"Enemy of queenship historians? A historiographical assessment of the factors that enabled Stephen of Blois to succeed the throne in 1135 and upon succession, maintain his kingship." by Darcy R. Keim, MA
Enemy of queenship historians? A historiographical assessment of the factors that enabled Stephen of Blois to succeed the throne in 1135 and upon succession, maintain his kingship.
The instability of Anglo-Norman succession in the early twelfth-century resulted in nineteen years of political insecurity and civil war. The Anarchy was the product of a succession crisis that had been brought about by war and conquests during the eleventh-century.1 It was undoubtedly a period of conflict and uncertainty due to ongoing dynastic rivalry. A determining factor was Henry I’s failure to eliminate the threat of a troubled succession.2 As a consequence at the loss of Henry’s only legitimate son, William Adelin (also referred to as ‘William the Atheling’), alliances had evidently shifted from the direct line of succession.3 An observation from Dr. Paul Dalton highlights the extent of which this caused issue; remarking that “the resulting civil war, during which Matilda and her supporters challenged Stephen’s kingship, was a chaotic and protracted conflict: the nineteen long years when Christ and his saints were said to have slept.”4 As a result of this, the succession was contested by one of the most controversial figures of the high medieval period. Although there is evidence to suggest that Stephen of Blois had been a favoured candidate for rulership, it still remains topical to assess the reasons behind his ascension. An influential factor that is cited is the nature of his royal lineage. As the grandson of William I and the nephew of Henry, it may be confidently ascertained that Stephen had the foundation for a strong succession claim. Furthermore, it has been popularly remarked that Henry’s remaining legitimate heir - the Empress Matilda - was disregarded solely on the basis of her gender.5 This is reflective of a statement made by Marjorie Chibnall (an English historian and prominent medievalist) in 1988: “As a woman involved in politics, she was assigned a woman’s place: important and influential, but limited, variable, and always secondary.”6 However, this statement overlooks additional factors that hindered Matilda’s ascension; such as the issue of her marriage to an established opponent of the Normans, Geoffrey, count of Angevins.7 It is difficult to confirm the extent of which the non-acceptance of Matilda would have been known to Henry I. William of Malmesbury (a twelfth-century historian) provides a brief commentary as to the response made by Henry in regard to further cementing her. Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the kings of England establishes that the council (comprising of nobility and gentry) had met between Christmas 1126 and Epiphany 1127, during which oaths to Matilda were sworn.8 This is briskly detailed in the excerpt below:
In the twenty-seventh year of his reign, in the month of September, king Henry came to England, bringing his daughter with him. But, at the ensuing Christmas, convening a great number of the clergy and nobility at London, he gave the county of Salop to his wife, the daughter of the earl of Louvain, whom he had married after the death of Matilda. Distressed that this had no issue, and fearing lest she should be perpetually childless, with well-founded anxiety, he turned his thoughts on a successor to the kingdom. On which subject, having held much previous and long-continued deliberation, he now at this council compelled all the nobility of England, as well as the bishops and abbots, to make oath, that, if he should die without male issue, they would, without delay or hesitation, accept his daughter Matilda, the late empress, as their sovereign.9
Administered by Roger, bishop of Salisbury, Stephen was among those who had sworn the oath.10 Albeit the oaths intention to uphold Matilda’s inheritance claim, a factor highlighted by medievalist, Edmund King is that the nature of the content remains allusive.11 Furthermore, it is noted by King that Malmesbury had asserted a key difference between the title of the son and the daughter; namely, that the son is regarded as the heir and that the daughter is designated as the lawful successor.12 Even so the oath of fidelity was renewed in Henry’s return to England during the thirty-first year of his reign13, his attempts at gaining support for Matilda were unsuccessful. With regard to this, an influencing factor of Stephen’s initial popularity was due to the status of his supporters. Notably, he had allied himself with key-figures in court dynamics; such as his brother, Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester.14 Nevertheless, it is imperative to examine the additional varying factors that contributed to Stephen’s success in claiming the throne. It may be ascertained that the historiographical approach had toward the dynastic rivalry between Stephen and Matilda is often simplified. The claim that Stephen’s ascension was directly a result of his gender (during a period where female rulership was regarded as abhorrent) erases a series of circumstances that would have contributed to his rise. This study will aim to examine and assess historiographical arguments as to why it was that Stephen was successful in claiming the throne, as well as establishing his kingship. Additionally, there will be a focus on analysing the nature of his character, the manner by which he gained allegiances and the extent of his political maneuvering.
