January 2007 (Legacy) - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewJune 08 legacy. 1 To what extent were the...

January 2007 (Legacy)

1 To what extent did the role of officials in English central government change in the course of the period from 1066 to 1216?

Under William I officials performed the same sort of household and personal service as Anglo- Saxon officials had done, but from the reign of William II officials began to take a more important role in central government. Arguably most important was the chief justiciar whose origins lay in the work of Ranulf Flambard under William II, developed under Roger of Salisbury and reached its apogee with Hubert Walter from 1193 to 1198. From Henry II’s time the office of chief justiciar was a great office of state and its incumbent had control over the Exchequer as well as virtually running the country in the king’s absence, so enabling English government to continue to flourish despite royal absenteeism. The office of chancellor also grew in importance from the reign of Henry II, developing under Richard and especially under John with Hubert Walter. At a lesser level, as government became increasingly centralised with the growth of systematic control over finances and centralisation of justice, officials were used in a wider range of capacities. For example, they were essential for recording proceedings when sheriffs were brought to render account at the Exchequer, or for the administration of writs, a growing practice especially fromHenry II’s reign, and were used in the great investigations into administrative, financial and judicial practices in the later part of the period. However, candidates may wish to argue that most of these changes began in the Anglo- Norman period and that subsequent changes were more ones of degree than kind. Moreover, however important their role became, even the greatest officials were still under the control of the king as Henry I’s dismissal of Flambard or Stephen’s dismissal of Roger of Salisbury demonstrates.

2 ‘The main turning point in the development of English common law in the period from 1066 to 1216 came in the reign of Henry II.’ How far do you agree with this judgement?

Henry II provided much of the impetus for the development of English common law and much of the machinery. For example, he made use of the returnable writ, professional justices, general eyres, grand and possessory assizes which, with their systematic procedure and popularity brought more business into the royal court, tightened up criminal law with the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, and made increasing use of juries. However, candidates should evaluate his work in the light of the contribution of other factors. Some may wish to argue that Henry II was building on earlier foundations such as the work of Henry I in using local justiciars, the unifying nature of Anglo-Saxon kingship, the Anglo-Saxon writ, and the shire and hundred courts, or the contributions of feudalism (well-established principles of tenure and feudal courts leading to more standardisation) or of canon law and the church courts whose practices eg sworn inquisitions, were adopted in royal courts. They may argue that any of these was the main turning point or that there was a number of equally important turning points.

3 ‘In the period from 1066 to 1216, the reasons for the periodic breakdown of English central government remained the same.’ To what extent do you agree with this analysis?

Candidates are likely to concentrate on the reigns of Stephen and John for this is when English central government came nearest to breakdown. Other rebellions did not lead even to relative breakdown of government, although some candidates may draw comparisons with reasons for other rebellions. There are certainly similarities between the causes in the reigns of Stephen and John. In both, personality played a part: Stephen was brave but unreliable and unable to see tasks through; John was also regarded by his barons as unreliable, opportunist and cruel. Inneither case did this encourage baronial loyalty. Baronial self-interest was a factor in both. Barons were suffering from the difficulties of having two overlords, in England and on the continent, and took steps to limit these. In both cases the king was present in England for most of the time, in contrast with the majority of kings of the period for whom absenteeism was commonplace. This meant that they, rather than their officials, bore the brunt of the resentment of their barons. In both the king failed to keep the support of the church. Stephen was deserted by Henry of Blois, the papal legate, whose initial support had been crucial to his accession and John was excommunicated and the country placed under interdict. However, there are also changes. Stephen’s disputed succession divided his barons from the start whereas John succeeded to the throne without a problem. Barons under Stephen tookadvantage of the prolonged civil war to build up their authority in their local areas whereas civil war was short-lived under John. Stephen’s involvement in Normandy meant that he was unable to concentrate fully on the developing situation in England. John’s loss of Normandy led to tension with the barons when he tried to raise taxes to fund his unpopular wars there. John was in part also being blamed for sixty years of strong Angevin rule. The main underlying reason for any rebellion was a failure in the essential cooperative relationship between the king and his barons.

Key Theme: Crown, Church and Papacy 1066-12284 ‘Personality was the main reason for the changing relations between kings and their archbishops of Canterbury.’ How far do you agree with this assessment in relation to the period from 1066 to 1228?

Personality seems to play a part in the changing relations. Whereas William I had a very good relationship with Lanfranc with both working together for the establishment of effective Norman rule and some church reform, Anselm and William Rufus quarrelled from the start over a range of issues including taxation, recognition of the pope and the quality of the Canterbury knights supplied by Anselm. That Anselm was later able to establish good working relations with Henry I might seem to lend weight to the personality argument. The Becket affair could also be seen as caused partly by Becket’s personality: his desire to play to the full the role of archbishop. However, candidates should also examine a range of other factors. On both sides principleswere important, especially when exposure to the growing church reform movement fractured the traditional perception of the relationship between church and monarch. Once Anselm’s return from exile brought England into contact with the Investiture Contest he was concerned to uphold its principles while the king was keen to preserve his traditional rights. William I and Lanfranc had not had this problem, as England had remained free then from Gregorian Reform. The Investiture Contest itself was no longer an issue after Anselm and Henry I established a compromise but other aspects of the growing power of the church were. Becket took a stand onthe treatment of criminous clerks and the power of ecclesiastical courts. Henry wanted to ensure just treatment of wrongdoers in the royal courts. Innocent III felt able to intervene in the Canterbury election because of the growth of papal power in the twelfth century and because, on grounds of church reform, he wanted a canonically elected and consecrated archbishop. John felt unable to accept an archbishop foisted on him. On the other hand, for some the main principle seems to have been cooperation with the king: this could explain Lanfranc’s and William’s relationship and also the good relations enjoyed by Richard I and Hubert Walter where Walter put concerns of government before the church. Some candidates may wish to point out that it is anyway very difficult to separate personality from other factors prompting individuals to act in a particular way.

5 ‘The reasons for papal intervention in English affairs were characterised far more by continuity than by change.’ To what extent do you agree with this assessment in relation to the period from 1066 to 1228?

Behind all papal intervention the main reason arguably remained the same: maintenance or strengthening of the papal position. Intervention would not have been possible without the advances in papal power made during the period as a result of the papal reform movement and each intervention was an opportunity for the pope to strengthen his authority further. However, there are variations in the more precise reasons for intervention. Political reasons play a part throughout the period. Gregory VII sent a legate to William I to persuade him to become his vassal; Alexander III threatened an interdict in the hope of resolving the Becket dispute; and Innocent III suspended Langton for refusing to excommunicate the rebellious barons. Church reform was also a factor throughout: Gregory VII’s attempt to summon Lanfranc to Rome was because he wished to promote Gregorian reform in England; over acentury later, Innocent III intervened in the Canterbury election because he wanted a canonically acceptable election, in line with the principles of church reform.Whether or not popes intervened to support archbishops or to undermine them seems to have depended on what most enhanced their interests at any given time. The pope supported Anselm against William Rufus in the interest of church reform Innocent II made Henry of Blois papal legate to undermine Canterbury since popes were becoming suspicious of primatial authority.Candidates will need to look at a range of examples and decide whether there is more continuity than change.

June 07 (legacy)

The Government of England 1066-12161 To what extent was Angevin government similar to that of the Anglo-Norman kings? [60]

Henry II maintained that he wanted to restore the Anglo-Norman government of his grandfather, Henry I, and there are certainly similarities. The office of chief justiciar had its origins in William II’s reign in the work of Ranulf Flambard, continued to develop in the hands of Roger of Salisbury and was very important in the Angevin period. The Exchequer originated in the Anglo- Norman period and continued in the Angevin, part of the mechanism of the systematic control of finance initiated by the Anglo-Normans. Sheriffs were made to render account at the Exchequer in the Anglo- Norman period as well as the Angevin. Increased control over justice, eyres, juries of presentment all dated from the Anglo-Norman period and were still in use in the Angevin. Above all, throughout the period there was a continued growth of centralisation. However, while the Exchequer continued to function in essentially the same way once it had been set up, and the Pipe Rolls which first appear under Henry I were still used in John’s reign, some aspects of government changed much more. Henry II virtually abolished the local justiciars which Henry I had used and made increasing use of assizes, with their innovatory standardised writs, to deal with crime and dispossession. From Henry II’s time the chief justiciar was a great office of state and continued to develop, reaching its height with Hubert Walter. Control ofsheriffs existed in the Anglo-Norman period but the great inquests of the Angevin period, 1170, 1194 and 1213, went even further in bringing royal officials into line in judicial, financial and administrative matters. The Chancery had existed in the reign of William I but it underwent great change becoming a great office of state and the

powerhouse for the rest of the government in the later Angevin period. Candidates may argue that despite similarities there were major developments in Angevingovernment compared with Anglo-Norman, and some innovation.

2 To what extent did English local government experience significant change during the period from 1066 to 1216? [60]

Some things stayed the same: shires and hundreds and their courts still existed, the sheriff was still a royal official in the shire, but there were changes, especially from William Rufus’ reign. There were repeated attempts to bring sheriffs firmly under central control, through regular accounting at the Exchequer and through inquests of sheriffs, particularly from 1170. The class of man appointed changed too, although in Stephen’s reign there was a temporary reversion to the older, more powerful sheriff. As their power decreased the amount of routine business they dealt with increased. Alongside changes to the sheriffs there was the development of the itinerant justice whose role in the shire grew. They participated in the general eyre, reported to the Exchequer and performed a range of other duties. Candidates may argue, however, that the biggest change was the growth of royal control over the localities with increased centralisation, and systematic control of finances, justice and administration. These changes began early and continued throughout the period.

3 ‘The main impact of the continental possessions of the crown on English central government was to strengthen it.’ Assess this claim in relation to the period from 1066 to 1216. [60]

The continental possessions of the crown brought with them for English government the fundamental problem of absentee kingship and how to deal with it effectively in an age of personal monarchy. The means developed to deal with this can be seen to have strengthened the crown. The need for someone to run the country in the king’s absence led to the development of the office of chief justiciar and to growth of bureaucratic government which functioned according to its rules whether the king was here or not. The expense of maintaining the possessions, or of trying to regain them, led to exploitation of financial rights with an impact on justice, and the development of an Exchequer at which local officials of the crown had to render account, so keeping them under control. Development of government institutions helped to strengthen the monarchy.However, the continental possessions, and attempts to regain them, also helped to lead to rebellion under Stephen and John. Trying to rule in both England and Normandy prevented Stephen from attending to priorities in England, so letting the situation deteriorate. Attempts to raise money for the war to regain Normandy helped to sour relations between John and his barons. Moreover, the very strength of the government developed by the Angevins in answer to the needs of absentee kingship bred such resentment among the barons that it eventually spilled over into rebellion in John’s reign. Thus candidates may argue that in strengthening English government the continental possessions also sowed the seeds of its collapse, for much of Angevin government was dismantled following the rebellion of 1215.

