panderer saying, "Don't touch me, Rainaldus, you who owes me faith and obedience, you who foolishly follow your accomplices."... He had barely finished speaking when the impious knight, fearing that [Thomas] would be saved by the people and escape alive, suddenly set upon him and, shaving off the summit of his crown which the sacred chrism consecrated to God, he wounded the sacrificial lamb of God in the head; the lower arm of the writer was cut by the same blow. Indeed [the writer] stood firmly with the holy archbishop, holding him in his arms - while all the clerics and monks fled - until the one he had raised in opposition to the blow was severed ... Then, with another blow received on the head, he remained firm. But with the third the stricken martyr bent his knees and elbows, offering himself as a living sacrifice, saying in a low voice, "For the name of Jesus and the protection of the church I am ready to embrace death." But the third knight inflicted a grave wound on the fallen one; with this blow he shattered the sword on the stone and his crown, which was large, separated from his head so that the blood turned white from the brain.”
Teaching the relevance of this source to this class:

I think that some aspects of this source could be quite complex for a KS3 class.  Therefore, it would be beneficial to let the students read through the text individually and see what aspects they can identify by themselves, then go through their ideas on the board by annotating a projection of the text.  After this, the students could then answer questions in their exercise books along the lines of those below.

What is this source? 
An eye witness account of the murder of Thomas à Becket.
Who produced it?
The extract is taken from Edward Grim’s biography of Thomas à Becket.  It was published in 1180, ten years after Becket’s murder.
When was it written and why is this important?
1180 – it is a source which was produced relatively close to the time of the event. 
What does it tell us?  (Give details and quotes).
It reveals the details of the murder, including how Grim himself was injured in the attack and why the Knights have come to find Becket, deeming him a ‘traitor’ and asking him to revoke the excommunication of the bishops: ‘The murderers pursued him and asked, "Absolve and restore to communion those you have excommunicated and return to office those who have been suspended."
What evidence can you find which shows the author’s personal opinions?  What are these opinions?
The source reveals that Grim was very sympathetic towards Becket.  He describes him as ‘wondrous’, ‘brave’ and ‘sacrificial’ whilst the Knights are deemed as ‘sacriligous’ and ‘murderous’, clearly revealing his opinion that Becket was unjustly murdered and was martyred.   


2.       Print of ‘King Henry II whipt by the Popes Order’



I have found some really interesting ideas on the TES website of exercises to make the topic interesting for the class.  I really like one idea put forward which was for students to produce a ‘murder booklet’ in which they play the role of detective and note the possible suspects, motives and events of the murder.  This would help the pupils to place information from the sources and knowledge gained in class into separate sections, charting the reasons for the murder, what happened and the possible reasons for its occurrence.  Below is an example taken from the website which I could adapt for my own lesson:



Another task could be to produce a newspaper article about the murder, including images and quotes from the sources.

Canterbury as a sight of pilgrimage
Nicola Coldstream’s essay ‘Canterbury Cathedral and the Cult of Thomas Becket’ in The History of British Art 600-1600, David Bindman, ed. (London: Tate Publishing, 2008) describes the growth of Canterbury as a site of pilgrimage, stating that following Becket’s canonization, the cathedral became ‘a symbol of the conflict between the secular and ecclesiastical powers’ (p. 70).  Pilgrims came to visit the relics of the saint: Becket’s scalp was displayed in the rotunda behind the high altar and the reliquary containing his relics was placed over his tomb.  It was believed that by visiting Becket’s shrine and the north transept where he was murdered, pilgrims could be alleviated of health complaints and receive miracles in return.  The cathedral was decorated with tributes to Becket, purbeck marble, stained glass accounts of his life and death and the floor mosaic all celebrating the Saint.  Pilgrims could also purchase pilgrim badges as proof of their visit.  Canterbury Cathedral was the destination of the travellers in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (late C14th).

