HISTORY

Prehistory and the Roman period

From Neolithic to Bronze Age (8000 - 800 BC). Human beings have been living in the part of
northern Europe that is today called Britain for about 750,000 years. For most of that time, they
subsisted by gathering food like nuts, berries, leaves and fruit from wild sources, and by hunting. The
change from a hunter-gatherer to a farming way of life is what defines the start of the Neolithic or New
Stone Age. In Britain the preceding period of the last, post-glacial hunter-gatherer societies is known
as the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age. So the majority of early farmers were probably Mesolithic
people who adopted the new way of life and took it with them to other parts of Britain. This was not a
rapid change - farming took about 2,000 years to spread across all parts of the British Isles.
Traditionally the arrival of farming is seen as a major and rapid change sometimes called the 'Neolithic
revolution'. In many cases the earliest Neolithic sites (approx 4000 - 5000 BC) occur alongside late
Mesolithic settlements, or in areas that we know were important in post-glacial times. From the start of
the 4th millennium BC (about 3800 BC), we see a move into new areas that had not been settled or
exploited previously. This period, sometimes referred to as the Middle Neolithic, also witnesses the
appearance of the first large communal tombs, known as ‘long barrows’, or ‘mounds’, and the earliest
ceremonial monuments, known as ‘causewayed’ enclosures. Here people from communities in a
particular region would gather together, probably at regular intervals, to socialise, to meet new
partners, to acquire fresh livestock and to exchange ceremonial gifts. Some of the great ceremonial
monuments of the Middle Neolithic, such as the so-called 'passage' graves, were aligned according to
the position of the sun during the winter or summer solstice. Passage graves were also constructed to
provide good acoustics, and it seems most probable that they were the scenes of ritual or religious
theatrical performances.
For people in Britain today, the chief significance of the prehistoric period is its sense of
mystery. This sense finds its focus most easily in the astonishing monumental architecture of this
period, the remains of which exist throughout the country. Wiltshire, in south-western England, has
two spectacular examples: Avebury, Silbury Hill and Stonehenge. The so-called 'henge' monuments,
seem to have developed out of the causewayed enclosures from around 3000 BC. They include banks
and ditches; the most impressive, at Avebury, in Wiltshire, had a ditch 21 metres in width, and 9
metres deep in places, an outer ring of one hundred standing stones and two smaller inner rings of
stones. Outside the monument was a mile-long avenue of standing stones.
Many of the timber posts that defined these henges have long disappeared, but many sites still
contain circles of pits, central stones, cairns or burials and clearly defined stone or timber entrances.
Henges seem to have been used for multiple purposes, justifying the enormous expenditure of time and
energy to construct them. Another legacy of the Stone age is the enormous earthwork called Silbury
Hill, the largest manmade mound in prehistoric Europe. Silbury is 39 metres high and was built as a
series of circular platforms; their purpose still unknown. It is situated nearby the largest henge of all,
Avebury.
The creation of Stonehenge tested the ingenuity and technology of an ancient people to the
limit. The origins of the stones, their construction, and the remains of those who lived and died near
Stonehenge are telling profound things about what life was like for ancient ancestors. Along with other
archaeological discoveries, Stonehenge is giving away the secrets of Britain in 2500 BC. And the first
thing the great stone circles tell us is that, for at least some of the time, life in prehistoric Britain was
pretty good: communities were settled, agriculture was well developed and efficiently practised.
Compared with modern Britain, streams were teeming with fish and woods were alive with game.
This great prehistoric monument (Stonehenge) was built in several phases spanning hundreds
of years, from around 3000 BC to 1600 BC - it was a construction project that tested ancient ingenuity
and prehistoric technology to the limit. Four thousand years and more after Stonehenge was built,
nobody is really sure what it was built for. A consensus among archaeologists on what Stonehenge was
actually for has proved as difficult to build as the huge stone circle itself. There have been plenty of
theories. One is that the great stone circle was a gigantic calendar. But the most popular theory about
the purpose of Stonehenge has survived since serious archaeological work first began on the site
1
hundreds of years ago. The great standing stones, thrusting heaven-wards from the ancient plain,
certainly inspire a religious reverence. Working in the early 18 th century, William Stukeley was one of
the great pioneers of archaeology at Stonehenge. He was struck by its innate spirituality. Many since
Stukeley have also felt the power of the 'yawning ruins', and come to the conclusion that Stonehenge
was a place of worship.
The Bronze Age. The first bronzes appear in Britain in the centuries just before 2500 BC,
which is the usually accepted start date for the Bronze Age. On the European mainland the arrival of
bronze was preceded by copper tools of the Chalcolithic or Copper Age, but in Britain tin and copper
appear at about the same time as bronze. Although the appearance of metal marks an important
technological development, especially in the control of fire, it does not seem to bring a big change in
the way that people lived their lives in the Early Bronze Age. Henges, for example, continue in use,
but the larger communal tombs, such as long barrows and passage graves, are replaced by smaller
round barrows. Many of these contain an initial or 'primary' burial, often of an important man or
woman, who may be buried with distinctive and highly decorated pottery known as 'Beakers', together
with bronze or tin metalwork such as daggers or axes.
Houses in the Early Bronze Age were usually round with a conical roof and a single entrance
while Neolithic houses were usually rectangular thatched buildings made from timber with walls of
wattle (woven hazel rods) smeared with a plaster-like 'daub' (made from clay, straw and cow dung).
Neolithic houses are far more commonly found in Scotland and Ireland than in England or Wales,
where communities may have retained a more mobile pattern of life, involving fewer permanent
buildings.
The Middle Bronze Age (1500 - 1250 BC) marks an important period of change, growth and
probably of population expansion too. There was a fundamental shift in burial practice away from
barrow burial, towards cremation in large open cemeteries where ashes were placed in specially-
prepared pottery urns. Settlements consisted of round houses which were often grouped together,
possibly for defence, but possibly too because people preferred to live near one another. During this
period an increasing number of metalwork hoards is found. The Middle Bronze Age also sees the first
field systems in Britain, indicating growing pressure on the land as the numbers of people and animals
increased. The Late Bronze Age (1250-800 BC) is marked by the arrival of new styles of metalwork
and pottery, but otherwise life continued much as before. Houses were still round, a pattern that would
continue into the Iron Age, but a number of large hall-like rectangular houses are also known. The
field systems of the Middle Bronze Age continued in use and were enlarged. In the uplands of Britain
the Late Bronze Age saw the first construction of a few hill-forts and the start of the so-called 'Celtic'
way of life.

Iron Age, 800 BC - AD 43: growth and development. The Iron Age of the British Isles
covers the period from about 800 BC to the Roman invasion of 43 AD, and follows on from the
Bronze Age. As the name implies, the Iron Age saw the gradual introduction of iron working
technology, although the general adoption of iron artefacts did not become widespread until after 500-
400 BC. As the Iron Age progressed through the first millennium BC, strong regional groupings
emerged, reflected in styles of pottery, metal objects and settlement types. In some areas, 'tribal' states
and kingdoms developed by the end of the first century BC. Earlier studies of the British Iron Age
tended to see foreign invasions as being responsible for the large scale changes that took place during
this period. Modern research has found little evidence to support these theories and the emphasis has
switched towards mainly indigenous economic and social changes. However, archaeology can
demonstrate that the trading and exchange contacts between Britain and mainland Europe that had
developed in the Bronze Age continued throughout the Iron Age. Technological innovation increased
during the Iron Age, especially towards the end of the period. Some of the major advances included
the introduction of the potter's wheel (mainly in south eastern England), the lathe (used for
woodworking and manufacturing shale objects) and the rotary quern for grinding grain. The
population of Britain grew substantially during the Iron Age and probably exceeded one million. By
the end of the Iron Age, amongst other things, coinage had been introduced, wheel thrown pottery was
being made, there was an increased interest in personal appearance, people had started to live in larger
and more settled communities, and the mortuary rites of society had changed.
2
 Lifestyle. A very well preserved settlement has been discovered at the site of Chysauster in
Cornwall. It was made up of individual houses of stone with garden plots, clustered along a street. In
central southern Britain in about the 6th century, hillforts - large bank and ditch enclosures in
prominent positions in the landscape - began to be built. The archaeological evidence shows that the
enclosures were densely occupied, with circular houses and roads. In Wessex, the typical building on a
settlement would have been the large roundhouse. All of the domestic life would have occurred within
this. The main focus of the interior of the house was the central open-hearth fire. This was the heart of
the house - an indispensable feature - to provide cooked food, warmth and light. Because of its
importance within the domestic sphere, the fire would have been maintained 24 hours a day.

The best known and most visible remains of the Iron Age are hill forts. Nearly 3,000 examples
are known from across the British Isles, ranging in size from small enclosures of less than one hectare,
to massive, multi-ditched sites like Maiden Castle in Dorset and Old Oswestry in Shropshire. The
function and form of these monuments varied greatly over time. The earliest examples date from the
late Bronze Age and early Iron Age (900-600 BC) and show little evidence of permanent settlement.
Instead, these early sites often appear to have been used for seasonal gatherings, perhaps for trade,
exchange and religious activities, with a further function as a storage centre for the broader
community. By 450 BC, many of these early hill forts were going out of use. Those that survived were
subject to major phases of rebuilding, often with multiple banks and ditches, very complex entrances
and clear evidence of a large and permanent population. The function and form of hill forts varies
greatly over time. The excavation of Danebury in Hampshire has revealed, in considerable detail, the
development of a hill fort from the 8 th century BC until its abandonment in the first century BC. The
reasons for this abandon are not fully understood, but may be due in part to the emergence of more
centralised tribal states. In western and northern Britain and Ireland, hill forts continued to be occupied
and were still playing an important role in everyday life at the time of the Roman conquest in AD 43.

