Stephen becomes king

At the start of December 1135, after a reign of 35 years, King Henry I of England died. In 1127 the leading magnates had all sworn to accept Henry’s daughter, Matilda, as Queen of England when Henry died.

However, in December of 1135 the same magnates must have been having second thoughts. Prior experience had shown that both England and Normandy needed a strong ruler; one who could call upon the support of the all the barons. Did Matilda have the necessary requirements? These doubts and other outstanding questions were speedily settled when Stephen of Blois (nephew and favourite of Henry I), acting with great speed, crossed the Channel and was crowned as king on 22 December 1135.

For a time Stephen’s brother hoped to become Duke of Normandy, which would have raised immediately a situation of divided loyalties. Therefore, most of the Norman barons pledged allegiance to Stephen as King of England and Duke of Normandy. Empress Matilda, widow of Henry V of Germany, was now married to Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. As could be expected she was not at all happy that Stephen had usurped the throne of England.

The two Matildas

Queen Matilda, Countess of Boulogne

In 1125 Stephen had married Matilda, who was the daughter of and heiress to Eustace, Count of Boulogne. She was the granddaughter of Margaret of Scotland and great, great, great niece of Edward the Confessor, so had Scottish and Anglo-Saxon royal blood in her veins.

Matilda of Boulogne was popular and was tireless in her support for her husband. It was she who organised the events that led to Stephen’s release after his capture at Lincoln. When she died in 1151 Stephen is said to have been heartbroken.

Empress Matilda

The other Matilda was the daughter of Henry I and was known as Empress Matilda (or Empress Maude).

She seems not to have been popular; had she been conciliatory rather than haughty then events might have taken a different course.

War and conflict

King Stephen v King David of Scotland

King David invades

The first problem Stephen had to face did not come from Empress Matilda but from King David of Scotland. In January of 1136 the Scots invaded the north of England. The main reason for this was supposed to be to give support to Matilda’s claim to the throne. However, David might also have seen an opportunity to grab land before the new king had time to consolidate his position, as the Scots had a longstanding claim to Cumbria. Besides being King of Scotland, through his marriage to the daughter of the Earl of Northumberland, David was already and English baron. He had spent much of his youth at the Court of Henry I, where he was influenced by Norman ways and ideas.

Carlisle mint captured

Carlisle and its mint were swiftly captured and this led to the very first Scottish coins being struck. They initially copied the design of the last issue of Henry I but bore David’s name; slightly later coins would copy Stephen’s cross moline (‘Watford’) type.

King Stephen wins Battle of the Stamdard

In February of 1136 the English and Scots came to an agreement, through which the Scots were allowed to hold most of the territory they hade gained and David’s son, Prince Henry, became Earl of Huntingdon. Armed conflict was avoided by this settlement and in 1137 Stephen felt secure enough to cross the Channel to Normandy and enforce his rule on the duchy.

Relations between the English and Scots soon deteriorated and on 22 August 1138 two armies came together in a battle fought at Northallerton, which became known as the Battle of the Standard.

The English were victorious but David I and Prince Henry managed to escape. At this time it was becoming ever more likely that Matilda would be landing in England to pursue her claim to the throne. Being fully aware of this, after the battle Stephen granted the Scots very favourable terms. Rather than losing land, the Scots gained even more when Prince Henry was made Earl of Northumberland. Stephen probably hoped this would placate the Scots and deter them from offering support to Matilda if she arrived in England.

King Stephen v Empress Matilda

It must have seemed to Stephen that as soon as one enemy was pacified he had to contend with another.

Matilda lands in England

Geoffrey of Anjou had already invaded Normandy, so armed men were needed there to protect the duchy. As if this wasn’t enough, Matilda and Robert of Gloucester (an illegitimate son of Henry I) landed at Arundel on the south coast of England, together with 140 knights. Matilda stayed in Arundel Castle but Robert sped off to the West Country to raise more support. This was the start of the period that became know as the anarchy. Every part of England wasn’t involved and armed conflict was sporadic rather than continuous. However, many ordinary folk must have yearned for peace.

Stephen allows Matilda to leave Arundel castle

Stephen besieged Arundel Castle, so Matilda was trapped inside. Curiously, Stephen agreed to a truce, through which Matilda and her household knights were let out and escorted to the south west of England, where she met-up again with Robert.

King Stephen defeated and captured

By 1141 Matilda had the support of the Earls of Gloucester and Chester and of Henry of Blois (Bishop of Winchester and Stephen’s brother).

On 2 February Stephen was defeated in battle and taken prisoner at Lincoln.

For a few months it looked as if Matilda had won. At a council held at Winchester, Bishop Henry said it was the clergy’s prerogative to choose and consecrate a king (or queen). The following day a delegation from London arrived. Instead of agreeing with Bishop Henry they said that King Stephen should be released.

Matilda loses chance of victory

Empress Matilda is then said to have proceeded to London, where she showed her most arrogant face and promptly levied a tax on the city. Not content with upsetting the Londoners, she then quarrelled with the Bishop of Winchester and was expelled from the city. Matilda was determined to take hold of the bishop, so with the aid of Robert of Gloucester and a small army she laid siege to the bishop’s palace, Wolvesey Castle.

