Main References: Barlow, Frank. Edward the Confessor. New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1997.

1. Main References: Barlow, Frank. Edward the Confessor. New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1997. ____________. The English Church, 1000-1066: a History of the Later Anglo-Saxon Church. London: Longman, 1979. ------------------. The English Church, 1066-1154: a History of the Anglo-Norman Church. London: Longman, 1979. ------------------. The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042-1216. London: Longman, 1999.

2. ------------------. The Godwins: the Rise and Fall of a Noble Dynasty. New York: Longman, 2002. • ------------------. The Norman Conquest and Beyond. London: Hambledon, 1983. • ------------------. Thomas Becket. Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1986. • ------------------. William Rufus. Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1983. • ------------------, ed. The Life of King Edward who Rests at Westminster. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

3. Bradbury, Jim. The Battle of Hastings. Stroud: Sutton, 1998. • Crouch, David. The Normans: the History of a Dynasty. London: Hambledon, 2002. • Davis, Paul K. 100 Decisive Battles. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1999. • Douglas, David C. William the Conqueror: the Norman Impact upon England. London: Eyre, 1964. • Freeman, E.A. The History of the Norman Conquest of England. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1974.

4. Hollister, C. Warren. Henry I. New Haven: Yale U. Press, 2001. • ---------------------------. The Making of England. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1996. • ---------------------------. Medieval Europe: a Short History. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006. • ---------------------------. The Military Organization of Norman England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. • ---------------------------. Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World. London: Hambledon, 1986. • ---------------------------, ed. The Impact of the Norman Conquest. New York: Wiley, 1969.

5. Morillo, Stephen, ed. The Battle of Hastings: Sources and Interpretations. New York: Boydell, 1996. • Round, John Horace. Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. London: Allen & Unwin, 1964. • Stenton, Doris Mary. English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066-1215. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1964. • Stenton, Frank. Anglo-Saxon England. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1971.

6. Strickland, Matthew, ed. Anglo-Norman Warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare. Woodbridge: Boydell, 1992. • Whitelock, Dorothy, et al., eds. The Norman Conquest, its Setting and Impact: a Book Commemorating the Ninth Centenary of the Battle of Hastings. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1966. • Wilson, David M., ed. The Bayeux Tapestry: the Complete Tapestry in Color. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004.

7. Written history began in England in 55 B.C., when Julius Caesar conquered Britain (Veni, Vidi, Vici in Latin = I came, I saw, I conquered in English); thus, Roman Britain. • Concentration in South-east England: Dover, Kent, Thames with Roman roads as networks, and the building of the Hadrian Wall (123) in Northumbria as the northern frontier [15 feet wide, 73 miles long, with 15 feet ditch]

8. London, the first city, (325 acres) on the Thames (River) • Then, the decline and fall of the (western) Roman Empire • Anglo-Saxon England (Germanic peoples): (1) the Angles; (2) the Saxons; and (3) the Jutes.

9. Then, the legendary King Arthur [later became the inspiration for the richly elaborated Arthurian romances of later centuries] • Traditionally, might is right; but King Arthur thought of might for right, that is, fighting for justice (cf. John F. Kennedy) • King Arthur’s glittering court at Camelot (and the Knights of the Round Table) was an idealization of courtly and chivalry society of the Middle Age

10. England = Angle-land • England, by the 7th century: about 8 major kingdoms • Kent was the leading kingdom, + Essex, Sussex, Wessex [east, south, west Saxony]; + Mercia, + Northumbria, + East Anglia [east Angles], + Norfolk & Suffolk • 597, another St. Augustine (a Benedictine, not the St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who wrote The City of God), arrived in Kent, started his mission to England. King Ethelbert (whose Queen Bertha had been a Christian already) was converted; and the Kent City became Canterbury.

11. Then, hegemony passed to the Kingdom of Wessex with King Egbert, r. 802-839, a gifted king. • 825, in the battle of Ellendon, King Egbert routed the Mercian army, and won control of South England (Kent, Sussex, and Essex); and then, East Anglia and Northumbria. • With luck (?), King Egbert was succeeded by a series of remarkably able heirs, thus, eventually unified England [even though there were invasion of the Vikings in 787 (Dorset), 793 (Northumbria), 850 (off Kent), 865 (outside Wessex), and then, Danish settlement.

