Kenilworth Castle

I finally got to Kenilworth Castle at the weekend. I have been many times before but not since the Elizabethan garden and Leicester's gatehouse have been rebuilt and reopened. Whilst I did not specifically learn anything new, I did find the whole experience very good for refreshing my knowledge and it did give me a fresh perspective on the relationship between Dudley and Elizabeth.

I went with family including my brother and his German girlfriend. She is interested in history but her knowledge comes almost exclusively from TV and Film, which is interesting given the content of some of our discussions today. I had to debate with her the likelihood of Elizabeth and Dudley having an very active sexual relationship. She thinks it must have been, partly because they were human like the rest of us and could not have been in love without consummated their relationship, but primarily because she has seen the two Elizabeth films courtesy of Hollywood. Personally I do not know if they ever consummated their love, I think it would have been very difficult for them to do so without being found out and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests they did. It would also have been very awkward for Elizabeth to court foreign marriage proposals if she was not the virgin she claimed to be.

The garden was a revelation. I had not seen it on previous visits. The range of plants, the layout, the sensual "riot" and the allegorical figures were all very powerful even if I struggled to understand it all. Of course the very end of summer is not the best time to see the garden but it was still impressive nonetheless.

All in all, I felt that the trip really helped to solidify the sense of how important the relationship was between Elizabeth and Dudley. It gave a good sense of what certain aspects of court life would have been like and gave a sneak view of Dudley's character. Certainly worth a visit for anyone studying Elizabeth.

Rufus and Beauclerc

William the Conqueror had 3 sons, Robert "Curthose", William "Rufus" and Henry "Beauclerc". Before the Conqueror's death he had fallen out with Robert and had even fought against him with Robert being supported by the French King. They remained estranged when William died in 1087. William's will gave Robert, his eldest son the Duchy of Normandy, England went to William Rufus and Henry was granted a large sum of money. This proved to be a recipe for trouble.

I am not going to relate the events of the next two reigns in this post, I am going to give the top line events and explore a couple of ideas. The reason I am covering it is because the three reigns show marked contrasts in the monarchy of England and the way the country was governed and I want to highlight this.

William I, "the Conqueror", ruled England through the force of his will coupled with his astute political sense and his military talent. He ruled the country with the support of his most powerful magnates who served as his advisers. He was a deeply religious man who led a relatively austere life.

William II, Rufus, was in many ways much like his father, he was an astute politician and had great military talent. Rufus, however, was not austere, in fact he revelled in luxury. He was also not religious. Indeed during his reign he did much that antagonised the Church and his reign was marked by a prolonged quarrel with Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact he so lacked respect for the Church that he appointed one of his chief advisers, Flambard, as Bishop of Durham partly to facilitate the crown appropriating even more money from the Church and country, partly to pay for his extravagant lifestyle.

Another significant difference from the reign of his father was the fact that the Anglo Norman realm was not united under one ruler. This was to cause Rufus numerous problems. The two brothers, Robert and William Rufus were not generally on good terms. This had started before their father died. The fact that Robert, the elder, did not receive the royal title must have irked him. The fact that many Anglo Norman magnates had estates on both sides of the Channel made life for them difficult when the two territories were ruled by different people, and people who were at each others throats. The result was trouble for Rufus in the form of insurrection, disloyalty and rebellion from his nobility. Rufus was able to deal with it ultimately but in doing so he demonstrated another difference from his father. Where William I was ruthless but clement and generous, William II was petty and vindictive. This showed in his dealings with his defeated enemies.

In 1100 William II was killed whilst out hunting. Whether it was an accident or murder we will perhaps never know. The result however, was that William I's youngest son became King Henry I of England, and Robert missed out again.

Henry I faced the same Anglo Norman split as William II had, and it too caused him problems. But Henry was an altogether more pragmatic man. He was also rather more religious than his elder brother had been and so was able to mend the rift with the Church and Anslem. Ultimately he was also able to unite the two parts of the Anglo Norman realm by deposing his brother Robert as Duke and in so doing removed one of the main sources of trouble for his reign. Henry was also the first of the Norman line to embrace English (Anglo Saxon) culture. He married the last remaining link to the old royal house of Wessex, Mathilda, and their son William was given the old Anglo Saxon title of Aetheling. He received loyal support from English nobility and this proved invaluable when he faced rebellions from Anglo Norman nobility early in his reign.

So far there is little to choose between the first three Norman kings of England, with the exception of character and the fact that Henry embraced, and was actively supported by the English. The real difference was in the fact that Henry I was a noted scholar. His nickname "Beauclerc" means well learned. Whilst this in itself may not sound remarkable it is worth noting that success criteria for Medieval monarchs concentrated on their ability to make war and defend their realms and they rose or fell largely according to their abilities in this area. Some may well have been well educated but very few could be described as scholars. And yet Henry had the same political astuteness and military abilities possessed by both his father and Rufus. What mattered was that Henry put his education to very good use in the running of his kingdom. It is under Henry that written records of government really start to appear. He reformed many aspects of the government especially around finances and it was during his reign that the office of Exchequer came in to being. This naturally attracted the top scholars from around the Anglo Norman lands and these "administrators" were employed by Henry to help run the country. He still relied upon powerful nobles for support and as advisers, but Henry I's reign is the first when we really start to see the rise of the administrator. This is a theme which is evident in Elizabeth I's reign.

My reason for posting on this topic is that I believe this to be an important, yet often forgotten, milestone in the development of the monarchy and power in England and therefore it is important to the overall theme Britain from 1066 to 1485.

Teaching The Norman Conquest

The whole subject of the Norman Conquest is vast and therefore teaching it will cover numerous lessons. In this post I will try to outline the approach I would take in teaching the subject over several lessons and will reference some impressive resources I have found. As my recent blog posts have shown, this is a complex subject and is one which does not conveniently begin in 1066. For that reason I would introduce the subject of the Norman Conquest by exploring a little of William the Conqueror's background.

• I see this element as being a mixture of some good story telling (I am inclined to run with Ruth's suggestion of adapting some of my blog posts into stories to read with the students) and watching snippets of the first episode of the BBC series on the Normans. The purpose will be to give students an understanding of who William was and a little of what drove him to England.
  
• I would want to balance this by exploring a little of what Anglo-Saxon England was like prior to the Norman Conquest. This will help to cover why England was such a desirable and tempting target for invasion. Here I would concentrate on things like England's wealth, the royal burghs and their revenue potential, England's strong Christianity.
  
• As an activity I would consider getting the class to work in groups with a spider diagram. Put England in the middle as a target and around it list all the reasons why England was a prime target for invaders in 1066.
  
• Next I would want to explore the succession problem of 1066. This would entail looking at each candidate and exploring their claims to the throne. I would divide the class into groups again and give each group a different claimant to investigate. I would ask them to consider what the basis of their claim was and what were the strengths and weaknesses of each claim. I would then hold a discussion to explore who had the strongest claim and to discuss why Harold was crowned.
  
• Next I would want to explore the sequence of events in 1066. I have a couple of ideas about this. The first would be to tell a really engaging narrative (again adapting some of my blog posts). I would want to make it a really good tale whilst still keeping to the facts. The other idea I have had for this involves a resource I have found on the superb Thinking History website: http://www.thinkinghistory.co.uk/ActivityBase/Eventsof1066.html
  The website suggests using this activity before really explaining anything about the events. The activity allocates roles to the class based on key people in 1066, rather like the activity I designed for Elizabethan England looking at the arrival of Mary Queen of Scots in England. It is designed to push people into making choices and will help to embed a good sense of the complexity and shifting loyalties of 1066.
  
• Then I would move onto Hastings itself. Again, Thinking History website has a really good re-enactment activity: http://www.thinkinghistory.co.uk/ActivityBase/BattleofHastings.html
  I love the sound of this activity where you get the class to re-enact the battle in a staged walk through led by the teach, complete with a dodgy "'Allo, 'allo" style French accent. The activity would require some good degree of class control but it would be excellent fun. This could be backed up by another narrative account and by studying the Bayeux Tapestry battle scenes.
  
• As a follow up activity, depending on the class and whether this was year 7 or A-level, I would consider getting the class to assess the different military methods of the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. Both were hugely successful but they were the complete opposite of each other.
  
• The next topic is then the consolidation of Norman power. There are several ways to run this, again I would be inclined to use a narrative to begin with in order to tell the story of the key events (see my previous blog entry). Then some analysis would be required. The key here being to explore how William strengthened and maintained his hold over England.
  The key points I would want to cover here are:
  - the introduction of William's version of the Feudal system
  - Governing England - both through the Status Quo and through change
  - Castles
  - the Domesday Book (though this deserves a larger activity of its own).
  For each point I would want to explore how it helped William gain control.
  
• Castles are a relatively easy topic in my view and certainly one that can be great fun. I found a good resource about Motte and Bailey castles here: http://www.tes.co.uk/Download.aspx?storycode=6043949&type=X&id=6053236
  This could be a good starter before getting the class to work either in groups or individually to design their own castles including deciding where to put them. I would give them a map with different locations so they could choose. As for the castle design, this could either be free flow or I could prepare some resources cut out and laminated so they had a whole range of different features they could decide upon using.
  I would want to finish with castles by exploring why and how they helped William gain control as well as exploring the pros and cons of small wooden Motte and Bailey castles. Then explore the dangers to William and his descendants of having lots of bigger and stronger stone castles in the hands of his nobles - rebellion.
  
• Finally I would want to spend some time on the Domesday Book. I would ask why it was so important. Then I would get the class to discuss what kind of information it contained. As an extension of this I would get the class to think about what they would need to include in a modern Domesday Book. Finally I might get them to start to create their own version, perhaps based on their classmates' information.