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

Henry II and Thomas à Becket

The murder of Thomas à Becket is perhaps the most renowned event of Henry II’s reign.  In my last post, I explored Henry’s attempts to increase control through the legal reforms implemented during his reign and the English move into Ireland.  Yet, Henry’s dealings with the Church were also instrumental to this.   Unlike the Catholic Church, Henry believed in the Divine Right of the King to rule.  This meant that Henry believed that Kings were appointed by God and therefore could not be challenged or deemed as subordinate to another power.  This clashed with the views of the Church and continually created tensions between the two throughout Henry’s reign. 

In June 1162, Henry appointed Thomas à Becket as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket having been the King’s chancellor since January 1155.  As the Chancellor acted as the King’s personal chaplain, his secretary-general and the keeper of the royal archives, Henry and Thomas became close friends.  Thus, through the appointment of Thomas à Becket, Henry hoped that he could enforce reforms of the role of the Church with Thomas’ support.  As such, in 1164 Henry proposed the Constitutions of Clarendon which were intended to reassert the power of the monarchy over the Church in England.

What did Henry want to achieve through the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164)?
  • The King should have the power to excommunicate Royal officials.
  • The Crown would have full control over the communications between the English clergy and Rome.
  • Clerics who had already been tried by Church courts could be re-arrested and re-tried in royal courts, in essence overriding the say of the church and suggesting that ‘all free subjects should be treated alike’.

Contrary to Henry’s expectations, Thomas rejected the Constitutions of Clarendon.   Fearing his loss of favour with the King, he attempted to flee England but was recognised as he attempted to get on a boat to France, preventing his escape.  As a result, Thomas was brought to trial in Northampton in October 1164, not on the charge of his attempt to leave the country without Royal permission, but under 3 other accusations:
  • Failing to answer the King’s summons
  • The improper use of funds when he acted as chancellor
  • Treason – as he had tried to appeal to the Pope for help, therefore going over the head of the King 

Following the trial Becket fled to Flanders with his follower Herbert of Bosham and settled at the Cistercian abbey of Pontigny in France.  By 1169, Henry wanted to invite Becket to return to England as he required him in his capacity as the Archbishop of Canterbury to perform the coronation of his son Henry the Younger, wishing to ensure the legitimacy of his succession.  Consequently, the two met at Montmirail on the border of the French and Angevin territories, yet it did not end as Henry had wished, Becket maintaining his original stance.  As a result, Henry the Younger’s coronation was instead presided over by the Archbishop of York in June 1170.

The next time the King and the Archbishop met was on 22nd July 1170 where Henry persuaded Becket to return to England.  Becket was met with much hostility upon his arrival, from both those within the King’s inner circle and members of the Church who perceived Becket’s escape following his trial as cowardly.  Ignoring warnings against his increasing outspokenness, Becket continued to challenge Henry, condemning the Bishops who had taken part in Henry the Younger’s coronation.  It is recorded that in a moment of anger and frustration, Henry cried, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent Priest?” – a statement which is often cited as the motivation for Becket’s murder.  Schama suggests that Henry’s shout, ‘what miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household who allow their lord to be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!’, was the most instigative element in the Archbishop’s murder, suggesting that no one present would have mistaken Henry’s wish to be rid of Becket.

As such, on 29th December 1170, Sir Reginald FitzUrse, William de Tracy, Richard le Bret and Hugh de Morville, four of the King’s most loyal Knights, rode to Canterbury, intending to silence the Archbishop.  Becket was warned of their arrival at the Cathedral, yet he left the Cathedral door open so that his congregation would continue to arrive and observe all which ensued.  With two attendants as witnesses, the Knights murdered Becket at half past four in the afternoon, slicing open his head and removing his brain (some juicy info I’m sure KS3 pupils would love!).  The murdered monk was canonised within a year and a half of his murder.