Queen Matilda, Stephen’s wife, arrived with a much larger army and surrounded the besiegers. Earl Robert planned to break out and get his half-sister to the safety of Bristol, which was in the hands of her supporters; she managed to escape but Robert was captured. This was a loss that was too great to suffer; there was no other option open but to exchange him for Stephen. With the king free again to organise the war, Matilda’s chance of victory was gone. However, she still possessed enough support to prevent Stephen from gaining total victory.

Matilda retreats to the West Country

The events of 1141 left Matilda in control of the West Country and Oxford, which covered the approaches to Bristol and Gloucester – her main headquarters.

In the winter of 1142 a plan was put together by Stephen to take Oxford with Matilda in it. However, she slipped out with only three knights accompanying her and eventually reached the safety of the West Country.

Count Geoffrey was proclaimed Duke of Normandy

In 1144 Rouen fell and Count Geoffrey was proclaimed Duke of Normandy. Now the leading barons in England who also had land in Normandy were faced with a quandary: who should they support? If they continued to uphold the right of Stephen to be king then their estates across the Channel might be confiscated. If they recognised Geoffrey as Duke then they might loose their English estates. No doubt when the question was asked of them their answer would depend on where they were at the time: in England or in Normandy.

Law and order

Never before 1066 did England have a unified government, nor was there a central court. The local courts of the shire and hundreds were supreme. The shire court was a kind of local Parliament, in that it fulfilled all three functions of government: judicial, executive and legislative. Its officials were the earl, bishop, sheriff and owners of pieces of land – through which they were bound to attend and act as judges at the shire court. The Norman kings saw in the sheriff a useful link between the local administration and themselves and made use of them as royal representatives. However, the power of the sheriffs was sapped by the expanding authority of the Curia Regis (Court of the King).

The Norman idea of government was based upon feudalism. The Anglo-Saxon Witan was little more than a group of great men whose advice the king chose to seek. The Curia Regis was different, in that it was made up of some men summoned by the king but chiefly of those who owed compulsory membership of it by virtue of the fact that the king had made grants of land to them on the understanding that they would perform for him services of various kinds. For example, they might have to provide a certain number of armed men.

The tenants-in-chief (largest landowners) could in turn grant land to lesser tenants, who would have to provide service of one kind or another to their lord. There was a major difference between English and European feudalism. In Europe a man owed allegiance to his immediate superior. However, in England all tenants, no matter what their status, owed allegiance to the king.

Geoffrey de Mandeville

During the period of anarchy the country lacked the strength and authority of a central government. Therefore, some barons did much as they pleased and it was not unusual for them to change sides more than once. Geoffrey de Mandeville is a good example of a turncoat. He initially sided with Stephen, who made him Earl of Essex in 1140. After Stephen’s defeat at Lincoln, Geoffrey switched his allegiance to Matilda. She granted him land and appointed him sheriff of Essex, Hertfordshire, Middlesex and London.

However, when Stephen was released from captivity Geoffrey once more pledged allegiance to him. He led a private army of brigands and plundered the countryside at will. In 1143 he was arrested and threatened with execution, so he surrendered two of his castles and the custody of the Tower of London to Stephen. Soon after this Geoffrey rebelled again and used the Isle of Ely and Ramsey Abbey as bases. He met his end in 1144, as a result of being shot by an arrow during a skirmish.

Having already been excommunicated by the Church, the burial of his body at Walden Priory in Essex was denied. His retainers wrapped the body in lead and for some time hawked it round various religious establishments pleading for it to be accepted. Geoffrey was eventually given up to the Templar community in London and his body interred in the Temple Church.

Breakdown in law and order

In other areas, too, some of the barons took advantage of the breakdown in law and order. Few were as ruthless, grasping and untrustworthy as Geoffrey de Mandeville but an English monk, when writing of this period, said: “They greatly oppressed the wretched people by making them work at their castles [mostly built without the permission of the king], and when the castles were finished they filled them with devils and evil men. They then took those whom they suspected to have any goods, by night and by day, seizing both men and women, and they put them in prison for their gold and silver, and tortured them with pains unspeakable, for never were any martyrs tormented as these were.”

The coinage

Had Stephen gained the throne by right then his coinage would probably have been fairly straightforward. In actual fact he usurped the throne. This led to invasions, civil war and barons taking one side or the other.

King Stephen’s coinage

When King Stephen’s official coinage was first classified it was split into seven different types. However, only two (I and VII) were nation-wide issues; type II and VI were struck in eastern England areas under the control of Stephen; the other types (III, IV and V) were struck in small numbers and did not circulate widely. In the case of type I there are several regional varieties. There is also a series of pennies struck from defaced dies, which were once thought to date from the time when Stephen was excommunicated. However, this theory is now believed to be incorrect. 

This type VII penny, minted in Ipswich, was a detecting find from Norfolk in May 2021. It was sold by Spink for £1,500.

Prince Henry of Scotland

At the start of a new reign dies need to be made for making coins. Silver has to be refined, sheets rolled or beaten out and discs cut from them. Then the coins themselves need to be struck and put into circulation. All this takes time and the work might not have been completed when the Scots captured Carlisle and its mint early in 1136. This could explain why the first Scottish pennies struck at Carlisle copied the design of the last type (XV) of Henry I rather than the first type of Stephen. On the obverse they have the name of King David. Later on pennies would be struck bearing the name of David’s son, Prince Henry.