4 ‘Relations between kings and their archbishops of Canterbury were much worse under Henry II and his sons than under the Anglo- Norman kings.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? [60]

Candidates may well limit their answers to Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton as these are in the specification. They should not be penalised for this. However, credit

should be given to those candidates who make appropriate reference to other archbishops of Canterbury. Lanfranc enjoyed very good relations with William I as he supported him on the relative authority of church and state, helped William to use the church to establish Norman rule and got William’s backing in his claim to the primacy. Anselm and Henry I were able to reach a compromise over investiture so that it no longer posed a problem in England. Stephen initially enjoyed good relations with Theobald of Bec. In contrast, Henry’s relations with Becket as archbishop weredominated by their quarrel and John could not accept Langton until 1213. These examples suggest that relations were indeed worse under the Angevins than the Anglo-Normans. However, candidates may well point out that there are also examples of poor relations with Anglo-Norman kings and good ones with Angevin kings. Anselm and William II argued over a range of matters from the quality of the knights provided by Anselm to the recognition of the pope. Once Anselm was exposed to the full force of Gregorian reform while in exile, he found it impossible to accept the old notions of the relationship of church and state and this led to problems with Henry I until they reached a compromise in 1107. By contrast Henry II got on well with his archbishops before and after Becket and Richard had especially good relations with Hubert Walter.

5 How far does failure to resolve the primacy issue explain the changing relations between archbishops of Canterbury and York during the period from 1066 to 1228?

Failure to resolve the primacy issue once and for all was certainly one factor in the changing relations. York’s recognition of Canterbury’s primacy in 1072 was a personal recognition of Lanfranc. The dispute raged again in 1114 to 1115 and Canterbury’s later supremacy rested on the archbishop also being papal legate. While this was usually the case it was not always, so undermining Canterbury’s position. There were other factors which affected their relationship too. Papal intervention played a part for popes became increasingly determined to eradicate primatial authority and bring bishops under their centralised control. The pope’s support for Henry of Blois, making him papal legate, decreased Canterbury’s prestige and papal support for York in 1161 to 1162 weakened Canterbury’s primacy by giving York a series of privileges exempting him from Canterbury’s jurisdiction, although subsequently the pope confirmed the primacy in 1164. Politics also played a role. Henry II’s use of York instead of Becket to crown Young Henry led Becket eventually to publish papal bulls suspending York. In the later part of the period some of the rivalry went out of the relationship between Canterbury and York because both were having trouble with their own bishops which became a more pressing issue.

Jan 08 (legacy)

1 ‘The effectiveness of English central government depended mainly on the Church.’ How far do you agree with this assessment of the period from 1066 to 1216? [60] Focus: assessment of the importance of the church compared with other groups in the effectiveness of central government.

No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. Throughout the period there seems plenty of evidence that the effectiveness of English central government rested largely on the contribution of churchmen. Kings depended for their full royal authority on the coronation, performed by the archbishop of Canterbury, and Stephen’s very accession depended partly on the support not only of Canterbury but also Winchester and the papacy. Lanfranc helped William to establish Norman rule and Langton tried to mediate between John and the rebels which would have helped to restore more effective government. For much of the period effective government depended on establishing mechanisms which enabled it to function in the absence of the king, and churchmen were particularly significant here. The office of chief justiciar whose origins lay in the work of Ranulf Flambard, Bishop of Durham, and developed under Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, was in many ways the lynchpin of the administration, reaching its highest point in the hands of Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, who set in motion the largest administrative, financial and judicial investigation then seen. Walter was also responsible for the growth in importance of the office of chancellor in John’s reign. Particularly in the later part of the period these officials virtually ran the country in the king’s

absence. However, in order to access the highest bands, candidates should assess other possibilities too. Some may wish to argue that it was the work of individual churchmen which was so important to the effectiveness of government rather than the church as an institution and/or that these men were contributing to the smooth running of government in their capacity as royal officials rather than churchmen.

Moreover, throughout the period effective government also depended on the work of kings who gave the impetus to the growth of government centralisation and whose

reforms (eg those of Henry II) strengthened government. Effective government came closest to breaking down in times of weak kingship.

2 Assess the importance of feudalism in the development of English Common Law in the period from 1066 to 1216. [60] Focus: assessment of the importance of feudalism compared with other factors in the development of common law.

No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period.

Arguably, the rapid growth of feudalism after the Conquest was fundamental to the development of common law. William I’s distribution of land to his followers in return

for service led to the classification of different types of land-holding which was an essential prerequisite to the development of a standardised common law for cases

involving land- holding. In addition the growth of common feudal custom and of seignorial courts which tended to follow the same practices as each other also led to that increased standardisation which was the precursor to the growth of common law.

To reach the highest bands, however, candidates will need to assess these developments in comparison with a range of other factors. These could include the importance of Anglo-Saxon developments such as strong kingship which made it possible for the king to exercise effective authority over the country, hundred and

shire courts and the writ; the work of Henry I in using local justiciars and being involved in land cases, for example by directing that cases between tenants of

different lords should be heard in the shire court rather then honorial courts; and, perhaps most likely, the stimulus given to the development of common law by Henry II and the machinery established by him eg the possessory assizes, the returnable writ, use of professional justices, the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton which

tightened up criminal law, and general eyres. Some candidates might also assess the importance of Magna Carta which stated, for example, that no-one would be denied

or delayed justice, or of canon law and the church courts.

3 ‘The main turning-point in the impact of the continental possessions of the Crown on

English government came in the reign of William II.’ How far do you agree with

this judgement in relation to the period from 1066 to 1216? [60]

Focus: assessment of the relative importance of developments in the reign of William II compared with those at other times.


Two arguably very significant results of owning the continental possessions emerged in William II’s reign after his acquisition of Normandy as a mortgage in 1096: the need to

devise a system of government which could function in the absence of the king and the need for more systematically controlled and effectively exploited finances. This led to William’s

great official, Ranulf Flambard, becoming the forerunner of the chief justiciars who in later reigns were the key to this system of government, and to Flambard investigating tirelessly the

king’s revenues and supervising their collection, so in some ways fulfilling the role of the later exchequer. However, to reach the higher bands candidates need to assess other possible turning points too and to compare the importance of developments in William II’s reign with

these. They could argue that the main turning point came in Henry I’s reign when both the office of chief justiciar and the exchequer developed, or in that of Henry II who dealt with absentee kingship and the expense of maintaining the Angevin lands by imposing rigorous

government and justice and who took centralisation to new heights. Some may wish to argue that the main turning point was under William I when possession of the continental lands led

to the import of Norman ideas and particularly to the growth of feudalism, or even in the reigns of Stephen and John when the impact was negative in the form of tension which helped

to lead to baronial revolt.

4 To what extent did the role of archbishops of Canterbury change during the period from 1066 to 1228? [60] Focus: evaluation of the extent to which the role of archbishops of Canterbury changed.


Candidates will probably focus on the archiepiscopates of Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton as these are in the specification and this is perfectly acceptable, but

credit should be given to relevant reference to other archbishops. In some ways the role stayed the same: archbishops had a role in both the state and in the church, although some put more emphasis on one than the other. Throughout the period archbishops crowned kings and from Lanfranc to Langton there are examples of

archbishops being actively involved in government. For example, Lanfranc helped William to establish Norman rule, Walter effectively ran the country in Richard’s

absence and Langton attempted to mediate in the struggle between John and his barons. Most archbishops also supported and attempted to strengthen the church.

Lanfranc protected the English church from the excesses of Gregorian Reform while also introducing reforms of his own which brought it into the mainstream of the

European church and overseeing the beginnings of separate ecclesiastical justice. Anselm and Becket supported the rights of the church against royal authority, first in

the Investiture Contest and then over the issue of criminous clerks and the independence of church courts. On the other hand the emphasis placed on their

various roles varied from archbishop to archbishop. While Walter concentrated on government, Becket had no inclination to fulfil the political role which Henry had envisaged. Some even managed to weaken the church, albeit temporarily, for example through exile (Anselm), quarrel (Becket), or suspension (Langton).

Candidates may wish to argue that there was no pattern of change over the period. Answers in the higher bands will evaluate change in the context of continuity.

5 ‘More conflict than harmony.’ How far do you agree with this assessment of relations between the archbishops of Canterbury and York during the period from 1066 to 1228? [60] Focus: assessment of the degree of conflict compared with harmony in the relationship between Canterbury and York.


There were certainly periods of marked conflict between Canterbury and York. Some of this was caused by the unresolved primacy dispute which caused problems at the

beginning of Lanfranc’s archiepiscopacy when William, supported by Lanfranc, wanted subordination of York to Canterbury, and again in 1115 when Thurstan of

York refused to profess obedience to Canterbury. There was more ill-feeling during the Becket affair when, in 1161-2 for example, papal intervention granted York

privileges exempting him from Canterbury’s jurisdiction, and again shortly after when Henry II used the archbishop of York to crown Young Henry, so undermining the traditional position of Canterbury. Becket exacerbated the situation by publishing

papal bulls suspending York. However, there were also periods of relative harmony. York’s recognition of Lanfranc’s personal supremacy improved relations as did the

granting of legatine authority to Canterbury in 1125 which gave him superiority without resolving the primacy issue. Primacy was more of a bone of contention

during the Anglo-Norman than the Angevin period for it eventually became clear that the pope would not formally recognise the supremacy of Canterbury. Other negative factors helped to reduce conflict too. For example, Anselm’s concerns were with lay investiture and his resulting difficulties with the king rather than with York, while the problems of appointing a successor to Thurstan at York in Stephen’s reign, which

produced schism there, undermined the authority of the archbishop. Moreover, by the later part of the period both archbishops had trouble with their diocesan authority and this rather than rivalry over the primacy demanded their attention. By the end of the

period Langton’s problems were with the king and the pope rather than the archbishop of York. To reach the higher bands answers should assess the degree of

both conflict and harmony and draw a conclusion.

June 08 legacy

1 To what extent were the financial needs of kings the main reason for the changes in English central government during the period from 1066 to 1216? [60] Focus: assessment of the importance of the financial needs of kings compared with other factors in bringing about changes in central government.


With increasing costs of warfare and administration, one of the main concerns of kings was to maximise their revenues through the systematic exploitation of their

finances, and this led to the establishment of government machinery to enable this. The work of Ranulf Flambard and the development of the Exchequer in Henry I’s

reign, with sheriffs rendering regular account and the appearance of the first extant Pipe Roll, are indicative of the Anglo-Norman kings’ desire to control their finances. This continued under the Angevins with, for example, the great inquests of 1170, 1194 and 1213 which were partly intended to bring sheriffs under firmer control.