The biggest problem with teaching the Norman Conquest is deciding on which resources to use for which areas of the subject. there seems to be so many resources available that choosing will be quite tough.

Analysis of Post-Conquest England - rebellion and control in William's reign

So why did serious resistance to William's rule breakout in 1069?

This question is all the more poignant when we consider how smoothly William had apparently assumed power in 1066 and 67. William had secured the acquiescence of London and the South. The majority of the English, with only a few exceptions, accepted his kingship. The majority of the Earls and all but a few Bishops and Abbots were English. William perpetuated a structure and form of government that was similar to that which he had inherited. I have already mentioned in the previous post that he retained Ealdred and Stigand as Archbishops of York and Canterbury respectively and that he retained Edward the Confessor's chancellor. In many ways the status quo remained and this cannot have been anything but a welcome relief to the English. So what went wrong?

Well part of the problem seems to have been that before long, especially in the south in Sussex and Kent, the lands in the care of fitz Osbern and Odo, a policy of dispossession, deprivation and demotion seems to have begun by which the surviving English aristocracy and their families were removed from their lands and subordinated wholesale to incoming Norman nobles given the lands as rewards and to promote security. This was done in William's name, whether or not he sanctioned the policy. This had the effect of belying William's words of continuity and inheritance with actions of high-handed superiority and dispossession. Many of the dispossessed families left and escaped to Scotland.

This policy meant that to many it looked not so much as if they were accepting William as King but that they were accepting the Normans as overlords. This very fact was compounded, and the policy itself may well have been driven by, the prevalent euphoric sense of Norman achievement and self consequence which had emerged during the 1050's. This was revealed in the works of contemporary writers such as William de Poitiers, who were increasingly arrogant and dismissive of non-Normans. It ultimately comprised de-humanising, uncivilising and putting beyond the Christian Pale all those who opposed them. In their turn the English, Welsh, Irish and Scots were to be subjected to this. Already in 1067, the English were being described as perfidious by William de Poitiers. Even other Norman writers such as Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury indulged in 1075.

This all amounted to a huge and growing arrogance on the part of the Normans which must have helped fuel the policy of dispossession and the growing unequal treatment of the English in their own land. When William moved north, to accept the submission of those parts of the country most remote from his power, this can only have increased the fear amongst the remaining English nobility that they were to be next on the dispossession list.

It is perhaps this arrogance and the dispossession's which gave the lie to William's promises of continuity and status quo which made the difference, because England had been ruled by foreign monarchs in the not too distant past, indeed there would still have been many who remembered the reign of Cnut. The comparisons were easy to draw for those who remembered; Cnut left the native English in place and simply ruled over the existing politic. The new Anglo-Norman regime was not, it would seem, Anglo enough.

So now we have an insight into why the rebellions flared up, but how did William succeed in stamping them out and then in retaining and strengthening his authority?

This is a central question to the story of Britain from 1066 and must surely be the subject of a whole, or at least large part of, a lesson.

William overcame the rebellions through a combination of coolness, savagery, diplomacy and mercy. He employed all the many talents he had developed throughout his tough upbringing and his formative years as a young Duke in an unsettled Normandy. For this reason it was important to begin the whole subject by exploring William's early life and his ancestry. His reputation as a military commander of energy, ruthlessness, resource, intelligence and cunning, if not actual genius, and the flexibility of the Norman military system undoubtedly facilitated William's defeated of the rebels. His cunning bribe of the Danes to split his enemies and his diplomacy and mercy when Earl Waltheof, and later Morcar, submitted to him, served weaken his enemies resolve and to start the process of rebuilding a degree of native support and loyalty.

While what has been discussed above was vital in enabling William to defeat the rebellion's against him, two other factors were of paramount importance in helping him secure the long term survival of his reign. The first of these were castles. This military utility was new to England, where previously only fortified burghs had been needed, certainly for the past few generations. The castle as a device enabled the Normans to dominate an area and to remain safe and secure from all but the largest of rebellions. Without the means to dominate an area through castles the rebels could not hope to maintain a firm hold over large areas they way William could. After 1070, castles would become the symbol of Norman power and control. William used castles as the core of a series of strategic commanderies he created throughout the midlands and the north and it was these he used to control the country.

The second factor was William's wholesale dispossession and destruction of the pre-Norman power structures. By 1075 there were no native born English at the highest levels of English society and politics except those English "new men" William had raised up himself. Earl Waltheof can be considered the first of these. He remained in possession of East Midlands centred on Northampton and later took responsibility for Northumberland. By 1086 he had been joined by Thurkil of Warwick, Edward of Salisbury and Alfred of Marlborough. But these new Earls, and the Norman Earls who took over the vast majority of the country were not to be granted the same powers as the pre-conquest Earls. In 1070 William removed Archbishop Stigand from the See of Canterbury and the process of dispossession which occurred in the nobility was mirrored in the clergy.

In summary, William demolished and completely rebuilt the power structures and locales of England. Earls' powers were reduced and Earldoms themselves were shrunk to be replaced by many more smaller lordships, centred on castles and occupied almost exclusively by Normans.

In my next blog I want to explore how this might be taught. I intend to look at teach the subject from the start of 1066 through to how William consolidated his hold on England.

Consolidating the Norman Conquest

I have now read enough of Crouch's book to get past the immediate aftermath of the Conquest and the through to the mid 1070's. So now I want to write about how William consolidated his conquest. I have not yet watched the 2nd episode of the BBC series so may have more to add once I have done.

The popular view is that the Battle of Hastings represented a final act and that after it the Norman conquest was assured. It follows from this that William was crowned on Christmas Day 1066 and that there was little significant rebellion against his rule, with the exception of the well known Harrying of the North and the revolt of Hereward the Wake, centred on Ely and the Fens. This is a massive over simplification and fails to recognise the often tenuous hold on the crown William had and the seriousness of the revolts against him and the Normans.

The immediate aftermath of the bloody battle on Senlac Ridge saw William return to Hastings and spend several weeks in the Sussex and Kent. His troops looted and pillaged the area before William and his Army advanced on London. The went via Canterbury which submitted without resistance. Then skirted south of London, burning Southwark and looting and pillaging their way up the Thames valley before finally sweeping round through the Chilterns and down on London from the north. William reached Berkhamstead by mid December. At this point many of the English leaders were ready to submit to William's claims to the throne, and he duly received these submissions at Berkhamstead. The coronation was swiftly arranged and William was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25th December 1066.

The ceremony was presided over by the Archbishop of York and was conducted in both English and French. Many English Earls and Thegns were in attendance to accept William as their new sovereign. But the coronation did not go smoothly. The shout of acclamation (where the assembled nobility and clergy proclaim their new king by shouting) was taken up by the large crowd outside the church, whereupon the Norman guards stationed outside panicked, thinking a riot was starting they laid into the crowds with their swords and in the ensuing melee 2 houses in the Abbey precinct were burnt down. William was visibly shaken by this but the ceremony continued nonetheless.

Despite the debacle of the coronation William felt secure enough to return to Normandy in March 1067. The celebrations welcoming him back were impressive and William now kept a splendid royal court in his residence of Fecamp, much to the envy of the French King.

In spite of the conquest there was to be no united Anglo-Norman realm. In many ways William did not even see England as the centre and heart of his dominions and he certainly did not view England as his home. He returned home to Normandy within a few months of his coronation happy that the English had accepted him as their new king and equally happy to accept, by and large, the status quo in England. For example he issued writs in both English and Latin, he retain Edward the Confessor's chancellor as well as Stigand as Archbishop of Canterbury, in spite of papal opposition.. His first appointments of Earls in 1067 duplicated the regional arrangements of Anglo-Saxon England; William fitz Osbern, his close friend, replaced Harold as Earl of Wessex, Ralph the Staller (a former court official of Edward) replaced Gyrth in East Anglia and Bishop Odo (William's half brother) replaced Leofwine in Kent and most of the home counties. The Earldoms of Mercia, East Midlands and Northumbria were left as they were found. But William did take back to Normandy with him a vast amount of money and treasure looted from England, many French soldiers and several prominent English as hostages for good behaviour: Stigand (Archbishop of Canterbury), Edgar Atheling (the last clear blood heir to the English throne) and Edwin, Morcar and Waltheof (Earls of Mercia, Northumbria and East Midlands respectively) so that "no revolt instigated by them might breakout" according to the commentator William de Poitiers.

William remained in Normandy until December 1067. This is significant because it shows that William was worried by the security of Normandy - he did not return to England until the summer campaigning season in France was over. He was concerned at what his powerful enemies in Northern France might do in his absence. Indeed Count Eustace of Boulogne, who had fought for William at Hastings, did try to cause trouble. Rather than invade Normandy while William was there he fitted out a fleet and sent a force of troops to attack Dover. It was repulsed easily. Clearly William felt his position in England was secure enough for him to concentrate on Norman continental affairs. When William did return to England in December 1067 he took more troops with him and he was greeted with elaborate civic festivities in London.

However, there were problems in England and William spent much of the winter dealing with them. There was fighting in Herefordshire by alienated Mercian landowners who were raiding from the north. Worse, in the South West Exeter refused to accept William as King. Gytha, the late King Harold's mother was there and likely encouraged the defiance. William raised an army which included English shire levies and forced Exeter to surrender.

At this point William felt secure enough to bring his wife Mathilda over from Normandy and have her crowned Queen on 11 May 1068. Once again Ealdred Archbishop of York presided and many English Earls and Thegns attended. However, This was to be the high point of William's reign, thereafter he was faced with crisis and rebellion.