This Prince Henry penny from Carlisle was sold by Spink for £5,200 in 2011.

Baronial Magnate issues

Only the king could authorise the striking of coinage. Despite this, during the anarchy some of the barons on both sides started to make their own coins. This might have been due to a shortage of currency in certain areas, or an exercise in making a profit, or just to advertise their name. Issues attributed to York include coins of Eustace Fitzjohn, Robert de Stuteville, William of Anmale (Earl of York) and Henry Murdac (Archbishop of York) – see my article on a reader’s coin The story of Henry Murdac – a penny of Stephen.

This penny of Robert de Stuteville was a detecting find from North Yorkshire in March 2020. It reads RODBERTVS D S|TV on the obverse. This remarkable issue has been the subject of numismatic debate for over three centuries. The auctioneer, Spink, have written a detailed analysis here.

Maltida’s issues

Coins were also struck at Cardiff, Bristol, Oxford, Wareham and other places in the name of Matilda. The names of her supporters found on coins include Brian Fitzcount, Robert and William of Gloucester, Henry de Neubourg and perhaps Patrick Earl of Salisbury, together with some pennies in the name of King William and King Henry, which may be meant to commemorate previous Norman kings.

This penny of William of Gloucester is thought to have been minted in Sherborne, Dorset. It’s a detecting find from 30 August 2020 at Stalbridge Weston, Dorset. It was recently sold by Spink for $13,000.

William was the son of Robert of Gloucester, who was exchanged for Stephen after the Battle of Winchester.

Numismatic legacy

For those living through the anarchy life must have been hard. For later numismatists the period has left a legacy of a fascinating range of official and unofficial coinage, some of which carry the names of well-known personalities of the period. New varieties continue to turn up and even new names, for a penny of Henry de Neubourg from the Swansea mint was not discovered until fairly recently. When these coins were struck they just represented cash to be spent or hoarded but today they help us to piece together the events of long ago. And, of course, they have turned into sought-after collectors’ pieces.

The final settlement

Stephen attempts to name his son as successor

In 1147 Robert of Gloucester died and in 1148 Matilda retired to Normandy, which by that time had been conquered by her husband, Geoffrey Plantagenet. With her departure the anarchy that had engulfed parts of the realm since 1139 subsided. This, though, did not mean the Stephen’s hold on the throne of England was not undisputed. Matilda’s eldest son, Henry, had first visited England in 1142 but soon returned to the security of his father’s dominions. By 1147 he was 14 years of age and felt confident enough to make his first attempt on the English throne. This failed, as did another in 1149 but when he returned to the Continent his father raised him up to be the Duke of Normandy early in 1150.

The marriage of the French king (Louis VII) to Eleanor of Aquitaine was annulled in 1152 on the grounds of consanguinity (too closely related). Very soon afterwards Eleanor married Henry, which brought him more land, wealth and power.

Stephen held on and tried to ensure the succession of his eldest son Eustace by having him crowned. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald, was head of the English Church and loyal to Stephen but was more concerned for the unity and peace of the kingdom than for the military success of the king. The Church decided against the coronation of Eustace and in 1152 the Pope also forbade it.

Henry becomes king

Henry invaded England again in 1153, this time with a much larger army. A few months later Eustace died. This led to Archbishop Theobald and Bishop Henry of Winchester bringing together the barons who wished for peace. In November an agreement was reached, whereby Stephen would be king until his death (1154) and then his second son would inherit his land and Henry Plantagenet would gain his kingdom. This settlement brought an end to many years of conflict.

King Stephen buried at Faversham Abbey

King Stephen was buried at Faversham Abbey, which he founded in 1148. Queen Matilda and their son, Eustace, were also buried there. Their bones were reportedly thrown into the nearby Faversham Creek when the abbey was demolished.

King Stephen, the last Norman king

Apart from Matilda and her supporters, few people at the time or later had a bad word to say about Stephen. He is variously described as being brave, gallant, capable, loyal and a competent baronial leader.

Stephen’s lack of ruthlessness

Stephen certainly lacked the ruthlessness that seemed to be bred into the first three Norman kings. A prime example is when Matilda was besieged in Arundel Castle. She was allowed to go free with a number of men who would later fight for her claim to the throne. It is highly doubtful that William I, William II or Henry I would have done the same thing. A more likely scenario is that Matilda would have been captured and her men put to death. Matilda herself might then have met with some kind of ‘accident’, by falling from the battlements of Arundel Castle, or being thrown from a horse onto stony ground. Perhaps Stephen released her through a sense of chivalry but if so he would live to regret it.  

King Stephen’s inability to complete a task

Despite his numerous qualities, Stephen had difficulty both in controlling his friends and subduing his enemies. His problems in these two areas could have been due to those selfsame qualities. Yet again, the lack of a streak of ruthlessness might have been his main problem. Whilst he was unlikely to lose the war against Matilda, he was just as unlikely to ever be in a position to win it. Gervase of Canterbury said of him: “It was the king’s custom to start many endeavours with vigour, but to bring few to a praiseworthy end.”

William I to Stephen

On Christmas day of 1066 Duke William of Normandy was crowned King of England shortly after defeating Harold II in battle.