However, in order to access the higher bands, financial needs should be set against other reasons for the changes in government and compared. A major factor was the need to find a system of government which could function in the absence of the king

and this led to the development of the chief justiciar, the key figure in the administration, who eventually performed vicegerent duties. Candidates might also

point out that behind this lay the possession of the continental lands. Some may also argue that the Conquest was the main reason as this imported Norman ideas to build on Saxon foundations, including the growth of feudal government. Some may even

argue that the main changes came in the reign of Henry II and that these were

prompted, at least in part, by Henry’s determination to re-establish firm control after the problems of Stephen’s reign.

assessment of the role of feudalism in the military organisation of England during the period from 1066 to 1216? [60] Focus: assessment of the degree of the change in the role of feudalism in English military organisation. No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period.

Throughout the period it was possible to perform feudal service in person but it declined in importance and there is a marked contrast between its role at the

beginning of the period and at the end. Under William I feudal society was organised for war. Knights trained, did service in war, performed castle guard and escort duties. By John’s time, paid professional soldiers formed the bulk of the army and feudalism was essentially a system of landholding through which money was raised to pay for the professional soldiers. However, change was gradual and some candidates may argue that it was more of degree than kind. Even William I used mercenaries and

while Henry I reduced the length of knight service, indicating that he did not regard it as particularly important, kings right through the period made some use of the feudal levy, Richard ordering to Normandy with him in 1194 a third of the knights who owed

him service. Commutation of knight service and the collection of scutage are seen from William II’s reign, although they become far more common under the Angevins. John collected scutage about every eighteen months in contrast to Henry II’s four or

five years. The feudal host was never sufficient to supply all England’s military needs, even when England was the most feudal state in western Europe. In addition to the

feudal levy and mercenaries, all kings made use of household knights and other trained soldiers, maintained permanently in their households. To access the higher bands candidates will need to assess examples of both change and continuity in

reaching their judgement.

3 ‘The personalities of kings was the main reason why effective government came close to breaking down in the period from 1066 to 1216.’ To what extent do you agree with this assessment? [60] Focus: evaluation of the importance of personality compared with other factors in the breakdown of effective government.

No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. Effective government came close to breaking down only in the reigns of Stephen and John, so it seems reasonable to suppose that this resulted from something unique to

their reigns, and personality would appear to be an obvious answer. Neither was trusted by their barons; neither did anything to encourage baronial loyalty; Stephen was brave but unreliable and found difficulty in pursuing anything to its conclusion;

John could be cruel and opportunistic. Other rebellions, e.g., those in 1075, 1095 and 1173-4, which had the potential to undermine effective government did not do so

because they were dealt with, arguably thanks to the firm leadership provided by the kings concerned. However, personality was not the only factor that made it more

difficult for Stephen and John to preserve the working relationship between king and baron which was important in the effective exercise of government. Some candidates may point to the problems arising from the continental possessions. Under Stephen,

barons wished to limit the difficulties of having two overlords, in Normandy and in England, something which had not arisen since Robert’s mortgaging of Normandy to

William II, while John’s loss of Normandy and attempts to raise taxes for an unpopular war to regain it led to tension with the barons. Again, this is in marked contrast to the situation under Henry II and Richard. In addition, Stephen suffered

from the effects of a disputed succession and prolonged civil war which severely disrupted royal government, though not necessarily all effective government, in those areas held by Matilda. John’s presence in England arguably contributed to problems

of his reign as this meant that he attracted all the baronial animosity that might otherwise have been directed towards his chief justiciar. It is also possible to argue

that effective government came close to breaking down when barons rebelled in reaction to years of particularly strong government. Stephen’s reign followed those of William II and Henry I when Anglo-Norman government reached its height and John

followed years of strong Angevin rule. This could also be an explanation for the rebellions of 1075 (at least in part a reaction to extension of royal control in the

Marches), 1095 (in response to William II’s strong government) and the rebellion of 1173-4 (in answer to Henry II’s firm control.) To gain the higher bands candidates

must assess several factors and evaluate the role of personality in comparison with them.

‘Becket did more to strengthen the English Church than any other archbishop of Canterbury during the period from 1066 to 1228.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? [60] Focus: evaluation of the work of Becket compared with that of other archbishops in strengthening the church.

No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. Most candidates will probably limit their discussion to the work of Becket, Lanfranc, Anselm and Langton, as these are in the specification. No reference to any other archbishop is required although credit should be given if candidates make relevant reference. Becket was determined to defend the independence of the church and was prepared to stand up to royal authority during his prolonged quarrel with Henry II. His insistence on the clergy being tried only in ecclesiastical courts helped to strengthen those courts and to clarify areas of jurisdiction. His martyrdom, canonisation and Henry II’s subsequent penance at his shrine all helped to strengthen the reputation of the church. However, his achievements in these respects must be set against the damage which he did to the church: his quarrel with Henry gave the king the opportunity to try to bring the other bishops under his control, and also allowed the Pope scope to strengthen his control through more intervention.

To gain the higher bands candidates should also compare Becket’s work with the contribution of other archbishops. Langton’s inability to enter England until 1213 and

his subsequent suspension by the Pope made it difficult for him to strengthen the church and indeed, during his period as archbishop, the Pope placed England under

an interdict and the king sequestered church property. Lanfranc and Anselm, however, did more to build up the English church. Through his reforming councils,

Lanfranc brought greater unity to the English church and brought it into closer contact with the European while avoiding the excesses of the Investiture Contest. His close

work with William I helped to increase the power and prestige of the church and there was also the beginning of separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Anselm embroiled the church in the investiture dispute but eventually managed to achieve a compromise with Henry I, which went some way to increasing the independence of the church,

since Henry surrendered investiture with the ring and staff. Anselm’s reputation as a theologian also enhanced the prestige of the church. In addition, Archbishop

Theobald did much to promote canon law and, like Hubert Walter in Richard’s reign, enjoyed legatine authority which helped to bolster the power of the archbishop and thus his authority over the church. Despite his lack of zeal, Walter held councils to

improve discipline and to some extent restored stability in the church.

5 To what extent was the period from 1066 to 1228 one of increasing papal intervention in English affairs? [60] Focus: assessment of the extent of papal intervention in English affairs.

No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. There is a marked contrast between papal intervention at the beginning and at the end of the period. Whereas William I and Lanfranc successfully resisted Gregory VII’s attempts to persuade William to become a papal vassal, and Lanfranc to go to Rome in the cause of church reform, for much of the time John made little headway against Innocent III. Innocent successfully intervened in the Canterbury election imposing an archbishop unacceptable to the king. He excommunicated John, placed England under interdict, and later suspended Langton, so demonstrating the full force of papal authority. Even before this the papal legate had for some of Richard’s reign been in charge of the English church in the absence of the king and the archbishop. However, throughout the period it is also arguable that Popes intervened whenever they had the chance, in order to maintain or to strengthen their authority. Urban II involved himself in English affairs by supporting Anselm against William II; in Stephen’s reign the pope not only gave Stephen vital support in the disputed succession but later intervened to support Henry of Blois against the Archbishop of Canterbury, partly in the interests of enhancing papal power at the expense of that of the metropolitan. The Pope also intervened in the Becket dispute, threatening to place England under interdict.

Some candidates may wish to argue that it was not the extent of papal intervention that changed but how far Popes were successful. It is also arguable that intervention

became more dramatic as time went on as Popes themselves felt more secure thanks to advances in papal power as a result of papal reform. Candidates need to examine examples of both change and continuity in order to assess to what extent

there was increasing papal intervention.Jan 09 Legacy

1 ‘The role of the crown was the most important factor in the development of English central government during the period from 1066 to 1216.’ How far do you agree with this judgment? [60] Focus: assessment of the importance of the crown compared with other factors in the development of central government.

No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. Throughout the period kings played an important part in the development of central government. William I established Norman rule effectively. Subsequent kings recognised the need to develop government so that it could function effectively in times of the monarch’s absence abroad and appointed and dismissed those officials such as the chief justiciar (and its prototype in the time of Ranulf Flambard) and chancellor, for example Hubert Walter, who came to run government on a day to day level. William II, Henry I and Henry II in particular set in motion reforms which led to increased centralisation of government and a more rigorous judicial system. The importance of their role is arguably demonstrated by the relative weakness of government in times of weak kingship, especially under Stephen.

However, candidates need to assess the role of the crown in the context of other factors contributing to the development of central government. Some may argue that it was the success of officials such as Flambard, Roger of Salisbury, Longchamps,

Hubert Walter etc in fulfilling their roles which enabled government to develop. Some may emphasise the significance of absenteeism itself, or of the continental

possessions, as the driving force behind the financial and judicial reforms as kings

tried to maximise their finances through systematic control and centralised justice, and behind the development of the chief justiciar as a great office of state. At a lesser level these reforms led to increased use of officials, for example in the Exchequer or in the administration of writs, especially from Henry II‘s time. Others may point to the role of the church, or of churchmen, in the development of government as the leading

officials were also often churchmen.

2 Assess the view that the most significant developments in the growth of common law in the period from 1066 to 1216 happened before the reign of Henry II. [60] Focus: assessment of the importance of developments before Henry II’s reign compared with other factors in the growth of common law. No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period.

A number of developments before the reign of Henry II contributed to the growth of English common law. William I inherited the strong kingship of Anglo-Saxon England which enabled royal authority to be effective over the country, the Anglo-Saxon writ and the shire and hundred courts. To this he added the development of feudalism

which, with its distribution of land in return for service, led eventually to the development of a standardised common law for cases involving land-holding.

Moreover, increased standardisation which was essential to the growth of common law resulted from common feudal custom and seigneurial courts following common

practice. Henry I’s contributions included the use of local justiciars which promoted a common enforcement of the law and the redirection of some cases from honorial courts to the shire courts. Canon law and church courts also helped to develop a

common law in the period before Henry II’s accession. However, some candidates might well argue that Henry II provided much stimulus to the growth of common law and set up much of the machinery which made it effective. He helped to standardise and systematise procedure and bring more business into the royal courts through, for

example, the use of the returnable writ, the grand and possessory assizes, professional justices, general eyres, juries and the tightening up of the criminal law through the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton. Some candidates might also

point to the judicial clauses of Magna Carta to demonstrate that significant developments happened in the later part of the period too.

3 Assess the extent to which the continental possessions of the crown affected the conduct of English central government in the period from 1066 to 1216. [60] Focus: assessment of the importance of the continental possessions of the crown in causing the relative breakdown of government compared with other factors. No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period.