Before I look at why the apparently smooth takeover of England by William suddenly boiled over, and explore how and why William held onto his crown I will narrate the tale of what happened.

In the Summer of 1068 William moved out of the south of England for the first time. He entered Mercia and the North. The brothers Edwin and Morcar resisted him briefly but submitted again at York. William moved north leaving detachments to build castles at Warwick and Nottingham. York submitted to William's approach. William even entertained envoys of Malcolm III of Scotland (the slayer of Macbeth) at York. William then returned south starting castles at Lincoln, Huntington and Cambridge. He left a French Knight, Robert Comin to secure Durham and Northumberland. William, meanwhile returned to Normandy with his Queen to celebrate Christmas. All seemed well, William appeared to be in complete control. But it was merely the calm before the storm, and it was to prove a terrible storm.

William's appearance at York seems to have galvanised the Northern magnates into resistance. On 28 January 1069, Robert Comin and his knights were massacred on their first night in Durham. The surprise was so complete that only 1 or 2 Normans escaped. The news brought William back from Normandy like a thunderbolt, but the rebellion continued to spread. The massacre of Normans was repeated near York and the castle was placed under siege. The rebels appear to have been led by Edgar Atheling and numerous other nobles who had fled Norman rule to Scotland.

William duly arrived at York in March 1069 whereupon he drove off the rebels, refortified the existing castle and built a second. He left William fitz Osbern in charge and returned south to celebrate Easter at Winchester. He wanted to keep an eye on the South West where Harold's sons had landed with a force of mercenaries from Ireland. Throughout the summer of 1069 the Northern rebel army continued to threaten York and it was at this point that the situation became really critical for William. King Swein of Denmark (nephew of King Cnut and with a theoretically better claim to the English throne than Harold had) sent an army and fleet to raid the coast of England from Kent north. The fleet sailed up the Humber and the army joined with the northern rebels at the beginning of September near York. Now all the surviving English Earls chose to defy William. Waltheof of East Midlands, Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria all joined the Anglo-Danish camp.

York fell on 19th September and in the ensuing massacre only women and children and one Norman man were spared. Fitz Osbern had already been recalled by William so he survived. William was now at the darkest point and it looked as if he would lose his tenuous grip on the English throne. But it was at precisely this point that he now put to use all the cunning and guile, the the ruthlessness and bravery he had. Fitz Osbern was sent to the South West where he defeated the rebels under Harold's sons outside Exeter. William himself went west where he destroyed a rebel army which had been pushing onto Stafford from the Welsh Marches. This ended the most serious threat to his fragile power base in the south and left him free to deal with the Anglo-Danish army in the north. In early December 1069, his way north barred by the larger rebel army at Pontefract, William used cunning and bribed the commander of the Danish fleet to leave the area and retreat to the mouth of the Humber. This worked and the Danes left the northern rebel army. The rebels, now seriously weakened scattered and William entered a ruined York in time to spend Christmas amongst the ashes. But now commenced the Harrying of the North. William sent his troops out far and wide across the Vale of York where they burned and pillaged, destroying houses and villages and crops and driving off livestock. The result was a massive famine in which many thousands are believed to have died and which impoverished the north for many generations. From York William moved North first to the Tees and then the Tyne valleys. In January Earl Waltheof submitted to him and was given clemency. William now moved south crossing the Pennines to Chester and then Salisbury.

William finally returned to Normandy in late 1070 ending the longest continuous period William spent in England and it is a measure of how serious the problems were and how wrapped up in them he was that he allowed the hard won Norman control over the county of Maine to slip. But he had retained his grip on the English crown and indeed had strengthened it. The very fact that he remained king in 1070 must have surprised many even among his own supporters.

The Issue of William's Illegitimacy

One point I neglected to discuss on my last post was the issue of William of Normandy's illegitimacy. William is sometimes referred to as William the Bastard. He was the product of a sexual relationship between Duke Robert and the daughter of a tanner (perhaps, certainly she was of relatively lowly birth). William's parents were not married, though Duke Robert was married (just not to William's mother).

The reality is that at the time this was not an barrier to William succeeding his father as Duke. Throughout the 10th and much of the 11th century, marriage was a dynastic and diplomatic arrangement (in many ways it continued to be so) but it was rarely expected to be an emotional attachment. Nobles, princes and Kings usually formed lasting emotional and sexual relationships with a mistress who would in every way fulfil the role of wife with the exception of actually being married. This was accepted practice. All of William's predecessors as Counts of Rouen and Dukes of Normandy were similarly illegitimate, born out of wedlock to their father's mistress, as were many other prominent nobles and princes. What mattered was not the marital status of their mothers but the fact they were the male progeny of their fathers, and more specifically the first born son of their father, irrespective of whom their mother was.

Interestingly, William himself broke this trend. His marriage was a dynastic and diplomatic one but it very soon became and emotional and loving one. His heirs were the product of his marriage and not of a union with a mistress.

It wasn't until later in the 11th century that illegitimacy became a stigma. This was driven in large part by the growing power of the church and its control over aspects of life such as marriage which led to the increasing legal and moral significance of the rite. This made it increasingly difficult for sons born out of wedlock to inherit.

More Background to the Normans

The Normans themselves are a fascinating subject for study. A quick read of the first 2 or 3 chapters of Crouch's book provides a wealth of background to support the study of England from 1066. I have yet to cross the Channel with William in my reading but will get to that soon enough. I wanted to use this post to add some more background to William, the Normans and some of the events of 1066.

What is striking about the Normans between the original settlers under Rollo and William the Conqueror is how swiftly they became assimilated into French/Frankish culture. Within 3 generations (by the end of Richard I Count of Rouen's reign) the Normans were to most intents and purposes French. We need to be careful with such assertions because it would be wrong to suggest that they had completely abandoned their viking roots. chroniclers then and later went to great lengths to sanitise their viking ancestral roots, removing or glossing over suggestions that they were murdering and pillaging savages; but these sanitised roots were acknowledged. Some of the Normans' ruthlessness and warlike vigour can be put down to their viking ancestry.

The assimilation of the Normans as French is seen in several ways. Their adoption of Christianity, indeed their growth as fervent defenders of Christianity and their ambitious and ostentatious building of both castles and religious buildings. Their inter-marriage with many of the leading princely and royal families. William's father Robert was a cousin of Edward the Confessor, King of England. The Norman ruling family had married into both French royal houses - the declining Carolingians and rising Capetians. The development of a clearly defined and powerful court of nobility owing allegiance to the Counts of Rouen and subsequently the Dukes of Normandy. This Norman nobility was made up of both Native French and naturalised Vikings and mixed Viking-French. During the reigns of Richard I and II the Norman rulers went to great lengths to establish their authority along traditional French lines of legitimacy; chroniclers were employed to construct an image of the Norman dynasty as a line of Christian Dukes and lawgivers of great moral integrity; Norman rule was also consolidated on more firmly legal grounds through the use of formal oaths and a more formal feudal type system, moving away from ruling more through military might.

One point of note here is that this assimilation is similar, though more advanced than that of the Vikings in Britain. Large areas of Britain were settled by Vikings and although for many years these areas remained quite separate from Anglo-Saxon England, eventually they became much more assimilated; the old Danelaw became an anachronism rather than a reality. The main difference is that the Vikings did not rule England, whereas the Vikings, or more accurately their descendants, did rule Normandy.

I want to finish this post by talking a little bit about some of the events of 1066 and addressing some of the missing points and oversimplifications I am uncomfortable with from the 1st episode of the BBC series "The Normans".

The first, and perhaps most important, point to address is the sense that the Norman victory at the Battle of Hastings was inevitable. It wasn't. The other points I will raise will serve to support my view here. When Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, sailed up the Rivers Humber and Ouse and landed at Riccall, down stream of York in September 1066 it hastened a chain of events which would end with Harold Godwinson's death at Hastings lest than a month later. Hardrada was a powerful ruler by military might. He had a tenuous claim to the throne of England and he was supported by Tostig, Harold of England's brother. They had already spent the last couple of weeks ravaging Northumbria and had decided to winter in York. To get there they had to pass the army of the Northern earls, Edwin and Morcar. This they did in the Battle of Fulford on 20th September. But Hardrada wanted York on his side so he refrained from sacking the city on the promise of delivery of hostages for good behaviour. The hostages were to be delivered at Stamford Bridge on 26th September. All this was fairly routine for the time. Hardrada expected no trouble and even left roughly 1/3rd of his army at Riccall when he went to Stamford Bridge.

What had happened in the meantime shows that Harold Godwinson was no pushover. He was a general of great ability and much renown, his skills having been honed during his service on behalf of Edward the Confessor in campaigns in Wales and East Anglia. Harold had likely heard of Hardrada's landing on the day before Fulford. He acted immediately, gathered the core of his army, the Huscarls or household troops and raced north gathering the rest of his army (the shire levies or Fyrd) as he went. The army travelled some 190 miles in five days - a phenomenal rate for an army primarily on foot. Harold reached York late 24th September and entered the city. From there he marched to Stamford Bridge to await the Vikings. Hardrada was understandably surprised by this alarming turn of events and the ensuing Battle of Stamford Bridge destroyed the Viking army; it is said that only 24 out of the hundreds of boats the Vikings had arrived in were needed to carry the survivors home.

We already know that King Harold's victory celebrations were short lived because the wind had finally changed and William had sailed to England with his invasion fleet. Had the weather not delayed William for so long and therefore had Harold still been lying in wait for him, William's crossing of the Channel and landing in Kent would have been a very different story. Opposed amphibious landings are very dangerous. But the fyrd had been sent home weeks earlier, so William landed at Pevensey unopposed.