He was succeeded in 1087 by his second son, William, who was killed in 1100 by an arrow whilst hunting in the New Forest. The third son of the Conqueror, Henry, then took the throne and reigned until 1135. The next king was Henry’s nephew, Stephen, who grasped the throne, even though all the magnates had sworn that they would give allegiance to Matilda, the only surviving legitimate child of King Henry.

Anglo-Saxons and the Normans

As mentioned earlier on in this series, the Anglo-Saxons were a minority. Therefore, when Harold II was defeated in 1066 a minority ruling elite of Anglo-Saxons was replaced by another minority: the Normans. Did England gain or loose from this change?

Norman yoke

Historians refer occasionally to the ‘Norman yoke’. This notion first arose during the Civil Wars of the 1640s and again during the latter part of the 18^th century. It looked upon the ruling elite of England as descendants of foreign usurpers, who had destroyed an Anglo-Saxon golden age. The main supporters of this view were those who wished for radical change in the power structure of England. It was a useful argument during times of unrest, especially during the 1640s and the troubled period near the end of the 18^th century. Whilst it was true that some of those in high positions were of Norman descent, ordinary folk would have been no worse off and could even have been better off than they would have been had there never been a Norman Conquest in 1066.

Language

As a result of the Battle of Hastings, the Anglo-Saxon tongue was looked upon as the language of ignorant serfs. The clergy spoke Latin and the secular rulers spoke the Norman version of French. However, the ‘language of the ignorant’ would continue to adapt, develop and be refined and would eventually be used by great writers. The famous historian G. M. Trevelyan said: “It [the English language] is symbolic of the fate of the English race itself after Hastings, fallen to rise nobler, trodden under foot only to be trodden into shape.”

Another historian, Henry Ince, when summing up his view of the period from 1066 to 1154, wrote: “England without the Normans would have been mechanical, not artistic – brave, not chivalrous – the home of learning, not of thought – a state governed by its ecclesiastical power, instead of a state controlling the civil influence of its church. We owe to the Normans the builder and the statesman.” Therefore, to Ince the benefits gained through the Norman Conquest outweighed the disadvantages. Some might not agree with him but I’m of the same mind.

The post King Stephen – his life and coinage appeared first on Detecting Finds.

Death of William II

On 2 August 1100, William II was killed by an arrow whilst hunting in the New Forest. William and his elder brother, Duke Robert of Normandy, had agreed that the land, titles and wealth of whoever died first would be inherited by the survivor. Therefore, Duke Robert should have become King of England.

Henry seizes the throne

Duke Robert of Normandy claim to the throne divides loyalties

At the time of Henry’s coronation Duke Robert of Normandy was returning from the First Crusade. When news reached him that King William II had died, he would look forward to being ruler of both England and Normandy. Quite naturally, he would be infuriated when he heard that his younger brother had grasped the throne.

The problem of divided loyalties arose once more. With Henry as King of England and Robert as Duke of Normandy who should the leading magnates support? All had land in both England and Normandy, so to whom should they pledge their loyalty? Conflict seemed inevitable, so swords would be sharpened and retainers told to ready themselves for battle. Henry had invited Anselm (still the Archbishop of Canterbury) to return to England, in the hope of bringing the Church onto his side.

Henry marries Princess Matilda

The fact that Henry chose a Scottish rather than Continental wife was welcomed by ordinary folk in England. This union would not lead to support from the Scots but would at least ensure that the north would remain peaceful. Henry also managed to negotiate alliances with France and Flanders; neither wanted England and Normandy to be united under an over-mighty ruler, which could have happened had Robert become King of England.

Henry and Duke Robert clash

A second Norman invasion

On 20 July 1101, a fleet of 200 ships landed Duke Robert and an army of followers on the south coast of England. On hearing of this Henry feared not only for his kingdom but for his life. It is said that some of the leading magnates were preparing to desert Henry and go over to Robert. Others had yet to decide which of the two they would give their backing to. Archbishop Anselm was given the task of persuading the magnates to support Henry. He was successful, for few changed sides.

Settlement reached

Robert and Henry eventually met together and a settlement was worked out. Henry surrendered most of his land in Normandy and agreed to pay Robert a large pension of £2,000 per year; in return Robert agreed to recognise Henry as King of England. Thus, open warfare was avoided and Robert and his followers returned to Normandy. However, Henry distrusted some of the barons based in England, for he believed they would have given support to Robert. First and foremost amongst them was the rich and powerful Earl of Shrewsbury (Roger de Montgomery, father of Roger de Poitou), who had several strongholds in England. By the end of 1102 Henry he had stripped him of his land and power in England and the Earl departed to his estates in Normandy

Battle of Tiinchebrai

The settlement of 1101 did not last.

The battle at Tinchebrai was the most important since that fought near Hastings in 1066. Besides securing the position of Henry I, it is significant that a large proportion of those who fought for him were English. This was a true ‘coming together’, a unification of the conquered (in 1066) with the conquerors. William I thought of England as being a possession of Normandy; however, 40 years after 1066 it is likely that Henry I viewed Normandy as a possession of England.

After Tinchebrai Henry knew who he could rely on, for they had fought for him; he also knew the names of his enemies, for they had fought against him. In the months that followed several rebellious magnates were dispossessed and their land given to those loyal to King Henry. With a single person in control of England and Normandy the possibility of conflict between two different rulers could now be avoided. This situation was welcomed by both the king and the major landowners with estates in England and Normandy.

