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.