Firstly, a question at the forefront of Stephen’s success is whether his ascension was due to a need to combat the threat of civil war. In a publication released in 1994, The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, King is openly supportive of this notion; expressing that at the death of Henry I in 1135 - fifteen years after the passing of William Adelin - Henry had left behind “[...] not a secure succession but a power vacuum [...]”.15 Although Stephen and Matilda were both grandchildren of William I, King proposes that an influential key-figure to Stephen’s ascension was his own mother, Adela of Blois. As the last surviving child of William I, Adela was a well-regarded figure and it was through her experience that she had gathered a network of contacts that would have supported Stephen’s cause.16 The opinion that Stephen’s success was born out of opportunity and effective networking is shared. Notable twentieth-century historian and specialist of the European medieval period, R.H.C. Davis highlights this in his book (released in 1967), King Stephen, 1135-1154. Both Davis and King reference a letter written by Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, to Adela at the death of Henry I. However, Davis elaborates on the intention of the letter; putting forward a claim that it demonstrates a degree of emphasis on Stephen’s ascension. According to Davis, the letter is instrumental in understanding the nature of the situation. Furthermore, it is argued that there is an element of urgency and anxiety to Peter’s words, as is shown in the excerpt below:
Of the state of the kingdom across the sea we have heard nothing certain, for those who brought us the news had fled in all haste from Normandy. But we have already sent two runners, one to my lord of Rouen and the other to my lord of Winchester, and they will immediately inform us of anything they about them or from them.17
Additionally, Davis provides his own brief and colloquial analysis of the letter; writing that there is an underlying meaning to Peter’s words: “'I know why you are anxious', the abbot is saying, "but I do not know who has become king in your brother's place. It may be your son; it may be someone else.'”18 The implication made by Davis and King is that there was unspoken support toward Stephen prior to his ascension. However, a factor that ought to be acknowledged is that - despite the twenty-seven year difference between the release of their respective publications - both cite Peter the Venerable’s letter to determine the extent of which Stephen had been supported. With regard to this, the analysis given to Peter’s letter appears to be based on deduction and assumption. Therefore, it may be ascertained there is not enough of strong, supporting evidence to suggest that this was necessarily the case.
An opposing stance taken by King proposes an alternative to the aforementioned argument that Stephen had been a widely supported candidate. In an article published in the journal, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (released in 1984), King suggests that Stephen’s position was not as secure as contemporaries often assert. Despite the initial support from the Bishops, King claims that the legitimacy of Stephen’s ascension was questioned throughout his reign.19 With regard to the oath Stephen had sworn to Matilda, King proposes that disregarding this had hindered Stephen’s legitimacy as his ascension openly contested the validity of Matilda’s inheritance; a notable catalyst for civil war.20 With reference to the line of succession, Stephen was among three contenders to the throne; including Matilda, Robert, earl of Gloucester, and Theobald, count of Blois. As the elder brother of Stephen, there is evidence to suggest that Theobald had been initially considered over him. King presents a contrasting perspective to the line of succession theory, noting that Stephen’s claim was weakened by Theobald’s. Moreover, King verifies this by observing that the offer had been extended to Theobald by members of the Norman nobility prior to Stephen - an offer that would be presented again in 1141.21 In his 1969 publication, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, biographer of high medieval English kings, John T. Appleby elaborates on King’s observation. Appleby expands on the nature of the offer given to Theobald; noting that Henry’s death brought about a meeting between Norman nobles (Gloucester included) and the Count of Blois.22 Additionally, he asserts that the significance of this meeting is that neither Stephen nor Matilda had been mentioned23; insinuating that the oaths made toward Matilda were simply a matter of formality. This is highlighted when Appleby provides primary-source evidence that the barons had little choice regarding the oath: “With the imperious thunder of his voice, which no one would resist, he compelled rather than ordered the leading men of the whole kingdom to swear to her as his heir”.24 However, whilst the nobles had been gathered at either Neufbourg or at Lisieux, Stephen had travelled to England and established himself as king.25 It is maintained by Appleby that it was only with the permission of Theobald that the nobility were able to accept Stephen’s ascension.26 With regard to both the arguments proposed by King and Appleby, it is highly questionable that Stephen had been viewed as a solution to dynastic instability. In consideration of this, it begs the question as to why Stephen had effectively claimed the throne over Theobald, Matilda or even Henry’s illegitimate son, Robert of Gloucester. Historiography regarding the Anglo-Norman succession crisis has followed a common examination process. This analysis appears to focus on four notable aspects - the issue of gender, legitimacy, allegiance, and the nature of Stephen’s character.