Although rebellions happened throughout the period government only came anywhere near to breaking down in Stephen’s reign and during the civil war in John’s reign and it is therefore likely that candidates will focus on these periods. Arguably, both the possession and the loss of the continental lands helped to cause rebellion

which brought the government close to breakdown. Stephen’s involvement in Normandy meant that he could not concentrate on the situation in England so that it

deteriorated. From 1144 barons also wished to limit the difficulties they were experiencing in having two overlords, one in England and one on the continent, and

this was a factor in their decisions during the civil war. This also caused difficulties for barons under John after 1204. In addition, John’s attempts to raise money for the

campaign to regain Normandy helped relations between him and his barons to deteriorate. Having lost their overseas lands both Stephen and John were present in

England for most of the time so incurring the resentment of their barons which might otherwise have been directed to their officials. Moreover, absenteeism as a result of the continental possessions had led the Angevins to develop particularly strong rule in England and baronial resentment of this helped to encourage the barons to rebel in 1215. On the other hand, all monarchs in the period had continental possessions

and they did not usually lead to even partial government collapse. Answers in the top bands will assess the importance of these factors but will also provide comparative

assessment by examining them in the context of a range of other factors which helped to bring government close to breakdown. These could include: baronial self-interest as barons took steps to safeguard their positions such as building up their

authority in Stephen’s reign in areas which had slipped from government control; loss of church support as Stephen was deserted by the papal legate, Henry of Blois, and John was excommunicated and England placed under interdict; or the personalities of the monarchs since Stephen’s inability to see things through to a conclusion and

John’s reputation for opportunism, cruelty and unreliability did little to build up baronial loyalty.

4 ‘Monarchical support was essential to the success of archbishops of Canterbury in strengthening the English Church.’ How far do you agree with this judgment in relation to the period from 1066 to 1228? [60] Focus: evaluation of the importance of monarchical support to archbishops’ success in strengthening the church. No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. Candidates will probably focus on the archiepiscopates of Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton as these are in the specification and this is perfectly acceptable, but credit should be given to relevant reference to other archbishops. Arguably the most successful archbishop of Canterbury in strengthening the church and the one who did least to weaken it in any way was Lanfranc who had the full support of William I. Together they increased the prestige of the church by making it an important factor in the establishment of Norman rule in England; with William’s support Lanfranc held reforming councils which brought greater unity to the church and he also brought it into closer contact with the European church while having no desire to undermine William’s authority by involving England in the investiture contest. William backed Lanfranc over the primacy and also allowed the development of separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Anselm’s compromise with Henry I over investiture in 1107 meant that the church benefited from increased independence since Henry relinquished investiture with the ring and the staff and because the investiture conflict itself caused no further problem in England. By contrast, there is evidence that lack of monarchical support could lead to relative archiepiscopal failure. Anselm’s poor relations with William II led to his exile which weakened his authority over the church for a while, and Becket’s quarrel with Henry II allowed the king to try to control the bishops and allowed the pope to increase his control so undermining the independence of the English church. Langton, whom John was unable to accept and who could not enter England until 1213, had least opportunity to strengthen the church.

However, better answers will recognise that the situation was less clear cut. Anselm’s exile brought him into contact with the full force of Gregorian reform ideas on investiture so that on his return to England in 1100 he was keen to uphold the

church’s rights and independence. Becket was also an ardent supporter of the rights of the church who, through his determined stance against Henry II, helped to strengthen ecclesiastical courts and through his martyrdom and canonisation

increased the reputation of the church. Sometimes archbishops achieved success irrespective of the support or otherwise of the monarch: for example, Anselm’s

reputation as a theologian, Theobald’s promotion of canon law and Walter’s legatine authority all helped to further the power and prestige of the church.

5 ‘There was more continuity than change in the relationship between the archbishops of Canterbury and the archbishops of York.’ How far do you agree with this judgement in relation to the period from 1066 to 1228? [60] Focus: assessment of the degree of continuity and change in the relationship between archbishops of Canterbury and other members of the English episcopate. No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period.

Throughout the period two factors meant that the archbishops of Canterbury had no automatic superiority or authority over the archbishops of York and to this extent, at a formal level, there is continuity in their relations. There was no unequivocal resolution of the primacy issue and no guarantee of papal support for Canterbury’s position as popes were determined to eradicate primatial authority and bring bishops under their own control. However, the impact of these underlying factors was not consistent. At

times relations between Canterbury and York were good: Lanfranc achieved personal recognition of his supremacy over York in 1072 and the pope’s granting of

legatine authority to Canterbury in 1125 helped to improve relations as it gave Canterbury supremacy without recognising his primacy. However, at other times

relations were much worse, for example in 1115 when Thurstan of York refused to recognise the primacy of Canterbury. Other factors also affected their relationship.

Papal support for York, as during the Becket affair, could weaken Canterbury’s position vis a vis York. Appointing someone else as papal legate, as with Henry of

Blois, also affected Canterbury’s authority and hence his relations with York. Relations between Canterbury and York dipped when Canterbury was in exile, as with Anselm or Becket, or unable to enter the country (Langton). Political problems

also affected relations. Difficulties over appointing a successor to Thurstan at York in Stephen’s reign led to schism which undermined the authority of York while Henry II’s use of York to crown Young Henry enhanced his authority and infuriated Becket. By the thirteenth century the heat had gone out of the arguments between Canterbury

and York as both archbishops had more problems with their own provincials. To gain the higher bands candidates should assess the degree of continuity and change and

reach an overall conclusion.

How successful was papal intervention in English affairs in the period from 1066 to 1228? [60] Focus: evaluation of the extent of popes’ success in intervening in English affairs. No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and address the theme over the full period. Popes had a number of reasons for intervention: furthering church reform; undermining primatial authority because they felt it detracted from theirs; political reasons; and perhaps fundamentally, imposing their will in order to both demonstrate and enhance papal power over church and monarch.

At the beginning of the period Gregory VII had little success in intervening in English affairs once William had sailed for England flying the papal banner. Lanfranc

steadfastly refused the summons to Rome, so avoiding exposure to Gregorian reform, and William resisted Gregory’s attempts to persuade him to become a papal vassal. By the end of the period Innocent III was much more successful in imposing

his will on England: he placed England under an interdict and excommunicated John. John eventually extricated himself from the predicament Innocent had created by

recognising Innocent’s appointee as archbishop of Canterbury and offering England

as a papal fief. Innocent later demonstrated his power again by suspending Langton. This was a more successful and dramatic series of interventions than any before. However, there were examples of successful papal action throughout the period. Popes had some success in promoting church reform, e.g. through support for Anselm against William II which eventually resulted in Anselm’s bringing the

investiture dispute to England and its resolution in the form of a compromise by which the king lost some of his power. Weakening of primatial authority was

successful in the short term e.g. supporting Henry of Blois against Canterbury, although the archbishop did not lose his power in the long term. Popes were able to

extend their influence over legal cases by encouraging appeals to Rome e.g. in Stephen’s reign. There were also less successful interventions: threatening to place England under interdict in the Becket dispute did not bring resolution of the quarrel. Candidates need to evaluate a range of examples in the context of their definition of

papal success.

Jan 2010 legacy

1 ‘The most important change in English central government in the period from 1066 to 1216 was the development of the office of chief justiciar.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? [60] Focus: Assessment of the relative importance of the development of the office of chief justiciar compared with other changes in English central government From its origins in the role played by Ranulf Flambard in William Rufus’ reign, through its explicit development in the time of Henry I, to its full expression under Hubert Walter, the office of chief justiciar was increasingly important. It was part of the mechanism by which English government could function with an absentee king. By the reign of Henry II the justiciar was a great officer of state having both vicegerent duties and presiding over the Exchequer. However, developments in the Exchequer itself, with the holding of annual accounts and the recording of them in the Pipe Rolls, for example, were essential to the systematic control and exploitation of finance which was so important to effective government in the period. Candidates could also argue that the most important changes were in Henry II’s reign with the judicial innovations such as the use of assizes eg novel disseisin or mort d’ancestor, and the general eyre. Some candidates may wish to point out that the development of the office of chief justiciar was, like the other major changes, just part of the whole growth of centralisation and bureaucratic government throughout the period. Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

2 ‘In the period from 1066 to 1216, England’s military needs were never completely met by feudalism.’ To what extent do you agree with this judgement? [60] Focus: Evaluation of the role of feudalism in meeting England’s military needs

If feudalism were ever to have answered England’s military needs it would have been in the years following the Norman Conquest when England was the most feudal kingdom in Western Europe. However, even William I supplemented the feudal host with mercenaries. Although it remained possible to do military service throughout the period, increasingly kings relied less on the host and more on paid service. Henry I decreased the length of knight service, Henry II hired mercenaries for preference and by John’s reign, feudalism was predominantly a system of land-holding rather than the solution to England’s military requirements. Most candidates are likely to agree with the statement but should be able to see the key moments of continuity and change over time. Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

3 ‘The main turning-point in the development of English common law in the period from 1066 to 1216 came in the reign of Henry II.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? [60] Focus: Assessment of the relative importance of developments in the reign of Henry II compared with other factors in the development of English common law

Henry II provided much of the impetus for the development of English common law and much of the machinery. For example, he made use of the returnable writ, professional justices, general eyres, grand and possessory assizes which, with their systematic procedure However, candidates should evaluate his work in the light of the contribution of other factors. Some may wish to argue that Henry II was building on earlier foundations such as the work of Henry I in using local justiciars, the unifying nature of Anglo-Saxon kingship, the Anglo-Saxon writ, and the shire and hundred courts, or the contributions of feudalism (well-established principles of tenure and feudal courts leading to more standardisation) or of canon law and the church courts whose practices eg sworn inquisitions, were adopted in royal courts. They may argue that any of these was the main turning-point or that there was a number of equally important turning-points. Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

4 To what extent were the policies of Innocent III towards England typical of popes during the period from 1066 to 1228? [60] Focus: Assessment of how typical Innocent III’s policies were in comparison with those of others Innocent III intervened in the Canterbury election, placed England under an interdict, suspended Langton and excommunicated John and received England as a papal fief. He thus went further in demonstrating papal power over England than any previous pope. However, the policies behind this intervention were not dissimilar to those of other popes. Innocent’s insistence that the Canterbury monks re-elect was in order to ensure a canonically sound election, in line with church reform principles. Likewise, Gregory VII’s attempt to persuade Lanfranc to go to Rome had been in the cause of church reform as had Urban II’s intervention to support Anselm against William II. The suspension of Langton was for political reasons in the baronial rebellion: he refused to excommunicate the rebels while the pope supported the king. Similarly the pope intervened for political reasons in the Becket dispute,

threatening to place England under interdict in order to bring resolution to the conflict, and Gregory VII’s motives were partly political in sending a legate to persuade William I to become a papal vassal. The main reason behind these interventions is arguably the pope’s determination to strengthen his own position, either over the church or in relation to the monarchy, or both. This can also account for other examples of intervention, for example, papal support for Stephen, or undermining Canterbury in favour of Henry of Blois. Candidates may argue that in spite of some differences there was much similarity in reasons for intervention throughout the period. Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

5 To what extent did the relationship between kings and their archbishops of Canterbury deteriorate in the period from 1066 to 1228? [60] Focus: Assessment of the nature of the relationship between kings and archbishops of Canterbury

Comparisons of the harmonious relations enjoyed by Lanfranc and William the Conqueror and the hostility between John and Langton suggests that there was a

deteriorating relationship during the period. This is further supported by the animosity between William Rufus and Anselm and the Becket quarrel. However, it was not a picture of steady decline: Henry I and Anselm were able to reach a compromise; Theobald of Bec initially supported Stephen; Richard enjoyed good relations with

Hubert Walter; and Langton tried to mediate between John and the barons. Indeed the lowest point in relations was not at the end of the period but arguably during the Becket affair. There were thus not only changes in the relationship but these did not

follow a consistent pattern of decline. and popularity, brought more business into the royal court, tightened up criminal law with the Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, and made

increasing use of juries.‘The growing power of the Church was the main reason for changes in the

administration of church law in the period from 1066 to 1228.’ How far do you agree with this assessment? [60] Focus: Relative evaluation of reasons for changes in church law

The growing power of the Church led to developments in canon law and a greater definition of areas of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Becket’s stand over criminous clerks,

itself an expression of the growing power of the Church, led eventually to the acceptance of the idea that they could be tried only in the ecclesiastical courts. By

1200, there had also been considerable clarification of the sort of cases which were to be settled in the church courts. Another aspect of the growing power of the Church was the growth of the pope’s authority as a result of the papal reform movement and this made it increasingly attractive to appeal to Rome as the ultimate court of appeal.