Having heard of William's landing, Harold had hurried back south. Much of the victorious army from Stamford Bridge was left behind but the Huscarls and Harold had marched south as swiftly as they had north. Now Harold had to gather an army from his southern fyrd. We know that Harold did not hang around and moved quickly on to oppose William near Hastings. Harold made the choice to strike swiftly and try to surprise William rather than wait until he had raised a much larger army. This neatly shows how the decisions taken can have a huge impact on the outcome - for every decision there is a series of effects. Even so, the outcome of the Battle of Hastings was far from a foregone conclusion. There were many things to favour Harold's decision to move swiftly. Yes, waiting for more numbers would have given Harold overwhelming superiority of force, but it would leave William free to move around and to gather supplies. It would also give him time to entrench his position and bring over reinforcements. whereas if Harold moved south now he would severely limit William's freedom of maneuver and would deny the Normans access to the harvest supplies their army would shortly be in need of. Winter was fast approaching and with it would come storms that would make it very difficult for William to resupply his army by sea and would render his position untenable. Also, the strategic initiative lying with Harold, William would be forced to respond in order to maintain his freedom of movement so Harold could simply occupy a position and expect William to take the burden of attack. In some ways it was to be sheer bad luck that snatched victory from Harold and handed it to William; it is supposed to be Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia who said "all skill is for nought if an angel pees in the touch-hole of your musket" - a lucky Norman arrow (supposedly) struck down Harold and ended the Anglo-Saxon monarchy in England.

The Battle of Hastings, fought on Saturday 14th October 1066, was to be one of the longest medieval battles fought; it lasted some 6 - 9 hours, a phenomenal effort for what were really only quite small armies, one of which was exhausted from its exertions of the previous 3 weeks topped off by a 60 mile march in the last 3 days. The Battle pitched the 2 foremost military systems of Europe against each other. The Anglo-Saxon English army led by Harold was perhaps the most powerful infantry army of its age (not specifically the army which gathered at Hastings). There was little imagination in the fighting but the the solid and stubborn shield wall was a very tough nut to crack. The Normans in their turn were the most powerful cavalry army of the age, backed up by archers and infantry; its use required flexibility and imagination. But numerous battles through history have shown that when each type of army was used properly it could defeat the other type. So what we have here are two very different but very closely matched forces, each commanded by a leader of tried and tested ability.

Ultimately the Normans won. But for a long while it looked to be going the other way. I will not describe the detail, though I think year 7's and older could be really quite fascinated by a good narrative account.

This blog post has really been more of a filler, attempting to expand a little on the origins of the Normans and to give a little more flavour to some of the events of 1066. I hope that I provided a strong argument to support the rather unexpected nature of the Norman victory and the fact that by most standards Harold could and should have won.

What I would like to do in succeeding posts is to explore how William turned victory at Hastings into conquest of England, for once again this was not an inevitable outcome of the victory, and then to explore how the Norman dynasty and Britain developed. at regular intervals I will pause to consider how to teach what I have covered.

The Normans

As my next topic Ruth has asked me to look at the broad subject of Britain from 1066 to 1500, including a look at King John, the barons and Magna Carta; the Black Death and the Peasants Revolt; Henry II and Becket. I am to start with 1066 and the Normans, quite topical given the coverage of them on the BBC.

As my first sources I am using the BBC series on the Normans, currently running on television (luckily I have recorded them) followed by reading David Crouch's book "the Normans" which I already had on my bookshelf at home (I read it several years ago so will be re-reading it).
The Normans were so called because although they were regarded by many at the time (and many now) as French, they were descended from the Vikings - Northmen, hence the name Normans. You might ask why are we looking at the origins of the Normans when my study topic begins in 1066,. That is a very good question and one to which I will give the answer in part now and in part will become obvious throughout the next few blog entries. 1066 was THE most decisive event in British history and it can be argued in European history too. But the events of 1066 did not happen in a vacuum; nor did the events happen suddenly, with no warning and no build up. To understand 1066, why it happened and why the consequences were so significant it is important to start by looking nearly 200 years previously. Some of this will be covered in future posts, some of it here.

The first episode of The Normans on the BBC was a fascinating programme. I am pleased to say that it did not teach me much that I did not already know (though had forgotten) from reading Crouch's book some years ago.

William I, known to Britain as William the Conqueror, was also known to his contemporaries as William the Bastard because he was the illegitimate son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, was born in 1027. His mother was a Tanner's daughter from Falaise. As mentioned already he was descended from the Vikings. During the 9th Century the Vikings began raiding France (according to Crouch this was in large part due to the growing strength and effectiveness of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy of England which meant it was easier for the Vikings to look elsewhere for plunder). In the early 10th Century they decided to stay in the lower Seine valley around Rouen. Their leader, a Viking named Rollo, took advantage of the turmoil in France to bargain with the French king and obtain land in return for converting to Christianity and probably for helping to protect the King's authority from other Vikings.

Within 3 generations the Vikings had been assimilated into Frankish (French) culture and society. Normandy had become a reality complete with its own nobility. Its Viking descended rulers were now French, having abandoned their old language and culture and become fervent Christians who now built great monastic houses (such as Mont St Michel) rather than sacked them; indeed their piety was such that they even developed their own architectural style, known in England as Norman and elsewhere as Romanesque. The rulers of Normandy had used marriage to become dynastically intermingled with many of the great noble and royal lines of North Western Europe, including France and England.

But all this Christian piety did not make them soft. The Normans were a hard, militaristic race who as well as building churches also pioneered the building of motte and bailey castles to defend their lands. They bread big heavy warhorses. They adapted to, and developed, the military system of trained mounted military retainers that we know today as Knights. Though they were hardly the chivalric beacons we usually associate with knights, instead they were often little more than highly trained thugs. One was even so well trained that he could tell from sniffing horse manure if it was a warhorse.

When William was just 8 years old, his father died (1035) and William became Duke of Normandy. This was a perilous time. He was in constant danger of assassination. Indeed almost all of his guardians and close friends were killed and he once had to escape in his underwear on horseback across a raging river. This turmoils lasted some 12 years while William hung onto his inheritance. In 1047, when he was 20, a full revolt broke out under his cousin Guy. At the Battle of Valledun, William defeated the rebels. It is said that he personally led the charge against them. It was to be the making on him. Now he was unstoppable. He restored order to Normandy, moved his capital to Caen, married his distant cousin Mathilda, the daughter of the Duke of Flanders. The Pope had forbidden the marriage on the grounds that they were too closely related, but they married anyway, then built an Abbey each in Caen by way of penance.

Clearly William was a fervent Christian, but his upbringing had mad him a hard and ruthless man and there are plenty of examples of this such as his behaviour at the siege of Alencon where he is said to have cut off the hands of his enemies who had insulted him by hanging animal skins from the castle walls (a reference to the lowly status of his mother as a Tanner's daughter). By the time he reached his 30's he was secure in Normandy and looking to flex his muscle elsewhere and he soon settle on England.

11th Century England was wealthy, very well run with an efficient and centralised government and an excellent taxation system (from the ruler's point of view). But in the 1060's it was ruled by Edward the Confessor who had no heir and was likely to die that way. This was potentially disastrous for any realm. William was one of several who could make a plausible claim to the throne - he was Edward's cousin. Edward has even spent 20 years or so living in exile in England when he was a youth before he became king. But William had a serious rival in Harold Godwinson. Harold was the head of the most powerful family in Anglo-Saxon England. He was also an accomplished general. In 1064 Harold made a trip to Normandy and William later claimed that Harold promised to support his claim to the throne. Certainly Harold was knighted by William for his military services fighting for William.

The programme concludes by covering the events of 1066 themselves which I will summarise here.

• 5 January 1066 - Edward the Confessor dies. Harold is crowned King in Westminster Abbey on the same day as Edward's funeral.
• Harold is denounced by chroniclers as an oath breaker (these chroniclers were writing after the events of 1066 and therefore were writing on the behalf of the victor - the victor always gets to write the History!). The appearance of Halley's comet is taken by many as an ill omen for Harold.
• William launches a diplomatic offensive against Harold and obtains support from far and wide including the Pope who sends a Papal Banner. William clearly has God on his side.
• Invasion preparations begin for a fleet of about 700 ships and 7000 men. It is efficient and well run.
• Harold wait son the south coast with his army. But William does not come as the wind remains in the wrong quarter. By Autumn, Harold has to send much of his army home.
• The Vikings under Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, invade in the North, defeat the Army of the northern earls and capture York.
• Harold marches north gathering his army as he goes and on 25th September utterly destroys Hardrada's army at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. But his celebrations are short lived.
• On 28th September the wind changes and William's fleet sails to Sussex. When William lands he stumbles but he quickly turns this ill omen into a positive one by jumping to his feet and crying "look I have grasped the land with both hands!".
• The Normans quickly build 2 motte and bailey castles at Hastings and Pevensey (it takes no more than 2 weeks). The Normans lay waste to the surrounding countryside.
• Harold marches back to London, the 200 mile journey takes his army only 5 days marching on foot! Harold does not wait, despite being begged by his mother, instead he marches his exhausted and by now depleted army towards William at Hastings.
• On Saturday 14th October 1066 the Battle of Hastings is fought at Senlac hill. It will permanently change the course of history in England and beyond.
• William is alleged to have carried saints relics around his neck during the battle, the same relics Harold has sworn his oath of allegiance to William on.
• Despite the tiredness of Harold's army the battle began at 9am and lasted all day but the English line was finally broken when some English pursued the fleeing Bretons and the rest of the Normans took advantage. The end came when Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye. It was the end of Anglo-Saxon England
• Harold's body was so battered that it was recognised by no-one except his mistress who recognised it from certain secret marks known only to her.
• William built an Abbey on the site of the battle as penance for all the bloodshed. The altar is supposed to be on the very spot where Harold died.