Crannogs. Beyond the hill forts, most Iron Age settlements were small, and probably housed
single extended families. These individual farmsteads were set within very ordered and extensive
landscapes of fields and tracks. Many were enclosed by banks and ditches, although these were rarely
large enough to be considered defensive. Two good examples have been excavated in southern
England, at Little Woodbury in Wiltshire and Gussage All Saints in Dorset. In western and northern
Britain and Ireland, such settlements are often known as 'raths' or 'duns'. The standard Iron Age
building was the roundhouse. These could be made of timber or stone, with a roof covering of thatch
or turf, depending upon locally available building materials. On marsh edges and lakes, substantial
settlements known as 'crannogs' were also found. These were artificial islands constructed of stone
and timber and may have been sited for their defensive qualities. Unenclosed settlements are also
known. These could range from single or small groups of circular huts, to large village-like
settlements. The latter are especially common in eastern England, for example at Little Waltham in
Essex. In Scotland, large stone structures known as 'brochs' were built during the Iron Age. These
were tall tower structures, often surrounded by smaller roundhouses.
Before Rome: the 'Celts'. At the end of the Iron Age (roughly the last 700 years BC), we get
our first eye-witness accounts of Britain from Greco-Roman authors, not least Julius Caesar who
invaded in 55 and 54 BC. Calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best
abandoned. However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age
islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th
century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-
English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts.
This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was
soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island
'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century. Of course, there are important cultural
similarities and connections between Britain, Ireland and continental Europe, reflecting intimate
contacts and undoubtedly the movement of some people, but the same could be said for many other
periods of history. The things we have labelled 'Celtic' icons - such as hill-forts and art, weapons and

3
jewellery - were more about aristocratic, political, military and religious connections than common
ethnicity.
The Celtic tribes were ruled over by a warrior class, of which the priests, or Druids, seem to
have been particularly important members. These Druids could not read or write, but they memorised
all the religious teachings, the tribal laws, history, medicine and other knowledge necessary in Celtic
society. The Druids from different tribes all over Britain probably met once a year. They had no
temples, but they met in sacred groves of trees, on certain hills, by rivers or by river sources. We know
little of their kind of worship except that at times it included human sacrifice.

Britain and the Romans. Growing Roman influence. Towards the end of the second century BC,
Roman influence began to extend into the western Mediterranean and southern France. This lead to
growing contact between Britain and the Roman world across the English Channel. Initially this
contact was confined to the trading of limited quantities of Roman luxury goods such as wine,
probably exchanged for slaves, minerals and grain through sites like Hengistbury Head in Dorset and
Mount Batten near Plymouth in Devon. After 50 BC and the conquest of Gaul (modern France) by
Julius Caesar, this trade intensified and focused on south east England. In addition to intensive trade
links, Rome appears to have established diplomatic relations with a number of tribes and may have
exerted considerable political influence before the Roman conquest of England in AD 43. At the same
time, new types of large settlements called 'oppida' appeared in southern Britain. These appear to
have acted as political, economic and religious centres. Many also appear to have been the production
centres for Iron Age coins, which often gave the names of rulers, some styling themselves 'Rex', Latin
for 'king'. After AD 43, all of Wales and England south of the line of Hadrian's Wall became part of
the Roman empire. Beyond this line, in Scotland and Ireland, Iron Age life and traditions continued
with only occasional Roman incursions into Scotland, and trade with Ireland.

The Roman conquest, which started in AD 43, illustrates the profound cultural and political impact
that small numbers of people can have in some circumstances, for the Romans did not colonise the
islands of Britain to any significant degree. To a population of around 3 million, their army,
administration and carpet-baggers added only a few per cent. The province's towns and villas were
overwhelmingly built by indigenous people - again the wealthy - adopting the new international
culture of power. Greco-Roman civilisation displaced the 'Celtic' culture of Iron Age Europe. These
islanders actually became Romans, both culturally and legally (the Roman citizenship was more a
political status than an ethnic identity). By AD 300, almost everyone in 'Britannia' was Roman, even
though of indigenous descent and still mostly speaking 'Celtic' dialects. Roman rule saw profound
cultural change, but emphatically without any mass migration. However, Rome only ever conquered
half the island. The future Scotland remained beyond Roman government, although the nearby
presence of the empire had major effects. The kingdom of the Picts appeared during the 3 rd century
AD.

The first Roman invasion of the lands we now call the British Isles took place in 55 B.C. under
war leader Julius Caesar, who returned one year later, but these probings did not lead to any
significant or permanent occupation. He had some interesting, if biased comments concerning the
natives: "All the Britons," he wrote, "paint themselves with woad, which gives their skin a bluish color
and makes them look very dreadful in battle." It was not until a hundred years later that permanent
settlement of the grain-rich eastern territories began in earnest. In the year 43.A.D. an expedition was
ordered against Britain by the Emperor Claudius. Establishing their bases in what is now Kent,
through a series of battles involving greater discipline, a great element of luck, and general lack of co-
ordination between the leaders of the various Celtic tribes, the Romans subdued much of Britain in the
short space of 40 years. They were to remain for nearly 400 years. The great number of prosperous
villas that have been excavated in the southeast and southwest testify to the rapidity by which Britain
became Romanized, for they functioned as centers of a settled, peaceful and urban life.
The highlands and moorlands of the northern and western regions, present-day Scotland and
Wales, were not as easily settled, nor did the Romans particularly wish to settle in these agriculturally
poorer, harsh landscapes. They remained the frontier -- areas where military garrisons were
4
strategically placed to guard the extremities of the Empire. The stubborn resistance of tribes in Wales
meant that two out of three Roman legions in Britain were stationed on its borders, at Chester and
Caerwent.
Major defensive works further north attest to the fierceness of the Pictish and Celtic tribes,
Hadrian's Wall in particular reminds us of the need for a peaceful and stable frontier. Built when
Hadrian had abandoned his plan of world conquest, settling for a permanent frontier to "divide Rome
from the barbarians," the 72 mile long wall connecting the Tyne to the Solway was built and rebuilt,
garrisoned and re-garrisoned many times, strengthened by stone-built forts as one mile intervals.
For Imperial Rome, the island of Britain was a western breadbasket. Caesar had taken armies
there to punish those who were aiding the Gauls on the Continent in their fight to stay free of Roman
influence. Claudius invaded to give himself prestige, and his subjugation of 11 British tribes gave him
a splendid triumph.
Further south, however, in what is now England, Roman life prospered. Essentially urban, it
was able to integrate the native tribes into a town-based governmental system. Agricola succeeded
greatly in his aims to accustom the Britons "to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities;
he consequently gave private encouragement and official assistance to the building of temples, public
squares and good houses." Many of these were built in former military garrisons that became the
coloniae , the Roman chartered towns such as Colchester, Gloucester, Lincoln, and York (where
Constantine was declared Emperor by his troops in 306 A.D.). Other towns, called municipia,
included such foundations as St. Albans (Verulamium). Chartered towns were governed to a large
extent on that of Rome. They were ruled by an ordo of 100 councillors (decurion), who had to be local
residents and own a certain amount of property. The ordo was run by two magistrates, rotated
annually; they were responsible for collecting taxes, administering justice and undertaking public
works. Outside the chartered town, the inhabitants were referred to as peregrini , or non-citizens. They
were organized into local government areas known as civitates, largely based on pre-existing
chiefdom boundaries. Canterbury and Chelmsford were two of the civitas capitals. In the countryside,
away from the towns, with their metalled, properly drained streets, their forums and other public
buildings, bath houses, shops and amphitheatres, were the great villas, such as are found at Bignor,
Chedworth and Lullingstone. Many of these seem to have been occupied by native Britons who had
acquired land and who had adopted Roman culture and customs. The 3rd and 4th centuries saw a golden
age of villa building that further increased their numbers of rooms and added a central courtyard.
Roman society in Britain was highly classified. At the top were those people associated with the
legions, the provincial administration, the government of towns and the wealthy traders and
commercial classes who enjoyed legal privileges not generally accorded to the majority of the
population. In 2l2 AD, the Emperor Caracalla extended citizenship to all free-born inhabitants of the
empire, but social and legal distinctions remained rigidly set between the upper rank of citizens known
as honestiores and the masses, known as humiliores. At the lowest end of the scale were the slaves,
many of whom were able to gain their freedom, and many of whom might occupy important
govermental posts. Women were also rigidly circumscribed, not being allowed to hold any public
office, and having severely limited property rights. One of the greatest achievements of the Roman
Empire was its system of roads, in Britain no less than elsewhere. When the legions arrived in a
country with virtually no roads at all, as Britain was in the first century A.D., their first task was to
build a system to link not only their military headquarters but also their isolated forts. Vital for trade,
the roads were also of paramount important in the speedy movement of troops, munitions and supplies
from one strategic center to another. They also allowed the movement of agricultural products from
farm to market. London was the chief administrative centre, and from it, roads spread out to all parts of
the province. They included Ermine Street, to Lincoln; Watling Street, to Wroxeter and then to
Chester, all the way in the northwest on the Welsh frontier; and the Fosse Way, from Exeter to
Lincoln, the first frontier of the province of Britain. An advantage of good roads was that
communications with all parts of the country could be effected. They carried the cursus publicus, or
imperial post. A road book used by messengers that lists all the main routes in Britain, the principal
towns and forts they pass through, and the distances between them has survived: the Antonine
Itinerary. In addition, the same information, in map form, is found in the Peutinger Table. It tells us
that mansiones were places at various intervals along the road to change horses and take lodgings.
5
Apart from the villas and fortified settlements, the great mass of the British people did not seem to
have become Romanized. The influence of Roman thought survived in Britain only through the
Church. Christianity had thoroughly replaced the old Celtic gods by the close of the 4 th Century, as the
history of Pelagius and St. Patrick testify, but Romanization was not successful in other areas. For
example, the Latin tongue did not replace Brittonic as the language of the general population. Today's
visitors to Wales, however, cannot fail to notice some of the Latin words that were borrowed into the
British language, such as pysg (fish), braich (arm), caer (fort), foss (ditch), pont (bridge), eglwys
(church), llyfr (book), ysgrif (writing), ffenestr (window), pared (wall or partition), and ystafell
(room).
The disintegration of Roman Britain began with the revolt of Magnus Maximus in A.D. 383.
After living in Britain as military commander for 12 years, he had been hailed as Emperor by his
troops. He began his campaigns to dethrone Gratian as Emperor in the West, taking a large part of the
Roman garrison in Britain with him to the Continent, and though he succeeded Gratian, he himself was
killed by the Emperor Thedosius in 388. Some Welsh historians, and modern political figures, see
Magnus Maximus as the father of the Welsh nation, for he opened the way for independent political
organizations to develop among the Welsh people by his acknowledgement of the role of the leaders of
the Britons in 383 (before departing on his military mission to the Continent). The Roman legions
began to withdraw from Britain at the end of the 4th century. Those who stayed behind were to become
the Romanized Britons who organized local defences against the onslaught of the Saxon hordes. The
famous letter of A.D.410 from the Emperor Honorius told the cities of Britain to look to their own
defences from that time on. As part of the east coast defences, a command had been established under
the Count of the Saxon Shore, and a fleet had been organized to control the Channel and the North
Sea. All this showed a tremendous effort to hold the outlying province of Britain, but eventually, it was
decided to abandon the whole project. In any case, the communication from Honorius was a little late:
the Saxon influence had already begun in earnest.