Popes were often canon law specialists, which further encouraged the growth of appeals. However, some factors were more political eg the confusion of Stephen’s

reign also enabled appeals to Rome to proliferate. Earlier, Lanfranc’s good relations with William I led to William allowing some separate ecclesiastical justice, which in

turn laid the foundations for church courts, which then widened their activities later in the period.

June 2010 legacy

1 ‘The effectiveness of English central government depended mainly on the

Throughout the period there seems plenty of evidence that the effectiveness of English central government rested largely on the contribution of churchmen. Kings depended for their full royal authority on the coronation, performed by the archbishop of Canterbury, and Stephen’s accession depended partly on the support not only of Canterbury but also Winchester and the papacy. Lanfranc helped William to establish Norman rule and Langton tried to mediate between John and the rebels which would have helped to restore more effective government. Effective government depended on establishing mechanisms which enabled it to function in the absence of the king, and churchmen were particularly significant here. The office of chief justiciar was in many ways the lynchpin of the administration, reaching its highest point in the hands of Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, who set in motion the largest administrative, financial and judicial investigation then seen. In order to access the highest bands, candidates should assess other possibilities. Some may wish to argue that it was the work of individual churchmen rather than the Church as an institution and/or that these men were contributing to the smooth running of government in their capacity as royal officials rather than churchmen. Moreover, effective government also depended on the work of kings who gave the impetus to the growth of centralisation and whose reforms strengthened government.

2 ‘The most significant development in English local government in the period from 1066 to 1216 was changes in the role of the sheriff.’ How far do you agree with this view? [60]

Although the sheriff remained a royal official throughout the period, and although his role grew for a while under Stephen, for much of the period the sheriff was declining in importance. Increasingly he was held to account regularly at the Exchequer and the great inquests of sheriffs in 1170, 1194 and 1213 made it clear that he was under royal control. As his power diminished his routine business grew. On the other hand, for example, the role of the itinerant justices in the shire developed. In the Norman period they went on general eyre, carrying out a range of judicial duties and reporting local information to the Exchequer. In Henry II’s reign and again in Richard’s, they were used to investigate all royal officials in the shire, including the sheriffs. Candidates may wish to argue that this was more significant. These changes, however, are symptomatic of a larger change taking place in local government: the attempt by the crown to centralise it and bring justice, finance and administration more firmly under royal control. Already by Henry II’s reign royal government had firmly laid its stamp on the shires and this grew under Richard and John.Some candidates may argue in favour of this as the most significant development.

3 ‘The continental possessions of the crown made their greatest impact on English government in the reign of Henry I.’ How far do you agree with this view in relation to the period from 1066 to 1216? [60]

Arguably the main impact of the continental possessions on English government was the need to find a system of government which functioned in the absence of the king abroad. The battle of Tinchebrai in 1106 brought the whole Norman inheritance into the hands of Henry I and under him the office of chief justiciar, part of the mechanism of this system of government, was developed. A further result of owning the continental lands was the need for systematically controlled and exploited finances and again this reached its Anglo-Norman height under Henry I. However, candidates could also point out that both of these aspects originated in William Rufus’ time when he acquired Normandy as a mortgage in 1096 and that Henry merely continued their development. These developments should be set against those in the reign of William the Conqueror when the main impact of the continental possessions was the establishment of a feudal state and the import of Norman ideas, and against Henry II’s strategies to deal with absentee kingship and the expense of maintaining the Angevin lands: increased centralisation, rigorous royal justice and strict government. Some candidates may wish to argue that the main impact is seen in the reigns of Stephen and John when tensions caused by continental possessions played apart in baronial revolt.

4 How far was the role of Lanfranc typical of archbishops of Canterbury in the period from 1066 to 1228? [60]

Lanfranc enjoyed harmonious relations with the king, made the Church an important factor in the imposition of Norman rule, supplied clear leadership which increased its power and prestige, and ushered in church reform and the beginnings of separate ecclesiastical justice, although he was prepared to allow William to take the initiative here. Other archbishops had good relations with their monarchs or increased the power of the Church in other ways eg Anselm’s reputation as a theologian helped to increase the prestige of the Church and his, and later Becket’s, insistence on ecclesiastical rights led eventually to gains for the Church. On the other hand, there were periods when archbishops were less supportive of kings and when their actions damaged the Church: Anselm’s exile reduced the influence of the English Church; the quarrel with Becket led Henry II to try to bring the bishops to heel; and the suspension of Langton undermined the independence of the English Church in relation to the Papacy.

6 ‘More conflict than harmony.’ How far do you agree with this assessment ofrelations between the archbishops of Canterbury and York during the period from 1066 to 1228? [60]

There were certainly periods of conflict between Canterbury and York. Some of this was caused by the unresolved primacy dispute which caused problems during Lanfranc’s archiepiscopacy when William wanted subordination of York to Canterbury, and again in 1115 when Thurstan of York refused to profess obedience to Canterbury. There was illfeeling during the Becket affair when in 1161-2 papal intervention granted York privileges exempting him from Canterbury’s jurisdiction, and again shortly after when Henry II used the archbishop of York to crown young Henry, so undermining the traditional position of Canterbury. Becket exacerbated the situation by publishing papal bulls suspending York. However, there were also periods of relative harmony. York’s recognition of Lanfranc’s personal supremacy improved relations as did the granting of legatine authority to Canterbury in 1125, which gave him superiority without resolving the primacy issue. Other negative factors helped to reduce conflict too. Anselm’s concerns were with lay investitureand his resulting difficulties with the king rather than with York while the problems ofappointing a successor to Thurstan at York in Stephen’s reign, which produced schism there, undermined the authority of the archbishop. Moreover, by the later part of the period, both archbishops had trouble with their diocesan authority and this rather than rivalry over the primacy demanded their attention. By the end of the period Langton’s problems were with the king and the pope rather than with the archbishop of York. Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

Jan 2010

1 Assess the view that reasons for rebellion remained the same in the period from 1066 to 1216. [60]

Rebellions happened at times across the period. They include those from 1066 to 1070, 1075-6, 1088, 1095, the rebellion against Stephen which ended in civil war, the Great Rebellion of 1173-4 and rebellion against John from 1215-6. Examiners should not expect equal treatment of all of these.

Some reasons for rebellion are seen throughout the period and, although they are not all present in all rebellions, rebellions were multi-causal. Reasons include support for an alternative ruler. This is seen in 1088 when Odo of Bayeux supported Robert of Normandy instead of William II, in 1095 when the rebels planned to replace William with his nephew Stephen, in the civil war in Stephen’s reign when some of the barons supported Matilda’s claim, and in the 1173-4 rebellion where rebels supported Young Henry. The strength of royal government was also a cause of rebellion: in 1075-6 Roger of Hereford balked at William’s sending sheriffs to hear pleas on his marcher lands; in 1095 Robert of Mowbray resented royal interference in his fief; one of the reasons for the 1173 rebellion was the tension caused by 20 years of strong government and 40 years later, reaction to the strength of Angevin rule was an important factor in the rebellion against John. Some barons rebelled because of the problems caused by the continental possessions, especially the difficulty of serving two different lords. This is seen in 1088 when barons were faced with the prospect of serving Robert of Normandy for their lands in Normandy and William II for their English lands, and from 1144 in Stephen’s reign. Continental possessions

caused other problems too, especially the heavy taxation needed to retain them, a possible factor in the rebellion against Henry II, or to try to win them back, certainly a factor in the rebellion against John. Behind much of this, throughout the period, lay baronial self interest, the belief that barons’ rights were being undermined in some way, as can be seen from some of the clauses of Magna Carta, and/or that they could win better personal rewards from another ruler. However, there are also reasons which apply only to specific rebellions. Those from 1066 to 1070 were reactions to the invader. The 1088 rebellion and that against Stephen were partly the result of disputed succession. The rebellion against John was prompted partly by military failure abroad. The rebels of 1215 also arguably took up arms not only against Angevin government but because they wished to enforce some regulation of the king’s rights. The best responses are likely to be analytical examinations of a range of reasons, looking at both continuity and change, and evaluating how consistent they were across the period. They will probably point to the multi-causal nature of all rebellions but might also examine how far there is a change in emphasis on particular reasons in different rebellions. Most candidates will deal with a number of rebellions, analysing reasons and reaching a conclusion. Weaker responses will probably do this sequentially, typically describing rebellions and then deducing reasons. Least effective responses are likely to deal with only continuity or change and a very limited range of rebellions.

'They were never fully in control of the English Church.' How far do you agree with this view of the archbishops of Canterbury in the period from 1066 to 1216? [60]

Most candidates will probably limit their answers to Lanfranc, Anselm , Becket and Langton and this is acceptable as these are the only archbishops mentioned in the specification. However, credit should be given for relevant reference to others such as Theobald or Hubert Walter. Candidates are likely to argue that there is plenty of evidence for lack of control over the Church by archbishops of Canterbury. Absence through exile as in the case of Anselm or Becket, or inability to enter England in the case of Langton, reduced the amount of control they could exercise. There was also no unequivocal resolution of the primacy issue. There was recognition of Lanfranc's personal primacy but as Thurstan of York's refusal to profess obedience to Canterbury in 1115 demonstrated, this remained a problem. This was usually resolved by the pope granting legatine authority to Canterbury but this was not automatic, as when Henry of Blois was made papal legate instead of the archbishop. By the later twelfth century, Canterbury's primacy did not confer much real power over the Church, and at times both Canterbury and York were made papal legates in their own provinces. Archbishops' authority was deliberately undermined by popes who wished to eradicate primatial control in order to maximise their own authority over the Church and who took advantage of the prevailing English situation to do so as occurred under Becket and Langton. Popes also encouraged appeals to Rome (eg in Stephen's reign) which further reduced archbishops' control. Archbishops sometimes suffered lack of support from their own bishops. For example, Becket's quarrel with Henry II lost him

the support of some of his bishops such as Foliot. In Stephen's reign the divided government of the English Church caused problems between Archbishop Theobald and Henry, Bishop of Winchester. Henry II later took the opportunity to weaken Becket's authority by having York instead of Canterbury crown Young Henry. Monasteries also created problems for archbishops as they tried to free themselves from archiepiscopal control eg the Canterbury monks. Good responses should examine a range of evidence, recognising that Canterbury's lack of control was not consistent. Most candidates are likely to discuss the degree of control exercised by Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton in turn before reaching a judgement. Weaker answers may be characterised by partial treatment of just a few archbishops.