The honour of Eye

The honour of Eye, which was one of the largest landholdings in England, was granted to William Malet by William I. William Malet died in 1071 and the honour then passed to his son, Robert. Soon after the accession to the throne of William II, the new king dispossessed Robert Malet and granted the honour of Eye to Roger de Poitou.

During the reign of William II, Robert Malet was out of favour and spent much of the reign on his estates in Normandy. During this time or perhaps before, Robert became closely associated with Henry Beauclerc. He was in Normandy when William II was killed. He sped back to England and arrived in time for the coronation of Henry on 5 August. Robert became part of the inner circle of advisers to Henry I and held the new office of Master Chamberlain.

When Henry came to the throne Robert and Roger de Poitou would come face to face at the Royal Court. Quite obviously, there would be animosity between the two men; one had lost to the other a great estate in England. It was now Roger de Poitou’s turn to be dispossessed; the honour of Eye was taken from him and granted once more to Robert Malet.

In 1106 Robert died. It is probable that the honour of Eye then fell into the hands of the king. Henry held it for seven years and then granted it to Stephen, his nephew, who at the time was Count of Mortain. Stephen held it until 1135 and then gave it to William of Ypres, who was one of his most able military commanders. Yet again, this shows how the ownership of great estates and the revenue they produced could change hands quite frequently.

The coinage of Henry I

15 types of penny

As during previous reigns, the design of the silver penny was regularly changed. Between 1100 and 1135 there were 15 different types, mostly struck for very few years except the last type, which was issued over a period of ten years. The regular change in design allowed the king to gain a profit each time it happened. The sequence of types was first put forward in 1901 by W. J. Allen; in 1916 the order was changed by G. C. Brooke and over the years other amendments have been made. Coins are still catalogued according to the British Museum Catalogue numbers but the sequence now generally accepted is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 7, 8, 11, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15.

Three examples of a Henry I penny. The Class I and Class IV were sold by DNW in 2020 for £1,200 and £1,400 respectively. A reader sent in the other example. I valued this Class XIV penny at £800 in my article Henry I Penny.

Forgeriess and base metal coins

According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, by 1124 “. . . the man who had a pound could not get a pennyworth at a market”. This was because many of the coins in circulation were thought to be forgeries or official coins struck in base metal. All the moneyers (about 150 at the time) were ordered to go to Winchester at Christmas. On the order sent by King Henry from Normandy, those found guilty of false coining were to lose their right hand and be castrated. Around 94 moneyers suffered this awful fate.

I have often wondered who carried out the punishment on the 94 men. It is highly doubtful that there would be an official hand-chopper and castrator, so the job would have been passed down. In overall charge might be a baron, who would tell one of his knights to do it; the knight would then pass it on to a retainer, who in turn would tell an underling to do it. At the end of the line would be someone at the lowest level. He who would be forced into performing a ghastly task 94 times, simply because he had no-one else to pass the job on to.

Were these men guilty of forgery and debasement? The evidence from hoards, present-day collections in private and institutional hands, together with a high number of finds, suggests that most (perhaps all) would be innocent. Many pennies of Henry I are badly struck and have little eye appeal. However, they are full weight, sterling silver and struck from official dies. “I’m innocent!” many of the moneyers must have cried. The poor man designated to mete out the sentence on them might have replied with: “So am I. But if I don’t do what I’ve been ordered to do then they’ll do the same to me.”

Halfpennies

Some round halfpennies were struck during the Anglo-Saxon period but examples are very rare. They were not struck during the Norman period until circa 1108, when halfpennies were issued by several different mints. The first wasn’t discovered until 1950, when it was published by Peter Seaby. However, more than one expert numismatist cast doubt on its authenticity. The coin was unique until 1989 when no less than five more specimens (all different mint and moneyer combinations) turned up. Today the number known will be around 25; all are different and almost all are detecting finds. There are so many different mint and moneyer combinations that the total number of round halfpennies struck could have run into several tens of thousands. They are still extremely rare but in 25 years’ time the number on record will be at least double today’s figure.

Changes in coinage

Late in the reign of King Eadgar (959-75) a new coinage was introduced and became the model for all succeeding reigns. The obverse had a stylised portrait of the king and on the reverse was the name of the moneyer and the mint. However, the type was subject to regular change. The moneyers had to pay one mark (80 pence) annually for their office and one pound when the type was changed, plus a charge for each new pair of dies. Therefore, with the yearly fees and the charge for type changes, the king would reap a good annual profit from the coinage.

After the Norman Conquest, the weight and fineness remained the same. However, William I altered the moneyers’ annual payments to a single tax levied on every borough that had a mint. Savings’ hoards (as opposed to those containing coins of a single type) prove that not all the coins were exchanged when a new type was introduced. For some payments coins of only the current type could be used; therefore, persons who had accumulated savings would exchange only the amount of currency needed for these payments. When around 1125 the periodic change in type was abandoned this would have encouraged people to spend coins of any type. In doing so it might have led to a greater amount of cash being placed into circulation. This would have stimulated the economy, which in turn would have led to an increase in the amount of tax collected for the Exchequer.

Henry’s reign

War and conflict

William I and William II both had to contend with more than one rebellion. Henry I was more fortunate, for after Tinchebrai, apart from a few minor quarrels, England was free from conflict for the rest of his reign.