With regard to Gloucester’s illegitimacy, there remains discussion as to why he was not appointed Henry’s successor. Appleby proposes the suggestion that Henry had taken precedence of Stephen over Gloucester. However, Appleby’s view on the matter was that this had been due to the illegitimacy of Robert’s birth, rather than illustrative of favouritism toward Stephen.27 In elaboration of this, Davis offers a similar argument; stating that Henry would have recognised the need for dynastic stability and in doing so, would have disinherited Matilda and appointed Stephen as heir.28 Although the likelihood of this remains highly debated, it has been ascertained that Stephen had claimed that Henry would no longer recognise Matilda and in the process, had designated him as his heir.29 As prior mentioned, it is often agreed upon that the issue of gender was a motivating factor. Nevertheless, an opinion that is shared between Davis, Bradbury, and Stringer is the nature of Matilda’s rejection. In their respective works, it is agreed that Matilda’s unpopularity was based on the issue of her gender, as well as the fact that her husband was considered an enemy to the Normans.30 With regard to Henry’s favouritism of Gloucester and in light of his attempts to gain support for Matilda, historians have remained divided as to whether Henry I had considered designating Stephen as his successor. Nonetheless, it is implied that Stephen’s initial popularity may have been simply due to situational circumstance. An argument that is consistently expressed is that neither nobility or gentry were willing to accept a female or illegitimate heir to reign. Nevertheless, it has been ascertained that Stephen’s successful ascension was a result of the weakness of the other candidates. M.T. Clanchy - (author of England and its Rulers: 1066-1272) - asserts that Stephen’s success in claiming the throne had been due to the lack of preferable candidates.31 In support of this statement, Clanchy emphasises the negative political impact that Matilda suffered in her marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou in 1128; declaring that “[...] her position had been compromised [...]” as a result of this.32
A primary historiographical argument is that Stephen’s ascension was the result of advanced planning. In his book The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, Charles Beem stresses the immediacy of Stephen’s actions after the death of Henry; stating that this hints at a premeditated coup.33 According to Beem, this is evident in the manner by which Stephen had obtained the treasury and had gained support of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury.34 It had been stressed by both Stephen and his supporters that Henry had repealed the oaths made to Matilda on his deathbed and - with a change of mind - had chosen Stephen to succeed him instead.35 Notably, historians Jim Bradbury and Appleby have taken a parallel approach toward the subject of twelfth-century Anglo-Norman dynastic rivalry. Albeit a twenty-seven year difference between their respective publications, both agree that Stephen’s candidacy was not solely due to an inheritance claim. Instead, it has been regarded as a much needed resolution for the nobility and gentry. Additionally, both appear to determine that Stephen’s ascension was a result of an opportunist factor. Appleby remarks upon this; with consideration to the speed at which Stephen moved, it is ascertained that this would indicate that plans for his ascension had been in advance.36 In his book, Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-53 (published in 1996), Bradbury’s assessment on the matter does heavily align with Appleby’s; showcased by his referencing of the Gesta Stephani, a significant piece of documentation regarding Stephen’s reign, dated to be written in the mid-twelfth century. Utilizing this, Bradbury notes that as the king’s favourite nephew, Stephen had clearly taken the initiative.37 Furthermore, Bradbury claims that this is exemplified by a statement in the Gesta Stephani, in which it had been written: “no one else at hand who could take the king’s place and put an end to the dangers”38 The Gesta Stephani is undoubtedly supportive of Stephen; to the extent that it declares that Anglo-Norman nobility had already pledged themselves to the house of Blois prior to Henry’s death.39 Nonetheless, it is evident that Davis has drawn a similar view on the matter. This is demonstrated by his showcase of opinion; stating that there was fear that the death of Henry I would ultimately lead to civil war.40