3 How far was the impact of the papal reform movement in England from 1066 to 1216 characterised more by change than by continuity? [60]

The papal reform movement led to increased papal power and it is this which had an impact in England. There was considerable change in the extent of the impact of the papal reform movement. It had very little impact under William I and Lanfranc when William refused to become a papal vassal and Lanfranc refused Gregory’s summons to Rome. By the thirteenth century, the power of the pope had increased so much as a result of the papal reform movement that Innocent III was able to impose an archbishop of Canterbury unacceptable to the king, excommunicate John, place England under an interdict and go on to suspend Langton, so demonstrating papal power over both the English monarch and the church. There were also changes in the nature of the impact. In the reigns of William II and Henry I its main manifestation was through the Investiture Contest which resulted in a compromise in 1107 in which the king lost investiture with ring and staff. Under Stephen the growing power of the papacy led to more appeals to Rome. At times the main impact could be seen as attempts by popes to further their power by undermining primatial authority, eg by making Henry of Blois papal legate or by supporting York against Becket. At other times worsening relations between kings and their archbishops could be regarded as the main impact: for example, relations between Anselm and Henry I deteriorated because of the Investiture Contest and the quarrel between Becket and Henry II was prompted partly by the papal reform movement’s encouragement of ideas of separate ecclesiastical justice. It is likely that most candidates will examine these changes and possibly conclude that change was more noticeable than continuity. Weaker answers might tend to deal with the changes chronologically.

However, candidates might also argue that the impact of the papal reform remained essentially the same throughout most of the period. It was characterised by increased freedom of the church from royal control starting with Investiture Contest, increased papal authority over the king, the archbishop and the English church as a whole, and, although not consistently, at times throughout the period after William I and Lanfranc when it led to poor relations between kings and their archbishops. Stronger responses will be aware of both change and continuity and will evaluate the relative strength of each, reaching a substantiated conclusion. Some might well point out that although there was much consistency in the nature of the impact the emphasis was on different aspects at different times.

June 2010- Answer this

‘The king’s absence abroad was the most important factor in the development of English central government in the period from 1066 to 1216.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? [60]

The possession of the continental lands, first in Normandy and then in the Angevin Empire, led throughout the period to absenteeism by English kings and the need to devise a system of government which could function in their absence. The office of chief justiciar developed as the answer to this. Originating in the role played by Ranulf Flambard, developing under Roger of Salisbury in the reign of Henry I, and reaching its height in the Angevin period when chief justiciar was a great office of state, the chief justiciar effectively ran the country in the king’s absence, exercising vicegerent duties. Absenteeism led to increased bureaucracy, and the development of the chancery in its support, the chancellor being the greatest official in the later Angevin period. However, candidates should evaluate the importance of absence abroad in relation to other factors in the development of central government.

Some may argue that financial needs were more important. Increased costs of warfare and administration made kings keen to maximise their revenues through the systematic exploitation of finances and the development of the machinery to enable this. Ranulf Flambard’s investigation of the king’s revenues and supervision of their collection, the development of the Exchequer in Henry I’s reign, sheriffs rendering regular account and the records kept in the Pipe Rolls are all examples of this. To

ensure the efficiency of the system, sheriffs were repeatedly brought into line under the Angevins through the great inquests of 1170, 1194 and 1213. Justicecould also be profitable and Henry I’s and Henry II’s judicial reforms can be seen partly as an attempt to maximise finances through centralised justice. Responses could also include the Conquest, as this led to a fusion of Norman ideas, including feudal government, and Saxon foundations,

Henry II’s desire to reassert control after Stephen’s reign, the success of officials in carrying out their roles so that central government was able to develop, or the role of churchmen as leading officials. It is likely that less good responses will describe some of these changes or deal only with the king’s absence. Most candidates will probably deal with absence and at least one other factor and attempt some comparison.

Better answers are likely to deal with a wider range of evidence, compare and reach a conclusion.

2 To what extent was the development of English common law in the period from 1066 to 1216 dependent on the work of Henry II? [60]

Henry II established much of the machinery which made English common law effective and provided much of the impetus for its growth. The Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton which tightened up criminal law, the use of returnable writs, possessory assizes, general eyres, professional justices, juries all helped to standardise procedure and to bring more cases into the royal courts so that there was less variety in the justice on offer, and a much more systematic approach. Less good responses might simply describe the work of Henry II in developing common law and assert its importance. However, most candidates will probably recognise the need not only to examine this but to place it in the context of other factors and evaluate. Developments essential to the growth of common law happened before Henry II. William I inherited strong Anglo-Saxon kingship which enabled the king’s authority to be exercised effectively over the country, a prerequisite for the exercise of a common law, shire and hundred courts across the country and the writ. The growth of feudalism under William led to his classification of different types of land-holding which was essential to the development of a common law for land-holding cases. Standardisation was also encouraged by the growth of feudal custom and seigneurial courts tending to adopt common practices. Henry I also contributed to common law by his use of local justiciars which promoted common enforcement of

the law and his insistence on cases between different tenants being heard in the shire courts rather than honorial courts. Canon law and church courts also helped to develop common law as did the judicial clauses of Magna Carta.

Candidates might well argue that Henry II was only building on the foundationsalready laid. The best answers are likely to pick up on the idea of ‘dependent’ in theirevaluation and comment on it.

3 Assess the view that archbishops of Canterbury had better relationships with the papacy than with the crown in the period from 1066 to 1216. [60]

Most candidates will probably limit their answer to Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton as these are in the specification and this is perfectly acceptable. However, credit should be given to relevant reference to other archbishops eg Theobald or Hubert Walter. There is certainly evidence of archbishops enjoying much better relations with the papacy than with kings. Anselm argued with William II over a number of things including the quality of the Canterbury knights and recognition of the pope and went into exile because of it. He also argued for a while with Henry I over investiture and the power and authority of the church. By contrast he was supported by Urban II. Becket’s archiepiscopacy was dominated by his quarrel with Henry I over the trial of criminous clerks in royal courts while he was supported, at least initially, by the pope who even threatened to place England under an interdict in an attempt to bring the quarrel to an end. Innocent III was so determined to have Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury that he was prepared to excommunicate John and place England under interdict. Since John could not accept this rejection of his traditional rights it was impossible for Langton to enter England until 1213.Langton’s difficult relationship with the king was later exemplified by his support for the barons. It is possible that weaker responses will simply describe a range of examples to illustrate archbishops enjoying better relationships with the papacy than with the crown, or possibly vice versa.

However, most candidates will probably show that there are also examples of relations being better with the king than with the pope. The most obvious example is that of William I and Lanfranc who worked harmoniously to promote both Norman rule and church reform, as well as Lanfranc getting William’s backing over his claim to the primacy. Lanfranc resisted Gregory VII’s summons to Rome and kept England out of the Investiture Contest at a time when the papacy was keen to promote its view of the relationship of church and state. Theobald of Bec supported Stephen and thus helped him to become king. Richard and Hubert Walter enjoyed very good relations. Even Anselm managed to reach a compromise with Henry II in 1107, after which the Investiture Contest ceased to be a contentious issue in England. In contrast, popes sometimes deliberately undermined archbishops such as giving support to Henry of Blois instead of Canterbury, or to York instead of Becket. Innocent so changed his position regarding Langton that he suspended him while Langton’s relationship with John improved as he released him from excommunication and tried to mediate between John and the barons. The best responses will examine a range of evidence from across the period and evaluate, reaching a supported conclusion.

January 2011

1 Assess the view that possession of continental lands by the Crown weakened English central government in the period from 1066 to 1216.

There were a number of ways in which possession of the continental lands could have weakened English central government. Possession of Normandy and, later, of the Angevin Empire, brought the fundamental problem of how to deal with absentee kingship in an age of personal monarchy. The cost of maintaining or trying to regain the overseas lands was considerable and put a strain on the royal finances. The continental possessions were partly responsible for rebellion under Stephen and John. The English situation deteriorated while Stephen concentrated on Normandy and later, barons wanted to limit the difficulties they faced in having two overlords, a factor in the civil war under Stephen. This also created problems for John after 1204, and his attempts to raise money to campaign to recover Normandy helped to worsen relations with his barons, coming to a head in the civil war of 1215.

However, candidates might well argue that English central government was not significantly weakened by most of these things. Absentee kings led to the development of bureaucratic government which could function effectively without the king, including the office of chief justiciar which from its prototype in the time of

Ranulf Flambard rose to be a great office of state under Hubert Walter who ran the country in the king’s absence, and to the strengthening of the office of chancellor in the later Angevin period. The cost of maintaining or trying to regain the continental possessions was responsible for the exploitation of financial rights and justice which in turn led to much more control over royal officials such as sheriffs who had to render regular account at the Exchequer. These developments strengthened rather than weakened English government. Candidates could also argue that even rebellion in Stephen’s reign did not weaken government in the long run as this, together with the continual need to meet the expenses of running his large empire, led to Henry II’s increased centralisation, including his introduction of the possessory assizes which brought in extra money and enhanced royal justice. Some might also add that William I’s introduction of Norman ideas, including feudalism, helped to strengthen the government of England.

Weaker responses are likely to concentrate on ways in which the overseas possessions either weakened or strengthened government, typically rejecting the view in the question. Most candidates will probably deal with both and reach a reasoned conclusion. The best candidates might well point out that, in the end, the continental possessions did help to weaken central government since the very strength of the system developed to deal with them became one of the causes of the rebellion against John, and much of it was overthrown after 1215.

2 To what extent did English local government change in the period from 1066 to 1216?

In some ways English local government remained the same throughout the period. The main units, the shire and the hundred, retained their courts and the sheriff remained a royal official in the shire. However, while at the beginning of the period, and again temporarily in Stephen’s reign, the sheriff was a man of status in his own right, for most of the period the sheriff’s role was declining in importance. At least from Henry I’s reign the sheriff was required to render regular account at the Exchequer and the great inquests of sheriffs in 1170, 1194 and 1213 show the crown’s determination to keep sheriffs under royal control. As his status declined so he was more involved in routine business. By contrast, itinerant justices grew in importance, being sent into the shires on general eyre, reported local information to the Exchequer and carried out various judicial duties. In the Angevin period they were used to investigate all royal officials in the shire. It is likely that weaker candidates will describe these changes, possibly adopting a chronological approach.

Better responses might well examine the increasing centralisation of local government which went on throughout the period and see the changes in the position of the sheriff and itinerant justices as examples of this. Kings were keen to extend

royal control over the localities with increasingly centralised collection of finance, extension of royal justice in the shires and increasingly centralised administration.