12. King Alfred the Great of Wessex, r. 871-899 [King Egbert’s grandson]: a warrior, an administrator, a friend of scholarship (translated Latin classics to Anglo-Saxon English; yet humble/modest, saying that he was collecting timber in the forest only)]

13. Nevertheless, at first, the situation was still desperate: • 871, King Alfred had to purchased a truce from the Danes, thus, buying time to have 3 major military reorganization: (1) army (fyrd) was divided into 2 halves, each serving for 6 months, insuring that at no time would Wessex be defenseless; (2) fortification (burghs, network of forts) built at strategic points to defend against Danish invasion; and (3) established a fleet with numerous ships determined to challenge the Vikings at sea.

14. In Winter, 877, Alfred was defeated and had to flee to the Isle of Athelney (Somerset); however, in Spring, 878, at the Battle of Edington, Alfred won a total victory -- the Vikings accepted Christianity and vowed not to disturb Wessex. • Alfred the Great died in 899. • His son: Edward the Elder, r. 899-924. • Then, Athelstan, r. 924-939, a skilful military leader, extended across Northumbria.

15. But, Ethelred the Unready, 978-1016 [only 10 years old in 978), a child heir, died in 1016. • Danish King: Canute, r. 1016-1035, took over; thus, ruling Norway, Denmark, and England. Then, the throne passed to his two sons: (1) Harold Harefoot, r. 1035-1040; and (2) Harthacanute, r. 1040-1042. • Then, the kingship went back to Old Wessex: Edward the Confessor, r. 1042-1066 [the last of the Anglo-Saxon Kings], who died in January, 1066 -- • 3 candidates for the English throne: (1) Earl Harold Godwinson; (2) Harold Hardrada of Norway; and (3) Duke William of Normandy.

16. Then, the kingship went back to Old Wessex: Edward the Confessor, r. 1042-1066 [the last of the Anglo-Saxon Kings], who died in January, 1066 -- • 3 candidates for the English throne: (1) Earl Harold Godwinson; (2) Harold Hardrada of Norway; and (3) Duke William of Normandy.

17. Medieval English Kings • The Anglo-Saxon Kings: • Harthacnut, r. 1040-1042 • Edward (the Confessor), r. 1042-1066 • Harold (Godwineson), r. 1066 • The Norman Kings: • William I (the Conqueror), r. 1066-1087 • William II (Rufus), r. 1087-1100 • Henry I (Lion of Justice), r. 1100-1135 • Stephen, r. 1135-1154

18. The Angevin (Plantagenet) Kings: • Henry II (Father of the English Common Law), r. 1154-1189 • Richard I (the Lion-Hearted), r. 1189-1199 • John (the Lackland), r. 1199-1216 • Henry III, r. 1216-1272 • Edward I, r. 1272-1307 • Edward II, r. 1307-1327 • Edward III, r. 1327-1377 • Richard II, r. 1377-1399

19. (Main reference: C. Warren Hollister, The Making of England to 1399.) • In January 1066, Edward the Confessor (the last Anglo-Saxon King) died (childless). Earl Harold (Godwineson) was at his deathbed. With the support of Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury, Harold claimed that Edward had designated him as his heir.

20. However, King Harold Hardrada of Norway also had a claim to the English throne, arising out of the treaty made between Harthacnut and King Magnus Norway in 1038.

21. The third claimant to the English throne was Duke William of Normandy, whom King Edward the Confessor had named as his heir in 1051. Furthermore, William also claimed priority over Harold Godwineson on the basis of an episode that had occurred in 1064 or 1065: according to the Norman sources, Earl Harold Godwineson took a solemn public oath, acknowledging Duke William’s right to the English throne. The Pope in Rome in 1066 granted Duke William a papal banner to carry with him when he invaded England. The story of Harold’s oath did more than an additional element to Duke William’s legal claim to the English throne. It also allowed William and his supporters to paint Harold as a feudal traitor who had betrayed his lord.

