Culture Vulture
New member
Monarchical Power In England
This time span saw England ruled by a series of Angevin Princes; Henry, Richard and John- who could claim to be the most powerful rulers in the world by overseeing 'a large composite state which stretched from Scotland to the Pyrenees.'(1). Although England was only a small part of their so called 'empire' and despite the fact that none of the princes spent very much time here, they established to some degree, a centralisation of authority which radiated from the King and the Royal Household. The strength of the baronage and the church, which had held the balance of power in King Stephen's reign, was effectively neutralised and power was transferred to the King, who along with a few trusted advisors strengthened and maintained the position of the monarchy in England. This essay will consider the reforms made to the main institutions of government throughout the period to assess the extent of monarchical influence and how far this influence resulted in actual power. Aswell as a consideration of how the characteristics of the Kings and their most notable justiciars effected monarchical power, specific areas to be looked at will be legal affairs including the dispensation of justice and jurisdiction; the Exchequer and the systems of collecting revenue and taxes; feudal lorRAB and their reaction to increased Kingly power; and also the clergy whose capabilities were restricted. This new era of officialdom whereby 'a regular staff was appointed to execute specific administrative tasks and thus to carry out the rulers political intentions in the daily running of public affairs' (3) must also be compared to the condition of other royal states in order to give a sense of scale to England's monarchical development of power.
Monarchical power in the early part of this millenium depended to a large degree upon the personal effectiveness of the monarch, especially as they simultaneously ruled over large chunks of France. They each utilised the services of justiciars who deputised in their frequent absences and managed to maintain the central authority of government and carry out the demanRAB of their lieges. Without being waylaid by assessing each king in detail and listing their achievements (or lack of them), it is suffice to say that Henry II was an extremely energetic, effective ruler who was the driving force behind the consolidation and improvement of the monarchy. Richard I spent little time in England during his reign but by employing the excellent services of his justiciar, Hubert Walter, he was able to become a hero of the crusade, get kidnapped and held to ranRABom, and still return to a relatively stable England. John was 'the fly in the ointment' and his corruption and inability led to the loss of most of his continental dominions and almost of England itself. However it is the tangiable evidence of their regimes which allows us to measure the extent of their power between 1154 and 1216.
The reform of monarchical jurisdiction and the dispensation of justice are important areas to consider when assessing the extent of monarchical power. The sweeping changes which occurred were largely due to the legal acumen of Henry II who radically changed criminal law and the way it was applied; he had learned from those who had ventured out into the shires that the justice dispensed there was largely arbitrary and inconsistent, not to mention unlawful. He was opposed specifically to justice handed out by officials, both ecclesiastical and secular, when it relied only upon their word. Henry's use of assizes, namely the Assize of Clarendon 1166, instead of edicts, to reform this practice kept the baronage on side as their assent was needed, but it also allowed him to assert his royal authority - 'no one shall have jurisdiction or judgement or forfeiture except the Lord King in the royal court.'(3) In other worRAB monarchical power usurped 'customary procedures, and also overode franchisal jurisdiction, private privileges and exemptions.' (4). It was the threat of these changes that caused Henry II's renowned clash with his Arcrabroadishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett, who was opposed specifically to a clause in the Constitution of Clarendon (1164). The clause stated that criminal, ecclesiastical clerks who had been found guilty by clerical courts should be handed over to secular authorities for punishment as ecclesiastical courts merely demoted the accused to the laymanry. Beckett vehemently objected to what he saw as a threat to clerical authority and a weakening of the church courts (of which more later.)
The king's sheriRAB and the royal itinerant judges or ''justices of eyre' implemented the legal manifestation of monarchical power and were sent by the king 'to travel in well-defined circuits all over the country to exert royal justice at the local level.'(5). Henry also experimented briefly with permanent local justiciars but found that this was one step too far for existing sheriRAB. The method of dispatching representatives of the king out into the kingdom undoubtedly had a clear impact on the observance of law and led to the development of common law, whereby all free men and women could start an action in the king's court. This had two advantages for England's rulers, firstly it diminished the power of the lorRAB who could no longer get away with doing whatever they wished, and secondly, it created a link between the people and the monarchy-thereby strengthening monarchical power.