An additional factor to Stephen’s ascension - often highlighted in historiography - was his access to the treasury and support of the bishops. As proposed by Appleby, the strategy by which Stephen had gained access to the treasury is indication of a formulated plan.41 It has been commonly stressed that at news of the death of Henry I, Bishop Henry had appealed to William of Pont de l’Arche, the royal treasurer to relinquish Winchester Castle and the treasury to him.42 Even so this request had been refused, it was soon overturned at the news of Stephen’s arrival; both the castle and treasury were given to him; the value of which was estimated to be close to a hundred thousand pounds.43 Certainly, Appleby is not alone in viewing this aspect of Stephen’s ascension as an element of extensive planning. Davis’ analysis on the matter is remarkably similar; demonstrated by his elaboration on the variables that contributed to Stephen’s ascension. Davis’ work acknowledges that it was courtesy to the assistance of Bishop Henry that the Bishop of Salisbury had accepted Stephen as king.44 As ascertained by Davis, the Bishop of Salisbury effectively controlled the government of England and it was through him that William Pont de l’Arche recognised Stephen’s ascension and permitted him access to the treasury.45 Chibnall emphasises the significance of having the bishops support; expressing that “the support of the church, both of the bishops in England and of the papal curia, was essential”.46 Both Davis and Appleby’s views align on the matter; each respectively perceiving that Stephen’s access to the treasury had been a part of a process that “[...] secured the vital organs of the kingdom.”47
With regard to this, the stability of Stephen’s candidacy has been attributed to the weakness of his character. Appleby draws on a wide-range of primary source documentation; each detailing Stephen’s nature in comparative and oppositional ways. As prior mentioned, the Gesta Stephani supplies a favourable account of Stephen. Appleby highlights this by providing a description from the document; painting a narrative of Stephen to be “‘rich and unassuming, munificent and affable, bold and brave, judicious and long-suffering”.48 Contrasting this is the perspective William of Malmesbury had of Stephen, as has been exemplified in the following passage:
He was an energetic man but lacking in prudence, strenuous in war, of extraordinary spirit in beginning any arduous task, lenient to his enemies and easily appeased: though you admired his kindness in promising, still you felt that his words lacked truth and his promises fulfilment.49
Furthermore, Malmesbury affirms that Stephen had been benefited by his own good nature, as this helped to establish long-lasting allies: “When he was a count, Stephen had gained such affection as can hardly be imagined by the easiness of his manner and by the way he jested, sat, and ate even with the humblest.”50 Notably, Malmesbury is not alone in his opinion. Appleby provides a description written by Richard of Hexham - a twelfth-century English chronicler - who had considered Stephen to be “[...] a man of such gentleness and kindness that even his enemies, when they came back to him, found merciful beyond their hopes.”51 This is further supported by a description given by Henry of Huntingdon - a twelfth-century historian - who wrote that the Orderic Vitalis (a chronicler) considered Stephen to be “[...] humble and gentle to the good and meek.”52 It is through the use of these primary-source documents that historians have attempted to establish the full nature of Stephen’s character. However, a line of argument that has been pursued is if Stephen’s amiable personality had been perceived as weak. If so, is there evidence to suggest that this could have been utilized and manipulated by his council. In order to assess this, historians have approached the subject by evaluate the characteristics of Matilda. In a journal article published in 2006 -“Greater by Marriage”: The Matrimonial Career of the Empress Matilda - Beem described Matilda as “[...] an experienced woman of the world possessed with a formidable tutelage in the wide-ranging affairs of the twelfth-century empire.”53 Moreover, Beem determines that Matilda had been educated and was intelligent, if not experienced.54 An elaboration on this by Beem assesses the extent of her experience; distinguishing that Matilda had been active in the politics, as was required for her position as Holy Roman Empress.55 This is exemplified by the fact that she had issued charters on behalf of Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, as well as acted as a mediator for him.56 