The best responses are likely to look at examples of both change and continuity, and reach a nuanced judgement on the extent of change.

3 ‘Relations between kings and their archbishops of Canterbury grew steadily worse in the period from 1066 to 1216.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? [60]

Most candidates will probably limit their discussion to Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton as these are in the specification. It is not necessary to mention any other archbishop. However, candidates who make relevant reference to others, typically Theobald and Hubert Walter, should be given credit.

A comparison of Lanfranc’s excellent relations with William I at the beginning of the period, with Langton’s largely very poor relations with John at the end, suggests that there was a steady deterioration in relations between kings and archbishops of Canterbury. Lanfranc supported William’s ideas on the authority of church and state and was prepared to use the church to help cement Norman rule in England. He refused the pope’s summons to Rome and kept England free of Gregorian reform. William backed Lanfranc over the primacy and supported his church reforms. In contrast, John allowed the country to be put under interdict rather than accept the pope’s nominee, Langton. In between these contrasting periods, Anselm’s argument with William II over a range of problems from the quality of the Canterbury knights to recognition of the pope, and with Henry I over investiture, and Becket’s quarrel with Henry II which dominated their relationship, could be seen as further evidence of steady worsening of relations. It is possible that weaker candidates will concentrate on these examples and illustrate the judgement in the question.

Better responses will recognise that the picture was more complex. It is arguable that relations reached their nadir with the murder of Becket which was over 40 years before the end of the period, and not even John’s relations with Langton were that bad. On the other hand, candidates might point out that Henry II had not intended this. They are also likely to discuss periods of improved relations. For example, Anselm was able to reach a compromise with Henry I over investiture in 1107 which led to better relations. Henry II’s relations with Canterbury improved after the death of Becket and Hubert Walter enjoyed excellent relations with Richard I. They might well conclude that, instead of a steady decline, there was a much less consistent picture. The best responses will probably evaluate a range of evidence from across the period and reach a supported judgement.

June 2011

1 ‘The main changes in English central government took place after 1154.’ How far do you agree with this judgement of the period from 1066 to 1216? [60] Henry II claimed that he wished only to restore Anglo-Norman government as it had existed pre-Stephen but he introduced fundamental changes. In his reign the office of chief justiciar reached its apogee as a great office of state, overseeing the Exchequer and running England in the king’s absence. Henry also introduced the possessory assizes and the Grand Assize which did much to increase the amount of business coming into the royal courts and helped to bureaucratise the administration of justice. He also routinely employed juries. The Angevin inquests of sheriffs in 1170, 1194 and 1213 went beyond anything used previously to bring royal officials under royal control. In the later Angevin period the chancellor developed as the greatest officer in the government. However, significant developments also took place in the Anglo-Norman period. William I developed feudal government in England and the chancery functioned from the beginning of the period. From William II’s reign methods were developed to enable the government to function effectively in the absence of the king and this led to the origin of the prototype of the chief justiciar, first with Ranulf Flambard and then developed in Henry I’s reign with Roger of Salisbury. Increasing costs of warfare and administration, caused partly by the continental possessions, led to a desire to maximise royal finances through systematic exploitation of finance and of the profits of justice. This in turn led to the development of the

Exchequer, at least from Henry I’s reign, with the Pipe Rolls extant from 1129, and sheriffs being required to render account regularly at the Exchequer. Use of eyres and itinerant justices enabled closer control over justice. Consequently, great steps towards centralisation and bureaucracy had been taken well before 1154. Weaker responses might well describe changes taking place, possibly adopting a chronological approach and perhaps being limited to the pre or post 1154 period. Most candidates are likely to compare advances after 1154 with those before. They may argue in favour of the later period as Angevin changes took centralisation to new heights or in favour of the earlier as the foundations were laid then. The best responses are likely to compare a wide range of changes from before and after 1154 and reach a supported judgement.

2 Assess the view that archbishops of Canterbury in the Anglo-Norman period, from 1066 to 1154, did more to strengthen the English Church than those in the Angevin period, from 1154 to 1216. [60] Candidates are likely to limit their discussion to the archbishops in the specification, Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton and this is sufficient for the highest marks. However, relevant reference to others, such as Theobald or Hubert Walter, should be credited. There is some evidence to support the idea that Anglo-Norman archbishops did more to strengthen the church than those in the Angevin period. Arguably Lanfranc did the most. His use of the church to help establish Norman rule enhanced its prestige. He also introduced reforming councils which helped to unify the English church, and other reforms which brought it into closer contact with Europe but avoided the Investiture Contest which could have damaged its position by causing conflict with William. The primacy problem was temporarily resolved by York’s recognition of Lanfranc’s personal primacy which helped to give the church structure and order. In addition, Anselm’s compromise with Henry I over investiture, by which the king relinquished investment with the ring and staff, helped to increase the rights and independence of the church and prevented the investiture dispute causing any further problem for the English church. Theobald, in Stephen’s reign, helped to promote canon law. By contrast, Langton’s inability to enter England until 1213 meant that he could do little to strengthen the church and indeed, his quarrel with John led to the English church being put under interdict which undermined its prestige, effectiveness and independence as it was firmly under papal control and John sequestered church lands. Earlier in the Angevin period, Becket’s quarrel with Henry II allowed Henry opportunity to try to control the bishops, worsened relations with York over the coronation of Young Henry and caused division in the rest of the episcopate, especially with Foliot, so destroying the unity of the church and weakening it. Less good responses might well concentrate on these aspects, possibly adopting a chronological approach. However, stronger candidates are likely to argue that the picture is more complex. Anselm’s time of exile weakened his authority over the church. On the other hand, Becket helped to strengthen the church by supporting the rights of criminous clerks and the independence of church courts and his martyrdom and canonisation helped to increase the reputation of the church vis a vis royal authority. The best responses are likely to evaluate evidence from both the Angevin and Anglo-Norman periods, compare and reach a supported conclusion.

‘Anselm’s time as Archbishop of Canterbury was the main turning point in the impact of the papal reform movement in England.’ How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1066 to 1216? [60] Candidates might well confine their discussion to the archiepiscopates of Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton as these are mentioned in the specification, and this range will be sufficient for the highest marks. However, credit should be given to relevant reference to other periods. The papal reform movement led to advances in papal power which resulted in increased papal intervention in English affairs. Under William I and Lanfranc, papal reform had made no headway in England. Lanfranc had refused Gregory’s summons to Rome and had upheld William I’s traditional interpretation of the authority of church and state, keeping England free of the investiture dispute. Anselm’s time as Archbishop of Canterbury marks a turning point in several ways in the impact of the papal reform movement. His quarrel with William II led to his exile which brought him into

contact with the fullest expression of Gregorian Reform and on his return, England was embroiled for the first time in the Investiture Contest. The Compromise of Bec of 1107, which led to Henry I surrendering the right to invest with the ring and staff, marked a new stage in freedom of the church from royal control. Although the question of investiture itself ceased to be an issue after 1107, it was the first of several clashes of principle between archbishops keen to uphold ecclesiastical rights and independence, prompted by the papal reform movement, and monarchs determined to defend their traditional rights, manifested, for example, in the struggles between Becket and Henry II and John and Langton. Anselm’s archiepiscopacy also marks a turning point in terms of successful papal intervention in English affairs. Papal intervention later in the century took a variety of forms including attempts to decrease primatial authority, attempts to intervene in political affairs and increasing control over judicial decisions through the development of appeals to Rome. However, to address the question of whether Anselm’s time as Archbishop was the main turning point candidates need to evaluate this in the light of at least one other turning point. Possible alternatives could be the reign of Stephen, Becket’s quarrel with Henry II or Langton’s time as archbishop. Stephen’s reign saw a large increase in appeals to Rome and thus of papal influence over legal cases; the pope taking advantage of the weakness of the monarchy to intervene in support of Stephen to enhance his own authority, and support for Henry of Blois to strengthen papal power at the expense of Canterbury. Becket’s quarrel arose from Becket’s defence of church property, the rights of criminous clerks and of ecclesiastical courts, all born of ideas of ecclesiastical freedom arising from the papal reform movement and led, among other things, to the pope threatening to place England under interdict. Langton’s appointment as archbishop of Canterbury was itself an expression of papal power at its height under Innocent III, who not only imposed his candidate on the king but also excommunicated John, placed England under interdict and eventually suspended Langton. Most candidates are likely to compare the impact of the papal reform movement under Anselm with at least one other possible turning point. The best responses are likely to do this using a range of evidence from across the period and reach a supported relative evaluation.

Jan 2012

‘There was more continuity than change in the nature of central government in England in the period 1066-1216.’ How far do you agree with this assessment?

Much of the machinery of government, as developed by the Anglo-Norman kings, existed also in the Angevin period. Feudal procedures, introduced after the Conquest, still existed. Writs, dating back to the Saxon period were used by both Anglo-Normans and Angevins. The chancery was in use in both periods. In both the Anglo-Norman and Angevin periods there was the same need to find answers to the problems of absentee kings and increased costs of warfare and administration, which led to more centralisation and the systematic control and exploitation of finance. The innovations introduced by the Anglo-Normans to deal with these needs, eg the development of the office under Ranulf Flambard and Roger of Salisbury which became that of chief justiciar, the development of the Exchequer under Henry I, with its Pipe Rolls since at least 1129 and the requirement for sheriffs to render regular account there, the introduction of eyres and itinerant justices, continued into the Angevin period. Indeed, Henry II claimed that he was determined to restore Anglo-Norman government to its condition before the problems of Stephen’s reign. However, considerable changes were made by the Angevins, especially Henry II, but also in Richard’s and John’s reigns. The role of the office of chief justiciar was much expanded so that at its height the chief justiciar oversaw the Exchequer and virtually ran the country in the king’s absence. In the later Angevin period, the chancellor became the greatest government officer. The inquests of 1170, 1194 and 1213 went further than anything before to bring royal officials under central control in financial, administrative and judicial matters. Henry II made significant changes to the legal

system eg through his use of possessory assizes, the grand Assize and standardised writs, which led to a growth of royal justice which was more systematic and more bureaucratic.

While less good responses might describe first government under the Anglo-Normans and then under the Angevins, making assertions about similarity or difference, most candidates will probably compare similarities and differences in government in the two periods and reach a conclusion which could stress either similarity or difference. The best responses are likely to compare a wide range of aspects of government and reach a well-supported conclusion.