Henry was said to be so crippled by guilt and grief for the death of his once close friend that in July 1174 he crawled bare feet and shirtless up the nave of Canterbury Cathedral in an act penitence, asking the now Saint for forgiveness, and suffering five lashes from each monk who tended his shrine as punishment.
Brief timeline
1154:     Henry is crowned as King of England
1155:     Thomas à Becket is appointed as Henry’s chancellor
1162:     Thomas becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury
1164:     Henry proposes the Constitutions of Clarendon
                Thomas is put on trial at Northampton
                Thomas escapes to Flanders
1169:     Henry and Thomas meet at Montmirail
1170:     On the 29th December Thomas is murdered in Canterbury Cathedral
               

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

Henry II (r. 1154-1189)

Henry II (r. 1154-1189)
As discussed in my previous post ‘William II to Henry II’, Henry came to the throne following the Civil War of Stephen’s reign.  He was the first King of the Plantagenet line and married Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152 just eight weeks after her divorce from King Louis VII of France.   Eleanor was 12 years older than Henry and proved to be a forceful and controversial figure. Both were crowned in Westminster Abbey on 7th December 1154 following the death of King Stephen.  Henry and Eleanor had 5 sons and 3 daughters.  The eldest two surviving sons, Henry and Geoffrey died before they could succeed their father, leaving the youngest, Richard and John, next in line to the throne.  Despite supposedly marrying for love rather than for political reasons, Henry adopted numerous mistresses.  The most prolific of these was Rosamund Clifford whom out of jealousy, Eleanor is considered to have arranged the murder of.

There is so much to say about Henry II apart from the Thomas à Becket ‘incident’ for which he is probably most well known (although this is obviously a topic which I will cover).  This post will attempt to discuss some of the key issues which characterise his reign, including his attempts to form a ‘state’ and his role in the establishment of English law.  Another book which I have started reading is Simon Schama’s A History of Britain 3000 BC – 1603 AD which is extremely useful and provides a detailed account of Henry II’s reign.

Some of the key questions to ask when approaching Henry II are:
1.       How important was loyalty to Henry and what part did this play in the events which characterised his rule?
2.       How important was the creation of a ‘state’ to Henry and what did he do to aid this?
3.       What role did Eleanor of Aquitaine play in Henry’s reign and that of her sons?

The formation of a ‘state’
Following his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry gained control of a large section of Southern France which when he became King added to his empire of England, where he was King, Normandy, of which he was the Duke, Anjou, where he was the Count, and parts of Wales and sections of Brittany too.  His state was by no means unified, however, Henry recognising that each section of his Empire was characterised by its own specific language and customs.  In order to ‘suppress evil laws and customs’, Schama describes how Henry knocked down many of the castles which had been erected during the Civil War do as to defuse the opportunity for continued rivalries between the barons.

Wales
Henry turned his attention to Wales to try and unify sections of his empire.  At this time, Wales was a divided country, split between English areas which were presided over by Marcher Lords and castles in areas such as Monmouth and Chepstow, and Welsh territories.  The three Welsh kingdoms were Gwynedd in the North, Powys in the middle and Deheubarth in the South.

In 1165, Rhys ad Gruffydd attempted to join up these territories to increase Welsh strength in the country.  Henry responded with a major campaign.  This turned out to be a humiliating failure for the English, however, their mounted Knights unable to cope with the Welsh weather and terrain.  Schama argues that it was this which instigated English activity in Ireland, Henry deciding to move his Marcher lords from Wales to Ireland so as to help the King of Leinster in Dublin, Diarmait MacMurchada, fight Irish rebels.  In contrast, however, Ibeji suggests that Henry left it to Diarmait to recruit help from the English and suffering from increasing pressure from the Welsh princes, the English lords chose to go to Ireland of their own accord.  Although this places questions of Henry’s intention to ‘collect’ Ireland as a centre under his control, either way the English lords did not enter Ireland as invaders, but as missionaries.