Politically, Stephen had been less experienced. It is clear that Stephen’s attempt at rulership had replicated that of his predecessor. In his examination on the continuity of government during the reign of King Stephen, Graeme White highlights a key factor of Stephen’s initial tactic. White proposes that at the beginning of his reign, Stephen had modelled his rulership on Henry I.57 Nevertheless, Stephen’s ascension was not solely due to the nature of his candidacy. Additional lines of argument assess the strategy by which Stephen secured the crown. It is imperative to analyse the nature in which Stephen had gained the support of influential political allies. With regard to historiography, this is commonly done by focusing on the following points: the initial oaths of fealty and allegiance pledged to Stephen, the fact he had been provided access to the treasury, the support of the bishops in his ascension, the weaknesses of Stephen’s competitors, and the earldoms, grants and gifts Stephen provided in order to gain favour amongst nobility.
With reference to Malmesbury’s description of Stephen, it has been affirmed that a predominant part of him gaining further allyship was his good-nature.58 With regard to this, King puts forward the argument Stephen’s allegiances had been built from his own ability to attract influential support.59 Additionally, it is acknowledged that - through this - Stephen had built powerful Anglo-Norman bases.60 In his piece, Allegiance and Intelligence in King Stephen’s Reign, Dalton proposed that the oaths made to Stephen were voluntary; a factor that was later significantly emphasized in 1141.61 Furthermore, Dalton notes that it had been claimed by the council that the oaths juxtapose the compulsory nature by which Henry had attempted to gain fealty to Matilda.62 In agreement with this, King determined that a significant element of this allegiance was Stephen’s arrival in London after the death of Henry. As Stephen had moved through London, the citizens made the claim that the successor should be appointed based on their choice.63 This provided the basis for Stephen to gain allegiance from those within the capital; through which he was able to maintain that he had been appointed with universal approval.64 In order to support this perspective, King utilized a narrative written by Henry of Blois:
King Henry my uncle having gone the way of all flesh, and my brother Stephen having succeeded in the kingdom, the aforesaid Robert [fitz Walter the Fleming] did homage and swore an oath of fealty as was the custom, together with the other magnates of the land.65
Nonetheless, a notable factor highlighted by King is that the oaths of fealty would have brought about individual negotiations.66 In comparison to the magnates, the clergy required benefits in relation to their respective roles.67 With regard to the examination of Stephen’s character and lack of political experience, this may be viewed as evidence of the nobility and gentry taking advantage of an anarchistic situation. As emphasised by King, this situation is demonstrative of Stephen’s impressionable nature and the extent of which this was utilized by opportunistic magnates.
In the matter of Stephen’s lack of political experience and his susceptibility to external pressure, evidence can be found within the creation of earldoms. In his article, ‘King Stephen’s Earldoms’ (published 1930), Geoffrey H. White underlines the negative repercussions as a result of this combination. He does so by highlighting the fact that at the point of Stephen’s ascension, there had only been six English earls but during his reign, this had increased to eight.68 Although this had not be an immediate alteration, the year 1138 saw a sudden rise in the creation and bestowment of earldoms.69 Additionally, a point emphasized by Clanchy is that Stephen had been known to endow royal offices as inheritances.70 However, an observation made by Dalton is that this characteristic of Stephen’s had been well-known: “[...] Stephen had never refused them justice, one of the principal obligations of a king, or failed to give them the honours and possessions they had asked for, as a good lord should.”71However, an additional examination by Dalton emphasises the issues that arose from this; stressing a need to critically assess Stephen’s role and if granting possessions could have simultaneously meant the dispossession and disinheritance of other nobles.72 Nevertheless, the creation of earldoms aided in maintaining Stephen’s rulership. A common opinion is that this helped to solidify allegiances, as well as effectively obtained long-term support.