22. The Battle of Hastings was fought on Saturday, October 14. Harold was shot to death, and William, Duke of Normandy, won the war. • On Christmas Day 1066, William the Conqueror was crowned King of England in Westminster Abbey as the legitimate successor of King Edward the Confessor. • It remained only for William the Conqueror to consolidate his conquest of England and establish firm rule over an already highly centralized kingdom.

23. (Please also see Frederick Hok-ming Cheung, “Conquest, Consolidation, and Legitmation of Norman England,” in The Legitimation of New Orders: Case Studies in World History, ed. Leung Yuen-sang, Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007, pp. 179-195; and • “The Role of the Christian Church in the Court Politics of Norman England,” in Politics and Religion in Ancient and Medieval Europe and China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1999, pp.147-162.)

24. The Administrative Contributions of William the Conqueror: • The vigor of the Anglo-Norman royal government under William the Conqueror, r. 1066-1087, unmatched elsewhere in western Christendom, is illustrated in his consolidation of the Christian Church [in 6 years, by 1072, replaced all the Anglo-Saxon bishops by others, mainly Norman] and administrative accomplishments, especially the Domesday Survey [later published in two large volumes known as Domesday Book (1086)].

25. Circuits of royal administrators toured the countryside, gathering information from as many as 7,000 jurors representing the local shire and hundred courts. The King’s officials undertook to list every manor, the name of the person (the tenant) who held it in 1066 and in 1086, from whom it was held, its assessment in hides, its value in 166 and in 1086, and the number and social status of its tenants.

26. Some historians -- noting that the survey is organized not by shires and hundreds, but rather by tenants-in-chief within each shire – have suggested that Domesday was intended to inform the King about the new structures of landholding that had emerged in his Anglo-Norman Kingdom since 1066, so that when a tenant-in-chief’s property fell to the King, the Kong would know where his estates were located and how much they were worth.

27. Professor James C. Holt has noted that the presentation of Domesday Book to the King coincided with the Salisbury Oath – when William the Conqueror demanded an oath of direct allegiance from all the landholding tenants of England –- Prof. Holt has suggested that these two events were related and that they were planned together at the 1985 Christmas court; thus, the Domesday Survey was intended to survey the new patterns of landholding that had emerged in England in the two decades after the Conquest (in 1066).

28. Hence, the King would know the potential wealth of his Anglo-Norman Kingdom and its existing tax assessment system. He would also know the value of all the estates that might, through death or forfeiture, fall into the King’s hands, for which the royal sheriffs might be required to account.

29. According to Prof. C. Warren Hollister, “But the reason William’s great men went along with the Domesday survey and with the Salisbury Oath was because in return for the homage and fealty they swore to him at Salisbury, William guaranteed their clear title to all the property Domesday Book recorded as holding. After twenty years of conquest, expropriation, forfeiture, and exchange, many Normans had no clear legal title to the lands they currently possessed.

30. Domesday Book provided this title and thus set a seal of permanence on their acquisitions. Thereafter, William’s followers would not need to appeal to the charters and writs of their Anglo-Saxon predecessors to defend their rights to their property. They would need to appeal only to the record of Domesday itself.

31. From Domesday, however, there would be no appeal: and hence its title, which means “Judgment day.” • [C. Warren Hollister, The Making of England. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), pp.148-149; see also James C. Holt, “1086,” in Domesday Studies, ed. James C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 41-64; and Robin Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law: Society and Legal Custom in Early Medieval England. (Cambridge, 1998)].

32. William II (Rufus), r. 1087-1100 was crowned King of England by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey on September 26, 1087. • On August 2, 1100, William II was killed by an arrow while hunting in the New Forest. Rufus was at his early forties when he was killed, and his sudden death provoked a crisis in the royal succession. (Please see C. Warren Hollister, “The Strange Death of William Rufus,” Speculum 48(1973), pp. 637-753; reprinted in Monarchy, Magnates, and Institutions, pp. 59-75).

33. Henry, the youngest brother, moved swiftly and surely – seized the royal treasury in Winchester, won the approval of a royal council, and then dashed to London where he was crowned at Westminster Abbey on August 5 (only three days after the shooting).

