The Medieval World: Kings

Bits & Pieces Astronomy Aviation Pictures Opinions Travel Pictures

Note: The "Medieval World" pages were originally written for a friend of mine who was (and still is) writing a fantasy novel, to provide some background information on how pre-industrial societies actually work. The text remains unchanged from the original document. Being a king means different things at different times. In the early Anglo-Saxon period for example, the king is often little more than the leader of a war band. His kingdom is small, and his rule depends on his personal leadership of a small group of warriors. By the middle ages he is truly a being apart, surrounded by all the pomp and splendour of monarchy. It will be noted, incidentally, that this page talks exclusively about the position of a male king, and the problems that "he" will face. This is done because the period under discussion was a patriarchal age, in which a male monarch was the norm, but the things that are said here would also apply to a real or fictional queen. Firstly, it should be emphasised that kings are different. In the middle ages, a number of theories of the divine right of kings were developed. The details vary, but they basically assume that the king's power has been granted by God. They envision a great chain of being from God downwards, with everyone in his or her rightful place, and the king as the supreme temporal power. Therefore although history is full of examples of kings being killed or deposed, it is not as straightforward as simply gathering a large enough army and storming the palace. Because kings are seen to hold such a special position it is generally only possible for a faction in the nobility to get rid of one if they can produce a rival claimant to the throne. To turn against your rightful sovereign was seen as an abhorrent crime, so the only way that opposition to the king could be justified was to claim that someone else had a better claim to the throne, and hence to your allegiance. A king therefore has to do a lot to antagonise his nobility into outright opposition. Of course, peasant uprisings could be easily provoked by unjust taxes, price rises or local grievances, but they were usually suppressed without difficulty. Given what has been said above, it is important to note that peasant revolts usually blame the king's advisers or unpopular local lords for their hardships rather than the king himself. In considering how kings manage to keep - or lose - their thrones it is instructive to look at the Wars of the Roses, a dynastic conflict of the 15th century (which gets its name from the red rose and white rose emblems of the warring parties). This conflict between the noble houses of Lancaster and York began in the reign of Henry VI, which started in 1422. His father, Henry V, had been a great warrior king who had conquered large parts of France. Young Henry, however, was weak, immature, and totally incapable of providing any leadership. The need for a strong leader was particularly acute, as Henry V had won his great victories at a time when the French monarchy had been particularly weak, and now that it was rebuilding its strength the English were finding it increasingly difficult to hold onto the territory they had occupied. Under Henry VI, there was a steady erosion of the English position which the king appeared totally at a loss to respond to. This was not merely a loss of national prestige, it directly affected the wealth and power of the many nobles who had been granted land in France. However, this was not in itself enough to bring about his downfall. Henry's fundamental mistake was to become too closely involved with one particular faction in the nobility. It was not simply that he rewarded his favourites well - all kings do this - but rather that he allowed them to monopolise all posts of influence, and excluded everyone else. This was an affront to the rest of the nobility, and threatened their wealth and power. It also meant that any person who fell foul of the ruling clique would have virtually no chance of ever getting back into the king's favour - if they even lived long enough to try. So, because the king allowed himself to become so involved with a single faction, he put the opponents of that faction in an impossible situation. They did not want to oppose the king, but because their enemies so dominated his favour, it was increasingly difficult to oppose them without opposing him as well. Thus, Richard Duke of York, the chief opponent of the king's favourites, was forced into a situation in which he had to claim the crown himself (he had sufficiently royal blood to make a legitimate claim) or face ruin. Richard was killed in battle, but his son Edward defeated Henry and became king Edward IV. The key lesson here is that a king must stay aloof from the quarrels of the nobility. They provide the day to day rule in the regions, and control most of the country's armed forces. The king needs their support, and thus cannot afford to antagonise them. Even antagonising a faction can be dangerous, as the king has so few fighting men directly under his command that he could not put down a major rebellion without the help of those nobles who support him, and