I think the episode from the series is fascinating. It gives a good sense of what shaped William to be the ruthless and hard man he was. It gives something of the sense of what drove him to invade England and claim the throne for himself. It would make an interesting source for a lesson. If not all of it then certainly some of it could be shown - especially the sections relating specifically to William's upbringing.

Having said all this, however, I am going to be pedantic and take issue at some of the statements in the programme, especially relating to the military events of 1066 and the suggestion that Harold's defeat at Hastings was both inevitable and the end of resistance in Anglo-Saxon England. The programme oversimplifies these areas and while I believe this to be to the detriment of the broader understanding of the topic, I do understand the need to fit the main events and conclusions into only one hour.

In my next post I will add more detail to the origins of the Normans and the development of their duchy. In due course I will cross the channel and investigate England in the years leading up to 1066 and then move on.

Teaching Game for Elizabeth's Reign

Following prompts from Ruth I have designed a game which I think can be used to teach elements of Elizabeth's reign. The game is a simple role play/card sort type game and I have designed it to teach about the complexities of decision making for Elizabeth. This game is centred on the dilemma and decision of what to do with Mary Stuart when she arrived in England after fleeing Scotland in 1568. The game could be adapted for any other dilemma simply by altering the characters and range of choices and responses they have available.

This version of the game is created as a PowerPoint file. It has 9 characters: Elizabeth, Mary Stuart, France, Scotland (Moray), Spain (Philip II), Norfolk , Northumberland, Cecil and the Pope. (If numbers are tight and combination of Northumberland, Cecil or the Pope may be omitted). Each character has a sheet of traits which covers things like their fears and aims, so for instance Elizabeth's traits include Mary being a threat to her and not liking to help rebels. The traits give flavour. Elizabeth has five options and she can take only one of them: help Mary regain her throne, send Mary to France, send Mary back to Scotland (to be tried), keep Mary in England, or execute Mary. Each option will have pros and cons as represented by the responses available to each of the other characters. They have a set of responses for each option Elizabeth picks. These responses then determine how difficult life might be for Elizabeth and England.

The game would be played with the Elizabeth group using their knowledge of the subject to choose what they think is the best option. Then each other character shares their response with the rest of the class. At the end, the responses and their impact on Elizabeth and England are debated and compared to what we know happened.

I like this approach to learning as I find in my experience that people learn best when they can be involved and can start to get a sense of what it was like to be there and to be involved. Games can really help to drive this kind of experience.

I can't get the PowerPoint onto this blog so I have created an account for SlideShare and have uploaded it to that. If you are interested in it then search for Elizabeth I Lesson Game.ppt. Unfortunately, I have only just started to use SlideShare so don't know how to search on it yet.

I hope to create more games to facilitate the teaching of history as I go through the PGCE course.

Teaching about Elizabeth I and Europe

I have been looking at thinkinghistory.co.uk, the website run by Ian Dawson. This is a phenomenal resource. I found a wonderful activity to help students to understand the European geopolitical situation in 1558/9 and beyond. This involves an activity utilising floor space as a map of Europe and getting the students to represent and sit in the positions of the various countries. It can be a great way to help students understand the complex power politics between the European powers and is certainly an activity I would be keen to try out.

Here is the link to it:
http://www.thinkinghistory.co.uk/ActivityBase/ElizabethIandEurope.html

Teaching about Elizabeth

So far through my blog postings I have only briefly explored ways of teaching elements of Elizabeth, so in this entry I am going to try to expand on that. First lets look at some of the early ideas I have had and expand on them.

One of the first ideas I put forward was teaching about the Spanish Armada using paper boats and classroom floor space to demonstrate the differing formations and tactic of the Spanish and English fleets. I still think this could work as a highly visual and participative lesson. I would look to expand on it using maps to get students to chart the progress of the two fleets and explore the ultimate dispersal of the Spanish fleet. Additionally, when looking at reasons for the defeat of the Armada I would work with the class to explore the whole variety of reasons and then get the class, working in small groups, to prioritise these reasons. Depending on the age group, critical enquiry can be made into the impact of the English fleet on the defeat of the Armada.

The religious issue which faced Elizabeth at the start of her reign is a complex one, it has many strands, goes back to the early Tudors and beyond and is linked to other factors such as foreign affairs. In covering this, I think the first priority is to set out the key factors in simple and easy to follow terms. By this I mean lets look at what happened, so the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, the struggle to get these through parliament and what the acts meant for religion in England. Then I would start to look at why this was such a contentious issue. At this point exploring the main themes, including looking back at what occurred prior to 1559, would be crucial. I would do this by exploring a different theme, either each lesson or each section of a lesson. I would then back this up through a summary activity using lists of causes and factors and a spider diagram to draw the links between them. I see this as something that can be prepared as a partially completed handout for the students to complete in groups or individually or as a Wipe Board exercise where the diagram is on the board and the whole class contributes to completing it. One thing I think it is very important to do here is to explore the cause and effect of decision making. I have commented on this before, circumstances are made up of numerous complex and interlinked factors involving not just religion but foreign affairs and legacies from the past. Therefore making decisions cannot be done in isolation, all these factors must be understood and taking into account. This makes the process of decision making more complex and fraught with danger. This is an important aspect to reflect in the teaching of much of Elizabeth's reign but especially the religious and foreign affairs themes. I think this can be explored through activities that allow students to look at a series of choices that Elizabeth could make, for instance the religious settlement of 1559, and then to allow students to examine the possible consequences of each choice. This can be done in small groups and then reflected back to the entire class. I am also looking at devising a card sort game that could demonstrate this (more of that later).

One of the factors in play with the religious issues at the start of Elizabeth's reign is the question of her own religious views. There is not much evidence to support this, but there are some sources, such as the New Years Gift incident of 1561. This source and the other pieces of evidence can be used in class to enable students to work at piecing together what they think Elizabeth's religious views were. This would be a good exercise in the use of evidence.

When covering the issue of Foreign affairs in Elizabeth's reign, it will be important to link back to the religious issues as these had a very strong bearing on foreign affairs. It will also be important to link back to events and trends stretching back some 200 to 500 years to help students understand the issues, fears and perceptions during Elizabeth's time. One exercise I would consider is to get a timeline to explore how Elizabeth's foreign policy changed over time and get the students to populate it. I would then get the students to provide the evidence for the changes by citing the events that demonstrate them. This would be a good way to establish the key facts. A further development of the decision making game idea could be used to explore why England and Elizabeth made the foreign policy choices they did. This could be cross referenced by looking at why both Spain and France made their choices. Again a series of spider diagrams to show how the foreign policies of all three countries were linked in a complex balance would be a very useful and visual way of showing this. I would also use maps of Western Europe to show the positions and strengths of the main protagonists. This would highlight the dangers to England of a hostile power controlling the Channel ports and also show the foundation of French fears of Habsburg encirclement.

One key aspect of foreign affairs I would wish to draw out is the issue of Elizabeth's marriage and who she used suitors to further foreign policy or to stave off problems. For example, getting the class to compare the suitors of Phillip II and Duke of Anjou/Alencon and asking them to compare the results of these in terms of what it meant to England in foreign affairs. A good exercise here would be to get the students to imagine what it must have been like to put aside your own feelings for someone in order to achieve a higher purpose.

The third main theme I have looked at covers Power, Control and Rebellion. Once again, covering this in a lesson would require backtracking over the previous 200 years to look at the power and control of the nobility and the monarch to see how this developed through to Elizabeth's reign. I would start by looking at the two main rebellions of Elizabeth's reign, the 1569 Revolt of the Northern Earls and the Revolt of Essex in 1601. I would also include the shenanigans of Norfolk and his consequent execution in 1572. So the lesson scheme would start with an exploration of the facts of these rebellions. This would then expand to a look at the causes of the rebellions and comparing them. Finally I would look at why they failed. For both the look at the causes and the reasons for failure I would look at comparable rebellions in the previous 200 years, as I discussed during my blog entries on the theme.

Overall, I would present a broad coverage of the facts and time lines of Elizabeth's reign. I think a useful exercise would be to get students to try to group the facts and events of her reign into different categories, Religion, Foreign Affairs, Government and Society. This would show how difficult it is to separate many of the events and facts out and categories them so absolutely. It would show how complex and interlinked all these events and facts were.

Elizabeth - The Hollywood Years

In the last week I have watched both of the Cate Blanchett Elizabeth films. I certainly found them interesting and the first film is markedly better than the second film, but both were beset with errors of fact.

I liked the way the first film portrays some of Elizabeth's wiliness at that same time it shows the moral and emotional dilemma's she must have faced, both with regard to religion and to marriage. She is shown as deeply in love with Dudley (a love which he returns) but ultimately unable to marry him. The portrayal of Elizabeth swaying the House of Lords in favour of the Act of Supremacy is good in that it shows how she used her charm and intelligence to win them over.

Other things the film does well; it shows that now she is queen, Elizabeth's life is no longer her own; the dangers of France and opposition from the Papacy are clear; her dislike of war and some of the inability to pay for it; the pressure for her to marry; some of the nature of life for the nobility in terms of fashions etc.

However, as a learning vehicle both films fall short in my opinion. Too many of the facts are distorted and the timelines twisted in order to make a long and complex tale appear credibnle for a 2 hour film. Both films oversimplify the religious issue, the first film goes to great lengths to show the catholics as sinister even down to Mary's court/chamber being in perpetual darkness and Elizabeth's tower experience as being particularly unpleasant (the reality is that although being there was no picnic, the tower remained a luxurious prison, it was after all a royal palace).