When a full scale war was being fought the king could raise an army through the feudal obligations of landowners – both secular and spiritual. Once the war was over the commanders, knights and foot soldiers would return to their bases in England or Normandy. However, besides his councillors and others there was a permanent military element in Henry’s Court. The latter has been described as “a professional corps of young knights”; they were well trained, extremely mobile and in Normandy were on a permanent war footing. These men garrisoned the many royal castles in the duchy. When the need arose they took part in battles, including the engagement fought against the French at Bremule in 1119.

If there was a need for more fighting men Henry hired mercenaries. However, this was only for a limited period during the early years of his reign. After Tincherbrai none were required in England and Henry had sufficient strength in Normandy not to need extra men. There can be no doubt that most of Henry’s subjects will have been delighted that peace rather than war prevailed for most of the reign. However, a contemporary chronicler wrote that professional soldiers (mercenaries), especially those from Flanders and Brittany, had “. . . hated King Henry’s peace because under it they had but a scanty livelihood”. These men would flock to England when war broke out during the reign of Stephen.

Law and punishment

I’ve already given an account of the way in which moneyers were punished because of the state of the coinage. Rather than being an isolated case, a sentence of mutilation was commonplace. Those found guilty of a crime could lose their nose, ears, tongue or eyes.

William I had abolished the death penalty, which could be interpreted as an early instance of compassion. Instead, it was because he preferred mutilation and less fatal forms of punishment. Henry I employed all the non-fatal penalties and was not averse to a sentence of death; in 1124 no less than 44 thieves were hanged in a single day.

Trial by combat and trial by ordeal were also used to settle cases. These were obviously useless in establishing guilt or innocence but both methods of trial would not fall out of favour until the reign of Henry II.

Government

The centre of government was the Curia Rigis, the Court of the King. This was made up of the tenants-in- chief (magnates holding land directly from the knig), together with the king’s personal servants and any others that King Henry believed could offer useful input; his servants and the ‘others’ helped to dilute the influence of the often over-mighty magnates. This was the beginnings of a civil administration body that would develop and grow over years to come.

In the counties the sheriffs were important officials of the Crown. The post of sheriff sometimes fell into the hands of powerful magnates but whenever possible King Henry appointed his own men to this post. Besides upholding law and order it was the sheriffs’ responsibility to collect taxes and fines owing to the king. This led to the creation of the Exchequer, whose name derives from the chequered boards used for calculating mathematical equations. Written records were kept on documents known as pipe rolls, so-called because they could be rolled up like a pipe; over the years some grew greatly in size.

Scotland

David I (1124-53) was the youngest son of Malcolm III and succeeded his brother, Alexander I.

Normans were enticed into Scotland with offers of land and titles. One man who took up the offer was Robert de Brus; a descendant of this man would eventually become King Robert I of Scotland in 1306. 

Religion

Henry I was more like his father, in that most of the time he respected the Church. Therefore, his mindset was totally different to William II, who was irreligious and viewed abbeys and churches are places to be plundered for his own profit. However, when Anselm died in 1109 Henry kept the see of Canterbury vacant for five years.

This was a time when reformers were pushing for changes of one kind or another in the Catholic Church. One contentious issue was in regard to the appointment of bishops and abbots. The Pope, seeking to limit secular control, wanted to be in charge of appointments. However, in England the highest ranks in religious establishments were great landowners; therefore, they had to swear loyalty to King Henry and this being so he argued that he should have the last word on appointments. Henry eventually renounced lay investiture but bishops and abbots still had to do homage for their landholdings. Arguments about whether the King of England or the Pope should appoint men to high offices of the Church would continue into other reigns.

Prince William

When Henry’s wife, Matilda, died in 1118 he had only one legitimate son – William. In 1119 William married the daughter of the Count of Anjou. In doing so this secured a useful political and military alliance.

White Ship disaster

Tragedy struck in November of 1120, when a ship carrying William and other noble men and women was wrecked off the coast of France. There was only one survivor: a butcher, who had managed to cling to the mast until help arrived. Henry was devastated by this loss.

He married Adelaide of Louvain three months later but their union was to remain childless.

Matilda

His daughter, Matilda, was married to Henry V, Emperor of Germany. In 1125 Henry V died but by then Matilda was well settled in Germany and would probably have lived out her life there. However, a daughter was useful for creating alliances, so Henry recalled her to England.

In 1128, much to her displeasure, Matilda was married off to the sixteen-year-old Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. This strengthened an alliance already in place. However, this worried many Norman barons, as it could eventually lead to England and Normandy being ruled by the Angevin who had married King Henry’s daughter. Geoffrey asked that some key Norman castles be given over to his custody but Henry refused. In the summer of 1135, after a period of peace and tranquillity, the two parties went to war. In December of the same year Henry I died.

Henry’s legacy

It could be argued that Henry should never have been king, for he had an elder brother with a better claim to the throne. If the death of William II was an accident, then Henry had been a very lucky man. He grasped the throne, successfully negotiated a compromise with his brother Robert, and then defeated and imprisoned him in 1106. A few ups and downs followed but Henry held England and Normandy together. He must have hoped that the same situation would continue under his daughter.