The historiographical approach toward Stephen's ascension touches upon both circumstantial variables (e.g. the line of succession and the lack of legitimate male issue), as well as the initiated factors (such as the obtaining of the treasury and support of the bishops). Arguments regarding Stephen's inheritance often reinforce the view that his candidacy was purely a result of his lineage. However, the latter half of the twentieth-century saw a sudden rise in the re-assessment of Stephen's character; including an increase in the works produced that examined his intentions and whether his ascension had been due to a long advanced plan. In reference to arguments proposed by Appleby, Davis and Beem, it is commonly presumed that - in regard to his actions - Stephen had aimed to succeed Henry; an ascension that was made with a disregard to his elder brother, Theobald's position in the line of succession and the oaths of fealty he had made to Matilda. However, this construct of Stephen highly contradicts Malmesbury's depiction of his good-nature. Additionally, a statement made by King has placed the responsibility of Stephen's ascension on his younger brother, Henry of Blois73; his desire for personal advancement, as well as Stephen's impressionable character had been preferable in comparison to other candidates. Notably, a palpable claim made by Clanchy raised the notion that the success of Stephen's ascension was merely due to the lack of better alternatives.74Although this may be regarded as a simplified observation on the matter, it does touch upon the core of the problem. The civil war that plagued Stephen’s reign was a direct consequence of a prolonged dynastic feud.75Therefore, it may be ascertained that the factors that enabled Stephen to succeed the throne were based on the opportunity of the situation, as well as an overall desire for political stability via dynastic continuity. Even so, Stephen’s ascension and the nature of it continues to be highly debated, there does not appear to be a degree of variation in opinions regarding it. Nevertheless, what historiography does offer in its assessment of Anglo-Norman Dynastic rivalry is an insight into Stephen’s traits, initial popularity and the extent of which political manoeuvring secured him the title, Stephen, King of England.
Bibliography
Primary
Malmesbury, W.,
William
of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the king’s of England. From the
earliest period to the reign of King Stephen,
(London, 1847), in ‘Internet Archive’,
www.archive.org
Potter,
R K. (trans.), Gesta
Stephani (The Deeds of Stephen),
(London, 1955)
Secondary
Appleby, T. J., The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, (London, 1969)
Bartlett, R., England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1125, (Oxford, 2000)
Beem, C., The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, (New York, 2006)
Beem. C.,‘“Greater by Marriage”: The Matrimonial Career of the Empress Matilda’, in Carole Levin & Robert Bucholz (ed.), Queens and Power in Medieval and Early Modern England, (Surrey, 2006), 1-15
Bradbury, J., Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-53, (Stroud, 1996)
Chibnall, M., ‘Introduction’, in Paul Dalton & Graeme J. White (ed.), King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154), (Suffolk, 2008), 1-10
Chibnall, M., ‘The Empress Matilda and Church Reform’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol 38, (Cambridge, 1988), 107-130
Chibnall, M., Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English, (Oxford, 1993)
Clanchy, T. M., England and its Rulers: 1066-1272, (Oxford, 1983)
Crouch, D., The Reign of King Stephen: 1135-1154, (New York, 2013)
Dalton, P., ‘Allegiance and Intelligence in King Stephen’s Reign’, in Paul Dalton & Graeme J. White (ed.), King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154), (Suffolk, 2008), 80-98
Dalton, P., ‘Geffrei Gaimar's “Estoire Des Engleis", Peacemaking, and the "Twelfth-Century Revival of the English Nation”’, Studies in Philology, Vol. 104, No. 4 (North Carolina, 2007), 427-454
Davis, C. H. R., King Stephen, 1135-1154, (New York, 1967)
Kealey, J. E., ‘King Stephen: Government and Anarchy’, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol 6. No. 3, (1974), 201-217
King, E., ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign (Oxford, 1994), 1-36
King, E., ‘The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 38, (Cambridge, 1984), 133-153
Stringer, J. K., The Reign of Stephen: Kingship, Warfare and Government in Twelfth-Century England, (London, 1993)
White, Graeme, ‘Continuity in Government’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign (Oxford, 1994), 117 - 144
White, H. G., ‘King Stephen’s Earldoms’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 13, (Cambridge, 1930), 51-82