I could list the factual issues with each of the films but I fear that would take too long. I will, however, comment on the fact that both films focus on the role Walsingham played and significantly downplay the role of William Cecil, indeed the second film does not even include him and yet Cecil continued to serve the queen long after Walsingham died. This is an interesting point about the films but it is one which perplexes me for I don't know what has driven it.

All of this makes me very wary to use the films as a method of teaching the subject of Elizabeth in schools. However, that does not mean I wouldn't use the films. Small snippets of the films can be used such as Elizabeth winning over the Lords and scenes reflecting the pressures on Elizabeth to marry would be very useful. If showing the whole film (either of them) then I think a reflective exercise would be a necessary part of it - lets look at what we know about the reign of Elizabeth and how the film differs from the established facts.

Power, Control and Rebellion in Elizabethan England, Part 4

How would I teach this subject? Well, that is rather a difficult question. Personally, while I find the nature of power and control and how it changed over the 2 centuries I have discussed in this series of posts a fairly easy concept to understand I find it rather more difficult to explain. I have, however, thought of an analogy which I believe students would understand, well some of them at least.

I believe the concepts discussed can be likened to gangs and bullies in school. The school serves as the crown in this analogy and the bullies/gang leaders as the nobility, with the gang members and bullies' cronies as the nobility's supporters and retainers. If the school has inadequate control or power over the students then the bullies and gang leaders will be able to fill the power vacuum by offering their cronies and gang members protection from other bullies and gangs and from themselves; roughly the situation in 1485. If the school is able to operate an effective anti bullying regime (government) then the bullies and gang leaders become less able to offer protection to their supporters who are more likely to be "punished" for being in a gang. Significantly the school itself is able to offer that protection to the majority of the other students and thereby undermine the power of the bullies and gang leaders; roughly the situation in 1569. In the analogy, the key to this shift in the balance of power is to give the ordinary students more involvement in the government or policing of the school to act as a counter balance against the bullies and gangs.

I am not making any judgement statement about giving students more involvement in school government, I am simply using the analogy as a means to bring the historical theme to life for school students who might otherwise struggle with the concepts.

An alternative is to create a kind of game for the students to play whereby they play the role of nobles and have various choices they can make about gaining power and influence. Different choices might provide them with varied dilemmas and solutions. The choices, dilemmas and solutions would all be based on historical facts and events. the point of the exercise would be to make the learning experience more real by helping the students to gain a better insight into what it must have been like for the nobility making decisions about their security.

Power, Control and Rebellion in Elizabethan England, Part 3

What had changed in the 84 years between the last successful rebellion against the ruling monarch in 1485 and the rebellion of the Northern Earls in 1569?

There are 2 main interwoven strands to the answer to this question. The first, and perhaps most important, centres on the nature of the power of the nobility, where their power came from in 1485 and in 1569. The other strand relates to how monarchs in the 15th Century worked with the nobility in governing the country and draws a comparison to how this was done by Elizabeth's reign.

In modern psychology there are several categories of power need. Some of these relate closely to the late medieval and early modern nobility of England. Reward power represents the power obtained through the ability to reward, or punish, people. For the nobility this included their own manor courts (which had virtually died out) and their ability to grant lands to their followers. Personal power represents the personal magnetism of some people, Henry VIII is a very good example of this as is Elizabeth I herself. Positional power is that gained through the person's official post or title, e.g. Warden of the Marches was a title commonly held by the Percy Earls of Northumberland and it granted pretty free ranging powers along the border between England and Scotland. Connection power is gained through access to other powerful people e.g. presence at Court could grant a lot of connection power and is summed up by the still common phrase "it's not what you know, but who you know".

The nobility of the day were still humans just like us and had psychological needs as we do. Their need for power was heightened by the fact that already being in positions of power and wealth simply increased the psychological pressure to maintain that position. In 1485 the nobility were the great landowners of the country, along with the crown. Although theoretically their land was granted to them by the crown and held in exchange for services and loyalty to that same crown, by 1485 such a purist view of feudalism was long obsolete. The land and the income it provided gave the nobility their wealth and power. Each noble had more land than they could manage themselves and so they granted land to tenants of their own - lesser nobles and knights or gentry. This land was granted in exchange for services and loyalty in what is commonly called patronage. The same applied to the crown as a landowner in its own right. For some of the nobility this power was supplemented by crown offices (performing important government functions on behalf of the crown) in a system of royal patronage. In 1485 these offices were almost exclusively filled by nobles of career clergy (see earlier posts about religion). Problems between the crown and the nobility occurred when one noble, or group of them, felt their interests were not being adequately represented by crown policy to such an extent they felt threatened. When this occurred, if the noble or faction were sufficiently powerful rebellion could result. The more powerful the noble or faction the greater the chance of success in the rebellion, either overthrowing the reigning monarch or controlling him or her.

What had changed by 1569 was the degree of power and wealth obtained from land compared with that obtained from royal patronage. Throughout much of the 16th century inflationary pressures reduced the value of the generally fixed income obtained from land rents and therefore reduced the comparative wealth of the nobility. This was all the more acute in a time of increasing splendour and costs represented in lavish living. To combat this, land usage started to change and as a result nobles generally had fewer tenants to cover the land. Certainly less wealth meant that the nobility struggled to provide as much patronage for their followers as before. So increasingly they had to look elsewhere both to bolster their income and to increase their ability to grant patronage. The primary source of this additional wealth and patronage was the crown. The wealth came from crown offices, being paid to perform government duties. To get appointed to crown offices required access to, and presence at, Court. Court and the crown were also where additional patronage came from. If a noble had access to Court and was appointed to crown positions this would provide him with more money and with increased patronage which he could distribute to his followers and thereby increase their ability to attract more followers and thus more power.

In summary, in 1485 a noble's power came from his wealth and ability to reward his followers through patronage. This was not much different to 1569. The difference is where the balance of this wealth and patronage came from. In 1485 it came from the noble's landed wealth. In 1569 it came from the crown.

The second main strand in answering what had changed between 1485 and 1569 was in the way the crown governed the country. To state this simply, in 1485 the country was governed by the crown through the nobility. Important offices were given to the nobility who then either fulfilled the roles directly or farmed them to their supporters, thus reinforcing their power through patronage. In 1569 the crown governed the country through crown officials who were increasingly recruited from the gentry rather than the nobility and all of whom held their office directly from the crown. Powerful nobles close to the crown could still draw upon their Court influence and use patronage to recruit supporters from the gentry and lesser nobility but the ability had been diminished and the loyalties of these supporters lay more closely with the crown from whom their positions ultimately came. Additionally it was very much more difficult to secure crown positions if you were not present at Court.

This shift in the balance of power in the way the country was governed meant that the nobility had increasingly to share their power and wealth with up and coming gentry whose rise in power was due entirely to the crown not the nobility. The Cecils provide a perfect example of these new and powerful gentry. So when, in 1569 and 1601, great nobles rebelled against the crown, they no longer commanded the power and support to enable their rebellions to be a success. Too many people had a vested interest in the rebellions failing.

Power, Control and Rebellion in Elizabethan England, Part 2

Both Henry VII and Henry VIII spent time and energy removing threats to their rule in the form of rival claimants to the throne. The Wars of the Roses may have resulted in the deaths of several generations of noble families and completely wiped out others but after 1485 there remained a number of people, both male and female, of royal blood. In reality most probably posed little or no real threat to both monarchs' power. Popular rebellion was a different matter, however, especially for Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary.

Henry VIII faced the powerful Pilgrimage of Grace based in the North East and Lincolnshire. Edward faced both the Kett and Western Rebellions in 1549 and Mary faced the Wyatt Rebellion in 1554. All of these were heavily driven by religious opposition to the crown's policy at the time though it would be fair to state that economic difficulties might have had an impact too. These rebellions were led and composed of gentry (in some cases) yeoman farmers and labourers - ordinary people in short. None of these was supported, openly by nobility, though the Pilgrimage of Grace was supported by the Earl of Northumberland's younger brothers. Indeed the nobility sided with the crown and helped suppress the revolts. Perhaps the only exception to this was The Duke of Northumberland's attempt to prevent Mary from taking the throne in 1553.

Compare this to the rebellions against the crown from 1455 to 1485 (the core period of the Wars of the Roses). During the 15th Century the rebellions were led by powerful nobles whose power could command the loyalty of lesser nobility and the gentry. The ordinary people did not get involved except where they were recruited into the relatively small armies of the period to fight for one faction or the other. The power of a very small number of nobles was sufficient to challenge, control and even and overthrow the ruling monarch on several occasions. During the reigns of all the Tudors before Elizabeth no rebellion was really supported by the nobility in this way.

Elizabeth I, however, faced 2, potentially serious rebellions against her rule in England. The first was the Revolt of the Northern Earls in 1569 and the second was the Revolt of Essex in 1601. Although both of these have in common the fact that they were led by powerful nobles (the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland in 1569 and the Earl of Essex in 1601) at face value they have little else in common other than they were unsuccessful. In 1569 the rebellion was ostensibly religiously motivated and had strong local popular support, the rebels wanted to remove Elizabeth from the throne and replace her with Mary Queen of Scots and reinstate Catholicism as the official religion. In 1601, Essex wanted to dominate and control the queen and in so doing defeat his enemies at court and in the Privy Council.