Ireland
In 1169 a group of these Knights were sent to Ireland, followed by the Earl of Pembroke, Richard de Clare.  Clare, known as “Strongbow”, married Aoife, Diarmait’s daughter and following Diarmait’s death in 1171 Strongbow became his successor.  Schama argues that it was this event which caused Henry to take interest in Ireland, seeing it as a Norman colony.  He had in effect become the overlord of Ireland. 

Reactions to Henry’s rule in Ireland were generally well met as Henry was not seen as having conquered Ireland but had risen to a position of control through intervention with Diarmait against the Irish rebels.  Henry compounded his influence in Ireland through the implementation of:
o   castles, manors and walled towns
o   monasteries
o   the formation of a French-speaking Knighthood

Thus, Henry managed to extend his area of control forming for the first time since William the Conqueror a form of unified ‘state’.

Henry II and the development of English Law
In order to reassert Royal strength and leadership following the Civil War of King Stephen’s reign, Henry also enforced numerous reforms to the legal system between 1154 and 1189 and his reign is often seen as instrumental in the formation of English Law.  Examples of his reforms included the implementation of more violent forms of punishment for serious crimes, where the guilty could lose a hand or a foot as examples of punishment.  He is also held responsible for the introduction of a jury of 12 members in criminal trial proceedings.

Threats to Henry’s position
Despite these actions to strengthen his position, Henry faced numerous threats to his position which ironically came from his own family.  In 1173, Eleanor encouraged Henry the Younger, Richard and Geoffrey to rebel against Henry, both sons resentful of Henry’s reluctance to give them royal responsibilities and reveal his intentions.  The coup failed and as a result Eleanor was captured and remained estranged from Henry.  Henry the Younger died in 1183 and it was not until 1189 that Eleanor attempted another rebellion.  Richard, the eldest surviving son, had asked his father to name his officially as heir, but apprehensive that this would encourage a coup, HenryHenry refused.  Moreover, Henry fathered an illegitimate child with Alais of France who was supposed to be promised to Richard, further intensifying hostilities between the two.  Contemporary accounts record how upon hearing that his favourite son John had joined Richard, died two days later of shock and heartbreak.

I have not mentioned the murder of Thomas à Becket in this post as it is going to be the topic of my next post.  Although Henry’s attitude towards the Church clearly engages with his wish to reassert the power of the crown over England, the murder of Thomas à Becket is a key event which I think would benefit more if it was treated in a separate post where I will be able to break the information up into more manageable sections.

I think that this topic might prove problematic to teach to a younger age group as  some of the concepts are quite complex, for example:
o   Henry’s realm was not limited to just England but was spread across the Channel
o   The United Kingdom did not exist as it does today, and even England was not unified
o   Henry had to tackle a realm which was comprised of different traditions, language and customs – Henry himself did not speak much beyond basic English.

One way to make this information more accessible might be to divide the information as I have here into thematic sections.  I could perhaps provide visual aids with names of the key people to make it more understandable – for example, a map of the territories overseen by Henry.

Saturday, 6 August 2011

Resources for teaching the Norman Conquest

I have found some really helpful resources on the TES website that could be used when teaching this period of history to KS3 students.  I have uploaded links to some of the exercises which I think are most interesting and useful:

1.       The Battle of Hastings

This is an animated video which briefly shows the events of 1066.  I think it is visually very effective and could be used to help illustrate the sequence of events which led to William’s I ascension to the throne.  The students could narrate alongside the video, perhaps in a weather-reporter style, pausing it at certain sections which require deeper discussion.



2.       The Bayeux Tapestry

One of the exercises which I really like concerning the Bayeux Tapestry is downloadable from this site.  It provides a series of twelve images and corresponding descriptions of events depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry which the students then need to match up and place in chronological order.  I think would prove extremely effective in helping pupils to understand the sequence of events of 1066, as well as identifying the importance of visual sources and building on skills of how to read and interpret them.

3.       The Domesday Book

This links provides a great exercise which should encourage pupils to engage with source material and learn about the Domesday Book.  It provides an extract from the Domesday Book with a modern day transcript, followed by questions regarding the contents of the extract and why the Domesday Book was necessary. 