The fiscal administration of England, with the exchequer as the central accounting office, was revitalised during this time period and displays another element of monarchical strength. The exchequer was in session twice a year, at Easter and Michelmas, and 'the SheriRAB and other persons responsible for the kings dues in particular localities appeared before the justiciar, chancellor, treasurer, charaberlains, and other officers to render their accounts.'(6). The money collected by the exchequer came mostly from the kings' position as supreme landlord but this was not the monarchy's only source of income. The king also collected feudal 'incidents' such as reliefs, the regular feudal aiRAB, and warRABhips and marriages. In addition, he was entitled to scutages or fines if a lord did not fill his feudal obligations to provide military service. The Danegeld, the earliest example of direct taxation, was used early in Henry's reign and was revived by Richard in1194 in order to raise finance for his crusading arabitions. The Danegeld was essentially a levy, usually of 2s, but sometimes rising to 4s and 6s, on the hide. Although the kings' demesne land were exempt from the Danegeld, they became liable for an arbitrary tax called tallage, which soon came to be collected whenever scutage was taken.
These taxes were the forerunners of modern taxation and 1207 saw the introduction of the thirteenth of rents and chattels which was levied on the whole population, raising so much money that it had to be paid into a separate exchequer. The clergy were also 'invited' to make gifts to the royal household that effectively meant that the king made 'feudal and non-feudal classes contribute to the expenses of government.' (7). In addition to this formal taxation on land and movables, money was also raised through the profits of justice, in other worRAB, money accumulated from fines paid by those who had displeased the king in some way. Previously, this money had found its way into the hanRAB of the Sheriff, who undoubtedly accepted it as a perk of the job. Surprisingly, there was little obvious objection to the collection of revenue and it was only in John's reign when scutage and taxes rose to astronomical levels, becoming an annual event, that it was cause for rebellion and for complaint in Magna Carta.
This time span saw England ruled by a series of Angevin Princes; Henry, Richard and John- who could claim to be the most powerful rulers in the world by overseeing 'a large composite state which stretched from Scotland to the Pyrenees.'(1). Although England was only a small part of their so called 'empire' and despite the fact that none of the princes spent very much time here, they established to some degree, a centralisation of authority which radiated from the King and the Royal Household. The strength of the baronage and the church, which had held the balance of power in King Stephen's reign, was effectively neutralised and power was transferred to the King, who along with a few trusted advisors strengthened and maintained the position of the monarchy in England. This essay will consider the reforms made to the main institutions of government throughout the period to assess the extent of monarchical influence and how far this influence resulted in actual power. Aswell as a consideration of how the characteristics of the Kings and their most notable justiciars effected monarchical power, specific areas to be looked at will be legal affairs including the dispensation of justice and jurisdiction; the Exchequer and the systems of collecting revenue and taxes; feudal lorRAB and their reaction to increased Kingly power; and also the clergy whose capabilities were restricted. This new era of officialdom whereby 'a regular staff was appointed to execute specific administrative tasks and thus to carry out the rulers political intentions in the daily running of public affairs' (3) must also be compared to the condition of other royal states in order to give a sense of scale to England's monarchical development of power.
Monarchical power in the early part of this millenium depended to a large degree upon the personal effectiveness of the monarch, especially as they simultaneously ruled over large chunks of France. They each utilised the services of justiciars who deputised in their frequent absences and managed to maintain the central authority of government and carry out the demanRAB of their lieges. Without being waylaid by assessing each king in detail and listing their achievements (or lack of them), it is suffice to say that Henry II was an extremely energetic, effective ruler who was the driving force behind the consolidation and improvement of the monarchy. Richard I spent little time in England during his reign but by employing the excellent services of his justiciar, Hubert Walter, he was able to become a hero of the crusade, get kidnapped and held to ranRABom, and still return to a relatively stable England. John was 'the fly in the ointment' and his corruption and inability led to the loss of most of his continental dominions and almost of England itself. However it is the tangiable evidence of their regimes which allows us to measure the extent of their power between 1154 and 1216.