In reality they had more in common. In both cases the nobles involved felt isolated from the centre of power and that their advice was being ignored or not even sought. As powerful nobles they felt it was their right to have the monarch consider their advice. Worse, in each case they felt they had been overlooked in the matter of important offices. The Percy Earl of Northumberland was aggrieved that he had not be given his family's traditional role in running the North of England. In the case of Essex, he had been stripped of certain monopolies, banished from court, suspended from the Privy Council and his role as Master of Ordnance. The details are different from the 15th Century, but the sentiments behind the rebellions in the minds of the nobles involved and their need for security through power are not.

What is most noteworthy then, is why the two potentially dangerous rebellions faced by Elizabeth failed, when similar rebellions a century previously had succeeded. What had changed?

Power, Control and Rebellion in Elizabethan England - Part 1

Elizabeth I faced only 2 rebellions during her reign, 1569 Revolt of the Northern Earls and the Essex Rebellion in 1601, although she faced numerous plots against her, some of which involved members of the nobility, especially Norfolk. The question of why only two (and why these two) is an interesting one when we consider that Elizabeth was ruling as a queen in a male dominated age (and rule by a queen was regarded as a disaster) and that it was a period of religious upheaval and consequent unrest across most of Europe. If we also consider the previous 100 years we can see that times had changed quite markedly for the nobility and their relationship with the crown.

The Tudor dynasty came to the throne on the back of a prolonged and vicious, if intermittent, factional war known as the Wars of the Roses. This saw two branches (York and Lancaster) of the royal house of Plantagenet fight for the throne of England. Although some troubles continued, the wars essentially ended in 1485 when Henry Tudor defeated Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth and took the crown for himself. It is not the purpose of this discussion to look at the causes of the Wars of the Roses, but a look at how they started and a review of some key factors is useful in a discussion of how the relationship between the Nobility and the Crown changed over the two centuries.

Although it was not seen at the time, the overthrow of Richard II by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke in 1399 paved the way for the family squabble which became the Wars of the Roses. Henry represented the House of Lancaster, a branch of the Plantagenet ruling family; Henry was the son of John O' Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and 4th son of Edward III. Richard II was the son of Edward, Prince of Wales (Edward III's eldest son) who had died shortly before his father thus leaving his infant son Richard to inherit the crown. Therefore both Richard and Henry were grandsons of Edward III. In many respects Richard was ahead of his time but this also made him rather an unsatisfactory medieval king. He chose to rule in defiance of the advice of his great magnates and in the end one of them, his cousin Henry, supported by the powerful Percy Earl of Northumberland, rebelled against him, defeated and deposed him, and ultimately had him murdered.

Henry IV, as Henry Bolingbroke became, had a troubled reign partly as a result of the "violent" manner in which he came to the throne. His former supporters, the Percies, felt they were not receiving their due rewards for their services and rebelled, an action which nearly lost Henry the throne. Thereafter things settled down, helped from 1415 onwards by the renewal of the Hundred Years War with France. This took the excessive energies of the nobility to France where it found an external focus. Even the minority of Henry VI and his subsequent unsuitability to rule when he reached majority did not lead to trouble until the 1450's when the unsuccessful conclusion of the Hundred Years War ended the external focus of the nobility.

Henry VI's inability to rule with strength of purpose allowed the growth of factions at court to get out of hand and this reignited the old rivalries amongst the nobility and between the different branches of the house of Plantagenet. Without going into the complex genealogy it is sufficient to say that these rivalries coalesced behind the House of Lancaster (currently occupying the throne in the person of Henry VI) and the House of York in the person of Richard, later Edward, Duke of York. Various noble families exploited the divisions and Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, like the Percies before him, took on the mantle of Kingmaker. Initially he supported Edward of York and helped him attain the throne as Edward IV in 1461. When he felt he was not receiving his due from Edward IV he conspired to remove him and replace him with Henry VI in 1470. Edward IV returned to the throne in 1471 and the House of York seemed secure until 1483 when Edward died and ultimately his brother ascended as Richard III. Richard suffered from over mighty nobles in the form of Buckingham and then at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 he was deserted by both the Stanleys and the Percies. The result was Henry Tudor becoming Henry VII.

So the Tudor dynasty emerged from a turbulent period where nobles had used their power to determine and control the crown. Both Henry VII and his son Henry VIII faced threats to their rule from powerful nobles. In most cases these were perceived rather than real. the reign of Edward VI saw nobles such as Seymour and Dudley vying for power. Mary escaped such issues in her short reign.

In the next post I will explore the nature of these power struggles a little more.

Next Theme?

I have nearly finished reading the first of the Warren books, Elizabeth I: Religion and Foreign Affairs. When I do finish it I will move onto his next book and I anticipate being able to come up with my next theme for Elizabeth's reign. I suspect it may be Power, Control and Rebellion, or something similar.

Continuity and Change in Elizabethan Foreign Policy - Part 3

How to teach this, that is the question now.

Again, as with the previous sequence of posts, it is important to position Elizabethan Foreign Policy in the wider historical context - what went before and led to the situation Elizabeth faced at the start of her reign. It is also important to position the foreign policy in the wider European context of the time - what events forced decisions upon her during her reign. In this respect I have barely scraped the surface, for example why was Spain so disinterested in England during the late 1560's and the 1570's when the relationship was deteriorating rapidly and messily? Because although Phillip was disturbed by the religious developments in England and by the growing threat of English interference in the Netherlands, he was more concerned with the threat from Turkey.

So the key is to place the foreign policy in its broader context and once again explore the idea that decisions are never made in isolation and that each and every decision brings its own set of pros and cons, consequences both real and imagined.

Presenting the information for this topic could be complex. It might make sense to present it in the form of a diagram showing the relationships between England, France and Spain, and against each country listing the primary concerns which might drive their foreign policy. This might allow a graphical representation of where these concerns and factors overlap and therefore create tension or lead to mutual interest and friendship. So for example, under Spain would be the concern to retain control over the Netherlands due to trade and prestige concerns. Under France would be the need to thwart the Hapsburg encirclement and the Netherlands being a convenient place to do it. Under England would be the need to maintain the Netherlands under friendly rule to safeguard trade and prevent enemies gaining access to suitable ports of embarkation to invade.

This idea would need some development if I were to take it to the point of a lesson plan, but I think this is a good start point.

Continuity and Change in Elizabethan Foreign Policy - Part 2

In the previous post we saw that at the start of Elizabeth's reign her foreign policy followed traditional lines and we saw how this traditional policy had developed over time.

Elizabeth continued to demonstrate this traditional policy for some time. In 1559 the Archduke Charles (younger son of the Austrian Hapsburgs) was a suitor for marriage with Elizabeth. This was to keep Phillip II of Spain both happy and a potential ally against French aggression particularly in Scotland where 10,000 French troops were stationed threateningly close to England. It was also important to keep Phillip II happy as rule of the Netherlands because of the importance to England of the cloth trade.

From the mid to late 1560's, relations with Spain began to deteriorate. There are several reasons for this, religion being a key one. Phillip II became increasingly annoyed and impatient with England and Elizabeth over their adherence to the Protestant faith. In 1558 Phillip had high hopes that Elizabeth would return to Roman Catholicism. As time went on he realised this was not going to happen. This deterioration meant that the Netherlands trade was threatened, though in reality the Netherlands enjoyed a good deal of freedom from Hapsburg interference. Then in 1566 the Dutch Revolt began. This was to last for most of the rest of the century and involve a near constant war with wild swings of fortune. This changed the situation dramatically; now the Spanish sought to re stamp their authority on the Netherlands and this really did threaten English interests and trade.

To counter this Elizabeth needed to foster a friendship elsewhere in Europe, the obvious place was France. From the late 1560's this is precisely what she did. In 1569 she entered marriage negotiations with the French Duke of Anjou (second in line to the throne) and in 1572 his brother the Duke of Alencon (later to become the Duke of Anjou) became the subject of marriage negotiations. Though these marriage negotiations came to nought they did result in a treaty of friendship, the Treaty of Blois. By this treaty, France abandoned the claims of Mary Stuart to the English throne and a defensive league, designed to prevent Spanish aggression against either of them, was established.

This new friendship was to survive several rocky encounters, including the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in 1572 (massacre of over 3000 Protestants in Paris). The French and the English provided implicit and eventually explicit support for the Dutch in their revolt against Spain, and ultimately both went to war against Spain.

Surely this represents a clear change in English foreign policy? But where is the common denominator in all of this? The Netherlands. The main aim of English foreign policy here and for several hundred years previously, was to ensure the Netherlands remained in friendly hands. While Spain was a friend this was simple, France remained, as previously, the main threat. But when the friendship with Spain broke down and she became increasingly the enemy, the matter became more complex. France became the natural friend to counter balance Spain and to help maintain a friendly Netherlands. (Incidentally, this made sense to the French too - it provided a good counter to the Hapsburg encirclement).

When we look at it this way, Elizabethan foreign policy represented continuity.

Where Elizabethan foreign policy did differ was in Elizabeth's methods. Almost without exception, previous monarchs had treated foreign policy as their own private preserve, as a game from which they could extract fame, prestige, wealth, and personal prowess and the usual means to achieve this was war. Elizabeth used marriage negotiations as in preference to war. War was expensive and she rarely had the luxury of money to spent on such things. Yes she did take England into war, the reign began with war against France and hostilities continued until 1564. She took England into war against Spain in the Netherlands (and at sea). However, two points are noteworthy here:

1. she hesitated to send troops and real help to the Dutch for a long time
2. she attempted negotiations with the Duke of Parma (the Spanish commander in the Netherlands) to avert hostilities even while Leicester was going to the Netherlands with troops in 1585.