HISTORY
THE GERMANIC INVASIONS (410 - 1066)
THE NORMANS (1066 - 1154)
THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD (1066 - 1485)

The 'Dark Ages'. From the time that the Romans more or less abandoned Britain, to the arrival of
Augustine at Kent to convert the Saxons, the period has been known as the Dark Ages. Written
evidence concerning the period is scanty, but we do know that the most significant events were the
gradual division of Britain into a Brythonic west, a Teutonic east and a Gaelic north; the formation of
the Welsh, English and Scottish nations; and the conversion of much of the west to Christianity. By
4l0, Britain had become self-governing in 3 parts, the North (which already included people of mixed
British and Angle stock); the West (including Britons, Irish, and Angles); and the South East (mainly
Angles). With the departure of the Roman legions, the old enemies began their onslaughts upon the
native Britons once more. The Picts and Scots to the north and west (the Scots coming in from Ireland
had not yet made their homes in what was to become later known as Scotland), and the Saxons,
Angles, and Jutes to the south and east.
The two centuries that followed the collapse of Roman Britain happen to be among the worst
recorded times in British history, certainly the most obscure. One reason why Roman Britannia
disappeared so quickly is probably that its influence was largely confined to the towns. In the country-
side, where most people lived, farming methods had remained unchanged and Celtic speech continued
to be dominant. The Roman occupation had been a matter of colonial control rather than large-scale
settlement. But, during the 5th century, a number of tribes from the north of the BI and from the north-
western European mainland invaded and settled in large numbers. (Picts from Scotlsnd, and Scots from
Irelands devastated the north and north west; the Francs and those Germanic tribes whom
contemporary historians called Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and others simply Vandals devastated the
eastern coasts. England did not yet exist, it was a heptarchy; a collection of the seven small kingdoms
of Kent, Essex, Sussex, East Anglia, Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria, of which the last three were
the most important). Anglo-Saxons soon had the south-east of the country in their grasp. In the west of
6
the country their advance was temporarily halted by an army of (Celtic) Britons under the command of
the legendary King Arthur.
Nevertheless, by the end of the 6th century, they and their way of life predominated in nearly all
of England and in parts of southern Scotland. The Celtic Britons were either Saxonized or driven
westwards, where their culture and language survived in south-west Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
The Anglo-Saxons had little use for towns and cities. But they had a great effect on the
countryside, where they introduced new farming methods and founded the thousands of self-sufficient
villages which formed the basis of English society for the next thousand or so years. In most of
lowland Britain, Latin had become the language of administration and education, especially since
Celtic writing was virtually unknown. Latin was also the language of the Church in Rome. The old
Celtic gods had given way to the new ones introduced by the Roman mercenaries; they were again
replaced when missionaries from Gaul introduced Christianity to the islands. By 3l4, an organized
Christian Church seems to have been established in most of Britain, for in that year British bishops
were summoned to the Council of Arles. By the end of the 4th century, a diocesan structure had been
set up, many districts having come under the pastoral care of a bishop. It was during the time of the
Saxon invasions, in that relatively unscathed western peninsular that later took the name Wales, that
the first monasteries were established (the words Wales and Welsh were used by the Germanic
invaders to refer to Romanized Britons). They spread rapidly to Ireland from where missionaries
returned to those parts of Britain that were not under the Roman Bishops' jurisdiction, mainly the
Northwest.
By the end of the 7th century we can also begin to speak of an Anglo-Saxon political entity in
the island of Britain, and the formation and growth of various English kingdoms.
Britain experienced another wave of Germanic invasions in the 8th century. These invaders,
known as Vikings, Norsemen or Danes, came from Scandinavia. In the 9th century they conquered and
settled the extreme north and west of Scotland, and also some coastal regions of Ireland. Their
conquest of England was halted when they were defeated by King Alfred of the Saxon kingdom of
Wessex. This resulted in an agreement which divided England between Wessex, in the south and west,
and the 'Danelaw' in the north and east. The Vikings’ invasions were thus different from those of the
earlier Saxons who had originally come to defend the British people and then to settle. Though they
did settle eventually in their newly conquered lands, the Vikings were more intent on looting and
pillaging; their armies marched inland destroying and burning until half of England had been taken,
and it seemed as if there was no one strong enough to stop them. However, just as an earlier British
leader, perhaps the one known in legend as Arthur had stopped the Saxon advance into the Western
regions at Mount Badon in 496, so a later leader - Alfred of Wessex - stopped the advance of the
Norsemen at Edington in 878.
However, the cultural differences between Anglo-Saxons and Danes were comparatively small.
They led roughly the same way of life and spoke two varieties of the same Germanic tongue.
Moreover, the Danes soon converted to Christianity. These similarities made political unification
easier, and by the end of the 10th century England was one kingdom with a Germanic culture
throughout. Most of modern-day Scotland was also united by this time, at least in name, in a (Celtic)
Gaelic kingdom.
There are over 1040 place names in England of Scandinavian origin, most occurring in the
north and east, the area of settlement known as the Danelaw (the land where the law of the Danes
ruled). The evidence shows extensive peaceable settlement by farmers who intermarried their English
cousins, adopted many of their customs and entered into the everyday life of the community. Though
the Danes and Norwegians who came to England preserved many of their own customs, they readily
adapted to the ways of the English whose language they could understand without too much difficulty.
There are more than 600 place names that end with the Scandinavian -by, (farm or town); some 300
contain the Scandinavian word thorp (village), and the same number with thwaite (an isolated piece of
land). Thousands of words of Scandinavian origin remain in the everyday speech of people in the north
and east of England. There was another very important feature of the Scandinavian settlement which
cannot be overlooked. The Saxon people had not maintained contact with their orginal homelands; in
England they had become an island race. The Scandinavians, however, kept their contacts with their
kinsman on the continent. Under Cnut, England was part of a Scandinavian empire; its people began to
7
extend their outlook and become less insular. The process was hastened by the coming of another host
of Norsemen: the Norman Conquest was about to begin.

The Battle of Hastings 1066

October 14, 1066

Battle, East Sussex

Saxons under Harold, King of England vs. Norman French under Duke William of Normandy

When Edward the Confessor died he left no direct heir, and the throne of England passed to
Harold. However, William of Normandy claimed that Edward had promised the crown to him, and
indeed that Harold himself had sworn a sacred oath to relinquish his claim in William's favour.

William prepared an invasion fleet and, armed with a papal bull declaring his right to the throne, he
crossed the English Channel to land near Pevensey.
Harold, in the meantime, had another threat to concern him; his brother Tostig allied with Harald
Hardrada of Norway and landed in the north of England. They took York, but Harold defeated them
soundly at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
No sooner had the battle dust settled than Harold received news of William's invasion in the south. He
marched his tired men from York to Sussex, arriving there on October 13 to face the Normans.
The Battle. Harold took up a defensive position on a high ridge known as Senlac. The battle
began with devastating volleys of stone missiles hurled into the Norman infantry by the Saxon "fyrd",
or irregular troops levied from the shires. William himself led the centre of the Norman army, and it is
said that he carried into battle some of the holy relics upon which Harold had sworn to cede the crown
to him.
The Norman infantry made no dent in the Saxon lines, and the cavalry fared no better. But
when some of the Norman horsemen turned and fled, a large group of Saxons left their position to
chase them. It was a fatal mistake, as William rallied his men and routed the unprotected attackers. The
Saxon lines quickly closed, but they had not learned their lesson, and they repeated the same folly of
chasing an apparently fleeing enemy twice more as the day wore on. By late afternoon the Saxon lines
were wavering under continued Norman attacks. It is then that the most famous arrow in English
history was released by an anonymous Norman archer. The arrow took King Harold in the eye, and a
final Norman onslaught killed him where he stood. The rest of the leaderless Saxons ceded Senlac
ridge yard by grudging yard, but eventually they had no choice but to turn and flee the field. The day
belonged to Duke William, soon to be dubbed, "the Conqueror". The body of King Harold was
eventually buried in Waltham Abbey.
The Results. Although there were sporadic outbreaks of Saxon resistance to Norman rule after
the Battle of Hastings - notably in East Anglia under Hereward the Wake, and in the north of England -
from this point on England was effectively ruled by the Normans.
The story of the Norman Conquest does not start in 1066, but 50 years earlier, with another
invasion and another group of Norsemen. In 1016, Cnut, King of Denmark, seized the kingdom of
England by exploiting the bitter rivalries between king Aethelred Unraed, his son Edmund Ironside
and his closest advisors. Cnut stunned the English with the murder of ealdorman Eadric, his supporters
and every member of Aethelred's royal family he could get his hands on. Only Edward and his
brothers, the younger sons of Aethelred, survived. They fled to Normandy, where they took refuge
with Duke Richard II, brother of their mother Emma. In place of the murdered magnates, Cnut
installed his own men, both Danish and English, loyal to himself. The most prominent of these were
Earls Leofric and Godwine. Edward spent the next 30 years in exile under the protection of his uncle,
Duke Richard II and his successors. On his return to England in 1042, as Edward the Confessor, he
promoted many of these Frenchmen into positions of influence, as a counterbalance to the
overweening power of the Godwine family.

8
 The Godwines had prospered greatly while Edward was away. Under Cnut and his successors,
they had amassed so much land that they were second only in power and wealth to that of the King.
William of Normandy. Meanwhile, Normandy was embroiled in its own succession crisis.
Duke Richard II's son, Robert, had died in 1035, leaving an 8-year-old bastard son, William as his heir.
William was a large man, of exceptional strength and appearance. He promoted his two half-brothers
into key positions: Robert became Count of Mortain and Odo became Bishop of Bayeux.
Edward the Confessor. Edward, by contrast, was already an old man. He had spent his entire
adult life waiting for the chance to be King of England. In 1051, he acted against the Godwines.
Edward was in the most powerful position he had achieved since his accession in 1042. He had got rid
of the Godwines and his appointees were in all the positions of power.
The increasing personal power of William is demonstrated by the change in terminology on
Norman charters at this time. Norman nobles cease being fidelis (faithful) men, and the duke becomes
their dominus (lord). The change is significant. William was now exercising control in Normandy
through his own personal patronage, favouring his most powerful friends and supporters. Among these
were his childhood friends William fitzOsbern and Roger de Montgomery, who had become his
closest and most trusted advisors and confidants, alongside his half-brothers Robert de Mortain and
Odo of Bayeux.
On the orders of King William I, the Domesday survey of 1085-6 was drawn up and on the
basis of it Domesday Book described in remarkable detail, the landholdings and resources of late 11th-
century England, demonstrating the power of the government machine in the 1 st century of the new
Millennium, and its deep thirst for information.
Domesday Book - compiled in 1085-6 - is one of the few historical records whose name is
familiar to most people in this country. It is the earliest public record, the foundation document of the
national archives and a legal document that is still valid as evidence of title to land.
What doesn't appear in Domesday? The Domesday Book does not cover certain important
cities, such as London, Winchester, Bristol and the borough of Tamworth; nor Northumberland and
Durham or much of north-west England. For Wales, only parts of certain border areas are included.
Neither was it ever fully completed, being abandoned at some stage early in the reign of William
Rufus, who succeeded to the throne in 1087.
Great and Little Domesday. Domesday was never a single volume but originally two books,
Great Domesday and Little Domesday (which was a longer version, covering the counties of Essex,
Norfolk and Suffolk, which was never written up into the main volume). It is now contained within 5
volumes, having been rebound in 1984 to improve the prospects for its preservation for another
millennium. Great Domesday was mostly written by a single scribe, with the hand of a second clerk
appearing, checking his work and adding some notes and further entries. Minor errors were inevitable
and led to some inconsistencies for later scholars to worry over.
Who appears in Domesday Book? Most of the names that appear are those of landowners. The king
and his family held about 17 per cent of the land, bishops and abbots about 26 per cent and around 190
tenants-in-chief held about 54 per cent. Of the 268,984 individuals described in Domesday, some 40
per cent are listed as villani. This Latin term has been translated in different ways by historians, as
villein, villager, and villan (? members of the vill). At the bottom of the social pile came the servi or
slaves, about 10% of the total population, who had no property rights and could be bought and sold.