4.       William I’s Consolidation of Power

This powerpoint provides a detailed overview of the methods William I employed to increase control over England following his success at the Battle of Hastings.  It provides a helpful template for all of the key aspects, including the importance of castles, fear and violence and the development of the feudal system.  I could perhaps use this as an example of how to devise my own presentations about the topic.

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

William II to Henry II: What happened after William I’s death?

I think that it is important to note what happened after William I’s death as this area of British history is often passed-over – plus having never studied past William I’s reign I wanted to ‘fill in the gaps’ of my own knowledge here.  Therefore, his post will aim to give an overview of the chronology of the events between William I’s death and the coronation of Henry II.

An extremely useful source I have started reading along Starkey is Charles Phillips’ Kings and Queens of Britain.  This is really useful as it provides an account of the British monarchy from Roman Rule up until the present day, highlighting the key events in the reign of each leader.  

William II “Rufus” (r. 1087-1100)
Following William I’s death on 9th September 1087, his lands were divided between his three sons.  Robert Curthose, the eldest, was given the Duchy of Normandy and William “Rufus” became the King of England.  Yet Henry, the youngest, was not given any land but was instead left £5000. This decision left his sons at odds with each other, creating tensions which lasted well in to William II’s reign.

William II was known as Rufus because of his red hair.  He was crowned on 26th September in Westminster Abbey and throughout his reign faced numerous attempted rebellions.  Like his father, William II was ruthless and a natural leader, yet in complete contrast he was also openly irreligious.  This angered many members of the French elite who, Starkey argues, envied the much more relaxed style of Robert in France. The first rebellion came from this group of disillusioned Frenchmen.  It was led by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, William’s uncle and the Earl of Kent, who intended to replace William with Robert as the King of England.  Yet, Odo was defeated at Rochester Castle and after being stripped of all his titles and possessions was exiled to Normandy.

Illustrative of his ruthlessness, William II successfully invaded Normandy, taking the east of the Duchy of Normandy from his brother.  He also strengthened English power and influence in Scotland and Wales. 

His reign was also characterised by numerous disputes with the Church.  He attempted to remove Anselm who had succeeded Lanfranc as the Archbishop of Canterbury and had openly criticised the indulgent  activities of William’s court.  This dispute placed great strain on relations between Rome and England which was only partially quelled by Anselm’s exile in 1097.

William II died in a hunting accident in the New Forest in Hampshire (one of the game reserves created and enlarged under Forest Laws) in August 1100.  It has been suggested that rather than an accident William II was the victim of an assassination.  William’s elder brother Robert was abroad fighting on the First Crusade and so Henry, the youngest of the three, travelled to London so as to secure his own position as William’s successor in his brother’s absence, casting doubt on his innocence in the incident.

Henry I (r. 1100-1035)
Henry proved to be a very different ruler to his brother “Rufus”: he was highly educated, thoroughly “English”, religious and most notably, condemned the leadership styles of both his father and brother.  He took no time to validate his position as the next King of England, being crowned at Westminster Abbey just four days after his brother’s death.

Henry married Edith, the daughter of Malcolm III of Scotland and granddaughter of Edmund II “Ironside”.  Through this, Henry helped to assimilate his Norman heritage with English culture, naming his son William the Atheling to combine the two sides.  Henry’s son died, however, and following his death in 1135 he was succeeded by King Stephen, his nephew.

Stephen (r. 1135-1154)
Stephen’s right to the throne was challenged by Matilda, Henry I’s daughter, who contended that she was the rightful heir.  The English barons supported Stephen – a decision which resulted in a civil war which lasted over a decade.  The Treaty of Wallingford was signed on the 6th November 1153 which agreed that upon Stephen’s death Matilda’s son, Henry, would succeed him.  This was realised the following year leading to the ascension of the Plantagenet line.