In one other important respect Elizabethan foreign policy differed from the past. It did not operate to serve the monarch's personal or dynastic policy. We can see this in several ways:

1. Elizabeth twice allowed herself to be dissuaded from a marriage she really wanted (Dudley in 1560 and Alencon in 1580) because national interests mitigated against it.
2. She went to war reluctantly.
3. She supported rebels against their appointed rulers, something she was always uncomfortable with personally because of the risks to rulers inherent with popular uprisings.

Continuity and Change in Elizabethan Foriegn Policy - Part 1

The next theme I want to discuss is Elizabethan Foreign Policy and the degree of continuity and of change the policy represents from previous reigns. I will probably cover Power, Rebellion and Control in a later entry.

In 1558, when Elizabeth ascended the throne, her foreign policy reflected the traditional view that France was England's most dangerous enemy. Spain remained a friend, again a fairly traditional view. In 1603, when Elizabeth died, this had seemingly been reversed. Spain was the enemy, and had been for some time whilst France was now a friend. At face value this represents a dramatic change in the traditional foreign policy of her predecessors. But is this really the case.

To investigate this properly we need to go back and touch upon foreign policy of previous reigns. Ever since the Norman conquest of England in 1066, France and England had maintained a closely intertwined and troubled relationship. The Normans, Kings in the own right in England, were also landowners owing fealty to the King of France for their Duchy of Normandy. This led to a delicate relationship. Medieval and feudal society was based largely upon the relationships between a subject and his lord. The lord could call upon his subject to provide services, usually military, in payment for his land and titles. This was true of Kings to their Dukes/Counts/Barons as well as of Dukes/Counts/Barons to their knights and sires. But Kings did not owe allegiance or service to anyone. So at what level did the King of England owe service and fealty to the King of France? In reality he did not as the King of England, but he did as the Duke of Normandy.

Over time, this delicate relationship became more complex as a result of dynastic marriages, to the extent that the Angevin Kings of England (the first Plantagenets) starting with Henry II, owned/controlled more French land than the Kings of France. Relations between the two kingdoms remained strained as the French monarchy slowly clawed back territory from the English monarchy until the issue of fealty and allegiance boiled over into war, the Hundred Years War. The causes of the war are many and varied and I will not cover them here, this is merely an illustration of the troubled relationship between the two countries.

Troubled relations between England and France continued into Elizabeth's reign; her father Henry VIII, went to war against France on more than one occasion. The war with France that Elizabeth had to bring to a close at the start of her reign originated in the reign of her predecessor, Mary, who went to war against France in support of Spain.

Part of the problem with France was the ever present fear of invasion from France. This was complicated by the French friendship with Scotland and therefore the risk of French invasion by the "back door", or at the very least of Scottish interference whenever England was embroiled in war with France, as indeed did happen in 1513. French ambitions in the Low Countries (The Spanish Netherlands) were also a threat; if the French controlled the Netherlands then they would control the whole of the southern shore of the English Channel and therefore have even greater access to suitable invasion force embarkation ports.

The Netherlands also represented a very important trade for England in cloth and wool and this had been the case for several hundred years. A traditional English policy was to remain friends with the rulers of the Netherlands and to use this friendship to offset French ambitions here. In the past this had been the Dukes of Burgundy and this friendship had been used to severely weaken France. By the mid 16th Century, the Duke of Burgundy was also the King of Spain.

At this point a look at the French viewpoint is interesting. For France, the great threat was not England, but a Hapsburg (the rulers of Spain, Austria and the Holy Roman Emperor) encirclement. This seemed to the French a very real threat, given that the Hapsburgs ruled Spain on France's southern border and the Netherlands and Burgundy on France's north-eastern border as well as Austria further to the east. So French policy was frequently aimed at thwarting this encirclement, often by interfering in the Netherlands. This might seem perfectly logical to us looking at events through a 450 year lens, but to the rulers of the time, when information about neighbouring countries and their intentions was sparse if not non-existent, such actions could seem alarmingly hostile.

Religion and Foreign Policy at the start of Elizabeth I's reign, part 4

Hmm, these last few have been long blogs. Lets try to wrap this up quickly.

How would I teach this? Well first I think it is important to relate the religious issue back to events during the previous 3 reigns. Additionally, a look further back to explore the relationship between church and crown would give important background and help to frame the understanding of the importance of the issues at stake.

Secondly I would reference the international aspect of the issue. Again, this requires some backtracking over the previous reigns; no monarch ever rules in isolation, decisions are made in relation to everything else that is going on, and to much that has gone before and led to the current position. Care must be taken to explore the possible consequences of every decision. So looking back as I have done on these few blogs is important to show that the problems Elizabeth faced in 1558/9 did not appear out of the blue and therefore their solutions would necessarily be complex.

Thirdly, and this is perhaps how the topic would develop further, I would explore what shaped the Elizabethan religious settlement itself and this would mean looking at the person of Elizabeth, her education, her religious preferences, her views on social and civil order and the role of the crown vis a vis the church.

So now I need to continue to read Warren and come up with the next theme. Perhaps I will explore the religious settlement itself and look at how the Bishops and Elizabeth's views differed about it and look at how and why Elizabeth defended the settlement. Or perhaps not...

Religion and Foreign Policy at the start of Elizabeth I's reign, part 3

First let me explain that the theme of religion and Foreign Policy is one which affects the whole of Elizabeth I's reign and not just the first few years. Therefore it is a theme I may well return to to illustrate episodes and issues from later in her reign.

When Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558 she had to deal with a precarious foreign policy issue and try to end the war with France. She also had to deal with religious expectations. Elizabeth was welcomed by many protestants as a saviour and yet the country was still Catholic in many areas and the clerical and lay hierarchy were strongly Catholic. In addition to this there was much foreign interest in which way she would proceed religionwise. We can also throw into the mix Elizabeth's own religious views. We do not have any firm evidence of them but we do know that she was raised and educated as a protestant. Her tutor was Matthew Parker, a protestant whom she was to appoint as her first Archbishop of Canterbury. Her childhood may well have led her to see Rome as a barrier to her legitimacy (the break with Rome had come about in order to allow her father to marry her mother). Other evidence, such as the 1561 New year's gift incident also suggest that she was a moderate protestant in her beliefs.

So in religious terms Elizabeth is faced with a tough decision at the very start of her reign. Essentially she has three options:

1. Keep Catholicism
2. Return to the Henrician model of church and worship
3. Move to a moderate protestantism

Each option had its pros and cons. So lets look at each in turn (in school I would want to present these in a tabular format but I cannot get the Blog software to allow it)

Keep Catholicism

Pros

• It would keep Spain friendly
• Philip II was a possible suitor for marriage to Elizabeth at this point

Cons

• Elizabeth prefers protestant worship personally
• She has many protestant supporters
• The protestant Martyrs of Mary's reign have lead to a view by some that Submission to Rome means submission to Spain means Martyrdom

Return to the Henrician model of church and worship

Pros

• Most people seem comfortable with a non-Roman Catholicism

Cons

• Times have changed and moving back to Henrician worship would prove difficult
• Henrician church and worship are not easy to define as Henry himself changed them to suit his mood and politics

Move to a moderate Protestantism

Pros

• Short term this would be good politically as she has much protestant support
• Suits her own religious preferences
• Moderate protestantism with a system of church governance through Bishops would allow her to keep control of the church through the Bishops.

Cons

• A move to protestantism might risk a move to more radical protestantism - Calvinism
• This might lead to local unrest ( the reforms of Edward's reign had resulted in much resentment and unrest)
• Calvinism would lead to a loss of control of the church
• Most people were essentially conservative in their religion
• A move to protestantism would make an enemy of France and Spain and perhaps bring on the Catholic Grand Alliance

This was complicated by the fact that a sudden change in religion would require the support of Parliament and therefore the support of the Catholic Marian Bishops in the House of Lords.

Essentially Elizabeth opted for option 3. But she had to play a middle game. She sent mixed signals. To the Protestants she showed she was a protestant, for instance by forbidding the elevation of the host during mass. To Catholics she declared she would restore the form of worship of the latter years of Henry VIII's reign, which was essentially Catholic. She had to balance all of this against the precarious international situation:

• She was still at war with France and Scotland, though trying to negotiate peace
• Mary Stuart was in France claiming to be the rightful Catholic heir to the English throne
• She wanted to regain Calais
• She needed to keep Spain on her side as a balance against France.

That Elizabeth was able to secure the religious settlement in 1559 whilst ending the war with France and keeping Spain on relatively friendly terms is quite remarkable. As the international situation shifted during 1559 she was able to mold her tactics accordingly. When the war with France was formally concluded Elizabeth was able to act against the Catholic Marian Bishops in the Lords with more force. A disputation (debate) was called between Catholics and Protestants at which the Protestant verbal attacks were so violent the Catholics withdrew from parliament. At this point, outside the protection of parliament, Elizabeth had 3 of them arrested for disobedience to her. This reduced the Catholic majority and overawed many of the rest. She added to this a bill to transfer the first fruits and tenths (taxes from the church) from the Pope to the crown. This appealed to the lay lords who were happy to see crown revenues rise if it meant they didn't pay any extra.

Ultimately the parliament of 1559 passed the acts of Supremacy and Uniformity. These established the Elizabethan Church of England largely as a moderately protestant church which could demonstrate it had not travelled very far from Catholicism. The Church retained and episcopalian structure and hierarchy and reflected Elizabeth's moderate protestant preferences. In this way it also appealed to the widest possible range of Elizabeth's subjects and reduced the risk of civil unrest. That Elizabeth saw this as the end of the matter and her protestant bishops did not is a matter for another blog, perhaps.