on whose support he would be entirely reliant thereafter. Thus, the way to rule successfully is to remain above the fray: the king should ensure that the nobility spend their energies on competing amongst each other for his favour. This was taken to an extreme by Louis XIV of France, the 'Sun King' who built the great palace of Versailles. He turned every single detail of his life into a royal event, so that even such trivial favours as holding the king's candle as he went upstairs to bed became a great prize, with the nobles squabbling bitterly for the honour. The honour and glory of, say, being present while the king ate breakfast, cannot be described in mere words. In this way Louis was able to keep his courtiers at each others' throats, and at his feet, without having to make lavish gifts. Throughout this period, the slogan 'the king shall live of his own' resurfaces. This meant that the king should cover all his normal expenditure with the income from the royal estates and existing taxes, and not rely on forced 'loans' or 'gifts' from the nobility to make ends meet. Unfortunately, this was not as easy as it might sound. The king only owned a small block of land directly, and most of the country was owned by the nobility. However, his expenses were considerable. The problem was not so much the cost of maintaining his household, although this was not insignificant, but of finding land, positions, etc. with which to reward his nobles for their loyal service. The problem was particularly pressing in times of dynastic instability, when the king needed to buy as much loyalty as he could get, but even in peaceful times the royal finances were in disarray more often than not. Despite regular calls for financial retrenchment, no long term solution was found, although successful conquests (such as those of Henry V) and short term expedients like Henry VII's ruthless financial politics (see below) could bring about a temporary improvement. The Wars of the Roses finally ended with the accession of Henry Tudor as Henry VII, after his defeat of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. Henry's claim to the throne was very tenuous indeed, and he was only supported by the remnants of the Lancastrian faction against the Yorkist Richard because there was no-one else left. All the other possible claimants had either been killed in battle or murdered. What is significant is that Richard's opponents still needed a rival claimant to the throne in order to be able to oppose him. Indeed, when Henry became king his opponents were unable to find any genuine rival claimants to support against him, but so vital was it to have such a person that they resorted to the use of imposters to rally support. The reigns of Henry VII and his son Henry VIII are also interesting to a potential fantasy writer in that they illustrate an important point about tyranny. If a story requires a tyrant as villain, it is vital to remember that what people actually consider to be tyrannical varies greatly in different societies. By modern standards, Henry VIII is a tyrant. He was a ruthless, arbitrary autocrat, with a habit of beheading anyone who offended him. Even former favourites, such as Cardinal Wolsey, were dealt with ruthlessly when they displeased the king. However, this was not considered tyrannical, for by the standards of the time this was normal behaviour for a king. Indeed, his accession to the throne was greeted as liberation from the tyranny of Henry VII. Henry VII was unusual in taking a close interest in administration, and keeping a very close eye on the crown's finances. Indeed, he used this as a weapon to keep the nobility under control, as there were many legal rights and prerogatives of the crown that had been ignored or forgotten in the decades of instability. Henry enforced these to the letter, and levied huge fines on many of his nobles for all their transgressions against them. However, he then graciously suspended these fines, as a mark of his royal favour to his loyal subjects. The implicit threat was that anyone who failed to please him would actually be forced to pay the fine, and by suspending this financial Sword of Damocles over the heads of his nobles, Henry was able to keep them in line. He also used this power to influence dynastic marriages and the inheritance of property, to ensure that those he distrusted were not able to build up too much wealth or influence. Of course, it was the fact that all his potential rivals were dead, and that no-one wanted to start another round of dynastic wars, that made it possible for him to get away with this. However, such blatant interference with property rights was seen as outrageously tyrannical, and his death was marked by much jubilation, along with the instant execution of Empson and Dudley, his most hated tax collectors. Thus, we would consider Henry VIII a tyrant, and Henry VII a comparatively modern and benign ruler, whereas at the time Henry VII was seen as a tyrant, and Henry VIII was seen as behaving in the normal way for a king. Tyranny means offending against what people believe to be their rights, and what people actually consider their rights to be varies hugely in different times and places.

		Last Updated: 1 Oct 07