The Middle Ages

Norman legacy. In December 1154 Henry II became king of England following the anarchy and civil
war of Stephen's reign. Stephen had acknowledged Henry, grandson of Henry I of England, as his heir-
designate. The Britain of Henry II, and of his sons Richard I and John, was experiencing rapid
population growth, clearance of forest for fields, establishment of new towns and outward-looking
crusading zeal. The country also witnessed the cultural feast of the '12th-century renaissance' in the
arts, exemplified by the Winchester Bible of c. 1160, created from the skins of over 300 calves and
lavishly decorated with lapis lazuli and gold applied by a team of manuscript illuminators from
continental Europe. Legacies of the Norman invasion of 1066 remained. The aristocracy spoke French
until after 1350, so saxon 'ox' and 'swine', for example, came to the table as French boeuf and porc.
9
Ireland was less dominated by Normans. However, much of the regional indigenous culture survived
despite Norman monarchy and aristocracy. A combination of external factors made England more
inward-looking and more dissonant after 1200. Internationally the crusading ideal was weakening.
Population continued to rise in the 1200s, primogeniture became more established and there were
many younger warrior sons looking for lands and glory.
Magna Carta. In 1215 John hoped to recapture Normandy. He called on his lords to fight for
him, but they no longer trusted him. They marched to London, where they were joined by angry
merchants. Outside London at Runnymede, John was forced to sign a new agreement. This new
agreement was known as “Magna Carta”, the Great Charter, and was an important symbol of political
freedom. The king promised all “freemen” protection from his officers and the right to a fair and legal
trial. At the time perhaps less than one quarter of the English were “freemen”. Most were not free, and
were serfs or little better. Hundreds of years later, Magna Carta was used by Parliament to protect
itself from a powerful king. In fact Magna Carta gave no real freedom to the majority of people in
England. The nobles who wrote it and forced King John to sign it had no such thing in mind. They had
one main aim: to make sure John did not go beyond his rights as feudal lord.
Magna Carta marks a clear stage in the collapse of English feudalism. Feudal society was based
on links between lord and vassal. At Runnymede the nobles were not acting as vassals but as a class.
They established a committee of 24 lords to make sure John kept his promises. That was not a feudal
thing to do. In addition, the nobles were acting in co-operation with the merchant class of towns. The
nobles did not allow John’s successor’s to forget this charter and its promises. Every king recognised
Magna Carta until the Middle Ages ended in disorder and a new kind of monarchy came into being in
the 16th century.
Henry III (1216 - 1272) was not a soldierly king. His half-hearted campaigns in France were
unsuccessful in regaining lands lost by his father, John. By the Treaty of Paris (1259) he admitted
failure and secured remote Gascony by giving up claims to lands in northern France, including iconic
Normandy. Henry III's reign witnessed many closer links with France, where Louis IX (St Louis) was
his brother-in-law. French culture was echoed in Britain, especially in Gothic architecture. But despite
Frenchness of manners and names, English barons became increasingly conscious of their Englishness,
which they declared in anti-foreign attitudes which focused on immigrant courtiers. It is no accident
that scholars have dubbed the spare, simple Gothic architecture of the 13th century 'Early English',
epitomised by Salisbury Cathedral, largely built between 1220 and 1258.
England dominant. Crusading continued during the 13th century, indeed Edward I (1272 -
1307) was away crusading when his father died in 1272 and did not return for two years. Such a
smooth transition was a tribute to effective government administration in England. Tributes to growing
institutions of English government - and hints of a less dominant monarchy - are prevalent in this
period: Richard I's realm was governed successfully in his absence for almost his entire reign; Henry
III inherited from his unpopular father as a child of nine, with a regency lasting almost a decade; and
the transition of power from Henry III to Edward I, when the latter was absent for two years. There
was a downside to effective financial organisation. The prosperity arising from peasant agriculture,
growing urbanism and burgeoning population growth meant England could focus more directly on its
near neighbours Wales, Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland, in the 13 th and early 14th centuries.
Wales was partly subdued by Edward I, who put his government's wealth into building the great
castles through which he gained control of north Wales. But expansionism wasn't the sole preserve of
England. Scotland regained the Western Isles from Scandinavian colonists following the Battle of
Largs in 1263.
An opportunity arose for England to become involved at the centre of Scottish politics with the
untimely death of Alexander III, who died in a riding accident in 1289. Edward I was called upon to
judge different claimants to the Scottish throne, which he did, and his pre-eminence is displayed in a
contemporary manuscript illumination which shows him with Llywelyn, Prince of Wales, and
Alexander, King of Scotland, on his right and left respectively.
Rebellion. In the last quarter of the 13th century, English dominance over Ireland, Scotland and
Wales was apparently being achieved. But that famous image of Edward I with Scots and Welsh rulers
illustrates a high point of English predominance. From the last quarter of the 13th century,
fundamentals underlying the dynamics of development in Britain and Ireland changed. Population
10
growth slowed down, inflation began to affect wealth. Rebellions in Wales are testament to some
Welshmen's continuing struggle for independence. Henry III's struggle with Simon de Montfort, who
the king defeated and killed at Evesham in 1265, exemplifies this. De Montfort's unofficial 'model
parliament' of 1263 and Edward I's official model of 1295 were designed by magnates to curb royal
power by increasing representation of counties and boroughs.
Problems with the feudal army also emerged at the 1295 parliament when the earl marshal
refused to serve abroad unless the king was present. He was threatened with hanging, but neither
served nor was he hanged. The remainder of the period from 1300 to 1485 is traditionally seen as a
disastrous period in English history, which in many ways it was. However, Scotland and Ireland
achieved growing independence during this period. A Scottish highlight in the 'wars of independence'
was the victory of Robert the Bruce over Edward II at Bannockburn near Stirling in 1314.
Rebellions in Wales, especially that of Owen Glyn Dwr between 1400 and 1409, are testament
to some Welshmen's continuing struggle for independence, although their own princes were replaced
by English princes of Wales from the time of Edward I.
Famine and plague. The long view of the period from 1300 to 1485 suggests climate and
demographic change were probably key determinants of developments in Britain and Ireland. Climatic
deterioration began from about 1300, with colder winters and wetter summers. These conditions
contributed to the Great European Famine of 1315 - 1322, in which millions perished.
The Black Death, the worst disease in recorded history, which arrived in Europe in 1347 and in
England the following year - the disease killed 50% of the population within a year, but the main effect
was that it returned with alarming regularity in 1361, 1374 and regularly thereafter until it disappeared
from Britain in about 1670. The population of Britain and Ireland before the Black Death may have
been 8 million, of which three-quarters lived in England. Decline continued until about 1450, when
the population was perhaps two or three million, the lowest count during the last millennium. By 1485
the population was beginning to rise again.
Succession struggle. Climate change and plague were not the only external factors to affect
Britain and Ireland. The Capetian royal dynasty in France, which had produced male heirs since 987
AD, died out in 1328, provoking a succession struggle in which Edward II and his son Edward (III to
be) were prime claimants. These claims lay dormant for several years, as Edward II's French wife
Isabella and Roger Mortimer invaded England in 1326, imprisoned and murdered Edward II and
brought Isabella's son Edward III to the throne in January 1327. Isabella and Mortimer were effectively
in power, but in 1330 Edward III asserted himself, had Mortimer executed, and staked a claim to the
throne of France.
Scotland, like England, could function effectively without a king for long periods. This led to
the Hundred Years' War, which lasted from 1337 until the English were defeated and driven from
France, except Calais, in 1453. Kings of Scotland spent considerable periods in English captivity, such
as David II who was in captivity from 1346 - 1357, and James I who spent 18 of his 31 years as king in
prison between 1406 and 1424. The church and its leading institution, the papacy, like the monarchy
so strong in the 12th and early 13th centuries, also became weak and disorganised in the later Middle
Ages.
Propaganda. Upheavals occurred lower down the social scale following the Black Death and during
the wars. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was one manifestation of this, while Jack Cade's rebellion in
1450 another. The topsy-turvy world of late medieval Britain and Ireland did not stabilise abruptly
when, as Shakespeare put it, the Tudor Henry VII rescued the crown of England from a bush on
Bosworth Field after the defeat of the reigning monarch Richard III in August 1485. Henry V's giant
ship of 1,600 tons was a unique achievement and brought peace to the Channel. Much of what the
Tudors claimed as 'new government' was already in place in Yorkist England. War against France and
Scotland continued, while Ireland remained semi-independent. At the end of the Wars of the Roses at
Bosworth in 1485, England actually came under a Welsh dynasty.
Much of the bad press of the 1400s derives from Tudor propaganda. There was, in fact, much
to praise in 15th-century Britain.
Common Law - Henry II and the Birth of a State. Whilst many remember Henry II for his turbulent
relationship with Thomas Becket and his sons, Richard the Lionheart and John, it was the
establishment of permanent professional courts at Westminster and in the counties for which he might
11
be best remembered. These reforms changed forever the relationship of the King to Church, State and
society.
Law and the State. By the 1230s, therefore, law was seen as an important element in national identity,
even though English law in reality still had many resemblances to that of France and indeed of other
areas. Such an association of law and national identity may be related to the development of the
sovereign state, and certainly in modern thinking law and the state are often closely associated.
However, 'state' is a problematic word in writing of the Middle Ages. It was not used in its modern
sense in the England of c. 1200. It has implications of impersonality which seem inappropriate to a
world where the king's anger could have a major impact upon individuals and upon the affairs of the
realm. It is also a word with more than one meaning. It can refer to one state as opposed to another, say
England as opposed to France. But it can also mean the state as opposed to society, or the state as
opposed to the individual.
Law before Henry II and the Impetus for Reform from 1154. Even before the reforms of Henry II
(1154-89), which are often seen as the vital period for the creation of English common law, England
had known a legal regime characterised by considerable royal control. From Anglo-Saxon England
came a tradition of law-making which focused on the king as the protector of the realm, the corrector
of wrongs. Likewise, the powerful administration of the period tackled many of the same problems of
theft and interpersonal violence as would Henry II, and in rather similar ways. This administration,
characterised in particular by the courts of the shire and its sub-division the hundred, survived the
Norman Conquest. Crucially, in contrast with some areas of France and elsewhere in Europe, these
administrative areas largely remained under royal control. The Normans also brought important
elements of their own to English law, most notably customs relating to land-holding.
In the middle of the 12th century, however, both the extensive involvement of the king in particular
legal matters and the general administrative pattern were severely threatened by the civil war of King
Stephen's reign (1135-54). The need to restore royal authority, to return the realm to its condition in his
grandfather's reign, was one of the main forces behind Henry II's reforms. The same desire underlay
his efforts to reassert control of the Church. These efforts brought him into conflict with his own
chosen archbishop, Thomas Becket, and the circle who conducted the dispute with Becket, and
developed their ideas of kingship in that context, were the men whose ideas shaped the legal reforms.
At the same time, impersonal factors, such as the growth of literate government, also had an impact
upon legal development.
The beginnings of Parliament. King John had signed Magna Carta unwillingly and it quickly became
clear that he was not going to keep to the agreement. The nobles rebelled and soon pushed John out of
the southeast. But Civil War was avoided because John died suddenly in 1216. John’s son, Henry III,
was only 9 years old. During the first 16 years as king he was under the control of powerful nobles and
tied up by Magna Carta. Henry was finally able to rule for himself at the age of 25. It was
understandable that he wanted to be completely independent of the people who had controlled his life
for so long. He spent his time with foreign friends and became involved in expensive wars supporting
the Pope in Sicily and also in France.
Henry’s heavy spending and his foreign advisers upset the nobles. Once again they acted as a