Henry had the attributes necessary for a strong king. He could be ruthless when the occasion called for it and generous to those who supported him. He was genuinely fond of his children, both legitimate and illegitimate – the most distinguished of the latter being Robert, Earl of Gloucester. Most contemporary chroniclers speak well of him but Henry of Huntingdon, after listing three gifts of ‘wisdom, victory and riches’ said they were offset three vices of ‘avarice, cruelty and lust’. William I and William II both accumulated a great deal of treasure. However, the difference between those two and Henry is that he managed to hold on to most of it.

On hearing of the king’s death, the major landowners must have been restless at the thought of Matilda and her Angevin husband becoming the next rulers. Not for the first time, swords would be being sharpened and retainers told to be ready for action.

The post Henry I – his life and coinage appeared first on Detecting Finds.

On 9 September 1087, William I, King of England and Duke of Normandy died, aged 60. He was buried in the abbey he had founded at Caen.

His second son, William Rufus ((known as Rufus because of his ruddy complexion) was always loyal to his father and raised a magnificent tomb over his grave.

Successor to William I

William I inherited the title of Duke of Normandy from his father, Robert the Magnificent. He was crowned King of England on 25 December1066, after defeating Harold at the Battle of Hastings.

When he died, William I had three sons, William Rufus, Robert the eldest and Henry, the youngest. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lanfranc was the most trusted councillor of William I. He carried out the instructions spelled out to him by William I, as he lay on his deathbed.

William Rufus and perhaps Henry, too, had been with the Conqueror when he died but Robert was at the court of his father’s enemy: King Philip of France. Robert was rebellious at times and relations with his father had often been strained. It was only after Archbishop Lanfranc had pleaded his case that Robert was left the Duchy of Normandy.

Division of estate presents dilemma for nobles

Besides holding vast estates in England, the leading magnates also owned land in Normandy. When a single person was both King of England and Duke of Normandy the possibility of divided loyalty did not arise.

However, when the king was one man and the duke another, who would be obeyed? In matters English it would be the king and in matters Norman it would be the duke. But what if one of these men interfered with matters relating to the other? In such a case, if a magnate held land in Normandy and in England, then whose side should he be on?

The dilemma was summed up by the new king’s uncle, Odo of Bayeux, who is recorded as saying: “How can we give proper service to two mutually hostile and distant lords?”

Losers and winners

A change of king would lead to a change in fortune for some Norman barons.

Land taken from one baron to another

I mentioned when writing about William I that William Malet, who had fought alongside the Conqueror on 14 October 1066, had been entrusted with a disposal of the body of Harold II. Malet was eventually rewarded with the honour of Eye (several manors in Suffolk and elsewhere), which was one of the largest land holdings created after 1066. In 1086 it was worth £600 a year and extended into nine counties. William Malet died around 1071 and the honour of Eye passed to his son, Robert.

The coinage

The coinage of William II is very similar in appearance to that of his father. The weight and silver content are the same but the standard of striking is not quite as good as it was during the reign of William I. In some cases the letters are less skilfully entered into the dies and II can be A, H, M, N or V (for U); this can cause problems when trying to interpret the name of a mint and/or the moneyer. There are five types of pennies, each differentiated by the bust on the obverse and the design within the inner circle on the reverse. In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the last type of William I (BMC VIII) was in fact a coin of William II.

Over 60 different mints struck coins of William II. They are rarer than those of William I, which points towards a lower output of pennies after 1087. Most known specimens are from old collections or are single finds. Very few hoards have contained pennies of William II.

Revolts and expansion

Revolt by supporters of Duke Robert

In 1088 there was a revolt in England led by supporters of Duke Robert. However, after Robert failed to set foot in England, William II took swift and decisive action against the rebels and thereby secured his position.

Normans move into Scotland and Wales

Normans had now started to move slowly into Scotland and Wales and through a combination of bribery, diplomacy and military action the influence of the relatively new King of England spread. In 1089 William laid claim to Normandy and managed to gain the support of many barons. In 1095 Robert Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, led a rebellion. It received little support from the other leading magnates and was soon suppressed.

Crusade called for by Pope Urban II

Due to a decrease of support through William’s plotting, by 1096 Duke Robert’s position had become precarious. He was glad to join the crusade called for by Pope Urban II. To finance this enterprise he pawned Normandy to his brother William for 10,000 marks (1,600,000 English silver pennies). At this time the crusading spirit was strong. Turks were pressing the Byzantine Empire and harassing Christian pilgrims. After an appeal from the Byzantine Emperor, Pope Urban called upon European powers to take the crusading cross.

No doubt the Byzantine Emperor was relieved when this great host moved on. There was hard fighting through Turkish held lands. On the Syrian coast the Crusaders met up with a fleet of ships commanded by an English prince – Edgar, great nephew of Edward the Confessor. On 14 July 1099 Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders. Godfrey de Bouillon was acclaimed as ruler and a mixed international body of knights would hold the city for close to a century.

Lands recovered and borders strengthened

From 1096 onwards, as well as being King of England, William was de facto Duke of Normandy. Land had been lost under the slack rule of Robert, so his brother set about regaining it. By 1099 he had not only strengthened the borders of Normandy but had also recovered Maine. This shared a border with Normandy and had been conquered by William I in 1063 but then lost to Hugh V in 1069. All this helped to reduce the problem of divided loyalties in both England and Normandy.