34. In preparation for Robert Curthose, the eldest brother’s return from the First Crusade, Henry did everything in his power to win the support of his subjects. He sought to appease the barons and the Church by issuing an elaborate coronation charter, known in later years as the Charter of Liberties, in which he agreed to discontinue the predatory practices of William Rufus.

35. The reign of Henry I contributed significantly to royal administration. Henry I was known as the “Lion of Justice,” and he ruled firmly and justly. [Please refer to C. Warren Hollister, “Royal Act of Mutilation: The Case against Henry I.” Albion 10:4(1978), pp. 330-340; reprinted in Monarchy, Magnates, and Institutions, pp. 291-301; and Henry I. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001)].

36. Judicial fines added to the royal revenue, and by extending the scope of the King’s justice, Henry I increased the flow of money into his treasury. The reign of Henry I witnessed a dramatic growth in the royal judicial system and the royal administration. Although local justices were appointed in each shire to assist the sheriffs in judicial business, the important legal cases were judged by the King and his curiales at the royal court (curia Regis).

37. Henry I also started the practice of sending itinerary justiciars to various parts of England to hear pleas. These itinerant justices, or “Justice in eyre,” acted in the King’s name. During the reign of Henry I, the judicial tours grew ever more systematic until, by the reign’s end, they had developed into a comprehensive, regularized procedure.

38. The chief instrument of command of Henry I was his royal writs, which were brief royal commands or statements, written in Latin, witnessed and authenticated by the attachment of the royal seal. Usually, a writ would be addressed to the local sheriff or justiciar, or to the baronial or ecclesiastical lord of an area, or to all the King’s officials and faithful men of a particular shire or group of shires.

39. About 1,500 royal acts have been recorded and collected in Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, Volume II: Regesta Henrici Primi, 1100-1135, ed. Charles Johnson and H.A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956). These writs, according to Prof. Hollister, “address an immense variety of judicial and administrative matters: grants or confirmations of lands and privileges, orders of restitution, commands to act in some way or to cease to acting in some way, exemption from certain taxes, or freedom from tolls.

40. Taken together, they convey a powerful impression of the scope and authority of royal government of Henry I.” (Hollister, The Making of England, p. 165; on the administrative Kingship of Henry I, please refer to C. Warren Hollister, “The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I,”American Historical Review 83(1978), pp. 867-891, reprinted in Monarchy, Magnates, and Institutions, pp. 223-245).

41. The reign of Henry I marked the age of Anglo-Norman royal administration, which Prof. W.L. Warren saw as the seed of the modern state. (Please see W.L. Warren, “The Myth of Norman Administrative Efficiency.”Transaction of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series, 34(1984), pp. 113-132.

42. Chronology: • 1066 The Norman conquest of England by William I, the Conqueror, r. 1066-1087 [starting the Norman Dynasty]. • 1086 Domesday Book • 1087 William II, Rufus, r. 1087-1100. • 1100 Henry I (the Lion of Justice), r. 1100-1135. • 1130 Pipe Roll

43. 1135 Stephen, r. 1135-1154 (civil war with Matilda, daughter of Henry I) [Henry (II), son of Matilda, became Lord of Anjou at the death of his father in 1151; then Henry (II) married Eleanor of Aquitaine]. • 1154 Henry II (Father of the English Common Law), r. 1154-1189 [Angevin or Plantagenet Dynasty].

44. 1155 Henry II appointed Thomas Becket Chancellor of England • 1156 Henry II appointed Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury in hope that Becket would cooperate with him in church reform (especially against Papal Rome). • 1164 Henry II introduced the Constitutions of Clarendon, which placed limitations on the Church’s jurisdiction over crimes committed by priests. This led to violent quarrel between Henry II and Thomas Becket who was then exiled to France.

45. 1166 The Assize of Clarendon established trial by jury for the first time. • 1168 English scholars were expelled from Paris and settled in Oxford where they founded a University. • 1170 Henry II and Thomas Becket were reconciled, but then they quarreled again. Becket was killed by four ‘over-enthusiastic” knights in Canterbury Cathedral. [Becket was canonized in 1263]. • 1189 Henry II died in Anjou (aged 56).