class under the leadership of Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. In 1258 they took over the
government and elected a council of nobles. De Montfort called it a parliament or parlement, a French
word meaning a “discussion meeting”. This “parliament” took control of the treasury and forced
Henry to get rid of his foreign advisers. The nobles were supported by the towns which wished to be
free of Henry’s heavy taxes.
But some of the nobles didn’t support the revolutionary new council and remain loyal to Henry.
With their help Henry was finally able to defeat and kill Simon de Montfort in 1265. Once again he
had full royal authority, although he was careful to accept the balance which de Montfort had created
between king and nobles. When Henry died in 1272 his son Edward I took the throne without
question.
Edward I brought together the first real parliament. Simon de Montfort’s council had been
called a parliament but it included only nobles. It had been able to make statutes or written laws and it
had been able to make political decisions. However, the lords were less able to provide the king with
money except what they had agreed to pay him for the lands they held under feudal arrangement. In
12
the days of Henry I (1100-1135), 85 per cent of the king’s income had come from the land. By 1272
income from the land was less than 40 per cent of the royal income. The king could only raise the rest
by taxation. Since the rules of feudalism didn’t include taxation, taxes could only be raised with the
agreement of those wealthy enough to be taxed. Several kings had made arrangements for taxation
before, but Edward I was the 1st to create a “representative institution” which could provide the
money he needed. The institution became the House of Commons. Unlike the House of Lords it
contained a mixture of “gentry” (knights and other wealthy freemen from the shires) and merchants
from the towns. These were the two broad classes of people who produced and controlled England’s
wealth. In 1275 Edward I commanded each shire and each town to sent 2 representatives to his
parliament. These “commoners” would have stayed away if they could, to avoid giving Edward
money. But few dared risk Edward’s anger. They became unwilling representatives of their local
community. This, rather than Magna Carta, was the beginning of the idea that there should be “no
taxation without representation”, later claimed by the American colonists of the 18 th century. In other
parts of Europe, similar “parliaments” kept all the gentry separate from the commoners. England was
special because the House of Commons contained a mixture of gentry belonging to the feudal ruling
class and merchants and freemen who did not. The co-operation of these groups, through the House of
Commons, became important to Britain’s later political and social development. During the 150 years
following Edward’s death the agreement of the Commons became necessary for the making of all
statutes, and all special taxation additional to regular taxes.
Church and State. John’s reign also marked the end of the long struggle between Church and
state in England. This had begun in 1066 when the pope claimed that William had promised to accept
him as his feudal lord. William refused to accept this claim. He had created Norman bishops and given
them land on condition that they paid homage to him. As a result it was not clear whether the bishops
should obey the church or the king. Those kings and popes who wished to avoid conflict left the matter
alone. But some kings and popes wanted to increase their authority. In such circumstances trouble
could not be avoid.
The struggle was for both power and money. During the 11 th and 12th centuries the Church
wanted the kings of Europe to accept its authority over both spiritual and earthly affairs and argued
that even kings were answerable to God. Kings, on the other hand, chose as bishops men who would
be loyal to them.
The first serious quarrel was between William Rufus and Anselm, the man he had made
Archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm, with several other bishops, fearing the king, had escaped from
England. After William’s death Anselm refused to do homage to William’s successor, Henry I. Henry,
meanwhile, had created several new bishops but they had no spiritual authority without the blessing of
the archbishop. This left the king in a difficult position. It took 7 years to settle the disagreement.
Finally the king agreed that only the Church could create bishops. But in return the Church agreed that
bishops would pay homage to the king for the lands owned by their bishoprics. But after Anselm’s
death Henry managed to delay the appointment of a new archbishop for 5 years while he benefited
from the wealth of Canterbury. The struggle between Church and state continued.
The crisis came when Henry II’s friend Thomas Becket was appointed Archbishop of
Canterbury in 1162. Henry hoped that Thomas would help him to bring the church more under his
control. At first Becket refused, and then he gave in. later he changed his mind again and ran away to
France and it seemed as if Henry had won. But in 1170 Becket returned to England determined to
resist the king. When this news was brought to Henry in his Christmas court in Normandy, Henry
exploded and is said to have uttered the words: 'Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?' It was
undoubtedly spoken in anger, but four knights took him at his word. Led by one Reginald fitz Urse,
they slipped across the Channel to Canterbury, where they tried to force Becket to return with them
and face the King's wrath. He refused and they retired to bed. Next morning, while he was leading
morning mass, they attempted to drag him out of the cathedral, and he resisted. It was during this
struggle that he received a blow on the head which seems to have tipped the whole thing over into
violence and the four knights fell on him with their swords. He died later that afternoon on 29
December 1170. All Christian Europe was shocked and Thomas Becket became a saint of the Church.
For hundreds of years afterwards people not only from England but also from Europe travelled to
Canterbury to pray at Becket’s grave. The murder of Thomas Becket and his subsequent martyrdom
13
has so overshadowed the reign of Henry II that it is often as difficult to see behind to what caused it as
it is to see beyond to the rest of the reign.
The Church at local village level was significantly different from the politically powerful
organisation the king had to deal with. At the time of William I the ordinary village priest could hardly
read at all, and he was usually one of the peasant community. His Church belonged to the local lord
and was often build next to the lord’s house. Almost all priests were married and many inherited their
position from their father. However even at village level the Church wished to replace the lord’s
authority with its own but it was only partly successful. In many places the lord continued to choose
the local priest and to have more influence over him than the more distant Church authorities were able
to have. The Church also tried to prevent priests from marrying. In this it was more successful and by
the end of the 13th century married priests were unusual
In 1066 there were 50 religious houses in England, home for perhaps 1,000 monks and nuns.
By the beginning of the 14th century there were probably about 900 religious houses with 17,500
members. Even though the population in the 14 th century was three times larger than it had been in
1066, the growth of the monasteries is impressive.
During the next century discontent with the Church also grew. There had already been a few
attacks on Church property in towns controlled by the Church. In 1381 one rebel priest had called for
the removal of all bishops and archbishops as well as all the nobles. The greed of the Church was one
obvious reason for its unpopularity. The Church was a feudal power and often treated its peasants and
townspeople with as much cruelty as the nobles did. There was another reason why the people of
England disliked paying taxes to the pope. Edward’s wars in France were beginning to make the
English conscious of their “englishness’ and the pope was a foreigner. To make matters worse the
pope had been driven out of Rome and was living at Avignon in France. It seemed obvious to the
English that the pope must be on the French side and that the taxes they paid to the Church were
actually helping France against England. This was a matter on which the king and people in England
agreed. The king reduced the amount of tax money the pope could raise in Britain and made sure that
most of it found its way into his own treasury instead. Another threat to the Church during the 14 th
century was the spread of religious writings which were popular with an increasingly literate
population. These writings allowed people to pray and think independently of Church control.
At the end of the 14th century new religious ides appeared in England which were dangerous to
Church authority and were condemned as heresy. This heresy was known as “Lollardy”, a word which
probably came from a Latin word meaning “to say prayers”. One of the leaders of “Lollardy” was John
Wycliffe, an Oxford professor. He believed that everyone should be able to read the Bible in English.
He therefore translated it from Latin finishing the work in 1396. He was not allowed to publish his
new Bible in England and was forced to leave Oxford. However both he and the other Lollards were
admired by those nobles and scholars who were critical to the Church, its wealth and the poor quality
of its clergy. If the Lollards had been supported by the king, the English Church might have become
independent from the papacy in the early 15th century. But Richard’s successor, Henry IV, was not
sympathetic. He was deeply loyal to the Church and in 1401 introduced into English for the first time
the ides of executing the Lollards by burning. Lollardy was not well enough organised to resist. In the
next few years it was driven underground and its spirit was not seen again for a century.
LANGUAGE, LITERATURE AND CULTURE. The growth of literacy in England was
closely connected with the 12th-century Renaissance. Schools of learning were established in many
towns and cities. Some were “grammar” schools independent of the Church, while others were
attached to a cathedral. All of these schools taught Latin, because most books were written in this
language. In spite of the dangers the Church took a lead in the new intellectual movement. In England
two schools of higher learning were established, the first at Oxford and the second at Cambridge, at the
end of the 12th century. By the 1220s these two Universities were the intellectual leader of the country.
Few could go to the Universities. Most English people spoke neither Latin, the language of the
Church, nor French, the language of law and of the Norman rulers. It was a long time before English
became the language of the ruling class.
With the spread of literacy, cultural life in Britain naturally developed also. In the cities plays
were performed at important religious festivals. They were called “mystery plays”, because of the
mysterious nature of events in the Bible and they were a popular form of culture. The language itself
14
was changing. French had been used less and less by the Norman rulers during the 13 th century. In the
14th century Edward III had actually forbidden the speaking of French in his army. It was a way of
making the whole army aware of its Englishness. After the Norman Conquest English (the old Anglo-
Saxon language) continued to be spoken by ordinary people but was no longer written. By the end of
the 14th century English was once again a written language. But “Middle English”, the language of the
14th and 15th centuries was very different from Anglo-Saxon. This was partly because it had not been
written for 300 years and partly because it had borrowed so much from Norman French. By the end of
the Middle Ages, English as well as Latin was being used in legal writing and also in elementary
schools. Universities increased in number and scope. Oxford and Cambridge were joined by Scotland's
St Andrews in 1410 and two other Scottish universities by 1500. Education developed enormously
during the 15th century and many schools were founded by powerful men. One of these was William of
Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor of England who founded both Winchester
school in 1382 and new College, Oxford. Many other schools were also opened at this time because
there was a growing need for educated people who could administer the government, the Church, the
law and trade.
The renaissance of Chaucer, Gower, Barbour and Dunbar percolated society. Libraries, such as
that of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, were established and the art of biography began. Ideals of
internationalism faltered, including crusading, the universal church, monasticism. Nationalism
triumphed. Royalty in many respects were as disreputable at the beginning of the period as at the end.
War and depopulation allowed women to contribute much more effectively and influentially to society.
Throughout England much that we recognise today was established and survives: the parish churches
with their towers, now fossilised in their late medieval form by the Reformation; oak-framed timber
buildings scattered across the country; universities and schools.
Ireland, Scotland and Wales all enjoy similar cultural characteristics. Maybe it was the wars of
the period that led the Scots to place their faith in education with their several universities and the
Welsh and Irish to develop their bardic and oral traditions during a turbulent but heroic period of
British and Irish history.
And what of the ordinary people? In 1485 over 95% of the people of Britain lived in the
countryside, towns despite their small share of national populations had an impact far outweighing
their demographic significance.
The Middle Ages ended with a major technical development: William Caxton’s first English
printing press, set up in 1476. At first he printed popular books, such as Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales
and Malory’s Morte d’Arthur.