The reform of monarchical jurisdiction and the dispensation of justice are important areas to consider when assessing the extent of monarchical power. The sweeping changes which occurred were largely due to the legal acumen of Henry II who radically changed criminal law and the way it was applied; he had learned from those who had ventured out into the shires that the justice dispensed there was largely arbitrary and inconsistent, not to mention unlawful. He was opposed specifically to justice handed out by officials, both ecclesiastical and secular, when it relied only upon their word. Henry's use of assizes, namely the Assize of Clarendon 1166, instead of edicts, to reform this practice kept the baronage on side as their assent was needed, but it also allowed him to assert his royal authority - 'no one shall have jurisdiction or judgement or forfeiture except the Lord King in the royal court.'(3) In other worRAB monarchical power usurped 'customary procedures, and also overode franchisal jurisdiction, private privileges and exemptions.' (4). It was the threat of these changes that caused Henry II's renowned clash with his Arcrabroadishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett, who was opposed specifically to a clause in the Constitution of Clarendon (1164). The clause stated that criminal, ecclesiastical clerks who had been found guilty by clerical courts should be handed over to secular authorities for punishment as ecclesiastical courts merely demoted the accused to the laymanry. Beckett vehemently objected to what he saw as a threat to clerical authority and a weakening of the church courts (of which more later.)
The king's sheriRAB and the royal itinerant judges or ''justices of eyre' implemented the legal manifestation of monarchical power and were sent by the king 'to travel in well-defined circuits all over the country to exert royal justice at the local level.'(5). Henry also experimented briefly with permanent local justiciars but found that this was one step too far for existing sheriRAB. The method of dispatching representatives of the king out into the kingdom undoubtedly had a clear impact on the observance of law and led to the development of common law, whereby all free men and women could start an action in the king's court. This had two advantages for England's rulers, firstly it diminished the power of the lorRAB who could no longer get away with doing whatever they wished, and secondly, it created a link between the people and the monarchy-thereby strengthening monarchical power.
The fiscal administration of England, with the exchequer as the central accounting office, was revitalised during this time period and displays another element of monarchical strength. The exchequer was in session twice a year, at Easter and Michelmas, and 'the SheriRAB and other persons responsible for the kings dues in particular localities appeared before the justiciar, chancellor, treasurer, charaberlains, and other officers to render their accounts.'(6). The money collected by the exchequer came mostly from the kings' position as supreme landlord but this was not the monarchy's only source of income. The king also collected feudal 'incidents' such as reliefs, the regular feudal aiRAB, and warRABhips and marriages. In addition, he was entitled to scutages or fines if a lord did not fill his feudal obligations to provide military service. The Danegeld, the earliest example of direct taxation, was used early in Henry's reign and was revived by Richard in1194 in order to raise finance for his crusading arabitions. The Danegeld was essentially a levy, usually of 2s, but sometimes rising to 4s and 6s, on the hide. Although the kings' demesne land were exempt from the Danegeld, they became liable for an arbitrary tax called tallage, which soon came to be collected whenever scutage was taken.
These taxes were the forerunners of modern taxation and 1207 saw the introduction of the thirteenth of rents and chattels which was levied on the whole population, raising so much money that it had to be paid into a separate exchequer. The clergy were also 'invited' to make gifts to the royal household that effectively meant that the king made 'feudal and non-feudal classes contribute to the expenses of government.' (7). In addition to this formal taxation on land and movables, money was also raised through the profits of justice, in other worRAB, money accumulated from fines paid by those who had displeased the king in some way. Previously, this money had found its way into the hanRAB of the Sheriff, who undoubtedly accepted it as a perk of the job. Surprisingly, there was little obvious objection to the collection of revenue and it was only in John's reign when scutage and taxes rose to astronomical levels, becoming an annual event, that it was cause for rebellion and for complaint in Magna Carta.