Some historical accounts describe William II as a pale shadow of his father. However, in military terms, in both England and in Normandy, he enjoyed a good deal of success. In diplomatic and political terms too, he proved to be able and wise, though cunning might better describe him. These are all things secular but in matters spiritual it is impossible to defend some of his actions.

William II and the Church

Some said that William II looked upon churches and abbeys as being establishments that he could plunder at will for the royal treasury. Most accounts of the period were written by monks, who were not afraid to point out the shortcomings of their king in terms of his attitude to religion. Amongst other things, some contemporaries accused him of blasphemy. A later historian even suggested he was a devil-worshipper.

What is certainly true is that he was very slow to appoint new bishops and abbots. At the time of his death in 1100, William I enjoyed the revenues of three bishoprics and twelve abbeys. Ranulf Flambard, previously a councillor to William I and advisor to Duke Robert of Normandy, became William II’s ‘enforcer’ of financial demands. For his expertise at wringing cash from various sources, Flambard was rewarded in 1099 by being made Bishop of Durham.

Lanfranc of Pavia, Archbishop of Canterbury

When he thought the situation warranted it, William I could be hard and ruthless. Nevertheless, he took religion seriously and interfered minimally in Church affairs.

Anselm of Bec appointed Archbishop of Canterbury

After Lanfranc died, the most outstanding figure in the Anglo-Norman Church was Anselm of Bec. He is said to have been admired and loved, even by his enemies. Everyone expected Anselm to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. However, he did not want the office, as he argued he was too old and that he could not cope with the unruly son of William I. Then William II fell ill and believed he was dying. This coincided with a visit to England by Anselm in 1092-93. Thinking that his illness could be divine retribution for his irreligious actions, he begged Anselm to accept the archbishopric. Despite his misgivings, Anselm agreed to become Archbishop of Canterbury.

William II recovered and soon began to fall out with his new archbishop. Disputes between the two men were almost continuous. Anselm eventually decided that his position was untenable. He left England and spent the reminder of William’s reign either at the papal court or with the Archbishop of Lyons.

Battle Abbey

This may have had something to do with William II’s love of his father and/or the abbey’s link to the Norman Conquest. Whatever the case, at least one group of monks would look back on him with fondness.

The death of William II

In the high summer of 1100, Robert was on his way back from the crusade and was about to marry a rich bride. This would have given him enough wealth to pay off the 10,000 marks he had received when he pawned his duchy to William II. But is that what William would have wanted? Or, having been in control of Normandy since 1096 and having strengthened it and retaken Maine, would William have wanted to keep it? We will never know what might have happened, for on the second day of August 1100 William was killed by an arrow whilst hunting in the New Forest.

William killed in a hunting accident

Henry succeeds William as King of England

Soon after the death of William I, his two eldest sons, Robert and William II, had agreed that one or the other should be the heir of whoever died first. Therefore, in 1100 Robert should have been the new King of England.

When Henry and his men reached Winchester, William de Breteuil pointed out that Robert was alive and should therefore be king. However, when Henry argued that he was the only son born after the coronation of William I of England, he was allowed to transport the royal treasure to London.

Mystery surrounding William’s death

Had it been thought that Tirel purposely killed William then it is likely that his faithful knights would have sought revenge and hunted him down. That this didn’t happen raises doubts about his death. One chronicler wrote that William himself shot the arrow, which killed him when it was deflected. Another account says that he fell onto an arrow. Tirel is reported as saying he was in another part of the forest when William was shot. This was said when Tirel was on his deathbed, a time when he was likely to tell the truth. Therefore, whilst it is certain that William was killed by an arrow, the circumstances surrounding this event will forever be shrouded in mystery.

William II, 1087-1100

The post William II appeared first on Detecting Finds.

Cnut married Emma (daughter of the Duke of Normandy) and their only son was Harthacnut. Emma had previously been married to Aethelred II and their union produced a son – Edward, who spent 25 years in Normandy. As could be expected, this man became more Norman than English and was unknown to most of the people in the land of his birth. However, Edward joined the household of Harthacnut in 1040. Harthacnut died in 1042 and his half-brother, Edward, was chosen as the next king by the leading nobles in England.

Edward, later known as ‘the Confessor’, married Edith, who was the daughter of Godwin, Earl of Wessex – the most powerful man in England. For some time the new king was dominated by Godwin, whose family was enriched by great estates. As could be expected, this annoyed some of the other great earls, including Leofric of Mercia and Siward of Northumbria. Additionally, in Edward’s court were many of his Norman friends and they, too, regarded Godwin as being over-mighty.

In 1051 Edward felt confident enough to take action and Earl Godwin and his family were sent into exile. Soon afterwards Edward is said to have designated William Duke of Normandy as his successor. This spell of success proved to be brief, for in 1052 popular support restored Godwin. This led to Normans being driven from Edward’s court and terms being dictated to the king. The following year Earl Godwin died and his son, Harold, became Earl of Wessex.

Edward died in January of 1066 and Harold was anointed King Harold II of England. A strong hand was needed, as England was now threatened by Harold of Norway and William of Normandy. If William attacked then it would be somewhere on the south coast, so many men were sent to watch out for invaders.

Before moving on I’ll provide some details about William’s life leading up to 1066 in the following pages:

The post William I appeared first on Detecting Finds.