History
The 16th – 17th centuries

THE TUDORS (1485 - 1603). Henry VII is less well-known than either Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.
But he was far more important in establishing the new monarchy than either of them. During the 15th
century, but particularly during the Wars of Roses, England’s trading position had been badly
damaged. The strong German Hanseatic League, a close trading society, had destroyed English trade
with the Baltic and northern Europe. Trade with Italy and France had also been reduced after
England’s defeat in France in the mid 15th century. The Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium)
alone offered a way in for trade in Europe. Only a year after his victory at Bosworth in 1485, Henry
VII made an important trade agreement with the Netherlands which allowed English trade to grow
again.
The authority of the law had been almost completely destroyed by the lawless behaviour of
nobles and their armed men. Henry used the “Court of Star Chamber”, traditionally the king’s
council chamber to deal with lawless nobles. Local justice that had broken down during the wars
slowly began to operate again. Henry encouraged to use heavy fines as punishment because this gave
the Crown money. He also raised taxes for wars which he then did not fight. He was careful enough to
keep the friendship of the merchant and lesser gentry classes. Like him they wanted peace and
prosperity. When Henry VII died in 1509 he left behind the huge total of 2 million$, about 15 years’
15
worth of income. The only thing on which he was happy to spend money freely was the building of
ships for a merchant fleet, because he understood that England’s future wealth would depend on
international trade.
Henry VIII was quite unlike his father. He liked to rule by fear, executed his opponents and
ordered the destruction of beautiful buildings, libraries and works of art. To historians, Henry remains
one of the most important monarchs to have ruled the English and Welsh. He lasted almost 4 decades,
during which he presided over the foundation of the Church of England, a remodelling of the
machinery of government and of taxation, a major growth in the importance of Parliament, the
incorporation of Wales into the regular system of English local administration, the establishment of the
Kingdom of Ireland, the arrival in England of Renaissance modes of art and literature, and a major
building programme which included colleges, palaces and fortresses. In public memory, also, he is
remembered as a colossal figure. He has probably been portrayed in the cinema more often than any
other English king. The fact that a Cockney could provide a recognisable representation of him gives
away part of his enduring appeal; in national memory, Henry was one of the lads, the only English
king to have his achievements celebrated in a long-popular music hall song.
He was the second son of Henry VII, and throughout his childhood was overshadowed by his
older brother Arthur. He stayed with his mother, Elizabeth of York, living a sheltered existence of
strong maternal love, while Arthur was paraded before the kingdom as its heir. Suddenly both Arthur
and Elizabeth died in quick succession, leaving the old king half-crazed with grief and Henry deprived
of affection. He was the last monarch for over a century to attend the debates of the House of Lords,
and in his last 7 years he personally gave 108 interviews to foreign ambassadors. He wanted all state
documents drawn up with large margins and spaces between lines so that he could scribble comments.
Henry possessed an amazing memory, he was able to recall the names of every servant employed by
the royal households and all the grants of land or money which he had ever signed. On the other hand,
he did not care to attend the deliberations of his council of advisers, kept postponing major decisions
of policy, and hated to read or write long documents. He was a chronic annotator, editor and
commentator, loving the detail of government but disliking the main business.
Some claims could be made for him as a cultured monarch. He was quite a good musician, and
possessed a library of almost a thousand books, which he certainly read as he scribbled all over them.
He had a real understanding of fortification, ballistics and shipping, and could discuss mathematics and
astronomy on equal terms with experts. His only conventional vices were gluttony, ostentation and
gambling: in two years he lost £3,250 on cards and by his death he owned a record 50 palaces.
Given Henry's status as father of the English Reformation, it is remarkable how little personal
piety is revealed by his annotations of religious books. His damage to traditional Christianity in
England is obvious: his policies resulted in the destruction of hundreds of beautiful buildings and
works of art, incalculable damage to libraries, and the execution of the Englishmen mostly widely
respected in Europe for their godliness. Henry never showed any capacity as a general, and his foreign
policy was a failure. He repeatedly attempted to reconquer parts of France, and ended up with
Boulogne. He tried to conquer Scotland, and only forced the Scots to become allies of his enemies the
French. Two real successes of his reign - the assimilation of Wales and the pacification of Ireland -
were not matters in which he displayed personal interest. The splendid string of fortresses which he
built to guard the English coast were a sign of panic, at having united all the strongest powers in
Western Europe against himself by rejecting Catholicism. The overhaul of governmental structures
and taxation undertaken by his ministers was driven by the need to raise money for his wars, where it
was spent to little result. His reputation among 20th century historians has generally been low, but in
his own time it stood much higher. He was feared, and admired, and his death was marked by more
obvious public grief than that of any other Tudor.
The break from Rome. The Act of Supremacy (1534) confirmed the break from Rome,
declaring Henry to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England. The Dissolution of the
Monasteries lasted 4 years to 1540. Two thirds of all the land was sold to the laity and the money
squandered in vanity wars against France. With the destruction of priceless ecclesiastical treasures it
was possibly the greatest act of vandalism in English history but also an act of political genius,
creating a vested interest in the Reformation: those now owning monastic lands were unlikely to
embrace a return to Catholicism. Further doctrinal reform was halted by the Act of Six Articles in
16
1539 and following Cromwell's sudden fall the next year the court hung between religious
conservatives and radical reformers. The 1539 Act was repealed, priests were permitted to marry -
creating another vested interest - and more land was confiscated.
Changing attitudes. Becoming Queen in 1553 Mary, was always going to have a tough time
undoing twenty years' work. Mary did her best, reinstating Catholic doctrines and rites, and replacing
altars and images, but she handicapped herself by martyring almost 300 ordinary men and women, as
well as bigger names like Cranmer. Burning bodies, Spanish courtiers all fuelled further Protestant
propaganda and confirmed fears of the Catholic menace that had been threatened since 1534. Fighting
France for Philip, Mary lost Calais in 1558 - England's last territory in France. Tension mounted,
Thomas Wyatt was rebelling in Kent, and religious civil war seemed not too far away. However,
chance rolled the dice once more. Mary died childless in November 1558: the only heir was Elizabeth:
a moderate Protestant, she inherited a nervous kingdom where Catholicism dominated everywhere but
the major cities, the South East and East Anglia. She had to inject some stability. The religious
settlement of 1559 was intended to be inclusive. It restored Royal Supremacy and the Act of
Uniformity but, reintroduced clerical vestments and a more Catholic Eucharist.
A lasting legacy. In reality, however, the settlement was very Protestant: it reissued Cranmer's
Prayer Book of 1552 and its 39 Articles were closely modelled on his work in 1553. All but one of
Mary's Bishops were removed from office after refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy, replaced by
men hand-picked by Elizabeth's chief minister, Robert Cecil. Most were far more radical than their
Queen, as were the clergy who filled the parishes vacated by resigning Catholic priests. The church
was further bolstered in 1563 when another Act of Uniformity made refusal to take the oath, or the
defence of papal authority, a treasonable offence. But this time the foreign threat was real: a revolt in
1569, the papal invasion of Ireland, Elizabeth's excommunication and the arrival of priests from France
all underlined the insecurity of the Anglican Church. The severity of the Treason Laws increased
alongside anti-Catholic sentiment, effectively killing it as any real force by driving it underground for
the rest of her reign. And it was the length of her reign that secured Anglicanism and established it as
Protestant. After the stop-start policies of Edward and Mary, it had 45 years of Elizabethan rule to bed
down. Had she succumbed to smallpox in 1562, a religious civil war might easily have followed. But
luck struck again, and by her death in 1603 the country was united as had not been possible in the
previous century, both by a common religion and a common enemy. Patriotism and Protestantism were
two halves of the same coin, a coin baring Henry's title, 'Fidei Defensor'. They still do.
The English Reformation. Despite the zeal of religious reformers in Europe, England was
slow to question the established Church. During the reign of Henry VIII, however, the tide turned in
favour of Protestantism, and by the 1600s the new Church held sway over the old. How did all this
come about?