1 M. Chibnall, Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English, (Oxford, 1993), 5
2 K. J. Stringer, The Reign of Stephen: Kingship, Warfare and Government in Twelfth-Century England, (London, 1993), 1-2
3 Ibid.
4 P. Dalton, ‘Geffrei Gaimar's “Estoire Des Engleis", Peacemaking, and the "Twelfth-Century Revival of the English Nation”’, Studies in Philology, Vol. 104, No. 4 (North Carolina, 2007), 427
5 K. J. Stringer, The Reign of Stephen: Kingship, 1-2
6 M. Chibnall, ‘The Empress Matilda and Church Reform’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 38, (Cambridge, 1988), 107
7 K. J. Stringer, The Reign of Stephen, 1-2
8 E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign (Oxford, 1994), 7
9 W. Malmesbury, William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the king’s of England. From the earliest period to the reign of King Stephen, (London, 1847), in ‘Internet Archive’, accessed 13/03/2015, www.archive.org, 481-2
10 E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign , 7
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 W. Malmesbury, William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the king’s of England. From the earliest period to the reign of King Stephen, (London, 1847), in ‘Internet Archive’, accessed 13/03/2015, www.archive.org, 487
14 K. J. Stringer, The Reign of Stephen: Kingship, 1-2
15 E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign , 8
16 Ibid.
17 R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154, (New York, 1967), 13-14
18 R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154, 14
19 E. King, ‘The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 38, (Cambridge, 1984), 134
20 Ibid.
21 E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign , 8
22 J. T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, (London, 1969), 21
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid. 14
25 J. T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, 21
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid. 15
28 R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154, 17
29 Ibid. 15
30 Ibid. 14
31 M. T. Clanchy, T. M., England and its Rulers: 1066-1272, (Oxford, 1983), 84
32 Ibid.
33 C. Beem, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, (New York, 2006), 45-6
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 J. T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, 21
37 J. Bradbury, Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-53, (Stroud, 1996), 15-16
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid. 15
40 R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154, 17
41 J. T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, 22
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid. 23
44 R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154, 17-18
45 Ibid.
46 M. Chibnall, ‘Introduction’, in Paul Dalton & Graeme J. White (ed.), King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154), (Suffolk, 2008), 4
47 R. H. C. Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154, 17-18
48 J. T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, 18
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 J. T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, 18
52 Ibid.
53 C. Beem,‘“Greater by Marriage”: The Matrimonial Career of the Empress Matilda’, in Carole Levin & Robert Bucholz (ed.), Queens and Power in Medieval and Early Modern England, (Surrey, 2006), 3
54 Ibid. 4
55 C. Beem, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History, (New York, 2006), 40
56 C. Beem, The Lioness Roared, 40
57 G. White, ‘Continuity in Government’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign (Oxford, 1994), 118
58 J. T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, 18
59 E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign , 8
60 Ibid.
61 P. Dalton, 'Allegiance and Intelligence in King Stephen’s Reign’, in Paul Dalton & Graeme J. White (ed.), King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154), (Suffolk, 2008), 86
62 Ibid.
63 E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign , 8
64 Ibid.
65E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, 11
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 G. H. White, ‘King Stephen’s Earldoms’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 13, (Cambridge, 1930), 51
69 Ibid.
70 M. T. Clanchy, T. M., England and its Rulers: 1066-1272, (Oxford, 1983), 84
71 P. Dalton, 'Allegiance and Intelligence in King Stephen’s Reign’, in Paul Dalton & Graeme J. White (ed.), King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154), 86
72 Ibid.
73 E. King, ‘Introduction’, in E. King (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign , 9
74 M. T. Clanchy, T. M., England and its Rulers, 84
75 R. Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1125, (Oxford, 2000), 6
Comments
Post a Comment