Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Magna Carta and the England of King John, ed. Janet S. Loengard

Post Reply
User avatar
Miss Moppet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1726
Joined: April 2009
Location: North London
Contact:

Magna Carta and the England of King John, ed. Janet S. Loengard

Post by Miss Moppet » Mon September 27th, 2010, 8:51 pm

This is a collection of papers from a 2008 conference, as follows:

'England in 1215: An authoritarian Angevin dynasty facing multiple threats' by Ralph V. Turner

'The Anonymous of Bethune, King John and Magna Carta' by John Gillingham
'Baronial Paranoia in King John's Reign' by David Crouch

'The Forest Eyre in the reign of King John' by David Crook

'The Managerial Revolution in the English Church' by James A. Brundage

'Magna Carta, the ius commune, and English Common Law' by John Hudson

'Justice without Judgement: Criminal Prosecution before Magna Carta' by Barbara Hanawalt

'What did Magna Carta mean to Widows?' by Janet S. Loengard

'The English Economy in the Age of Magna Carta' by James Masschaele

'The Complaint of King John against William de Briouze (c. September 1210)' by David Crouch

I am just starting this; as there are multiple authors I will comment on the chapters individually as I read them.

User avatar
Miss Moppet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1726
Joined: April 2009
Location: North London
Contact:

'England in 1215' by Ralph V. Turner pp.10-26

Post by Miss Moppet » Mon September 27th, 2010, 11:47 pm

Starts out with the argument that Magna Carta had its origins in Angevin kingship in general rather than King John's rule alone:
England, together with Normandy to a lesser extent, was the three Angevin monarchs' primary source of funds, a vast treasure trove for funding military campaigns, fighting off rebellions, and repelling Capetian attacks on their possessions. Each generation had to make more excessive demands on the English, and John's rule over England differed only in degree from his two predecessors' authoritarian governance.
Turner thinks the Angevin empire was too large and diverse to be sustained and that the balance of power was tipping between England and France as the French kings became richer (although no French royal accounts survive prior to 1202 so comparisons prior to that are estimates). He quotes chroniclers complaining about Richard I's extortions and speculates that
Possibly only Richard's early death in 1199 prevented him from having to confront a rebellion by his English subjects sometime in the new century.
Prominent among the three Angevin kings' problems was their inability to win their subjects' hearts, due in large part to their own personalities. Willing to resort to intimidation and violence to collect funds and compel services, they not surprisingly aroused their subjects' fear and anger.
But are kings ever popular? Was Stephen popular, or Henry I?
In contrast to the Capetian kings, [Henry II and his sons] failed to find a means of binding themselves to their diverse subject peoples or of fostering any sense of unity among them.
Turner puts that down to the family's poor reputation (Melusina again), their constant quarrelling which encouraged the nobles to take sides, the resentment in Anjou and Aquitaine at being governed by English and Norman administrators and the objections of English barons to having to contribute to the defence of their monarchs' continental lands.

He quotes chronicler William of Newburgh as saying that Henry II
in his own time was hated by almost all men.
Angevin queens did nothing to enhance the royal family's popularity: Eleanor and Isabella of Angouleme were viewed as foreign wantons, Berengaria never set foot in England. This is in contrast to the Anglo-Norman queens, who
had acted as intercessors, and they had enjoyed general approval as models of piety and purity, devoted wives and conscientious mothers.
Then of course there was the whole Becket thing, and Henry's straw-chewing fits of rage. Henry compared his anger to divine wrath and indignation in one of his charters and persecuted whole families for the sins of one of their members (as John also did). Conversely, courtiers might have to pay large fines for a return of the king's goodwill. Some of the supporters of John's rebellion paid massive fines to rehabilitate themselves with Richard, but one at least Richard had starved to death. Turner includes the Geoffrey of Norwich incident in the list of John's cruelties, although Warren thought it was probably apocryphal.

While Philip II was the successor to the Carolingian monarchs, Henry II
had no historically sanctioned rationale for his rule over his assemblage of lands, depending rather on right by inheritance, marriage or conquest; a major obstacle to creating such a rationale was the status of his Continental territories as part of the French kingdom.
Instead of 'a unifying myth or ideology' all the Angevins had was a legend about a demon wife who flew up the chimney. Turner thinks that
the contention that Henry viewed [King] Arthur as a predecessor offering him an imperial mythology cannot be substantiated.
In fact the Arthurian model of a king governing in concert with the great men of the land appealed to the barons far more than the king.

Turner thinks that 'unrealized absolutism' best describes Angevin political thought and I would have to agree, although I'm not convinced by all the points he makes. If Magna Carta had been 'cemented in the English people's consciousness' by the civil disturbances of the 13th century, why did Shakespeare write a play about John's reign without even mentioning it?
Turner makes the point that king, barons and clergy all thought they were upholding past precedent in promoting or resisting Magna Carta, but doesn't really investigate why. And some of his conclusions are very speculative:
Late twelfth-century English chroniclers, who likely reflect popular opinion, found Henry II's queen falling short of the standard for queenly conduct established by Anglo-Norman consorts, especially Henry I's pious queen. Eleanor would never win contemporaries' praise for her charity, piety, or mercy.
Can we be so sure that the chroniclers reflect popular opinion? Did Eleanor differ so much from her predecessors in the way she fulfilled the traditional role of a consort? I think the chroniclers' views are steeped in misogyny - if nuns as well as monks had written chronicles, they might have taken a very different view of Eleanor.

To sum up, makes some good points, but patchy.

User avatar
Michy
Bibliophile
Posts: 1649
Joined: May 2010
Location: California

Post by Michy » Thu September 30th, 2010, 5:55 pm

Sounds like you're reading some heavy duty stuff. :) Is this for a research project? Or for your own writing? Or just for pleasure?

User avatar
Miss Moppet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1726
Joined: April 2009
Location: North London
Contact:

Post by Miss Moppet » Thu September 30th, 2010, 11:31 pm

[quote=""Michy""]Sounds like you're reading some heavy duty stuff. :) Is this for a research project? Or for your own writing? Or just for pleasure?[/quote]

This is research for the novel I am writing now, which is set during John's reign (it won't involve Lady Moppet, unfortunately). I did study the 13th century briefly at university but don't remember much, so I have some ground to make up. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Historical Nonfiction/Biography”