17
Strange turn of events. For much of the 16th century England and Scotland hated each other with
all the passion of warring neighbours. Yet in 1603 a Scottish king would ascend the English throne
with the connivance and general approval of the English ruling elite. This unlikely turn of events
owed much to the eccentricities of the Welsh Tudor dynasty that had occupied the English for
almost precisely that century: the determination of the father, Henry VIII, to marry often and the
equal determination of the daughter, Elizabeth, not to marry at all. But it also owed a great deal to
Protestantism. There was little that bound together the English aristocracy and the Scottish king. It
was a determination to preserve England as a Protestant nation.
A powerful reforming party emerges at Court. As Henry's health failed in the last years
of his life it became clear that his own actions had encouraged the growth of a powerful evangelical
party at Court. On his death in 1547 they moved quickly to establish their supremacy in the regency
government made necessary by the youth of the new king, Edward VI (1547-1553). So, the short
reign of Edward VI saw a determined attempt to introduce a full Protestant church polity into
England, modelled on that of the Swiss and German Reformed churches and driven on by a
powerful alliance of Archbishop Cranmer and the Lord Protector, the Duke of Somerset. In the 5
years of the king's life, much was achieved: two evangelical Prayer Books, a new English order of
service and the stripping of the remaining Catholic paraphernalia from the churches. But time was
too short to put down roots. On Edward's death in 1553, the changes were reversed easily by his
Catholic half-sister, Mary (1553-1558). Only Mary's devotion to the papacy, and her determination
to marry her cousin, Philip of Spain, provoked a half-hearted reaction. English Protestantism was
reduced once again to a persecuted remnant; many of its ablest figures taking refuge abroad, to
avoid martyrdom - the fate of those whom remained behind.
From Mary to Elizabeth. So, in 1558 Elizabeth acceded to a troubled throne. Elizabeth I is
considered one of the country's most successful and popular monarchs. Clever, enigmatic and
flirtatious, she rewrote the rules of being Queen. But what was Elizabeth really like? And was her
success down to her own skill and judgement - or an intuitive grasp of public relations?
The reign of Elizabeth I is often thought of as a Golden Age. It was a time of extravagance and
luxury in which a flourishing popular culture was expressed through writers such as Shakespeare,
and explorers like Drake and Raleigh sought to expand England's territory overseas. The 16 th
century was also a time when the poor became poorer, books and opinions were censored, and plots
to overthrow the Queen were rife. Elizabeth's ministers had to employ spies and even use torture to
gain information about threats to her life. In 1558 the Protestant preacher John Knox wrote, 'It is
more than a monster in nature that a woman should reign and bear empire over man.' So was he
right? Were women fit to rule the country? The people had lived through the unpopular reign of
Mary I, known as 'Bloody Mary' for her merciless persecution of Protestants. Lady Jane Grey was
Queen for only a matter of days before being toppled and eventually executed. And Mary Queen of
Scots made a series of ill-judged decisions which led her to the executioner's block in 1587.
Elizabeth was a different kind of Queen: quick-witted, clever and able to use feminine wiles to get
her own way. Elizabeth could be as ruthless and calculating as any king before her but at the same
time she was vain, sentimental and easily swayed by flattery. She liked to surround herself with
attractive people and her portraits were carefully vetted to make sure that no physical flaws were
ever revealed. She had a formidable intellect, and her sharp tongue would quickly settle any
argument - in her favour. A new era was dawning, the age of Elizabeth I. As soon as her Council
had been appointed, Elizabeth made religion her priority. She recognised how important it was to
establish a clear religious framework and between 1559 and 1563 introduced the acts which made
up the Church Settlement. This returned England to the Protestant faith stating that public worship,
religious books such as the Bible and prayers were to be conducted in English rather than Latin.
Elizabeth was known as a Queen who executed another Queen - Mary. To execute any Queen was a
precedent. Catholic Europe reacted swiftly to the news and the Pope urged Philip of Spain to invade
England. Mary's execution would be one of the factors contributing to the Spanish Armada the
following year. Her death took a heavy toll on Elizabeth. The 1590s proved a difficult decade for
Elizabeth. The question of how to govern Ireland had created terrible problems for the Queen over
the years but 1594 saw the start of the Nine Years War in which hundreds of English troops were
killed. On 24 March 1603 Elizabeth died and the crown passed to the Protestant King James VI of
Scotland who became King James I of England.
IRELAND
The question of how to govern Ireland was one of the most difficult and sensitive issues of
Elizabeth's reign. By the time of her death, the country had forged a new and distinct identity of its
own. But what kind of policies did her government pursue and how did the people of Ireland react?
Tudor Parliaments. The Tudor monarchs did not like governing through Parliament. Henry
VII had used Parliament only for law making. He seldom called it together. Henry VIII had used it
first to raise money for his military adventures and then for his struggle with Rome. His aim was to
make sure that the powerful members from the shires and towns supported him, because they had a
great deal of control over popular feeling. Perhaps, Henry himself didn’t realise that by inviting
Parliament to make new laws for the Reformation he was giving it a level of authority it never had
before. Tudor monarchs were certainly not more democratic than earlier kings, but by using
Parliament to strengthen their policy, they actually increased Parliament’s authority. Parliament
strengthened its position again during Edward VI’s reign by ordering the new prayer book to be
used in all churches and forbidding the Catholic mass. Only 2 things persuaded Tudor monarchs not
to get rid of Parliament altogether: they needed money and they needed the support of the
merchants and landowners. Today Parliament must meet every year and remain “in session” for
three-quarters of it. This was not at all the case in the 16 th century. In the early 16th century
Parliament only met when the monarch ordered it. Sometimes it met twice in one year, but then it
might not meet again for 6 years. In the first 44 years of Tudor rule Parliament met only 20 times.
Henry VIII assembled Parliament a little more often to make the laws for Church Reformation. But
Elizabeth, like her grandfather Henry VII, tried not to use Parliament after her Reformation
Settlement of 1559 and in 44 years she only let Parliament meet 13 times.
During the century power moved from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. The
reason for this was simple. The Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Commons represented richer
and more influential classes than the Lords. In fact, the idea of getting rid of the House of Lords,
still a real question in British politics today, was first suggested in the 16 th century. In order to
control discussion in Parliament, the Crown appointed a “Speaker”. Even today the Speaker is
responsible for good behaviour during debates in the House of Commons. His job in Tudor times
was to make sure that Parliament discussed what the monarch wanted and that it made the decision
which he or she wanted. Until the end of the Tudor period Parliament was supposed to do 3 things:
agree to the taxes needed; make the laws which the Crown suggested; and advise the Crown but
only when asked to do so. In order for Parliament to be able to do these things, the Members of
Parliament were given important rights: freedom of speech, freedom from fear of arrest and
freedom to meet and speak to the monarch. By the end of the 16 th century Parliament was beginning
to show new confidence and in the 17th century, when the gentry and merchant classes were far
more aware of their own strength, it was obvious that Parliament would challenge the Crown.
Eventually this resulted in war.
Language and Culture. At the beginning of the Tudor period English was still spoken in a
number of different ways. There were still reminders of the Saxon, Angle, Jute and Viking
invasions in the different forms of language spoken in different parts of the country. Since the time
of Chaucer, in the mid-14th century, London English had become accepted amongst the literate
population. For the first time people started to think of London pronunciation as “correct”
pronunciation. Until Tudor times the local forms of speech had been spoken by lord and peasant
alike. From Tudor times onwards the way people spoke began to show the difference between them.
Educated people began to speak “correct” English, and uneducated people continued to speak the
local dialect. Literacy increased greatly during the mid-16th century. In fact, by the 17th century
about half the population could read and write.
Nothing, however, showed England’s new confidence more that its artistic flowering during the
Renaissance. In the early years of the 16 th century English thinkers had become interested in the
work of the Dutch philosopher Erasmus. One of them, Thomas More, wrote a study of the ideal
nation called Utopia. Literature, however, was England’s greatest art form. Playwrights like
Christopher Marlowe, Ben Johnson and William Shakespeare filled the theatres with their exciting
new plays.