Assess the reasons for the changing relations between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury in the period 1066-1216

Answers are likely to be confined to Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton, as they are named in the specification and this is perfectly acceptable. However, credit should be given to pertinent reference to other archbishops. Throughout the period there were two main factors which played a large part in the changing relations of archbishops of Canterbury and York: the failure to reach any unequivocal decision on the primacy issue and popes’ determination to boost their own authority at any opportunity which led to repeated intervention in the affairs of the English church and no guarantee of support for the archbishop of Canterbury. It was in popes’ interest to increase papal power by eradicating primatial authority and bringing bishops under their direct control. The primacy issue dogged relations between Canterbury and York, although it was most pronounced in the earlier part of the period. On the whole, Lanfranc enjoyed good relations with York but this was based only on personal recognition of Lanfranc’s supremacy in 1072. The damage to relations caused by not establishing the automatic superiority of Canterbury was seen for example in 1115 when Thurstan of York refused to profess obedience to Canterbury. The heat went out of the dispute when the pope granted legatine powers to Canterbury, eg in 1125, which gave Canterbury supremacy, but this was not a permanent position. Papal intervention could easily swing the balance. For example in 1161-2 the pope granted York privileges exempting him from Canterbury’s jurisdiction yet in 1164 he swung back in support of Becket at Canterbury so managing twice to be a factor in Becket’s difficult relationship with York. The appointment of Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, as legate in Stephen’s reign worsened Canterbury’s relations with York by reducing his authority over the latter and Innocent III’s suspension of Langton at the end of the period undermined his authority completely. Periods of exile also undermined Canterbury’s authority. These were not frequent but had the same effect of weakening the archbishop’s control. This is seen during Anselm’s time and also Becket’s. Langton’s inability to enter England for several years after his appointment had a similar effect. From time to time political factors played a part. During the Becket affair the king deliberately asked York to crown Young Henry, so depriving Becket of a role traditionally given to Canterbury and infuriating him. Becket then published bulls suspending York.

Langton’s failure to enter England to take up his role could also be said to stem from political factors since John’s anger was because the pope’s intervention had undermined the traditional principle that the archbishop of Canterbury should be someone acceptable to the king. Weaker responses are likely to describe relations between the archbishops, perhaps identifying reasons for each change chronologically. Most candidates will probably analyse a number of reasons and support them with evidence from across the period. The best answers are likely to do this and to provide a supported assessment eg of importance or consistency.

‘The main impact of the Papal Reform Movement in England was the strengthening of papal authority over the English Church.’ How far do you agree with this jusgement of the period 1066-1216?

Comparison of papal influence over the English church at the beginning of the period with that at the end indicates clear support for this judgement. Lanfranc in the late eleventh century successfully resisted Gregory VII’s summons to Rome and kept England free of the Investiture Conflict. In the thirteenth century, by contrast, Innocent III was able to intervene in the Canterbury election, place England under interdict and suspend Langton. Other examples of growing papal authority over the church include intervention to reduce the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury as in 1161 when York was given privileges exempting him form Canterbury’s jurisdiction and in Stephen’s reign when the bishop of Winchester was made papal legate. There was also a marked growth in the number of appeals to Rome which both weakened archiepiscopal authority and enhanced that of the pope. However, candidates need to set strengthening of papal authority in the context of other effects of the papal reform movement and compare. Some may wish to argue that there was a growth in papal intervention in English affairs as a whole and not just over the church. Examples could include the pope’s intervention in support of Stephen in the disputed succession, intervention in the Becket affair and intervention in John’s reign when the pope excommunicated the king and then received England as a papal fief. Others may argue that the freedom of the church from royal control was the main impact of the papal reform movement. This was at least part of its original purpose, especially during the Investiture Contest. In England, royal control over the church was weakened with the Compromise of Bec between Henry I and Anselm, by which the king gave up investiture with the ring and the staff. Subsequently, ideas regarding separate ecclesiastical justice, which grew from the papal reform movement, led first to conflict under Becket and then to more freedom from royal authority. Increased appeals to Rome, meaning that more cases were resolved outside the country, also weakened royal authority.

Some may argue that the main impact was the deterioration in relations between kings and their archbishops of Canterbury. Lanfranc and William I enjoyed harmonious relations before England was exposed to the full force of the papal reform movement. Once Anselm’s exile had brought him into contact with the Investiture Contest his relationship with the king deteriorated until a compromise was found. This was the first of several clashes of principle between archbishops keen to uphold ecclesiastical rights and the independence of the church as promoted by the papal reform movement, and monarchs determined to hold onto their traditional rights. This is seen in the conflict between Henry II and Becket and in that between John and Langton.

Weaker answers are likely give examples, perhaps chronologically, of the strengthening of papal control over the English church. Most candidates will probably examine the growth of papal control over the English church and compare it with at least one other impact of the papal reform movement and reach a conclusion. The best responses are likely to draw evidence from across the period and reach a supported conclusion on the main impact.

June 2012

‘Skilled royal officials were the most important factor in the development of English central government in the period 1066-1216.’ How far do you agree with this statement?

The importance of royal officials in central government increased as their functions expanded. The proto-type of the chief justiciar developed under William II with Ranulf Flambard and continued with Roger of Salisbury in Henry I’s reign until it reached its height in Henry II’s reign. This official was responsible for running the country in the king’s absence and the development of the role was a direct answer to the problem of how to govern the country while the king was abroad, sometimes for long periods. It is clear that, without very competent men able to fulfil this role, it would have been more difficult to deal with absenteeism. By the late twelfth century the chancellor, Hubert Walter, was running the country during Richard’s prolonged absence and set in motion the most far reaching administrative, judicial and financial investigation then seen. Kings also developed machinery to enable them to maximise their finances from taxes and justice and this too depended on competent men who could make the system work; people who ran the Exchequer effectively, making sure that sheriffs rendered their accounts regularly, local justiciars in the shires, men who could enforce the judicial reforms of Henry II and also those who could carry out the inquests of sheriffs in 1170, 1194 and 1213.

On the other hand, candidates could argue that kings were more important to the development of government since it was they who recognised their needs and were prepared to implement innovatory methods to meet them. It was also kings who were responsible for the appointment of the highest officials, so successful development depended on their choosing men who were up to the job, especially Flambard, Roger of Salisbury and Hubert Walter. In addition, Henry II gave the impetus to the judicial reforms of his reign and William I was responsible for the introduction of feudal

government. Some candidates may wish to emphasise the importance of other main factors in the development of central government such as absentee kingship itself or the continental possessions of the crown which led to that absenteeism. Weaker responses are likely to describe the role of officials in producing governmental developments and to assert their importance. Better answers will set the contribution of officials in the context of other factors, reaching a supported conclusion. The best responses might well deal with several factors, comparing their importance, using examples from across the period in support, and reaching a clear conclusion on the relative importance of competent royal officials.

Assess the claim that the greatest developments in common law were made in the period 1066-1154

By 1154, much of the groundwork essential for the development of English common law had been done. William I had inherited from the Saxons the strong kingship which was an essential prerequisite to the king exercising authority effectively over the country, shire and hundred courts and the Anglo Saxon writ. To this he added feudal law with its classification of different types of landholding which was necessary for the development of a common law relating to land cases. The growth of feudal custom and the tendency of seigneurial courts to adopt common practices led to more standardisation. Henry I’s insistence on cases between different tenants being heard in shire rather than honorial courts also helped to encourage this and his use of local justiciars helped to promote common enforcement of law in the localities. Moreover, canon law and the development of church courts helped to develop common practice and this was under way before 1154. However, candidates need to set the pre-1154 developments in the context of those in the reigns of Henry II and his successors and compare their importance. Henry II provided much of the impetus for the growth of common law and established much of the machinery which made it effective. The assizes of Northampton and Clarendon tightened up criminal law and the introduction of possessory assizes, returnable writs, general eyres, and professional justices all helped to standardise procedure and ensure more cases were heard in the royal courts which itself meant less variation in justice and a more systematic approach. The judicial clauses of Magna Carta also helped to bring about common practice.

Less successful responses are likely to describe developments in either the pre- or post-1154 period, or both, and assert the greater significance of one. Most candidates are likely to examine developments in both the earlier and later periods and compare their significance, typically comparing the importance of laying the foundations with that of creating much more developed machinery. The best responses will probably compare both periods using a wide range of evidence and reach a supported and clear conclusion on the significance of developments before 1154 in relation to those after 1154.

How far was Thomas Becket a “typical” Archbishop of Canterbury?

Most candidates are likely to confine their answers to the archbishops named in the specification ie Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton, and this is quite acceptable for the highest marks. However, credit should be given to relevant reference to other archbishops of Canterbury. In some ways Becket seems a very atypical archbishop of Canterbury. Relations between archbishop and crown reached their nadir with Becket’s murder, ostensibly as a result of at least the king’s attitude if not his comments. Becket’s subsequent martyrdom, canonisation and Henry’s penance at his tomb were not typical ways of strengthening the reputation of the church. There is a great contrast here with the work done by Lanfranc to strengthen the church by using reforming councils and by reforming monasticism, all with the support of

William I. While Becket’s stand on principle over criminous clerks and ecclesiastical justice led to conflict with Henry II which, at least in the short run, undermined the church by leading to Becket’s exile and Henry’s opportunity to increase his control over other bishops, Lanfranc brought unity to the English church and closer contact with Europe while avoiding the Investiture Contest. While Becket refused to accept the political role Henry had mapped out for him, Lanfranc cooperated with William to make effective the establishment of Norman rule. There is a contrast with later archbishops too. Hubert Walter acted in a political role for Richard, effectively running the country in his absence, and Langton was prepared to intervene in the struggle between John and the barons. However, candidates also need to examine the similarities between Becket and other archbishops. His work to establish the independence of the church had been begun, albeit using very different methods, by Lanfranc when he got William’s agreement to a degree of separation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It is seen also in Anselm’s period as archbishop, most notably over the Investiture Contest which led to the Compromise of Bec in 1107 and the king’s relinquishing of investiture with the ring and staff. To an extent, Langton was a victim of the growing power of the church as he was a papal appointment made against the king’s wishes. Becket’s clash of principle with Henry II was similar to that of Anselm with Henry I over investiture as both concerned the growing desire for independence of the church from royal control. In both cases the archbishop was determined to uphold the new demands of the church against the traditional rights of the monarch. Becket’s periods in exile were not unique either as Anselm was in exile in both William II’s and Henry I’s reigns, and Langton’s relations with John were so bad that he could not even enter the country in the first place. Nor were Becket’s poor relations with the pope atypical. Popes sometimes deliberately undermined archbishops’ powers, as when Henry of Blois was made papal legate in Stephen’s reign and Langton was suspended by Innocent III. Other archbishops had poor relations with York too, eg when Thurstan refused to accept Canterbury’s superiority.

Weaker answers are likely to describe Becket’s work as Archbishop of Canterbury, probably dwelling at length on the quarrel with Henry II, and to assert whether or not he was typical. Better responses will probably compare Becket’s archiepiscopate with that of others, possibly at the lower end adopting a chronological approach. The best answers are likely to look at both similarities and differences across the period and reach a clear and well supported conclusion on whether or not Becket was typical of the period.

January 2007 (Legacy) - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewJune 08 legacy. 1 To what extent were the...

Documents

Transcript of January 2007 (Legacy) - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewJune 08 legacy. 1 To what extent were the...