17th century. The Stuarts

The Stuart monarchs, from James I onwards, were less successful than the Tudors. They
quarrelled with Parliament and this resulted in civil war. The only king of England ever to be tried
and executed was a Stuart. Another Stuart king was driven from his throne by his own daughter and
her Dutch husband, William of Orange. William became king by Parliament’s election, not by right
of birth. When the last Stuart, Queen Anne, died in 1714, the monarchy became a “parliamentary
monarchy” controlled by a constitution.
After the death of Elizabeth I the thrones of England and Ireland passed to her cousin, James
Stuart. The 3 separate kingdoms were united under a single ruler for the first time, and James I and
VI, as he now became, entered upon his unique inheritance. England, Scotland and Ireland were
very different countries, and the memories of past conflict ran deep. Each kingdom favoured a
different form of religion. Most Scots were Calvinists, most English favoured a more moderate
form of Protestantism and most Irish remained stoutly Catholic. James I was resolved to keep his
kingdoms out of foreign entanglements if he could. His health failing, the old king died in 1625 and
was succeeded by his son Charles, who initially threw himself into the fight against the Catholic
powers, but eventually withdrew from the European conflict in 1630. Charles I was a conscientious
and principled ruler, but he was also stubborn, reserved and politically maladroit. Over the next 15
years, many of Charles's English subjects became alienated by his religious policies and by his
apparent determination to rule without parliaments. Some, especially the more zealous Protestants,
or 'puritans', came to believe in the existence of a sinister royal plot - one which aimed at the
restoration of the Catholic faith in England and the destruction of the people's liberties. Similar
fears were abroad in Scotland, and when Charles attempted to introduce a new prayer book to that
country in 1637 he provoked furious resistance. Charles's subsequent attempts to crush the Scots by
force went disastrously wrong, forcing him to summon an English parliament in October 1640.
Once this assembly had begun to sit, Charles was assailed by angry complaints about his policies.
At first, the king seemed to have practically no supporters. But as puritan members of parliament
began to push for wholesale reform of the church and religious traditionalists became alarmed,
Charles found himself at the head of a swelling political constituency. Then, in 1641, the Catholics
of Ireland rose up in arms, killing many hundreds of the English and Scottish Protestants who had
settled in their country. The rebellion caused panic in England, and made it harder than ever for a
political compromise to be reached. Charles I and parliament could not agree and England began to
divide into 2 armed camps. He believed that order could be achieved by the king acting out a role
and laying down patterns for his people to observe and copy. This points to one of the most
interesting contrasts with his father. Whereas James, influenced by his upbringing in the small,
intimate court of Scotland, treated politics as a matter of face-to-face debate and negotiation,
Charles saw it more as about getting people to conform to clear-cut ideals and images. The
problems created by Charles's political style, his beliefs and his lack of understanding as a ruler
were revealed very clearly in the lead up to the English Civil War (1642-6). After defeat by the
Scots in The Bishops Wars (1639-40) it was important that the king give a lead in reuniting his
people and settling their differences. But this proved beyond Charles. After a promising start at the
beginning of 1641, efforts at settlement fell apart and increasingly Charles slipped into the role of a
party leader, determined to destroy his enemies by whatever means came to hand. From the spring
onwards he sponsored a series of army plots and abortive coups, culminating in the attempted arrest
of the five members in January 1642. Once this had failed civil war became virtually unavoidable.
More than any other individual, it was Charles who was responsible for this disaster.
Civil War and Revolution. Choosing Sides in the English Civil War. From royalism and
religion to money and women, Dr Mark Stoyle uncovers the complex motivations behind the
choosing of sides in the English Civil War.
Between 1642 and 1646 England was torn apart by a bloody civil war. On the one hand stood
the supporters of King Charles I: the Royalists. On the other stood the supporters of the rights and
privileges of Parliament: the Parliamentarians. Shortly before the war broke out, partisans of both
sides began to apply an insulting nickname to their opponents: to the Parliamentarians, the Royalists
were 'Cavaliers' - a term derived from the Spanish word 'Caballeros', meaning armed troopers or
horsemen; to the Royalists, the Parliamentarians were 'Roundheads' - a reference to the shaved
heads of the London apprentices who had been so active in demonstrating their support for
Parliament during the months before the fighting began.
The civil war which broke out in 1642 saw a broadly Royalist north and west ranged against a
broadly Parliamentarian south and east. Charles derived particular advantage from the support of
the Welsh and the Cornish, who supplied him with many of his foot soldiers, while parliament
derived still more advantage from its possession of London. In mid-1643, it looked as if the king
might be about to defeat his opponents, but later that year the Parliamentarians concluded a military
alliance with the Scots. Following the intervention of a powerful Scottish army and the defeat of the
king's forces at Marston Moor in 1644, Charles lost control of the north of Britain. The following
year, Charles was defeated by parliament's New Model Army at Naseby and it became clear that the
Royalist cause was lost. Unwilling to surrender to the Parliamentarians, the king gave himself up to
the Scots instead, but when they finally left England, the Scots handed Charles over to their
parliamentary allies. Still determined not to compromise with his enemies, the captive king
managed to stir up a new bout of violence known as the Second Civil War. Realising that the
kingdom could never be settled in peace while Charles I remained alive, a number of radical MPs
and officers in the New Model Army eventually decided that the king had to be charged with high
treason. Charles was accordingly tried, found guilty, and beheaded in January 1649. In the wake of
the king's execution, a republican regime was established in England, a regime which was chiefly
underpinned by the stark military power of the New Model Army.
The war was over, but the cost to ordinary people in human suffering was immeasurable. Bled
dry with taxes, they had also endured the compulsory billeting of uncouth troops in their houses, the
plundering of their animals, the theft of their food, the disruption of their markets, the vandalisation
of their churches and the destruction of their property. The lingering effects of the war were visible
wherever you turned. One-third of the people in Gloucester were homeless; one-quarter in
Bridgwater and two-thirds in Taunton. Hundreds of maimed soldiers and destitute widows
submitted petitions to the county quarter sessions in the hope of gaining some relief. Fields lay
abandoned; bridges broken down; and road surfaces destroyed. It had indeed been an unhappy civil
war.
Fall of the republic. England's new rulers were determined to re-establish England's traditional
dominance over Ireland, and in 1649 they sent a force under Oliver Cromwell to undertake the
reconquest of Ireland, a task that was effectively completed by 1652. Meanwhile, Charles I's eldest
son had come to an agreement with the Scots and in January 1651 had been crowned as Charles II
of Scotland. Later that year, Charles invaded England with a Scottish army, but was defeated by
Cromwell at Worcester. The young king just managed to avoid capture, and later escaped to France.
His Scottish subjects were left in a sorry plight, and soon the Parliamentarians had conquered the
whole of Scotland. In 1653, Cromwell was installed as 'lord protector' of the new Commonwealth of
England, Scotland and Ireland. Over the next 5 years, he strove to establish broad-based support for
godly republican government with scant success. Cromwell died in 1658 and was succeeded as
protector by his son, Richard, but Richard had little aptitude for the part he was now called upon to
play and abdicated 8 months later.
After Richard Cromwell's resignation, the republic slowly fell apart and Charles II was
eventually invited to resume his father's throne. In May 1660, Charles II entered London in triumph.
The monarchy had been restored. Charles II was an intelligent but deeply cynical man, more
interested in his own pleasures than in points of political or religious principle. His lifelong
preoccupation with his many mistresses did nothing to improve his public image. The early years of
the new king's reign were scarcely glorious ones. In 1665 London was devastated by the plague,
while a year later much of the capital was destroyed in the Great Fire of London. The Dutch raid on
Chatham in 1667 was one the most humiliating military reverses England had ever suffered.
Nevertheless, the king was a cunning political operator and when he died in 1685 the position of the
Stuart monarchy seemed secure. But things swiftly changed following the accession of his brother,
James, who was openly Catholic.
 Catholic succession. James II at once made it plain that he was determined to improve the lot of
his Catholic subjects, and many began to suspect that his ultimate aim was to restore England to the
Catholic fold. The birth of James's son in 1688 made matters even worse since it forced anxious
Protestants to confront the fact that their Catholic king now had a male heir. Soon afterwards, a
group of English Protestants begged the Dutch Stadholder William of Orange - who had married
James II's eldest daughter, Mary, in 1677 - to come to their aid. Many suspected that James II
wanted to bring back Catholicism. William, who had long been anticipating such a call, accordingly
set sail with an army for England. James II fled to France a few weeks later and William and Mary
were crowned as joint monarchs the following year. James II still had many supporters in Ireland,
and in March 1689 he landed there with a French army. William now assembled an army of his own
to meet this challenge, and in 1690 he decisively defeated James at the Battle of the Boyne. James
promptly returned to France, leaving William free to consolidate his hold on power. The death of
Mary in 1694 left William as sole ruler of the three kingdoms, and by 1700 all eyes were turning to
the problem of the succession. Because neither William nor James II's surviving daughter, Anne,
had any children, Protestants were terrified that the throne would eventually revert to James II, to
his son, or to one of the many other Catholic claimants. To avert this danger, the Act of Settlement
was passed in 1701, directing that after the deaths of William and Anne the throne would return to
the descendants of James I's daughter, Elizabeth. Sophia, electress of Hanover, and her heirs thus
became next in line to the English throne. In 1702, William died and was succeeded by Anne. Five
years after this, a formal union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland was contrived, in order to
ensure that there would be a Protestant succession in Scotland too. Henceforth England and
Scotland officially became one country, and when Queen Anne, the last of the Stuart monarchs,
died in 1714, it was to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain that George I, the first of
the Hanoverians, succeeded.
The Jacobite Cause. Patriotic Scots, disgruntled Britons, scheming European nations - all got
involved in the Jacobite cause. The uprisings gave rise to episodes of great bravery as well of
tactical mistakes, and have left us with a legacy of many stirring tales. Louise Yeoman tells the
story.
To modern eyes the complex web of religious and political loyalties which underpinned
Jacobitism can seem alien and unsympathetic. The whole movement might be said to span the
century from the deposition of James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to the lonely alcohol-
sodden death of Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1788. A Catholic himself, James decided that by
promoting edicts of religious tolerance, he would be able to re-establish Catholicism as the official
faith of the British Isles. This notion produced near-hysteria in James's Protestant subjects - who
had been taught to abhor this faith. When a son was born to the King and Queen, British Protestants
were faced with the prospect of never waking up from their worst nightmare: a Catholic dynasty.
They turned to James's Protestant son-in-law William of Orange. In 1688 he led a successful
invasion of England. James panicked and fled. As Scotland wavered, James wrote an utterly tactless
letter to the Scottish National Convention in Edinburgh. They declared for William. James's most
zealous Scottish supporter, Viscount Dundee, turned to a military solution. The first Jacobite rising
broke out. But it was not very popular at all. Most Scottish nobles took the attitude of wait and see.
Dundee's forces destroyed William's with a devastating highland charge at the battle of
Killiecrankie in 1689, but their leader died in his hour of glory. This left the movement headless.
The wait and see-ers kept waiting, and the rising petered out. So how did Jacobitism come back
from the political grave in Scotland? In a few words: William and The Union. The new King's
Scottish reign was characterised by government tactlessness and economic disasters. The most
important of the latter was the Darien Scheme. William refused all English assistance to this
Scottish venture to found a colony in Panama. When the scheme failed, leaving most of the would-
be colonists dead, the King was widely blamed. Thus to the die-hard believers in the hereditary
right of James were added the dissatisfied. Jacobitism became a magnet for almost anyone with a
grudge against the government. The Union of 1707 then produced what was for many Scots the
grudge to end all grudges. The ink was hardly dry on the treaty before it was being widely
denounced, and Scotland was ripe for sedition. The French, who were at war with Britain, suddenly
saw an advantage to be gained here. They would land the new Jacobite heir, James III 'The Old
Pretender' in his ancestral kingdom and start a rebellion. It was an excellent opportunity to unite
much of the nation, even many Presbyterians, on the Jacobite side against the Union.
The 15 Rebellion. However Jacobitism was still very dangerous. The promised benefits of the
Union had failed to arrive for many people. Instead, heavy excise duty and increased tax caused
much ill feeling. Added to these were humiliations at the hands of the English-dominated
Westminster parliament. Yet rebellion when it came, sprang from a most unexpected quarter. When
George I of Hanover succeeded to the throne in 1715, he sacked one of Scotland's most influential
politicians: John Erskine, Earl of Mar. Mar decided to retaliate by raising the standard for the house
of Stuart. On one side of his banner he put the arms of Scotland and on the other 'No Union'.
Thousands flocked to it. Soon almost the entire north of Scotland was in his hands. He did this
without even bothering to warn the Jacobite court. This was not a phenomenon of a backward rural
people rising for archaic notions of loyalty to the king over the water. There was strong support for
the Jacobite cause in the trading burghs of north-east Scotland, as well as in the Highlands. The
Union was in serious danger. Argyll seized the strategically vital ground around Stirling, but he was
heavily outnumbered. Then at the battle of Sheriffmuir, when all seemed lost, Mar lost his nerve
and suddenly withdrew. The belated landing of the Pretender couldn't retrieve things, and the
leaders of the rising fled ingloriously to France. The 1715 was like no other Jacobite rising since
Killiecrankie. It was totally indigenous to Britain and not started from abroad.